�M1�i IDRtFt,.�

---------- -----------·-·-·-- -- ·-· - . --

.

,...

...'

:- :

'1-..Y�-- ----··· .. - ·. -·-··- /l

�v�

8/26/83

FIVE RIVERS, DMP AND ME
I.

Five �ivers Study Infonnation
I have reviewed my files on studies performed for the
Agency under the Dioxin Honitorin9 Program (DMP). The
attached material is that portion of my files which relates
to the •rive Rivers Study• (FRS). These consist of
A.
•chain of Custody Record• dated 11/5/79 from Dupuy to
Gross for samples UN 105-110, indicating cracked
containers for samples UN 107, 109, and 110.
B.
Accompanying letter
C.
Letter of 5/14/80 from Gross to Dellarco, indicating
transmittal of samples UN 107-110 (together with
OA/OC samples) to Harless.
D.
Letter of 5/14/80 from Gross to Harless, transmittin g
the samples, with new codes, to Harless.
E.
•chain of Custody Record• dated 4/11(16?)/80 from Dup uy
to Gross for samples UN 174-190, indicating no
damac;ies.
F.
Accompanying le tter, dated 4/16/83.
G.
•chain of Custody Record• dated 6/4/80 from McDaniel to
Gross for samples UN 191-204
R.
Accompanying letter
I.
Letter of 8/5/80 from Gross to Dellarco, discussing the
results oft-he analyses of samples UN l85-188A,
118 and 127 , and l5 9-17 3.
J.
Letter of 8/22/81 from Gross to Fentiman, transmitting
two packets of information on the •rive Rivers
Project•.

I I.

,

The Dioxin Monitori� Pr09ram and me
When I joined the Agency in September, 1979, the
Assistant Administrator for Pesticides and Toxic Substances
asked me sit in on the meetings of the Chlorinated Dioxins
Work Group (CDWG). In early 1980, I was asked to serve as
chair of the CDWG. This group was charged with coordinating
dioxin-related activities within the Agency.
As a part of its dutfes, the COWG reviewed the results
of studies conducted by the Dioxin Monitoring Pr09ram (DMP),
that portion of the Agency's analytical atm that had the
proven capability of detectinc;i 2,3,7,8-'!'t:OD in the parts pet·
trillon range. The OMP had a str0n9 interlab procedure
which invo lved periodic review of data by th� anlysts. I
participated in at least two such review meetin9s.
At that time the DMP was a part of the Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP), although Agency concerns on
•dioxin•:were spreading to other areas� for example,
emission from combustion sout·ces.ay· late 1980, the

 -- --

,-·

..

I ;
. ,-.,.�.'
::__..,

• �

. �- -c"t

�\

7.5.·,/

3�

JUL 19 111·

-.

o�,a ·o,,

•

(

.

nu.a

Pros-raa

11111:RA,_e,.. ANO 01:VE.L.Oll'MlNT

St71.nCT:

I>ioxizr Molli to

ROM:

�sw J�onch('t_�"j:.;��
Actin.& hsi1ta.nt Ad.min.i1trator '-.!
for luaarch au.d �vuopuut (ID-672)

TO:

Addru••••

l

I.!fectiTt June 1. 1981. tbe Office of l.uearch and Oevelopeetit (Oi.I>)
usi.mad rH pon.s 1 bil.1 ty for tb• U!' 1 Dioxin Koui torini Pr or.u (DM!')
hom the Office of Puticide1 and Toxic Sub1ta.nce1 (OPTS). The ratiotl.&la
and detai.l.a of th• tTausfer are de1cr1� 1n the attached aemora.ndu=.
Inherent 1n the tran.afar are •oe• chaniu in the operation of tha DMP
which 1 V&nt to bri.D& to your atteutiou.
In the pa•t, tba DMP h.u provided sp,ec:.ial.1%.d an.a.l�ie.&l 1arrtc e support
to the Age..ney. An.&.l�ie.&l req�:-e.me.nt.1 for lov le•el (ppt) determinatiom
of t1trac.hlor-od.il>e.uo-p-d..ionn.a (TCI>D) wL--. tubmitted a.Ad were fulfil.lad
1n the Aie,nc:y'• Cblorilatad I>1oZ1n ·won �roup (C)-1G) and the Il!!P.
Thi.a
tum, al.in, of anal 79 •• throu &h the CD'we •• ?"9ad tvo 1Jtpo rt ant pur;>otu •
11nt, the c:tM; proTided a ce ut:-a.J. i,oiut of in!oti1.1tiou aud prtor1t1utiou
for a.ll-onroin& propoted TCDD project,. Secondly, the wuque � an.alyt..1cal c.apabillty
O!"TS/O1:D and at Uu.innity of Nebruk.a and Vri(bt
State Uui•enity pn.erated TCD.D an&ly,u whic.b v�n C&.?Tied out nth
hi1b qua.l.1 ty.

u

Th.11 a.�an,�nt .-.. · pa.nieularly use.Jul vb.tu t�e prOTtn c:.apability for
c.a..rr.rin& out lov le'"-1 TC:OD a.na.lysu vu rutric.:ed to only a fev l.&ho­
r1tonu and vbe.n t.b. need for 11011e.:-1pec.i!ic a.n.a..ly,�s vere pree.i:.inent.
Condi t.ioc, ha._ ziov changed i tbe a..u.lrt1e&l t eclmoloa to per-fona �c.h
ara..ly•u a:i1t.1 a.t 90r1 la'boratoriH ant! tbe.re 11 a s-ruttr dem.a.nd for
sc.:-tening lar-re �rs of tuplu rapilly a.1 n.ll u 1pec:.ific 110mer
ccu!�:iut.1011.1.
� OP�L"!.a(e.d I>!9' p-r:>(TD it desif;Tle-d �o rt.fleet t�e.,e c:.ha.:iged c.!.reur­
fta::>�u. l1e rl.l.l cocuuu.e to o;>e.rate ue � u in the put for t.be
�der of
11.
!.e�� iu M-!:2, ��r, t;ht pror:-a rl.ll be

n-

(

 •

-··-----···

----3-

' •

I

lf" further in.!orut1on 11 needed, pleue contact Dr. Jo11pb.in• Ruaaa or
�. Chri1t0phe::- Timm, of the Of fice of Monitorina Systems aud Qu.a.llty
u1urance, ou (nS/202) 426-2175. il10, in order to facilitate proJT&a
man.a1em1nt, plea11
either t>r. Bu.an& or Kr. TiJm the uaaa of your
principal contact for the DMP a, 100n
p011ible •

Ji"•

.Ltt.acbmeat

u

A.d.druaaea:
�1111tant l.dmia.i1traton
1.e(ional A.dm.in.iltratora
Office Directon
-.

•

•

cc:

Josephine Bu.an, (lD-680)
Chrittopber Ti.mm (�80)
lobe rt lootb (D'.S'l.-c.1.nc.itm&ti)
Clen.c Sc.hveiuer (�L-t.aa Veaa1)
Thous B.au1er (EY.Sl.-R'IP/Mn-75)
CDYC Me.mbe r•
Surveillance and A%1alysi.l Divuioti Dir1c:0rs

406

 -�------------- -

-----

· · --

-·-· ·------

UNITEO STATES ENVIRONMENTAL _.ROTECTION AGENCY
W-'SHINOTON, 0.C. ZOUO

•

'

..... ,c,

.-"3 2 6 1981

01>

.... T,c1oa1 A.NO 'NUUC SUHTA.NCb

tbt Dioxin Mon1tori0g Proaram

.-·

FlOH:
Pr01raa1 (TS-766)
TO:

•
(

Don )a roe 1
Cbairaa0 1 Chlorinated Dioxin Work Croup
Office of To•ic Substance, (!S-788)

Aa you kuov, ve art 1rateful for the instrumental role you
played in aaeiat1na us in the transfer of the A1e0cy'1
Dioxin Monitorina Proaraa (l>MP) from tbt Office of Peat1c1de
Pro1raa1 (OPP) to the Office of le1earch and Developaent
(OaD).
Ooderttandably, OU> personnel will require 1oae tiae
before they vill be able to accept administration of tbia
Pro1raa. Nevertbel111, because the concern about TCDD
contaaination in the enYironaent apana beyond tbe purv1av of
OPP, i t ••••• a�propr1ate to tra01fer our authority to you
uov •• an 1nteria ••••�re. Thia action vill not only ensure
continuation of daily DMP act1vit1tl but alao vill facilitate
tbe transfer of tb1a Proiraa to oaD. Therefore, I haTt
asked Michael J. Dtllarco, the DMP Coordinator, to turn OTtr
all reapona1b1l1ty for tbe PMP to you ·by March l, 1981.
Furthtraore, 1 have a1ked that the key files be transferred
to you and that tbt b1ator1cal files be transferred to OU>
as IOOD IS possible.
To coaplttt tbe transition of Ag,ncy activities concerning
TCDD, it ttt�I appropriate to cospltte all OPP projects
prior to tabarkin& on new areas cf study,
lt is ay under1tandin1 that the follo�in& OPP studies ere in pro&res& in
tba follo�ing laboratories:

-

(

40?

 . . - ..

•

. .. ,,
19

EPA Deer and Elk Study - B£1L/lTP

'13

Louisiana lice Study - Toxicant ADaly1i1 Center (TAC)

•

w1,�0D1in Monkey Study - UD1••r•1ty of Nebr11k1

--

116

M111i11ippi Catfiab Study - TAC

122

Technical Crade Cbeaical Study - EPA leltaville

Your continued tupport to coaplete th••• individual projects
as soon as po11ible vould be 1reatly appreciated •. Please
contact Mike Dellarco if you ba•e any que1tion1 re1ardin&
the transfer of the DMP.
t C::

•

•

I.
J.
A.
R.
M.

Winter
Nelson
Dupuy
Harles,
Cr011

T. Tiernan

408

 (

/;xm�rr '#- l 4l,

�
March 20, 1980

TO:

A.

,

Dupuy

Harless

Meselsoa

.

-.

Gt.r'Jl...�-

Berossa

,,,.

Baughman

,,

Upholt
GJ:::QSS

Following up on our meeti�g last month, this package brings
ycu wann (it's now spring in Washington!)greetings and data.
Enclosed please find the following 6 sets of information
dealing with first phase of the beef fat study:
I.

A.

ttEPA Beef Fat Phase I Results tt

These are data which have been abstracted· from data
sheets prepared by the Dioxin Monitoring Program in.1976.
The study involved collection of beef fat and liver
samples from slaughtered cattle which had grazed on 2,4,5-T
treated rangeland and those that had not. Collection took
place between February and March, 1975 in the following
states: · Missouri, Kansas, Texas, and Oklahoma.
The samples were extracted and analyzed by low reso­
lution MS. Selected samples were then analyzed by high
.::esolution MS. The table records only the high resolut·ion
MS results.
The· first column contains EPA Sample t .. The first four
digits are related to the time of sample collection. The
middle three letters code for the state in which the·sample
was collected
U:
N:
X:
K:

Missouri
Kansas
Texas
Oklahoma

and indicate beef fat sample (ZZ). The last three dig its
were assigned seriatirn as the samples were prepared for
analysis. For example, 0785-UZZ-001 refers to a beef
·�fat sample from Missouri, which was received for extrac41 tion on the 78th day of 1975 and in turn received
the
•
door p�ize for being first In line (001).

�

 (

2

The second colw-nn, "RT?'' s�ow t:1e results obtained by
t::e .S?.:\ �.;o::-�hrup cor. .::=actQ= lcca :.ec. at �esea=ch Triangle
Park. These results pre-date Bob �arless' analytical
partici2ation in the progrru-n at the E?A lab, also in
�esearch Tq2.ngle i?azk, NC.
The third colurnn, "Utah/Wright State," indicates that
the samples were n:n at low ::-esolution MS at University of
Utah, while the high resolution MS work (the only data on
this table) were produced at Wright State University.
The fourtl1 column, cleverly labeled "Dow," indicates
�ata obtained by the Dow Chemical Company.
The fifth and sixth' columns represent cata obtained at
Harvard a�ter sarnple ?reparation there using a neutral.
e.xt.::-action tec:!nioue and/or an acic!-::2.se e;<t.::-action
technique, respectively.
The entries in t�e table are recorded thusly: percent
of added 3,ci TCDD recovered/2mount detected in �ot (detec­
tion limit). T:,e "percent recovery of added 3rcl .. TCDD" is
a measu.::-e of t�e efficiency of the extraction procedure.
Ideally, t�is nur.tber would be 100. Over 100 suggests
"ND means "not detectec..".
the possibility of inte=:=erences.
"�lR �eans not reported." "? means that there is some
question in interpreting �,e 1976 data sheet. For ex��ple,
on the first page we see under the Dow colllli'.n for sample
/;0735-UZZ-002 the ent=y "130/ND(6).
This means that Dow
recort..:.l -Y7Cl TCDD at a level 130% what was acded and t.hey
co�ld detect no nati7e TCDD residues in the sample in
excess of t�e detection li�it of 6 9pt.
II

ti

11

ti

Further aspects of this table are explained �elow,
B.

��e 1976 a1�e Data Sheets (so-called drie to fhe color of the
o=is-:..::als)
Eere we see a serial listing of SPA s2..r..pl;s �i�h res�lts
f=orn both low and high �esol�ticn GC/�S £or PTSE�("��P" en
tte ta�la in � above), Ut2.h/Wright State, and Dow. Note
t::aa t .scr.1� s2..:npl2s :o-::- ·,.1hich c�ere is ::o en t=y in t....�e 5£;C::.:e:i­
t ial listi:.a of t:ie 120 sa'Tiples 2.0:Jea= on t::e last .cwo ?ases
·"
ti-:,;-:::,
0 -- ... �• .,,. c·;:...,, �sn· e
'-- - -:::a�...,!.-2s�
s a,..c:· a-:::. i :i·-e� � �;::; " 1.':J.:.r-"-=' e
For ex=�?l�, t�e�e are o�ly blanks on ?as2 l =o� t:ie �?A
,..,,Ii.
.. _ �•
----.·r...·��-J�·-:-..:,- 0-�::
... ,.,_...J_Vti,·-- -'•
-:
". ,
·.-...�·�·e"""·...,·::._ _=_;_.,_�V -- ,
_.,,..
. l -1.J ___
:::,�"'t°"�c,!
Tl:es2
ha::� °:)-:0;:1 i.::cl1..!c�d in t:,e t.3.:>l-: i.:1 ";.'' ai:C'!: as a ::-ec·..:1.=..:­
e:1-::.=:.t fc:l.�·::".:e,i !:�/ "1975 re;,eat."
J..

'-.4.c::;:

'-- _c;;;,.

-

0

-'-

- """

�,

- -

---

t""'

----

;.:,

416

 3
Next comes ...
C.

The 1976 Yellow Data Sheets (so-called due to the color
of the originals?
First, we find t�o sheets in which data from the
controls. (cattle grazed on range not treated with 2, 4, 5-T) ,
standards (blanks), and "spiked samples" are grouped
together.
Next, come three sheets recording data on re-extrac­
tions and re-analyses that were do�e in 1976. These hav�
been given s;mplified codes.
For -e.x2.mple, the first ent.::-:_·
shows us that fat from good-old 0785-UZZ-006 (that was t:1e
one wi c.h the big brcwn �y�s) ·t1�s re-�xtracted in _197 6 anc.
sent out to Dow and Wright State under the sinplified
designated "EPA-3." It aiso shc•..,-3 us that a Sg sa..uple was
used ��is time, in kee?ing with the 1975 extractions. Note
that this i�formation �s recorced on t�e table in A above,
directly under "0785-UZZ-006" ar.d is referred to as
"EPA-3, 1976 repeat, 5g."
Lastly, there is one sheet on which the data from Harve=::
are recorded. �ote in this case that different deteminatic��
have been made deper.ding upon ��e ion ratio selected for
analysis, e.g., 322/3�8 vs. 322/329. Also indicated here is
the ratio of the 320 �esponse to the 322 res9onse. Ideally,
this should be .78, representing the anticipa�ed naturally
occurring isotopic mi:-:tu.!:'es of 37 Cl to 35'cl.
Finally, what all you bee£ lovers have been waiting for ...

D.

Animal Histories
3ere, we find samples listed by state of origin.

Xhe data �=crn t�e second ?tase oi t�e stu�y, in
which samples were col�=c�ec a=�=r t�e cattle �ad spent
a su..uner on the ranse, a�e being tabulated and will be
sent along when available.
II.

�epoit frcm Collabc=ators �:eti�; o= 0��e 15, 1976. This
is an evaluation of the 3ee£ ?at P�ase I Study by the DMP
Ma�ager �t t�e t��=-

III. �eport of t�e ?a�el �2v�2w��gg :�ve5tiga�icn of TCDD in
Suman Milk . �� out �e2ci�� i� =��r�2=y ��e �ata sheets
for the nil� s���y ��=e dis�r��u���- ��i3 ==?Ort =ep=e­
sents an evaluation oi t��3� e��3.

417

 4

Our 2-day session last month was both enjoyable and
profitable. -I trust that we will maintain our high level
of i�terest end c=eativity in the mont�s �head.
Si�ce!."ely,
·..1·I,L
11

, ..,

Drn1ald G. Bar��s
�ealth Effects & Science ?olicy
O�fice of Assistant Ad.�inistrator
for ?esticices & Toxic Substances
:::iclosures

418

 EPA BEEF FAT PHJ\SE I RESULTS
EPA Sample t
0785-UZZ-001

RTP
Not shipped

197� :r;�p�a-�.. __ .· .
0785-UZZ-004

49/ND( 4)
74/ND(4)
Nol: shipped

01as-uzz-oos

79/ND(S)

0785-UZZ-006

.. 29/73 (20)

66/10(9)
89/ND (13)
74/N0(20)

EPA-3, 1976 repeat, 5g
07 8 5-UZZ-007

'

70/ND(S)

EPA-1, 1976 repeat, Sg
0785-UZZ-008

No high resolution

0785-UZZ-009

Not shipped

,•.

84/ND(lO)

MS
!'

73/45(13)

1975 repeat

68/39(8)

93/66 (13)

1975 repent

64/12(3)

1975 repeat

195/SB (ls,

1975 repeat

61/ND(4)

..'·.,

71 /7S (3)

101/5�(5)
86/48(5)
08/63 (13).

\

·.

7 77/23(5),
76/21(9)
� _ 25 (25)
91/�10(24)
�'l(H7

64/16(6)

0785-UZZ-010

Harvard
1\cid Base

130/ND(6)

· o,ss·-uzz-002
0785-UZZ-003

Harvard
Neutral

Utah/Wright State

..

59/26(26),
76/21(12)

 EP/\ Snmple I

·RTP

•

Ucah/Wrlght State

EPJ\-26, 1976 repeat, Sg
0785-UZ7.-0ll
1975 repeat

80/N0(60)

0785-UZZ-013

90/ND(12)

l20/ND(4)

92/18(7)
7/ND(SO))

53/ND(2)

1975 repeat

63/ND(5)
101/20(8)

'fr'f/tJV(1)
173/ND('20)

83/19 (12)

. ..

RPl\ri27, 1976 repeat, Sq
1975 repeat

J,04/14 (10)

103/ND(62)

'·

......

78/9(9)
104/20( !!_)?

80/2�(20)

1065-NZZ-018

93/ 14 (5)
92/ND(13;

88/ND(4)

EPA-4, 1976 repeat, Sq
0785-UZZ-017

,.

34/ND(lOO)

74/N0(21)

EPA-24, 1976 repeat Sg
0785-UZZ-016

70(8)

78/ND(16)

0785-UZZ-014

Harvard

1'cid Dase

1 7�/59(9),

91/ND(0)

118/ND (3)

1975 repeat

0785-UZY.-015

93/89(7)

121/ND(J)

0785-UZZ-012

Harvard
Meutral

Dow

....

�

94/29(10)
90/8(8)
95/ND(6)

'

 -EPA Sample I

RTP

1065-NZZ-019

70/ND (6)

1065-NZZ-020

81/ND(2)

1065-NZZ-021
1135-NZZ-022

Dow
99/NO(l2)'

69/ND(S)
Not shipped

113S-NZZ-024

Not shipped

106S-NZZ-02S

94/75 (50)

106S-NZZ-026

SO/ND(12)

7 6/ND ( 3) control

86/ND(6)

11 5/3 (3)

1975 r epeat

112/61 (10)

114/6 (6) control

112/ND(10)

l42/ND (8)

1975 repeat

70/ND(4)

131/NDv'.20)

113/ND (1S)

1975 r epeat

102/ND(1)

119/ND (20)

139/ND(8)

-' 113/ND(20)

121/ND (6)

1975 repeat

Harvard
neutral

Not shipped

113S-NZZ-023

1065-NZZ-027

Utah/Wright State

81/19 (14)

EPA-10 , 1976 repeat, 5 g

?81,96,92/ND(B)

8 3/ND ( 8) control

EPA-ll, 1976 repeat, 5g

100/ND(25)

70/31 (10) control
+30 ppt

·-47/32(15)

77/22 (l0)control
+15 ppt

EPA-12, 1976.repeat, 5g

....,

10 5/ND( 23) oontrol

1065-NZZ-028
106S-NZZ-029
1065-NZZ-030

!"

9S/ND (10)
63/10(10)

..

Harvard
Acid Base

 EPJ\ Sample I

Utah/�right State

RTl'

154/12 (10)

EPA-23, 19 76 repeat,5g
EPA-16, 1916 repeat 8g

•

96/N0(9)

92/ND(S)

8 0 /ND ( 3) <:'O"t.rol

NR/22(5)

1B0/24(4)oontrol
+25

155/4 6 (15)

EPA-18, i976 repeat 8g
1205-XZZ-032

No high resolution MS

1205-XZZ-033

No high resolution MS

1205-XZZ-034

92/29(3) oont.rol
+50

89/ND(10)

61/ND(4)

1205-XZZ-035

75/ND( 7)

12J5-XZZ-036

155/N0(6)

ins-KZZ-037

67/ND(2)

1225-KZZ-038

60/ND (10)

1225-KZZ-0319 �

No high resolution

72/ND(17)
76/ND(lO)

1225-KZZ-041

No high resolution MS

1225-KZZ-042

No high rasolution

EPA-8, 1976 repeat Sg
EPA-9, 1976 repeat 5g

�-

MS

1225-KZZ-040

EPA-7, 1976 repeat 5g

Neutral

81/ND( 8) control

1205-XZZ-031
EPA-...1'7, i91.(j epea_t_ 8g_·.·� ..·:·

Harvard

Dow

MS

'·

..J

95/ND(S)

73/ND( 8) oont.rol

104/22(10)

67/iO(lO)cxmtrol
+10
68tl(7)con trot
+70

-i9/28/(8)

,,

Harvard
Acid Base

 :,

r
tPA 5.1::l"}C_i

1125-KZZ-043
'1975 repeat
1225-KZZ-04 4

RTP

Uta.h/\iright Stat.&

----

33/ND(40)

55/ND(13) control
No'high resolut�on HS
94/9 (5)

1975 repeat

118/22 (20)

EPJ\-29, 1976 repeat 2.Sg
1225-KZZ-04 9

'-·

•

No high resolution

MS

48/ND(2)
Not shipped

1135-NZZ-051

Not shipped

1135-NZZ-052

Not shipped

1135-NZZ-053

Not shipped

1135-NZZ-054

Not shipped

1135-NZZ-OSS

Not shipped

1065-NZZ-056

Not shipped

1065-NZZ-057

No high resolution HS

1975 repeat
1065-NZZ-059

I

82/ND(27)

1135-NZZ-OSO

1065-NZZ-CSB

l65/ND(20)

No high resolution MS

1225-KZZ-047

1225-J<ZZ-048

Harvaru
Neutra.l

82/ND(S)

1225-KZZ-045
1225-KZZ-046

Dow

88/ND(lJ)

�-·
101/NO(lO)

Not shipped
ll0/ND(9)

Harvard
J\cid Ila!'&

 v
Er!\ Sample I

n:rp

Utah/Wr.lght State
61/NO (10)

Dow

Harvard
Neutral

6 9/ND(ll)

86/7 (2)

Harvard
l\cid Dase
,8 (6)

50/ND (14)

1065-NZZ-060
63/ND(lO)

- P.Pll.-22. 1976 i:.�peat Sg

B6/ND(l6)

89';6 (2)

l05/UO(7)

1065-NZZ-061
55/ND(lO)

.EP�-25, 1976 repeat, Sg

95/7(6)

77/5(1),5(2)

1065-NZZ-062

114/ND(9)control

1065-NZZ-063

119/ND (5) control.

1975 repeat

92/UO(l4)

1975 repeat:

94/20(12)

1975 repeat

110/ND(8)

1975 repeat

100,108/ND(lO)
53/ND(7) control

1064-NZZ-064
·112/2� (20)

1975 repeat
1065-NZZ-065

Not shipped

1065-NZZ-066

Not shipped

1065-NZZ-067

No high resolution MS

1065-NZZ-068

No high resolution MS

'·

 /
EPA Samele

'

itrP

UtahlWright State

15175 repeat

110/tm (6)
NQt shipped

''

l!J75 repeat

139/ND (9)
118/ND (20)
104/ND(6)

,os-xi::-073
No high resolution MS

1205-XZZ-075

99/ND{6)

1205-XZZ-076

No high resolution MS

1205-XZ:!-077

No high resolution MS

1205-XZZ-078
1205-XZl-079

1205-XZZ-082
'205-XZZ-083
1205-XZ:Z-084

'

83/ND (10)

108/ND ( 6)

�

No high resolution MS
116/ND(4)

1205-XZ�-OBO
1205-XZZ-081

Acid Base

92/ND(10)

1065-NZ::-070

· 12os-xz::-0H

11.irvard

124/ND(9)

1065-NU-069

12os-xz:.!-012

Neutral

121/54(25

H75 repeat

1065-Nz::-071

;larva rd

Dow

No high resolution MS
86/33 (30)

�..
_...,_

112/ND(7)

No high resolution MS
l05/ND(7)

-··

--

- - --·----- --

�

 ,,..,..-I

r:
E,PJ\ Sample I
1205-XZZ-085
1205-XZZ-086
EPJ\-28, 1976 repeat
1205-XZZ-087
1205-XZZ-088
1205-XZZ-089
1225-KZZ-090
1975 repeat
1225-KZZ-091
197 5 repeat
1225-KZZ-092
1975 repeat
1225-KZZ-093
197.5 repeat
1225-KZZ-094
EPA-5, 1976 repeat Sg
1225-KZZ-095
EPA-2, 1976 repeat Sg

No high re�olution �s
------R'!'P

Utah/Wrisht State
69/ND(10)

-------

---

No high resolution HS

-----

---

Dow

Harvard
Neutral

Harvard
Acid Base

118/ND(6) control
94/NO(]) )
85/ND(B)
122/N0(6)
103/ND(9)

95/ND(lO)

No high resolution MS

---

/81//ND�to)

No high resolution HS

-----

_92/ND(20)

---

No high resolution MS

---

---

101/5(3) or 24(16)

---

..'·,

--137/ND(lO)

---

97/18(8)

4/NO(J)

r

120/ND(5) oonl::rol
87/ND(9)
90/ND(7)
60/ND(B)

58/4(2),
67/3(2)

r.J:)

N
"'d4

 /�

EPA Sas,�

I\TP

122S-KZ:!-096

Not shipped

122S-KZl-097

No high resolution MS

Utah/Wright State

65/4(2) or 21(9)

122S-KZ?-09 B

Harvard
Neutral

Dow

87/ND(lJ)

Harvard

Acld Bas;e

67/11(11) ,12(8)

BO/NO ( 6)

1225-KZZ-099
1225-KZZ-100
EPA-20, 1976 repeat, Sg

78/31 (10)

93/ND(S)

1 133/11 (10)

94/NO(J)
81/22 (14)

1225-l<ZZ-101
PA-30, 1976 repeat, Sg

110/ND (80)
25/ND (20)

1225-l<ZZ-102

103/30(18)

EPA-31, 1976 repeat, •g
1225-l<ZZ-103

No entry

1225-KZZ-104

No entry

llJS-lUZ-105

NR/ND (10)

1211Nn ca>

l 975 repeat

10/ND (8) oontrol

1135-N'ZZ-106
113.�-?ll.Z=-107 -

58/48(29)

,; .1135-NZZ-l'lB-· -

U35-N7.%-l09
212s-1:.m-110

ocntrol

86/29 (22)

..'·, .---

74/90 (13) control

+100
84/34 ( l_.) oont:ro).
. +JO
135/16(9) oontro�
-+25

· ...

110/ND (3)

·-

-·

·----------------------- -

 EPA Sample I
1135-NZZ-lll
1975 r&peat

RTP

Utah/Wright State

·--

1135-NZZ-112

58/22(8)

2455-ISR-l] 3

50/22(16)

95/ND(lO)
110/75(10

103/ 41(6) oontrol +RO
132/34 (5) std +20
14 5/ND ( 9) control

1975 repeat

95/ND(4)
74/60(-)7

86/45(10)

144/26 (9) control�O
+41 /ND (6·) Stxl

isas_-ISR-116
2585-ISR-117

llarvard
Neutral

101/ND(l5)cont:rol

ll3S-NZZ-ll4

1135-NZZ-115

Dow

76/29 (13)

120/72(2)

130/37 (6) Std +40
85/ND(4) rontrol

1135-NZZ-118
1135-NZZ-119

82/21(10)

126/15(8) control +20
158/20(6) Strl +20 wt

2655-!SR-120

�

..'·,

..

trarvard

Acid Base

 - :'l

---"'--:..·

( J

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENi L PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHING70J·{f

SUBJECT:

'

__;:!

1

;;;

I"
• •

I

--

)�

'\

,.

-fi'/ ' '
I
I

l..::
I

L

i '

t::\.1ta:
2,4,5-T O�o\c.ins
,\ I\ ..1 l y t i C " 1 CI) l l "1 b O d ,J t O rs II CC t i n g
June 25, 1976 - MEMORANDUM

,

. l· )
Ral p h T • Ros s , Ph • D
� .1 ·) , ) ,l,·
Dioxin Project Manager
/\·· ·
Office of Special Pesticide Reviews

f'

FROM:

'

"---

TO:

See Distribuc-ion

'
T h er e is a typo gr a p h i 1: al e r r o r in a m e mo r a nd u m d a t ed
June 25, 1976, which summarized the analytical collaborators
m eet i n g in \.l as h ingt o n , I) C , o n J u n e l 5 , l9 7 6 •
T he mem o r ;1 n d u m
was sent to all who attended this meeting. Part -I ·0E····tl1e
conclusions given by the an alytical ·collaborator·s should
read as follows:

1.

-

Of the beef fat samples (85) analyzed, one shows
a pos itive- TC DD 1 eve l a t 6 0 ppt ; two· s amples •••

The memorandum st ated

90

ppt,

I reg r e t th is o ve r sigh·t i n
not caused any inconvenience.

which is incorrect.

p r o o f i ng •

I

hope

it has

-·

I

'

- .·

---

---

""

·L

i'

429

_

__.......

__,;

 ... · ,

-· if

.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTi
WAS.HINGTON.

ot

J

PROTECTION AGENCY
20'160

- 'i

SUBJECT:

2,4,5-T/Ilioxins: ftnalytical
Collaborators Meeting
Jtme 15, 1976.

FROvf:

Dioxin Project Manager
Office of Pesticide Programs

TO:

JUN

1.

5 \976

l

l

L

See Distribution

The analytical collaborators met on Jt..me 16, 1976, at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., in order to
discuss the results of the analysis of the 85 beef fat samples and 43
liver samples collected in phase I (Between February and �farch 197S)
of the short tenn beef fat monitoring program. These data represent
the final results from Dow Chemical USA, Wright State University and
Harvard University (See attachment for list of other attendees). The
data from EPA's Research Triangle Park Laboratory and the University
of Utah were not completed at the t1J11e of this meeting. Therefore, no
representatives from either of these 1aboratories \\ere present. Several
members of the analytical group have been subpoenaed and/or asked to
prepare statements for 2,4,5-T/dioxin litigation in the state of Oregon.

I
I

�

I

t;
,._

r'

I

L

This meeting was called in order that the data from phase I be
interpreted, and the statements made at these proceedings accurately
represent the data from the dioxin monitoring program. Another meet­
ing will be held as soon as the other two laboratories mentioned
above submit their data •.

t
I·

L

l

II

The conclusions given by the analytical collaborators were:
1. Of the beef ;:�les (85) analyzed, one �hoh'S a positive
(..011.-: '--· TCDD level at. 90/P.Pc; two samples appear to have TCDD levels
·at 20 ppt; f\ye,, r,:iay have TCDD levels which range from 5-10 ppt.
While several7aboratories detected levels (S-10 ppt) in this
range, the values reported were very near the sample l1J11its
of detection. There exists a great deal of tmccrtainty of the
analytical procedure below 10 ppt.
2.

·i

The analy-tical �cthod is not valid below 10 ppt.

L

�430
. ™"

:re ac. ne::n

•

c,,

:e--:e,-,-., rv,::.a.a �.,.#'T ,-. .. uc:�9r:ee,:e-

.

-��

 1,. .

. ·, .

--

:,

.

I

f'.

2

3.

4.
S.

6.

- ij

·-·�

1:

HIf ..

An introduction of a neutrallextraction technique shows promise
of the capability of detectirig levels below 10 ppt .. 111is was
demonstrated by ccmpt1rative data at the 10\ver parts per trillion
range (5-10 ppt). However, this method has been demonstrated
by only one· laboratory at this time and has not been validated
below 10 ppt by an9ther competent analytical fa.cility.

t

The fat samples analyzed were peritoneal fat and kidney fat
taken from cattle which had grazed on rangelands of mown
treatment with 2,4,5-T. Controls were the same sample type
taken from cattle from non-treated areas within the same state.
.

.

Of the'liver samples (43) analyzed, only one sample suggests
any TCDD residue, but the residue obscn,cd was too close to the
sensitivity of the sample detection ,limits for·quantitation.
The fat sample analyzed from the same animal shoh·ed no TCDD
residue. Three liver·san�les (for which fat sanrp+es were
analyzed and showed positive data) showed no ·rcbD residues.

None of the collaborators reported-TCDD in samples of beef fat
taken from cattle in non-treated areas (at the sensitivity of
the analytical method). Three of· the laboratories receiving
liver samples from cattle· in non-treated areas observed no TCDD
in the samples..

In his remarks to the meeting, Mr. Edwin Johnson, DM for Pesticides,
indicated the Agency will prepare an inhouse statement on what it considers
the significance to be, if any, of the levels of TCDD found in the beef fat
monitoring program.· This statement will be distributed to the collaborators
and to the Science Advisory Board for corrrnent and suggestions prior to its
release.
The statement will report the status of all aspects of the
Agency's dioxin program to date.

L

:

I

�

_!

�tr. Johnson stated that in future dioxin meetings, all relevant d�ta
would be distributed to the collaborators in advance of the meeting to
permit their independent evaluation prior to the discussions at the meeting.
He explained that the procedures for setting up this particular meeting
were different because of the urgency to discuss the data prior to the
beginning of the Oregon 2,4,5-T litigation action.

431
__..,,,..,p,r.e,:,-.-._....,-.,__c,c,.,--=v---.N!P"tl!�-:r::-�. -:-. �-rr -:.---'�1

••

t.. ,c

----�-------------__,;=Q;;;:;::.._...:.,__=�

 . -\:• .

�- .

·--

,I]

·,. - .

·f

1,

II.

'1.!

A11 data for which the Agency p:ys !lill be made available to the
publfc. Dow has been asked to notify th��gency if they wish to exert any
claims of trade secret or co�fidentialit� fo� !heir data. If so, he indicated
EPA would evaluate these claims before �jec1s1on to release;
•

,-

All collaborators' meetings will be open to observation by the public
ng s are not
e
���n�;�� s , but it is to be un
d):: �::�: ::
\

!I If

.........

, ..

Ra 1 ph T. Ross

�,·

Attachment
Distribution

...,...

Ronald Dreer
Attendees

,a-=-

I
'--

r·-

-

.-

432
•

I

 7...

-·- - ..,

..
-411 ....

Ul-!ITED STATES E::VI110:-f1lENTAL PilO'.rECTIOH AGE:ICY
Il�FOnE THE ADilEIISTP.AT011

In ne:
The Do�-, Che:nical Cor.ipany, ct al.

FIFP.A Docket Nos. 415, et al.

.•
.'

DIRECT TESTI!IONY OF rru::,rE DU!UHN

I
/•

Judith E. Kahle
Stevens Van StrUI:1

Nortlmest Coalition for
Alternatives to Pesticides
454 Uillamctte
Euoene,
Ore�on
97401
"'
.,

NCJ\.:> E:tl'libi t ID-1

433

 . \ .

. . .,..

UNITED STATES EtNino rC.iElfTAL PflOTECTION J\GErlCY
DEFORE TIU; ADi,!HIISTP.J\TO!l

In Re:

________________
The Do,·; Cher.tic al Company, et al.

)
)
)
)

FIFr.A Docket

Nos. 415, et al.

)

Dir.ECT TESTI:-!<liff OF IF.Er!E DUP.DW
r.Iy name is Irene nose Durbin.

I a'!I 32 years old and a housewife.

sently live at 415 Ha,-rthorne, Dallas, Ore�on.
:lay 15, 1979.

I pre­

I have lived at this address since

Previously, r.iy husband, our three children, and CT'Jself lived in Five

Rivers V�le:,• for seven years.

The period of our residence in Five Rivers was Janunry

1972 to .Ia�· 1979.
\

The U.S. Forest Service, Alsea District, srrayed every year <lurini our
re:;icence in Five- Rivers.

Our irnmecl.iate area \·tas subject to both aerial mid road­

side spr2.ying.
Five Rivers Valley is located in the coastal rru1:;;e, midway bet\·;ecn Al:.ca
and :ialdp�rt in Lincoln and Lane Counties.

Exhibit ID-2.

nar ro�-,, vnrying from 500 feet to one-half mile wide.
steep and heavily forested.

The vtlley floor is �uite

The sides of the valle:1 ore

A river, five Rivers, runs alon� the valley floor. Ho,·1-

evcr, to the best of m�, knowledge, 110 one living in the valley dra,-,s t1ater directly
fror.i t'1erc.

Rather, all of our ,-rater is dra�m from a number of sr.ialler creeks t-ihich

flou do,-:n the vallc�, Halls and eventually eopty into the river.

The flo�-, rate of

these creeks ma:,· vary ,:idely, due to seasonal differences in rainfall, runoff and
:;trear:1 width.
0 ne such Creel: • SU1""1er s Creek • ,-,os the so1 e source of ",)' family. s 1·:ater
sup:,l:,• durin� our seven �·ears in Five !livers.

Durini the s�rina of 1976, a small

n
r--t

�
road r unnin-: clonc:iide t.'1e creek .ras heavily sr,rayed ru1d ,-,arninc siGJl:; \·1ere i;:osted.
Ior.eciatdy �fter this particular sprayin;:;, r.r.1 far.il:· noticeci a r,eculiar t�ste and
odor to the �:ater.

434

THo other nearb�, f�ilies, ,-:ho �so dreu their uater fror.i Sl.UJt':ers

•

 •>•

• , *•.
Creel;, also noticed these chnnges. 1'The t::i.ste and sr.iell persisted for several wcok s
after spraying.

At no times were ,-,e ever notified about the impending spraying or

cautionec.'. not to drink the water.
In the Sl.ll:'.ocr of 197S, we Here visited by Dr. Sava 3c fror:i Colorado State Univer­

si t:,,, EPA Investisation te=im.
Sa':lplcs fror., the creel:.

Dr. Sava!;e intervie�·,cd us n.ntl took i·:ater n.nd &edir:ient

These so.mplcs ,-:ere taken fror.i the point at which ue

dr&1·1

our

water.
�·!e heard nothin3 about the results of these tests until the fol101·1ing spring.
In r:arch of 1979, I received a letter fron the Lane Cow1ty He::i.l th Department.

The

letter ::;tatcd th.'.lt !Jr. Savage had notified the count,J that TCDD had bee:i found in the
creek ::;edir.ient at the levels of betl,cen 10 :lnd 20 parts-per-trillion.

E:·d1ibits ID-3

an� I!l-4.

The r:1ornin3 after ;·1e received this letter, Dr. Savage telephoned ce from Colorado.
He stated that he did not feel the water ,-,:is safe to drink, and that he hiaself ,-,ould
not drin!: the ,-rater.

None of the other farailies 1·1h.ich drc�-, their 1·1atcr fror.i SllC.ilers

Creek uere informed of the EPA-CSU results.

I called the Lane County Health Depart-

oent, and r equested that the others be notified.

The Department sent tholil a copy of
�

my letter; but the letter saic.l nothing .'.lbout the clanger of drinl..ing the \·rater, and

�

no e:q,la?:ation or uarning ,-:as attacher·.•
'

/ As I noted :ibove, the Sunraers Creek roadside spraying incident ,-,as only one of

�-��v

orportunities for us to be e;:posed to herbicides.

eclly durin3 our seven years ih the area.

The valley wn& spray�d repeat-

Given the steepness of the valley-and tho

abundance of small and season�l feeder creeks, it seems almost impossible to prevent
so.ne forr.t of conta�ination of our t·rater suppl:,·.
As an e;�ar.iplc of the ::u::ount of sprayin3 clone in th:it area, spray c!ata for the
areo. r;ener::i.lly �,i thin a three r.rile r:idius of our hoi::e �-ms acquired, r:.:1:hibit ID-5, for·
the· years l!J74 throu�h 1976.

These uere plotted on o.cria.1. r:l.'.liJS.

they ,-:ere trans;errcd onto an Alseo. Dist;;-ict l-I:ip.

435

Exhit,it ID-7.

E.::hibit ID-G.
This SiJr:i:r dat:i

Then

 \

�·

. . ..

{�,;:_3_

. . -·-)

��\)1/.

include� both ro:idsi"tl d lcrial opplicntions.

'--"-was ·unabl

�
e to find roadsi

as records 11ere not !�ept.

The person doing this research

s ray inforraation for count.:,' roads from Lano County,
Exhibit ID-8.

Other routes of e::posure micht be i)Ossible.
from a farm several miles am1y.

We occasionally ate venison and other game of the

----

\)" , �JcR�.
,t_,'1

'(-_

o

NO
r {·

For m·rhile we had a garden for· which He c!rc1\' \·rater-frourSummers Creek •
.-·
...___.
·-

forest.

\.'"
'(

Our far.lily received fresh millc

�

'Jt�-teavicst acJpl�cation;;:. herbi cide occur during the spring. In the spring
?
\
•
,
(?
f(l\{l._
),T.
'-'\�
not
did
973
ad a miscarriage. I mis 3-' or 3 r.ionths prcgn:mt at the tine and
\

�o to the· doctor.

In the spring of 197 4, I had another miscarriage, also after 2

or 3 r:ionths of pregnancy.

That sprin� I becrune pregnant again.

placenta prcvi�. (Definition:

placenta is bclo1·1 the baby, colla;>sed on the cervi:�,

rather than above the baby.)

I ,·,as taJ.:en to the Universtiy of Oregon i-Icdical Center

l-:i th severe her::orrh.!6ing 1·:here I delivered l:'O' youngest son
E}:hibit ID-9.
(Definition:
expand.)

oy

t

the h:,ralinc membrane is not developed and does not alloH the lunzs to

His lun�s coll::i.pscd and an oper:ition \·:as perforr.1ed to insert a tube into

co1:1pletc blood transfusion.

His liver 1-;as under-developecl, ond he required a

I,Iy son ,,,as in the hosj�ital almost a nonth.

E.xhibit

I 1·1r.s in the hospital for over t�-,o weel�s.

hfter our son came home, he suffered from
the next two years.

numerous respiratory problems over

He contracted pneumonia 3 or 4 times.

of my two older children contracted pneumonia once.

During that period each

·Aside from respiratory, prob­

lems, all of rzy children have suffered repeated nose bleeds.
ID-12.

caesarian section.

He was born five week:, ,Jrer.iaturely ,-,i th hyaline mcr:1brane disease.

his chest to clrai-, the ::i.ir out.

ID-1O.

That pre�ancy was

Erliibits ID-11 and

Before this time, 11\Y children had never had respiratory pro blems or nose­

bleeds.

All of us �uf�ered recurring sinus attacks, headaches and eczema.

My hus­

band particularly suffered from chronic diarrhea, which had never happened before.
l'le moved from Five Rivers to Dallas, Oregon, in May of 1979.
we have noticed a reduction of these symptoms.

436

Since the move,

The children have suffered ·no

 -4\ f

t

,.

' •

nose bleeds.

The severe sinus attacks, headaches and eczema have ceased.

My

--

husband's diarrhea haf��isapPeared,
�
My husband and I feel that these symptoms are more than just chance occurances.
We nre not, by nature, inclined to prot.est.

But we are concer ned about tho

of our children, and about the other families who still live in the valley.

welfare
We

know what we an d they have suffered, an d the difficulties in expressing our concern
to those outside-especially to those who would force us to conclusively demonstrate
that our symptoms resulted from the spraying. · \'le do not have the capability of doing
that.

We can only express our sincere belief that people are being hurt-and hur:t

seriously-by the application of 2,4,5-T and other herbicides.

We feel that this

unn ecessary suffering should be stopped •

.,

I.

437

 _____

_,

lane count'

,.

-

('

�

C

. ..

.

. ..
\

'.___ ..i----.. .. ,t,
I

�

Ms. Irene Durbin
Route 2, Booe 265
Tidewater, Oregon
Re:

r:

/.

\

T � •.,?

pr_i,.,·,
..... . .
April 16, ·1979

t \,

t:...,
. I

1'..J

Soil sediment from 5 Ri�ers Road
T-155 RNW Sec. 5 - S.W. Corner

Dear Ms. Durk.in:
Dr. Savage of Colorado State University called me on April 16, 1979
to infonn me that the soil sediment samples tested from your property
showed 10-20 parts per trillion of the chemical TCDD. The water samples
were neg�ti-ve tor TCDD. Since TCDD binds �ery tightly to the soil, Dr.
Savage could not say whether this quantity of TCDD could effect the
quality of water. The health jmplications of this finding are unknown.
No one knows whether there is u clear and present danger from this find­
ing in the soil. If you have any questions, I suggest you discuss these
findings with your family doctor.
M�. John Stoner (687-4051), Director of Environmental Health !or
Lane County c3n assist you with general questions concerning your water
supply-.
ram fon,arding this inforn.at±on so chat you are kept appraised of'
the results of the tests taken.
Cordially,

a/ ll­

�c/-1c,h

David L. White, M,D., M.P.H,
Health Officer
D�t-1:jn
cc:

438
HEALTH 01vIs1or;

John Stoner/
Janet Chappell

AOeERT E VIHITTA�E;i
OEPt.flTl.!�·-r OF co1.1:.:u.-.iITY HEALT.-1 c SOCl..:.L Sci'l\'IC:'..
'PHONE 15031 e/37-40'
J9CJ E.:.sr I0IH AVENU:
EUGENE. OREGON 97.::;:

 c/o :i:Ielyce Connelly
Route 2 Box 253
Ticl.ewa.ter, Oregon 97390
July 17, 1979

Dear Sirs:

We are res.idents of Five Rivers, a community of about 50 families
in the Al sea drainage of the coast range in western Oregon.
This spring, 1979, the u.s. Forest Service sprayed 742 acrea of
fores.t in and around our valley with 2,4-D and Tordon 101 (a.. mix­
ture of 2,4-D and picloram). 'rhe 2,4-D was. most widely and heavily
used, applied at the rate of 10 5allons per acre on 612 acres.; the.
2,4-D and picloram mixture was. applied at the. ra.te, of 20 gallons per
acre on 130 acres. The spraying was. done between May 12 and June 5;:·
Between l,iay 25 and July 2, three. of the only five women known to be
pregnant in tho valley had spontaneous abortions. All three women
were treated by physicians and were in th e first trimester of preg­
nancy. The two surviving pregnancies were in later stages·of 5esta...­
tion. The first, miscarriage occurred on Ma.y 25,th, the second on
Hay 27tl1., a.nd the third of July 2, All tl:Jree women live within one
mile of heavily sprayed units.
Since May 12, the health of the population of our valley has
undergone profound and disturbing changes. C�ief among them has
been the incidence of respir{l.tory illness and intestinal disorders
in almost every household. several women experienced uterine hemor­
rhagin5 not associated With pre5nancy. Children and adults suffered
bleeding gums, bloody noses, and a number of women suffered from
.. ·-�bacter..ial,..v.ag,..1 nal, '1 ofec t.1 ans. Teu ...a.b.11.dr.en,_and, .tbl:.ee_ac,gli&.Jl.a..Ye.-.. ,�--... - .. �.
experienced an undiagnosed illness charac·terized chiefly by high
fever; two children and two adults had undiagnosed rashes that
doctors.were unable to explain, and on July 9 occurred one nearfatal case of menin;;;ococcal menengi tis in a. two.:.year-old who is' still
hospitalized.
This is.by no means an exhaustive survey of our coomun1ty 1 s health,
only a, summary of health problems in the families .. of our acquaintance.
In a' population of' our size, such an incidence of illness. in what was.
previously a healthy p_opulation, occurring within s0 short a.time,
is most alarmin5, especially to the p_eople who live here. _It ;ts
, ..
difficult, even with proof, to attribute it solely to coincidence,
and the only stress. the population has experienced a.s a.. whole has.
been exposure to the herbicides sprayed.
We ur5ently request that these herbicides cease ·to be sprayed
until their safety has been unequivocally established, and that the
miscarriages and the heal th of the population be. studied immediately�
A number of famiJ,ies are severely in debt as a result of the deteri­
oration of their health since the spraying, and we can 111 afford
the problems that recur each time these herbicides,are applied.
Time is of the essence. The price of our present national forest
policy is our children's lives.

---- --- -- -

·--- .

 __
/

.�-

,

· , -:- - .........
.;,

f: -

.
�. I

-� .

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

If

\

I

'.

�I
I

.: t

l

\

·;;:

.. �1n re.: • Emergency s;{;·pension Orders
· c .....
"·for 2, 4, 5-T and Sil vex

� "' f

...

.

�.�------------------• •

I •

)
)
)
)

FIFRA Docket.Nos.
409; 410

.

.!

,.

,•·:

)..
·-�

(

�-

,. ,

.,. ..

1 - .,
'

••

I

I .

I' .

THE DOW ·CHEMICAL COMPANY'S COMMENTS ON
THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
EMERGENCY SUSPENSION ORDERS

.,

,.J

I'

,,1,� · .•

'.
' .
.J

.

.J

•

IJ

I

,.,

Edward w. Warren
L. Mark Wine
John s. Hahn

f

'.]
1.

Of Counsel:

I:,�

Michael J. Traynor
Dow Chemical U.S.A.
2030 Dow Center

I I
I

i

Midland, Michigan
I

h
! '.

I'

I�

,.
I

•

March 26, 1979

440

, ·:·

).·

,r
KIRKLAND & ELLIS
'
1776 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006:
(202) 857-5000

"\··�:

 - 14 ;

Dow assumes that they will present these impacts to the Panel
at the appropriate time.
Finally, it is the users of 2,4,5 -:T and si'lvex who bear
the greatest economic impact of the emergency suspensions.
In these times of escalating inflation and increasing concern
about unnecessary government regulation, the users of 2,4,5-T
and silvex and ultimately the consumers will bear the heaviest
burdens.
SUMMARY OF POSITION

II.

A.

Alsea I rV

The Administrator's emergency suspension orders are essen­
tially based on the results of the study entitled Repo·rt of
Assessment of a Field Investigation of Six-Year Spontaneous
Abortion Rates in Three Oregon Areas in Relation to Forest
2,4,5-T Spray Practices (hereinafter "Alsea II" or "Report")
(ARI R-49).

As the Panel has noted, ::/ the Alsea II Report

is the centerpiece of the EPA suspension decision, and thus
will be the centerpiece of the suspension hearings and the
deliberations'of this Panel.

As is discussed below, the

This discussion is based on Dow's initial analysis of
*/
Alsea II conducted in the days immediately following the
emergency suspensions. Since that time we have obtained some
of the raw data and have conducted other inquiries into the
data and other facts. Our investigations are continuing and
are likely to result in additional points and supporting data.
�

First Prehearing Conference, Tr. 67-68.

441

'
•'

 - 24 -

I

index for the Control area did not result from such herbicide
application.

This provides a graphic illustration of a point

the Report concedes -- correlation does not necessarily mean
causation.

}

5.

There Is No Evidence That the Study
Area Women Were Exposed to 2,4,5-T
or Silvex.

In combination with these serious analytical flaws, the
study is deficient because there are no data establishing any
pesticide exposure levels for the women who experienced miscar­
riages; in fact, there are no data to show that exposure occurred
at all.

Actual patterns of use in the Alsea basin could not

reasonably be expected to produce more than negligible exposure
to 2,4,5-T and silvex, and the absence of any symptoms of chlor­
acne, a condition related to dioxin poisioning, supports the
view that exposure at toxic levels did not occur.:!

, The Report and the Administrator's decision appears to
assume, sub silentio, that the entire population of the Alsea
basin was "exposed" to these herbicides, but it does not in
the slightest attempt to quantify the exposure or even to

J

�/
At the First Prehearing Conference, the Panel asked if
Dow could provide infonnation concerning the dioxin content
of the 2,4,5-T that might have been sprayed in the Alsea
area. Tr. 83-84. Upon inquiry, Dow has infonned us that it
cannot identify the 2,4,5-T lots actually used in the Alsea
basin and that, in any event, the material used may have
been manufactured by others. Nevertheless, Dow plans to
present testimony at the hearing de tailing tl1e average TCDD
content of its product in past years, as well as a brief
explanation of the manufacturing process and contr.ol of
TCDD contamination.

442
J

•

 /

- 25 provide factual basis for such an assumption.

This unwarranted

assumption renders the Alsea II conclusion relating herbicide
spraying to miscarriage suspect alone, .even in the absence of
the analytical errors described above.
EPA apparently recognized this serious gap in the Alsea
II data in its own analysis of the study.

Rather than con­

ceding the inadequacy of the Report, however, the Agency
attempted to bridge the data gap by stating that, because the
Study area women experienced miscarriages, it is "reasonable
to assume" that they were exposed to herbicides.

This facile

assumption cannot cure the lack of data to support the Alsea
II conclusions.
Moreover, EPA had considerable exposure data in the RPAR
record which it chose to ignore in favor of a specious hypo'
.
thesis primarily based on the statistical manipulations described above, with the June peak as its cornerstone.

Even if

the June peak was not remarkably similar to the peak found in

,.

j_

the Florida and Michigan data, the exposure data and EPA's
own RPAR documents establish that it would be virtually impos­
sible for the women in the Study area to have been exposed to

J

sufficient 2,4,5-T to cause any adverse effects.
Significantly, in the original RPAR document EPA adopted a
20 miligram per kilogram of body weight level as the noreffect
dose for fetotoxic and teratogenic effects.
17137, 17138, 17139, 17140 (API R-1).

43 Fed. Reg. 17130,

But studies submitted to the

work
RPAR record demonstrate that backpack spray applicators, who
\,

443
..!

 . ..,,,,.,..,.
BEFORE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

In Re:
The Dow Chemical C�mpany, et al.

)
)
)
)
)

Docket Nos. 415, et al.

)

-----------�----- >

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS

Edward W. Warren
L. Mark Wine
Richard L. McConnell

Of Counsel:
Mark Tucker
Dow Chemical U.S.A.
2030 Dow Center
·Midland, Michigan '48640

KIRKLAND & ELLIS
1776 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 857-500

Rudolf H. Schroeter
LA FOLLETTE, JOHNSON, SCHROETER,
& DE HAAS

320 North Vermont Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90004
Counsel for The Dow Chemical
Company

October 23, 1979

444.

 - 4 -

Van Miller, et. al., "Increased Incidence of Neoplasms in
Rats Exposed to Low Levels of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-P­
Dioxin," Chemosphere 6(9) ctt 537-44 (1977).

The slides may

Qe produced at Dr. Allen's laboratory or at any other
reasonable location.
h)

All correspondence and memoranda concerning 2,4,5-T,

silvex, or TCDD.
i)

A complete and current curriculum vitae for

Dr. Allen, including educational and academic history, pro­
fessional employment history, and a complete list of publi­
cations.
2.

ALSEA II
All documents and records not previously produced for

Dow related to any aspect of the investigation by EPA and
its contractors of a possible correlation between herbicide
application and spontaneous abortion in Oregon, including
but not limited to all study protocols, all raw data and
data compilations, all documents and records concerning data
sources and the methods by which data were collected or com­
'piled, all computations and analyses of data, and all reviews,
comments, or criticism concerning any aspect of the investi­
gation.

This request includes all documents and records

related to any aspect of such investigation, produced before,
on, or after March 1, 1979.

445

, ..

 - 6 -

Second, Deputy Assistant Administrator Edwin Johnson

announced at the hearings before the Scientific Advisory
that EPA is collecting new data for the now-discredited

Alsea II epidemiologic study on which EPA based the March 1
suspension orders.Y

While the Agency

presented no evidence

to the Panel concerning Alsea II, it indicated its intention.
to present the new data during the cancellation hearings.21
These new data are only the latest in a series of Agency

efforts to revitalize Alsea II by supplementing or replacing
data.

In each instance, careful and time consuming review

has demonstrated that the data do not support the claimed
results.

Indeed, members of the scientific Advisory Panel

concluded at the hearings that Alsea II "can't be used in a
positive or negative sense," and "just isn't going to help
us a great deal."§/

Because of the many deficiencies and

errors identified in the Agency's previous attempts at data
collection and interpretation for Alsea II, it is essential

that Dow depose the person or persons most knowledgeable about
EPA's current Alsea II efforts, in order to avoid surprise
at the hearings.

OGC's claim· that Dow's deposition request places an

"undue burden on the [Agency's] limited resources" fails to
1/

Id. at 13-15.

.§/

Id. at 206-207.

V

446

Id. at 12, 14 .

 - 13 I

While the matters to be oiscovered from each deponent
are set forth in more detail in Appendix I, a few examples
illustrate the importance of the evidence sought �n these
depositions.

Dr. Ralph Dougherty and Dr. Matthew Meselson

are listed to testify for OGC concerning complex analytic
techniques for detecting trace residues of TCDD.

It is essen­

tial that they be questioned concerning sample handling and
analytic methodology, at a location where laboratory records
and detailed underlying data are available.

Similarly,

Dr. James Allen must be examined at his laboratory concerning
preliminary observations from his new study in rhesus monkeys
at a dose level of 25 ppt TCDD, and from his ongoing study
at 50 ppt TCDO.

Dr. Allen's deposition will also provide an

opportunity to examine tissue slides and underlying data from
previous studies, and to question Dr. Allen regarding his
interpretations of these data.
The discovery depositions of the person or persons most
knowledgeable concerning the Agency's latest effort to reha­
bilitate the Alsea II study are especially important to a
full and fair development of the facts.
. inal February

28

Alsea

II

Portions of the orig-

data already have been supplemented,

revised, or replaced by EPA on at least three occasions,
including during the final hours of a four-day trial in Dis­
trict Court in April, and during the May suspension pro­
ceedings.

In each case, careful evaluation of the revised

Alsea II data ahd analysis has demonstrated that the claimed

447

..

 '
- 14 results are not supported by the evidence.

The

of new data, including checking of data sources
health statistics and records, is time consuming, and cannot
be completed during the hearings.

Moreover, in the past Dow

experts have been unable to verify the accuracy of portions
of the data supplied by EPA, since it has been impossible to
determine the methods by which the data were generated.

The

depositions of the person or persons responsible for devel­
oping these data are necessary to enable Dow experts to eval­
uate EPA's data collectior and, if necessary, to generate
the appropriate data independently.
The unique value of pretrial discovery in complex scien­
tific litigation has been recognized by the courts, one court
remarking that "the necessities of such a case transcend the
usual limitations which may otherwise be imposed on discovery
proceedings. 11

U.S. v. Nysco Laboratories, Inc., 26 F.R.D.

159, 162 (E.D.N.Y. 1960).

Liberal discovery.of experts u�der

Rule 26(b){4) is "intended to make the task of the trier of
fact more manageable by means of an orderly presentation of
complex issues of fact."

Weiss v. Chrysler Motors Corp.,

515 F.2d 449, 4�7. (2d Cir. 1975).

Thus in modern practice

discovery depositions of experts have been granted liberally
when needed to prepare for cross-examination and the orderly
presentation of the issues.W
11/

Herbst v. International Telephone

(Footnote 11 continued on next page.)

448
&

&

Telegraph Corp.,

 - 15 Following the· discovery aepositions sought here, Dow's
experts will evaluate carefu.Lly the information produced in
the depositions.

With the assistance of these experts, Dow's

legal counsel will be able to develop efficient and probing
cross-examination of EPA's witnesses.

The full development

of such cross-examination cannot be undertaken during the
course of the hearings, even if witness statements are pro­
vided ten days or two weeks in advance of the witness' appear­
ance.

More important, much of the underlying data and anal­

ysis needed for meaningful cross-examination will not be
included in written witness statements, and will be wholly
unavailable absent the depositions sought here.

As the court

observed in F.T.C. v. Gibson Products of San Antonio, Inc.,
569 F.2d 900, 907 (5th Cir. 1978), in affirming an order
enforcing deposition subpoenas issued by an administrative
agency, "The right to cross-examination . . . embodied by
the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A.

§

_556(d), would

be a hollow privilege without prior discovery depositions."
Similarly, the information discovered in these deposi­
tions will assist Dow in the preparation of its direct case,
and is essential to a comprehensive and coherent presentation
(Footnote 11 continued from previous page.)
65 F.R.D. 528, 530-31 (D. Conn. 1975); Horgan v. A.T.O., Inc.,
23 F.R. Serv. 2d 179, 181 (D. Mass. 1977). See Quadrini v.
Sikorsky Aircraft Division, United Aircraft Corp., 74 F.R.D.
594 (D. Conn. 1977); In Re IBM Peripheral EDP Devices,
77 F.R.D. 39, 41 (N.D. Cal. 1977).

449

 /

2

- 4 -

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
New Alsea Data and Analysis

November 29, 1979
9:30 a.m.

The Agency based its March 1 suspension orders and cancel­

. lation notices largely on the Alsea II study, an epidemiologic
investigation conducted in Oregon which purported to show a
correlation between the use of herbicides in forestry and

the incidence of miscarriage.

While Alsea II has been roundly

discredited by the scientific community at large and appar­

ently by the Scientific Advisory Panel, §/ EPA has announce�

that it is engaged in a broad new program of data collection
and analysis for Alsea II.

The person or persons most knowl­

edgeable regarding the methods and sources used for data
collection, as well as data compilation, should be made avail­
able for deposition well before the hearings commence.

Dow has no way of ascertaining which EPA employees or

contractors are performing this latest collection of Alsea II
data.

Accordingly, Dow requests that OGC be required to

designate the person or persons most knqwledgeable in this area,
and to make them available for deposition.

This procedure is

well-established under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

• in instances where the party seeking discovery is unable to
identify particular individuals to be deposed.
30(b)(6).

See Rule

6/
Twenty-Fifth Meeting of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory
Panel, Vol. I, 206-207 (August 15, 1979).

450

 r1

- 5 -

The new data presently being collected by EPA reportedly
includes "further investigations into the spray data and the
timing of the spray," and "additional information on total
miscarriages in the area," since EPA now concedes that the
original data may have reflected only ten to twenty precent
of miscarriages in the areas studied.1/

In addition, it is

likely that EPA is extending the study to include additional
data from 1978 and 1979, previously outside the purview of
the study.!!!
This is not the Agency's first effort to rehabilitate
Alsea II by supplementing or replacing the incomplete. and
misleading data contained in the February 28 Alsea II report.
New data developed by EPA in March were obtained by Dow under
the Freedom of Information Act.

In early April, further new

data were disclosed by EPA witnesses near the end of a
four-day District Court h�aring in an action for judicial
review of the Agency's emergency suspension orders.

In May,

additional new data were submitted to the Hearing Panel in
the suspension hearings, and were obtained by Dow.
In every case, detailed and time-consuming review of
. the data by Dow experts has revealed that the claimed corre­
lation between herbicide use and miscarriage is not supported

2/

Twenty-Fifth Meeting of the FIFRA Scientific Advis ory
Panel, Vol. I, 14-15 (August 15, 1979} (remarks of Edwin
Johnson}.

V

451

Id. at 15.

 - 6 -

by the evidence.

Equally important, Dow experts have been

unable to determine how portions of the data were compiled
by EPA, in order to check the Agency's data against original
sources.
Deposition of the person or persons responsible for and
most knowledgeable about the Agency's latest data collection
efforts is essential to enable Dow experts to evaluate the
new data, to assess the adequacy of data collection methods,
and to check the ·accuracy of EPA's data compilations by c�m­

parisons with original sources.

Dow's experience with pre­

vious Alsea II data supplied by EPA underscores the neces­
sity of deposing such individuals, since the data compilations
themselves do not reveal methods of data collection and do
not reveal the information necessary for independent reproduc­
In addition,

tion, verification and analyses of the data.

Dow's previous reviews of the various Alsea II data sets
demonstrates the need for early disclosure of all information
pertaining to data collection and compilation.

The Adminis­

trative Law Judge should not permit OGC to repeat the surprise
tactics employed in April, when new data were produced in
open court with no opportunity for evaluation by Dow experts.
3

452

KIM HOOPER
Department of Biochemistry
University of California, Berkeley

October 26, 1979
9:30 a.m.

 /.

,:.
,

-

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR
In re:

)

FIFRA Docket Nos. 415, et. al.

)
THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, et. al.
____________ )
RESPONDENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S
RESPONSE TO THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY'S REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS

�\)\\

� \�

In accordance with the order of the Administrative Law
Judge issued on October 25, 1979, Respondent hereby·submits
its response to the Dow Chemical Company's (Dow) "Request for
Production of Documents and Records," dated October 23, 1979.
As ordered by the Administrative Law Judge (Prehearing
Order and Report No. 3, October 25, 1979, at 4), Respondent is
providing information on the order and manner in which it
will comply with Dow's request.

In Part I of this response,

Respondent presents its schedule for the production of documents
and records responsive to Dow's request.

In Part II, Respondent

briefly explains the bases for the manner and order of production
and identifies
areas of uncertainty •
•

4 ...0v
')
,I

1�

 - 2

I.

Schedule for Production of Documents and Records
Respondent's schedule for the production of documents and

records responsive to D0"7's Request for Production is presented
below·.

The schedule specifies three dates for production

based on the relative _availability and/or the current existence
of responsive documents and records.
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1979
C urricula Vitae for each of the witnesses
for whom this document was requested
Documents and records responsive to the
Hutchinson request (complete)
Documents and records responsive to the
Alsea request (partial)

•

Documents and records responsive to the
Dixon request (partial)
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1979
Documents and records responsive to the
requests for Drs. Beroza, Dougherty, GalstoQ,
Holson, Meselson, Squire, and Streisinger,
MONDAY, DECEMBER 31, 1979
Completion of the Alsea response
II,

•

Completion of the Dixon response
Comment on the Schedule for Production
Mr. Thomas Dixon
Alsea Witnesses
Because Mr. Thomas Dixon and the witnesses who will testify·
I

regar1ing the Alsea study are EPA employees or contractors, a substantial portion of documents and records responsive to Dow's

Request for Production regarding these witnesses have previously

454

 - 3 /

been made available to Dow pursuant to its Freedom of Infor­
mation Act request of June 22, 1979.

These witnesses are

continuing to collect responsive documents and records,
however, and these new mat�riale will be made available to
Dow in two groups.

A first group of documents will be provided

as an interim submission on November 20, 1979.

This submission

will include currently available materials not previously
provided in response to the FOIA request.
A second group of documents will be made available on
December 31.

This will complete the response to Dow's request

for documents within the time period set by the Administrative
Law Judge in his order of October 25, 1979.

Respondent's

completion of this portion of its response depends, in part,
on information which Respondent is seeking through its own
discovery of the Department of Agriculture, and through
requests to certain members of the National Forest Products
Association.
Dr.
Dr.
.or.
Dr.
Dr.
Dr.
Dr.

Morton Beroza
Ralph Dougherty
Arthur Galston
Joseph Helson
Matthew Meselson
Robert Squire
George Streisinger

Documents and records responsive to requests directed to
these witnesses will be made available to representatives of

Dow either in Washington or in the laboratory or office of

455

 PAGE

NAME: HPW075010
1

RPTS MILLER

2

MILLER REPORTING.

·1

3

HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTAMINATION OF WATER

s

RESOURCES

6

Wednesday, Ma:i:ch 16, 1983

7

House of Representatives,

8

Subcommittee on Investigations and

9

Ove:i:sight, of the

10

Committee on Public Works and

1t

T:i:anspo:i:tation,

12

Washington, D. C.

13
14

lf?t.

�:r

15

{

The Subcommittee met, pux:s·.1ant to. ..notice, at 9: 35 a. m., in �

16
17

Room 2167, Raybu:i:n ( louse O;fice Building, Hon. Elliott H.

18

Levitas, Chai:i:man of the Subcommittee, p:i:esiding.

P:i:esent: Rep:i:esentatives Levitas, Albosta, And:i:ews,

19
20

Johnson, Lipinski, Molina:i:i, Nowak, Row+and, Sundquist,

21

Wise, McEwen,. Howa:i:d (ex officio), and Snyde:i: Cex officio.)

..

�
�

(_

456

..�J\/i>.--::-..·,
.. .

:_ ".J" ,_ ,:--_--:,· - • "'! ,

,.

·.

�....

. ··: ..

··.,..

•)

.·

�- 158 -

 NAME: HPW075010
Mr. SHYDER.

1048
�

Dr. HERHAHDEZ.

And I

I believed that.

1052

that has gone out in the press like that would be available.

1053

There are a lot of other things that were happening at the
same time.
When I took a look at the report after I got it, I was

1056

irritated by a numbe:r of things.

1057

document contained info:rmation about 245-T, a chemical that

1058

is contaminated with dioxin, and ther� had just been

1059

pages of testimony on 245-T and.dioxin taken at an

1060

administrative law hearing he:re in Washington, D. C.

Fi:rst, much of the.

so,ooo;

We have a staff of people who are well informed on that

1061

(

That is co:rrect.

think that the staff at EPA believes that a draft :report

1055

..

For th.e record, FOIA means they could have.

1051

1054

\..J�!

44

gotten it under Freedom of Information Act?

1049
1050

(

PAGE

I was not sure that what was in this report·

1062

subject.

1063

coincided with the conclusions that we were to draw, and in/

1064

the process--we are in the process of drawing up our

1065

conclusions of those 50,000 pages.
It appeared to me that what was in the firs� part of the

1066
1067

report might be at odds with what kinds of conclusions we

1068

were going to draw on the basis of that large body of

1069

information.

1070

do not only with my concern that statements like I read that

1072

Dow is responsible for this were not proven in the report,

4 7
. •'•..

. .. .
. .

.(

Another of the problems that I saw with this report had to

1071

l

.J

10'783: - :.C'
·t
4'.

163 -

•
•: • ,. : 91 • :�. :·
•

\•

•

i

....
, .. : ·c· �·. ; : .,t
• ' • .•
I

 J. MILTON CLARK, Health Effects Specialist, Toxic Material Branch,
(

Regjon V, Chicago, IL was interviewed on March 16, 1983, in Regjon
V offices by Sped al Agent LARRY HOLLINGSWORTH.
CLARK executed a siqned statement on March 17, 1983.

The or1g i nal

of CLARK's statement is maintained at the Office of Inspector
General, EPA, Washington, DC.

CLARK's statement with attachment is

repr oduced in its entirety as follows:

.c
. t
,
·:

..

(_

458
,. ..!·-· .. .

4 -

. .. '.
. ::......>;.;-�
.. ·. .:

� .. :

-�:.:.�!.i.,;�.:.,,....., ......

>,t'...::. t11 ;-.;;,

 (

(
STATEMENT

I, J. MILTON CLARY.,
state that:
I am a Health Effects Specialist, GS-12, in the Toxic Material Branch,
�aste Management Division. I have held this position since May 1980.
I am currently an Other Than Permanent Full Time (OPFT) and since May
1980, I have also been an Assistant Professor of Occupational & Environmental
Health Services at the University of Illinois, School of Public Health,
Chicago. From May 1980 thru approximately August 1982 I was assigned to
EPA Re�ion V under an Intergovernmental Personnel Agreement (IPA) from the
University of Illinois.
In late Decemoer 1980, Region V decided to compile historical data on
dioxin in the Great Lakes area. This decision was prompted by a Canadian
report to the U.S. State Department in December 1980 on the same subject.
J was assigned by my supervisor, Karl f. Bremer, to prepare a report on dioxins
and furan�. in the Great Lakes area. My first draft was completed approxi­
mately late Apri1 or early May 1981 (Attachment 1). Draft one was reviewed
intc-rna1ly in Region V. Based on the Region V peer review conunent s, draft
two (Attachment 2) was prepared and forwarded to the Clorinated Dioxin
work Group (CDWG} in early �ay 1981. 'This is normal procedure since the
CDWG �as the agency's "experts on dioxin." On May 13, 1981 I received a
call from Or. Shackelford, R & r EPA HQ, who thought the report should be
revised to reflect the problem 0n a world wide basis instead of a regional
basi.s. He felt it would inflame the public and implicate industry. I told
Shackelford that if HQ had objections to the report, they should be directed
to 1-:arl Bremer, 1".adonno McGrath, Val Adamkus or Dave Kee. I did not/do not
n:>l\ �nm., Dr.St,ac�eHord's
position relat�ve to�� (Attachment 3).
.
4 � C DWi:r

.

._;,_

On tn� same day T prepared a status report for Dave Kee, Director of the
Air & Hazardous Materials Division, to give him a working knowledge of the
study and what �e intended to do with it. (Attachment 4).
Or. �a_v H\ 1981, co111ments were provided by Sandra S. Gardebring, Region V,
Dir-:nc.,_r, Enfor�b:1c-nt Division concerning m_y first draft·which had already
�1i:"''' r�vised. $he tended to agree with my ori9inal report but offered
soa,f .:,,ristructive sug9estions. Some of her suggestions wtre incorporated in
lat�� jrafts (Attach11,�nt 5).
Or. �a.•· 20, 1981, l r·eturr,ed a call l had received from Dr. Paul Brown,
Co < :t,.:i�r:nan of tt:e CDWG. He said that "no c,ne disagrees with your conclusions"
but t.i�l�eves m_v C'C.J1i1111�nts might inflame the public. Moreover, there was some
cone.em aliout U1e new political ctmosp�ie:re in Washington. l told him we had
softenE:-d the conclusions---1 was already worUng on Draft 3 which reflected
the su9gestions by thc- Region V staff (Attachment 6).
I received a memo dated 5/26/81 from Donald Barnes to Karl Bremer. It contained
suygest ions and co,w:,ents and stated that the comments of the CDWG as a whole
would ue forthcomin9. Attached to the 5/26/81 memo was a memo dated 5/18/81
from Patricia A. Roberts, Attorney, Pesticides Division, EPA to Donald
Harnes and J'au l Brown (Attach11,ent 7). -Circa May 15 to the 31st 1981, I
completed Draft 3 of the report. Draft 3 softened my original conclusions

459

. 10625
.,

'5' � 7 /_;. s

'/' '("

- 5 -

.;._

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

,

'

. ..... t , .

..

t•'

'

 __,

and incorporated suggestions ,and comments from the Region V staff (Attach­
ment 8).
_On June 10, 1981, a Briefing Report was prepared for Valdas Adamkus,
iRegional Administrator, Region V by the Region V Air and Hazardous Division
staff (Attachment 9).
l received copies of two newspap,ir articles dated 6/14/81 which contained.
information on my dioxin report. From my review of the drafts, it would··
have had to have been taken froi�raft number 2 because of the conclusions
relating to the prohibition on the consumption of fish (Attachment 10).
'.,

.

FoJlowing a June 16, 1981 press release by the Michigan Department of Public
Health, a copy of Draft 2 or 3 was sent to the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources at their request. This is normal practice. lt was particularly
appropriate to send the report due to their concern generated by the press
and because the report contained large amounts of Michigan data on dioxin
(Attachment 11).
On June 18, 1981, Draft 4 of the report was transmitted to Marilyn C. Bracken.
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Program Integration and Information from
Valdas Adamkus (Attachment 12). Attached to Draft 4 was a risk assessment
document on ingestion of TCDD whi·;h was an expanded and·refined version of that
which had appeared in earlier drafts (Attachment 13). We separated this from
the report itself based on conference calls with Dr. Don Barnes, Dr. Marilyn
Bracken and others on the CDWG. The conclusions were also dropped over our_
objections because they (Bracken, Bar'nes, et al) believed the-report-should
only be a cornpi lat ion of data and that the conclusions were not supported by
information and discussion presented in the earlier-drafts. Although they
(Bracken, Barnes·, et al) knew we did not agree, we made the changes because ,the CDWG' would not approve the report as we had originally written it,
'.
We pointed out to them that we thought th is was a mistake since the public
was already aware of the report as noted in previous news articles.' It would
look like the agency was participating in a coverup.- Bracken s aid that
·_
Barnes would handle press inquiries to the changes.

'

I

�ubsequent to sending Draft 4 to Headquarters ( June 18r 1981), both
myself and Karl Bremer received a call from Dr. Don Barnes who provided
changes/deletions from the draft {Note: The Handwritten comments on
Attachment 12 were made by me and Karl Bremer). Subsequent to this conversation (latter June) I received a mark-up copy of Draft 4 in Don Barnes'.·
�ancwriting with additional changes and deletions {Attachment 14).
In late
i-'
':.·
J1une 1981 the CDWG to 1 d us they did not be 1 i eve the dioxin hea 1th effects
c-ould be adequately explained in so short a report. Again, over my objections, · .,,
'· •,
t\he health information was removed from the report and a very detailed summary
dioxin health information was attached.
, ;.'/
. ·· ··. ,,··:t"'/
N,o t e: T here were several conferences during this period in which Drs.
;_ l;i;
B,arnes and Bracken always participated as well as others from the CDWG.
,,,,.,
�e did not always know who was participating _since the CDWG was using a
•..• r...,�·;:
. .: ,:,tc
s,peake r phone. In one such conference call on June 25, 1981, Bracken· et
al raised a concern that the report was targeting Dow Chemical Company, ,
..-.,.,,,,."',·,I
Valdas Adamkus reas·sured them that this
. . was not the case (Attachment ,
15 i •
\r 1

°{

c·

--'...i'.:Jt?:

460

-r /v/Allrrn.. ;!� ·, � ;; £�
?

.

6 -

'.

o s·2:G/::\{

�-/.: : ;: :.°:i:;)-}! :/:t!: �'.{t'1t�t'
,'.:> ;�;,\:v:.:·-��,it��;S\��i.!:

 c·

Subsequent to the June 25 call but prior to July 10, there was a conference call
from Dow Chemical between myself, Dave Kee, Ron Kagel of Dow and another Dow
official (name unknown). The Dow officials began discussing the draft report
page by page.(I was told by Dave Kee that Dr. Hernandez provided the report to
Dow.) The Dow officials were critical of the report in general; specifically,
they wanted six lines on page 12 modified to reflect Dow's evaluation of their
own data which EPA had concluded in 1978 indicated a substantial risk of
injury to health and the environment as defined under Section 8e of the
Toxic Substances Control Act. They were also concerned with EPA's 1979 con­
clusion that their discharge into Tittabawassee and Saginaw Rivers and
Saginaw Bay in Michigan was the major if not only source of dioxin contamina­
tion found in these rivers and bay (Attachment 16). To my knowledge,
no one from Region V contacted Dow Chemical to discuss the report contents.
with them nor did we provide them a copy of the report.
Subsequent to the conference call with Dow Chemical, Val Adamkus told me
he was called by Ectyl Blair, Vice President of Dow Chemical, who told him
that if the six lines were removed from the report, Dow would totally endorse
it; but if Dow �ad valid points, they should be considered; if not� we should
keep the language as it was. As a result of my conversation with Adamkus
and Dave Kee, I prepared replacement language for the six lines on page 12.
I personally believed that the replacement language adequately balanced Dow's
position that there could be other pollution sources contributing to the
dioxin contamiration in the Saginaw River Basin (Attachment 17).
Several days following (before 7/10/81), Dave Kee told me that Val Adamkus
wanted shorter, less controversial language than I used in my "replacement
language." I told Dave that it was not rey understanding of what Adamkus
wanted. Dave said that we would never.get the six lines on page 12 to Dow's
satisfaction so let's just drop them because the report had already been
compromised and the Region needed to get the report released due to pressure
from the Governor of Michigan.
Shortly thereafter, Dave Kee told Walter Kovalik, who worked for Marilyn
Bracken, that the lines,were taken out because it would take too long to
resolve the language with Dow and the report needed to get out. Note: This
was prior to 7/9/81, although my notes - circled in red - indicate it was
8/10/81.
On July 9, 1981, Re��on V submitted draft number 5 to Marilyn Bracken which
had omitted the six lines on page 12 as well as the other deletions and
changes mentioned ecr-lier (Attachment 18). Following the submission of
draft 5, Dr. 8drnes �alled me �nd Karl Bremer and gave additional comments
and corrections.
At the same time when I was questioning Dr. Barnes about the removal of
references to Dow Ctemical from the report, 8drnes said that some of the
references were rel"OC'ved at Dr. Hernandez's direction.
On July 14, 1981, working draft 6 was submitted to Marilyn Bracken
(Attachment 19). On July 15 or 16, Dr. Barnes told me that lines 10, 11

(

461

-3- 7 -

 0L
,- nt
Al�
;"
ri�
'
"""'�"
�
stu.J
1
,
l\.lh;tit cJ.,\........ ..�J. E"PA'l
�
and 12Ain the introduction�should be removed and replaced with the language
'.' selected epidemiological studies"(Att�hment 20). When I asked �why. ,-,.c....
since this came from a prior EPA st�QY. �s1id that Or. John To<tdh��ter tJ-l
had directed this modification to .li&. ( Note: Todjlhunter was Bric:ms'n�w tJ.C....
superior). I agreed to a slight change but felt that the "meat" needed to
stay in. I talked to Barnes later who said that Adamkus would have to call
Headquarters 1f we used our existing language. The lines were removed when
the report was sent to Governor Milliken of Michigan on July 16. 1981
(Attachment 21).
�,_
On July 16, 1981, we asked Brac�en when the risk assessment would be re­
leased; she said that Hernandez had a copy and it was under review. The
COWG did not want us to get into a line-by-line di,scussion with the press
about the changes between the draft and final report(Attachment 22). They
said they would take care of press calls.
0

l'{'l't

(

After the final report was released(Attachment 23). I asked Dr. Barnes
about the status of the risk assessment document; if we were going to get
a revised version. Barnes told me Hernandez did not wish to release the
report because risk assessment of dioxin was a Headquarters responsibility
(Attachment 24). This has still not been made public nor has the Agency
circulated this type of scientific assessment to aid state health agencies
in establishing safe dioxin levels for fish consumption in the Great lakes
area.
I have read the foregoing statement consisting of four pages, each of
which I have signed. I fully understand the statement and it is true,
accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and beli ef. I have
made the corrections shown and placed my initials opposite each.
J have made this statement freely and voluntarily without any threats or
rewards. or promises of reward having been made to me in return for it.
I

Signed before me this 17th
day of March, 1983 at

:t:f,. !kf_;e_"'
,)

.

(signatur�)

b.=

l-.�d:�=fiX

;I

¼CJ:/}
C. C

(witness)

462
- 8 -

'•

•

f

•

 EPA: INVESTIGATION OF SUPERFUND
AND AGENCY ABUSES
(Part 1)

HEARINGS
BEF'ORE THE

,.

'•
: •, ,

8UBC0�1MITTB8 ON
OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
OF' TIIF.

COMAHTTEE ON
, .
.
ENERGY AND co:rvn�mRCE . ' '·':·,,
.
IIOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ... · ·:;;
'

'

I•

NINETY-EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION

'

i

•
I

,.

,,4
•

�

I

' •
•'

•

• ,
t • :�

·,,i

•

FEBRUARY 17, 1983-RETURN OF SUBPENA FOR DOCUMENTS
MARCH 7, 1983-EPA'S GENERAL COUNSEL: VERACITY OF TESTIMONY
AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST ISSUES
MARCIi 18, 1983-ALTERATION OF EPA SCIENTlFlC STUDIES
MARCIi 21, 1983-RITA
M. LAVELLE: CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS
•
I

1(.

i

•III

Serial No. 98-81
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

U.S. GOVERN MF NT PRINTING OFFICf:

30-79� 0

WASHINGTON : 1984

i

\

 -­ --

- -- ----�

,

:

__ ,...,

.,._r�·�· ··

:;.�;

.,.- ..

COMMl'ITEE ON ENERGY.AND COMMERCE.
,t:.•
.: .,,;<.,...,•_;.1 !�J- ....- .
.
.-,
-.:,7...,:. - -�· .:..··-·.-f::!:.
J
N
D
I
G
Li.."Michiga
·
Cho��:'-;..�1\�';,."'!';.��
D
H
n
E
N
•
O
•
. ..
<.:·, •," . .,, .:.:.-.
'
JAME.5 T. BROYHILL, North Carolina
IAMES IL SCHEUER, New York
NORMAN F. LENT, New York . . .
RICHARD L OTI'INGER. New York
EDWARD R. MADIGAN, Ulinoia
fIENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CARLOS, J. MOORHEAD, Ca1ifomia . ' I'IMOTHY E. WIRTH. Colorado
PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana
. MATIHEW J. RINALDO, New Jersey
JAMF.S J FLORIO, New Jer.;ey
. TOM CORCORAN, Illinois
WILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER. California
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
BOB WHITIAKER, Kansas
THOMA S A. LUKEN, Ohio
,,
DOUG WALGREN Pennsylvania
THOMAS J. TAUKE, Iowa
ALBERT GORE. J� Tennessee
DON RITI'ER, Pennsylvania
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI. Maryland
DAN COATS, Indiana
THOMAS J. BLILEY, Ja., Virginia
AL SWIFI', Washington
JACK FIELDS, Te:1as
'MICKEY LELAND Texas
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
HOWARD C. NIELSON, Utah
.CARDISS COLLINS,
Illinois
MIKE SYNAR. Oklahoma
:w. J. "BlLLY" TAUZIN, Louisiana
RON WYDEN, Oregon
·RALPH M. HALL, Texas
·oENNIS E. ECKART. Ohio
.WAYNE OOWDY, Mississippi.
BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico
JIM SLATI'ERY, Kansas
. GERRY SIKORSKI, Minnesota
'JOHN BRYANT, Texas
JIM BA TES, California
F'R>.NK M. PO'M'ER, Jr., Chief Counsel and Staff Director
SHARON E. DAVIS, Chief Clerk/Administrative Assistant
DoNALD A. WA1T, Printing Editor
ARN�LD I. HA...vENS, Minority Counsel

"i·:·- .. _···.-...

:...� ·.- .

�

!.

·.. ;._• �.
SUBCOMMITI'EE ON OVERSIGHT AND lNVESrlGATIONS

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chainnari :
JAMES T. BROYHILL, North Carolina
iALBERT GORE. JR., Tennessee·
BOB WHITI'AKER, Kansas
, JL\I SLATIERY, Kansas
THOMAS J. BULEY, Ja., Virginia
1 GERRY SIKORSKI, Minnesota
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio
: JIM BATES, California
\ JAMF.S H. SCHEUER. New York
� ,.
• .•
JAMF.S J. n,QRIO, New Jersey
1
t EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
, DOUG WALGREN, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL F. BARRETI', Jr., Chief Counsel/Staff Director
·
MARK J. RAABE. Counsel
I
PATRICK M. McLAIN, Counsel
:,
i
RICHARD A. FRANDSEN, Counsel

!

Il

BENJAMIN SME"J"HURST, Special Assistant
JAMES T. CHruSTY, Associa� MinorUy Counsel

III>

I

l

I

,.

,-:;

••'• ._•

! -­

-·-- -r... ..c..•. .

• ,1.. ,

•

·l •

···.

.,.
��-

>:-;: ·.

,'

.:"···�,

:-

'

.';

.•

··�:·:.••

,-:,!"-;_: -:_,�:•.:.;';-;i\.'1�";. • !),,•,;"•� •,/.:.: ..,�-.-, :,.;.• •,l,"'<
- ._.·:,:··, .. ,!· ·- :·:·11: .·:�,-,···=·- ,,i--;,,

0" •.'

I ,

•

�;..,i_;-� :_?�-.:.ho�;
-�11t��/�
�j;j/·.'J\�������-l�if��/: ?: :.�·T-:f.�;::/�--�-f�'i:�:-�::-;�:rt:·
.... •- _.___ .....;. .• :.! ..,.,;;::,;i_:,'a',!,-..1!U • .:Jr..b•,·•. �::. ;.,l.':.,') ;.,..- ;• ."j-!,
··"<;

"'=;:FLt·p��·;;_:��::.L�::�;�t;,:';�:�d'�';
�-�";·;· · ;_;;:�.i:�L�; : ·'./.'
�%l0
i

1

.

. ._

••'•_.,,,� :' •
--

·- · ::;_��\·:�·

·:::,"!,.:

0

':.·�-!� ��,)�� ��:�:\ :._-�:: ::· �·;.:.·..�--� ;�;, __·.: ·, �
7
::,. -r,: Jf. ;:.J::\ �.--.•• ·' __., -:.· : ·
•. ·,: �-- - :--:� • •
Page
.
... ......
•• ·:.:····; ._·"::·::··:·: .
...................
- ........ ·. 1�
March 18, 1983 " ·
· .i. · "•" ' ......·--'------'---'-'-_;.:._;__
391
· ·- March 21, 1983 ................____.;__c___c... _:_..:.,.._;._____ 543
.
.
..
_
Testimony of:· .. · . ' , .: - · .·::;.' · ··:, ·•
region V, Environmental Protection
Adamkus, Vaid.as V.1 Administrator,
.
Agency · ·
· · · ... ·· · . ,.........: .......................... ____ ........ 498
::'. Andersen, Robert M., Associate Regional Counsel, Environmental Protec· • ., · •
·
tion Agency ...:....:...............-�...:=-;. - ·
498
ss
ir o
A
R
n
.
��- �ta. � to ��.�:.������· �v nm�.�: 570
Brand, Stanley M., General Counsel, Clerk's Office, Ho use of Representatives ...... ---------.,--.,-----.. ·------------ 587
Bremer, Karl E., Chief, Toxic •'Substances
Environmental Protec· · '.. Section,
·
.. . ·
··
tion Agency
_ Clark; Milton J., health �ff� speci��ist, Environmental �rotection
Agency ..... _______________ .............·---'----··.. 498
Freeman, Phyllis, counsel, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee ...... 572
Kee, David A., Director; Air Management Division, Environmental Pro. tection Agency
··
"'
498
· ·
McLain, Patrick M., counsel, Oversight and Investigatioro� Subcommittee.
10
Perry, Robert M., General Counsel and Associate Administrator for Legal
and Enforcement Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency ...................
18
10
Raabe, Mark J., counsel, Committee on Energy and Commerce ................... .
Schaefer, Robert B., regional counsel, Environmental Pr otection Agency ... 498
Smethurst, Benjamin M., special assistant,
Oversight and Investigations
572
Subcommittee ................ _________
·
Material submitted for the record by:
· ·
: . · . :· ,
Environmental Protection Agency:
_ · �r'!id:���n�n� -� th� St rin�ellow H��do°:' W�te Si�.'..���: 208
Letter from Anne M. Gorsuch to Chair man Dingell, February 16,
··
1983, re delivery of certain requested documents · ·
8
Letter from Robert M. Perry ID Carol E. Dinkins, Assistant Attorney
General, March 2, 1983, re providing EPA employees with counsel
from the Department of Justice .....:....
·.;_..: 235
Letter from Edward A. Kurent, Associate Enforcement Counsel for
Waste, to Robert M. Perry, March· 4, 1983, re OEC-W resources,
··
75
and related documen
........ 152
Litigation referrals to the Dep�ment of Justice, tables ·
Memorandum from Robert M. Perry to John P. Horton, Assistant
· Administrator, October 16, 1981, re Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp ......
69
Memorandum from R obert M. Perry to the Administrator, November
8, 1982, re recusal from consideration of New Bedford, Mass., PCB
· ---­ 239
referral and related documents ·
·--..-e·-'·
Memorandums of the EPA Comptroller re 1983 budget-----­ !Zl
Screening p�edures for_ dOCU.ments prior to con�io?al review,
·
·
28
· ..........."---'--- ........ ..
chart and hst of steps
Statement·of employment and financial -interests. formlB '--'·'--­ 164
resources: Superfund and waste enforce. Summary of enforcement
·' · - - .,.,,
·· · · · ·
.. · ·
··
· 24
ment. table
for discussion at senior staff meeting with the Administrator,
-, Topics
· 203
·
"-.
· ·
September I, 1982 ..: · · -- ···
·
··.. --..
. : .. · -�,h.t:.c.::,: .. . ,· •. -�• .• .•:' .J •.
.
: -· .,.
... . �:. t!., -,·..,·;1111. ,.ti
� : ,.,,, ;; :·
; .••.
:..-:.,• ·•
-:.· •• !,
.·,· i:. ··, '.r- · 1:� !,-:
••.. ;--1 ..
:.:�.:-,: ., .,: � 'L
'., ,:.'.-;_.,:-' -.� .-�;--•. ··: ... .

-·- 1:�-� -

r,

-,'J;-...· ·l·-·· ..

.:

.... ., .. ·-· ..

Hearings held on: ·:-.
983

. ti�'?. {lsi

��y���= ���

·-··=-

I

 ,··-

_. '!
. ..

-..:: �.-:

.. •·
Preparation -=.,;l��·,..,!,:; �1 .:::-,-;.":."!"";.it•!..!>!::.;r,� le :;.<>..':..r;:c":
H
Contact· the 1\dministrator' s. secretary:' as 600� a&� __
a. ineeting.is Scheduled and ieviev
file folder
b. Hake list C?f items and ·questions and have aj)propriate
OLEC staff collect background briefing ·ma terials and
prl!!:pare response
:.;-:.;-:-:::- :,;: -:.-:
Prepare packa9e in :form similar .to· background� =- :
c.
I
�istrator s :>taff _ineeting·:.� . _.
9 f r
. ., _ P ��� �: � - ��
.•.•
-·-·.. -� ... -··-· �:, __ ·.-r.-: .:••_'"":- � ".). :·:.:
·
D. OGC Sta.ff: Meetings
.! :;:.=-·:-,.--: ;:�·!',.:� :-·:•:. -::·:.
1.
aa.ckground
....-.: _ .. �;,:-:., .: ;_1-_ _,:,
a. !Nery Monday, 12:30 p.m., Rm ·1001 WT,. with OGC
.
·:::,,: �:divisi.on
heads • -,:.· •. ·.- 0 i.:.;·_
·· •• :
• _
b.-.::First Monday in e.a.ch ?l'IOnth, . ._.ith all OGC supervisors
.
_
2.
L 7d by Mike Brown wi.th Bi.ll
Pedersen, Joel Mandel.man,
Rich.a.r� �ays, �inston Raythe, M&ry Boylen,- and myself
as addi..ti.Oni!!.l_ attendees
.:_.
·.
. .:.
..3. Revie--- with Mike in advance topics for-discussion'
E.
OEC Staff Mee�ings
l. B ac:kground
- : ., ; . :
a •. E:very 'l'Uesday, ll:00 a.m., Room 1001.lff, vith OEC
division heads
b. Have never attended any of these meetings · ·
Led by Mike Brown vi�h Ric:ha.rd ays, · an Winston Haythe
2.
�
. �.
as additional attendees
.
,. ·
Green Book .. · ,
XI.

_2·
:·-..�
.· t-·.•... ;
\•··"'-'···:
..., .·,�---

..

A.

Used for keeping no't."1!5/=eminders �on�erning meetings ..,.� .....
·· ·
,.
. ... wi.
Bob Perry

B.

Used fo; keepiri � tra�k of points off/added to individual
'" for pe formance appraisal purposes
OGC a."ld OEC sta ....
7

XII. · Hiring
A.

Bac:kgrou."ld
Per_ FY 1982, OLEC �t hiring ce:iling; no outside hirin
9
exc:eft for SES posi.tions (Water, Solid waste, and
_
Pesti..ci.des/Toxics) and perhaps criminal investigators
2. Por any applicant intervie._., Bob needs copy of 171 Fem
resume if poss;ble, and interview evaluation form (M��·
-·
·
Boylen has copi.es of the f.orm)
3. · Mary Boylen in charge of intervieving mechanics
a. Bas all reswnes/171 Forms received by OLEC on ..
'"ile
b. :contact with EPA' s Personnel offic:e
lJ • Dan Daniels and Doris HcCurdy handle ·oLEC SES
·
·
- .
applications
2) • R7gina �olomon handles GS and GM applications
4.
Applicant. i.ntervi.e""ed by me ·
a. ";fuen l�th Ploor requests someone from OLEC to
�nterv1ev applicant solely as courtesy
b: When Bob is running behind in his _schedole
1.

.::. �

the

·_1���IGATIO�{Q¥, SUPE�FUNifAN_� '.'.�--,�
:
f
l!;,
• :,,,':;: .. ,; - .... ·. AGENCY ·ABUSES-. ,v - _. ....· :,· .. '" ,.

c,
.t
:;':;Jl=t�,--;.-,i r ·.. , 1 ... -·: �-1:. .!·1./, --:�-··•.::: .;; .. ,,h�:
Scientific
A
Studies
·'·
.
-E
.,,-�
Alteration.of
P
..
:
.
J;5;"::,,:
·.,.:: -_:1 •
':f•,:.-,:.- ·- '
L

--�.::.

. ; ; :' -::
-----

·:-·
c"'\-�-j:),:
\ •-

{;i:-.-_/::..

.
d._•. : �
_«!;·,
_ . .,

�
t?&··J..·

....�..- l . , ...
;.-.-, .

,tl�;,.r: ..
.;�-

·

.:·...\

,·_- ;.�•;

FRID�Y! _MARCH 1_8, 198�

-

,.

Ho·usE 0-iREPRF.SENT��v�:� �. ··.-

·CoMMITrEE ON ENERGY AND CoMMERCE,
SUBCOMMITl"EE ON_ OVERSIGHT AND !NVF.STIG�TIONS,

Washington, D.C. ·
.
_ . _ ._ .
10:10 a.m., in room
at
,".',.The'"subcommittee met, pursuant to notice,
D.. Dingell (chair­
John
Hon.
Building,
Office
House
. , Rayburn
:·· ) presiding.
·Mr. DINGELL The subcommittee will come to order. This morn­
J!ig; the subcommittee continues its hearings examining the admin­
ty of the En­
. . �ation and execution of laws under the responsibili
_con­
particularly
is
Chair
The
Agency
P
otection.
�onmen�
�
_.
1;
Environ­
the
of
conduct
and
to
relating
matters
with
again
1\"J�;ned
',;4
Jtfmental Protection Agency. This inquiry is conducted under author­
·J(�ty of rules X and XI of the House, and is clearly within the juris;�ctional responsibility of this subcommittee.
·•;.Today, we·wiJl focus on the question of the integrity of the proc­
.. by which the Environmental Protection Agency discharges. its
.
.. .:· · ion to protect the health of the American people and the
·'.tsafety .of the environment. This is perhaps as crucial an issue as
tfany which this committee can examine: Questions have been· raised
-�,'!that an independent study by the Environmental Protection
was allowed to be manipulated, influenced, and compro-­
J�fAgency
,.
th ose _y,ho had _a vested interest in the �utcome of that
by
,_mised,.
·,,?
_
�f the sources
in qu�uon �as 1nte�a"� to be a
-·�·and effects of dioxins. It was also contemplated that the· report
would contain recommendations, where appropriate, for further re­
for the control of the�e substanc� in the region.
search
_
/
�
_ '!eeds and
'!jjf;<c_ · Durmg the l"?t two Congresses, this subcommittee conducted
hearings on the possible· adverse health effects from dioxin con­
: if_, tamination. We have looked at e xposure to dioxin from. agent
.'.$\I orange, from domestic spraying of forests and farmlands, and also
Missouri communities. As a Repre­
�-from merely living in small
c1?ga?, I � very awari: and trou­
Mi
of
State
the
:""'*· sentatiye from .
�l'' bled with the growing body of _scien tific evidence regarding the ex­
!5tence of �ioxins in the Great Lakes, th� su;rounding wa!ers, and
!J ·,t:_ m the fish m those Jakes !!-n4 waters. ThlS ra1Ses the question: How
.

fiif:'1-&� ·,.;;;;a�

;eview

�r
�(
I

_·Jj_
<

.

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

. .: .

•

:.,

•

. 1391)

-

'

-.�
.j
J

.s

. - ,• j

- .. - :l
.,

. ·:. l

.. ·-·-1
'

i

 502

503

.• I told Dr. Brown that we had softened the conclusion No. 5 coo­
. ceroing' the prohibition of fish consumption and revised this to con­
clusions No. 5 and No. 6 in a new draft, No. 3 of the report.
If you have a text with you, there, that .would be on page 61. We
. went through and numbered the text in its· entirety.
. Mr: BREMER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add something at
this point. The reason that those conclusions, or that particular
conclusion was softened was because we agreed in the region and
at headquarters that we were overstepping our role. We were
me.!dng ·recommendations related to fish consumption, and head­
quarters felt that this was. the-entirely within the purview of the
Food and Drug Administration, and also public health officials in
Michigan, to make statements as to where fish should be con­
sumed, at what level. That was our reason for that change.
Mr. Cl.ARK. OK.
.
.
To continue, shortly after May 26, Dr. Don Barnes, the other co­
chairman of the dioxin work group, supplied in writing his review
on the second draft of the dioxin report. And that of Pat Roberts,
an EPA attorney who had been active on the 2-4-5-T hearings.
Both commended the report but did offer a number of specific re­
marks relative to the draft to help improve and polish the docu­
ment.
On June 10, Dave Kee prepared a briefing document. Relative to
the dioxin problem in region 5, and a staff meeting was h:::!ti with
Mr. Adamkus on that date.
On June 13, the Toronto Globe and Mail, having obtained-ap­
parently having obtained a copy of the second draft from an un­
known source, reported information contained in the draft dioxin
document.
During the period June 13 to June 18, either the second or third
draft of the dioxin report was provided to the Michigan Depart­
ment of Natural Resources, with concurrence of headquarters. We
felt at this time, since much of the data was in reference to Michi­
gan, that we needed to supply them with a draft so they could
review the information in there.
Prior to the submission of the fourth draft to headquarters to
review-for review on June 18, headquarters requested that all
conclusions be removed from the document. The recommendations
No. 5 and 6, which suggested, only suggested to the FDA and
health-and to health agencies to evaluate fish contaminant levels
and perhaps reconsider their existing advisory, was considered by
headquarters staff again, as Karl has pointed out, even a more soft­
ened language was not considered to be appropriate.
. Also in the third draft, in the earlier drafts, was a short synopsis
on risk assessment which is based upon the Carcinogens Assess­
ment Group 1980 Report. And I used the data from that 1980
report in the attempt to look at the risk, again, of possibility of in­
gestion of fish.
That was asked to be removed from the document, and we ex­
panded that shortened .risk assessment into a larger, more compre­
hensive three-page document, and also sent that to headquarters
along with the fourth draft for their review.
Befor
1is fourth draft was sent in, we, including Karl and
others,
stioned the__ appropriateness of pulling out the conclu-

sions when the public· was already aware of the original conclu. , : .1 , •
•· •
sions.
· · We reconime�ded the conclµsions remain and text be polished to
better _support the conclusions. Headquarters told our office that
they would handle all inquiries relative to changes in the report
including removal of conclusion.!!, and insisted upon their removal.
On June 18, the fourth draft, and this is one I am continuing to
refer to, was sent in addition to this risk assessment to Dr. Marilyn
Bracken, who was Administrator of the Office of Toxic Substances.
As I said before, it also included a risk assessment piece at­
tached. I also-we asked here for prompt review of the dioxin
report and calculations of dioxin risks so these could be ·supplied to
� Governor Milliken of Michigan who was anxious .. to ·receive the
• dioxin information. Sometime 'after June 18 a copy of the draft
dioxin report was supplied by Dr. Hernandez to Dow Chemical. ·
The ·region was not consulted prior to the submission of that
draft to Dow Chemical, and the· draft was not circulated to experts
at universities or environmental groups for similar �er review.
Sometime after 'June 18 but before July 9, several conference
calls were held with Marilyn Bracken and members of the dioxin
work group with myself, Mr. Adamkus and other regional staff, to
discuss changes in the dioxin· report.
During this time I had several conversations with Dr. Barnes, as
did Karl Bremer, my boss. During this time period of June 18 to
July 9, changes in the report were discussed.
In a June 25 conference with Marilyn Bracken and region V
staff, and also at headquartt.:; were members of the dioxin work
• group, we explained once again the purpose of the dioxin docu­
ment. That was to compile regional data into one condensed form.
Over objections of region V people, including myself, a summary
�:' of health data relative to dioxins and furans removed from the
• · report to be substituted with a detailed scientific study of the same
• subject.
.. It was my opinion that a short synopsis of health data would be
valuable for the lay reader. However, headquarters staff believed
that the dioxin health information could
· not be properly or adequately synopsized in a short report.
Hence, the original health data was removed from the dioxin
' report, and 'a detailed scientific review of dioxin health data was
attached.
Also removed after ·June of-June 25· was a study which in­
volved-that had been published by Dow Chemical which indicated
a reduced ferµlity among wives of workers who had been exposed
to 2-4-5-T. That was also struck from the report.
Sometime during the period of June 25 to July 9, Dow Chemical
officials had a conference call with myself and Mr. Kee to comment
on the dioxin report. Dow officials went page by page with us
, through the document. And starting with the title, and moving on
through the entire document. One of the first areas that they were
concerned about was the reference to EPA's 1979 Alsea, Oreg.,
' study which showed an increased rate of miscarriages in areas
where 2-4-5-T had been used in forestry. They had asked · • lVe
other critical literature of that study included, even though
,nt-

Q")
':.J:)
�

 ·: _J

.504
I
_t· hose,"som
e .of..those studies had been sP9n·
ed .out to_them,.that
'l · · sored
ust
y
·;
·
·
·
•
"-'�
·
":.:
.......
,,.,, · · • · 0 -·c·•.;.-s· ·· ,,. ,�· · ••• · .
by ind r
. '';Among'.other
c�m��nts Dow. .;;,;�.�;;,-� hav�. their�;isk·��al­
\ uation reported 6.f dioxin,contaniip.atioil_in. Midlan d,- alSQ.included
with :EPA'.s preliminary findings as pointed. out earlier in 1978 of a
substantial risk·of injury_a,,i_defined in section 8( e) of.tl:1.E! '.foxic Sub­
·
..-· . sta6ces Control Act.- .. · ( ·��.; "':'.? _:.;-; {,�-1 '. i;·- •· 1 · · , ·. ,,t ,:: .:...,�,- ·; -,-, !l! ..
·
· :. Dow had concluded, in contrast to EPA sc ie ntists.-at headquar­
ters that �h e reported dioxin contamination insurance did .not con;
.
stitute a substantial
risk as.defined under TSCA: . .. ·. :
-EPA also concluded in ·early 1979 that the plant's discharge, that
. is, the waste water discharge from the Midland plant, represented
the major source,-if. not.only.source, of.dioxin.contamination.found_
in the Tittabawassee River and Saginaw Bay in Michigan.
These topics wer e discussed in reference on six lines on page 12
of the-fourth draft of the report. I should point out that when we
received the phone call from Dow Ch�mical, I think I coul d express
my feelings as saying that I was-mayb e the words to say would be
astounded that industry was
on a report that EPA
: . ·
·• commenting
had prepared."
, .. ·. . .
. . ,
I personally felt that this was entirely inappropriate; and should
not have-we should not have ever been put into a situation where
we had to tak e comments on a report that we had pre pared and
was being reviewed in headquarters.
Shortly after this time, Mr. Adamkus informed me that Ectyl
Blair, vice president of Dow Chemical, had called him and told him
that if the six lines on page 12 were removed fro!!' the report, Dow
would totally endorse the report.
· In the response to-in. response to this inquiry to Mr. Adamkus,
Mr. Adamkus came to me and asked if there was any credence to a
differing position, and, if so, to perhaps flesh that language out.
. If there was not credence to a differing of opinion, and if I be­
lieved that there· was·not a difference that needed to be written in
the document, that the lines could be as were in that particular
document.
·
I revi ewed Dow's comments and, with Mr. Kee, we· reconstructed
the six lines in that document to a much longer version, incorpo· ·
·
rating Dow Chemical's position.
·
. Shortly .after this time, Mr. Kee believed that it would take too
long to discuss .the- new section• with.Dow and resolve the language
with Dow. Moreover, Governor Milliken of Michigan, and I will
have Mr. Kee tajjo about this perhaps some more, Governor Milli­
ken was pressuring our office to release the study. And these lines
were a· center of great controversy. For these reasons;• Mr. Kee de­
cided to drop the lines from the · report, although references to
EPA's assessme nLof .Dow's environmental data remain in the
re
rh:rlly �r .this time ..i"'r�membe; a conversation with Dr.
Barnes. that some of the ·changes in later drafts of the report had
·b�n · dictated by Dr. Hernandez I do not recall, however, those spe· -- · ··· "
·· · �·,.,
· ·-cific changes.
On July 9, the fifth draft of the report was sent to Dr. Bracken
at·hea
arters which had incorporated written and v erbal com­
m ents .
. n headquarters, and verbal comments fi:om Dow. Shortly
.

·i

. -..

fu"

1

<-

"' ' <

,�'@f;/�/'':: .•. , •. ' , �(; ,·

'. l

�J!if!;ei-,t hlJ!.tjme; Pi:, ��e,sj:al!�-�!.Bremer,".�d Karl to ok_ do\vJ1 \
<remarks'that the dioxin··work group or Dr._Ba;nes had made.· 1:n:i- 1, · · :';
'corp<>rated these into the' sixih draft: .: .. :·-;'.' ··c ,:-;f <. ,,,-. -.� ;;··�. L �· I
-;-- Mr. BREMER. Mr."Chaimian, Karl Bremer. _;_,, ·. ,:.:-::·,: :--:··.::,-..� :, ,: · · .'· ·. :
. '\{3; On .jl'uly _14, the sixth·'.dra!i,.:we were �e!'ching the �n"!l stage, _. · '.. · ·. '··,11
, ·:: �rying _to get .t1!e document m_ final con�1tion so th�t it could be
·
. ,.':sent out. The sixth _draft,.Vi/ll! sent. to Dr. Bracken directly at _her · · .• · · ·. ··j
,t,1request, .- This draft. incorporated . _changes as requested by Dr. 1
, J�racken and the dioxin.work group members .. Between July 14 and:'! j
-. the final data of release of the report; which was July 16, Dr.,
J'.s_Bracken called me in the morning. Dr. Brack�n indicated that she: I :
·.wanted all references to the Alsea, Oreg., studies removed from the , :
'}�poi-t._Th�e_.w.ere_s pec�fic;µJy lines 10, 11; 12, O!'_I'age ..!,_of_ the�<--_
·
· - - ·
•sixth draft· , ·
· · ," ··· · ·· . · ·
report,
e
th
from
lines
e
thos
of
removal
� I initialiy resisted any
. andasked at that time why at this late date were these lin�s being ·
. ,:
,,}r emoved? You had reviewed the draft before. Also, knowing that
the Alsea .st).l!,ly \i!'Q.�n supl'2� _by_the_Agency in. the past,�_,,.
.,-,'.� . I also poin� out tliaf Barbara Blum, who had �ee!' the forme_r
it"i Deputy Administrator of EPA, had used these studies m open testi'•111} mony in the past. Dr.. Bra!;){en.told.me _that.her.job. :was. on,_the_li.t).e_
' j during that discussion, and she told me that Dr. John Todhunter
.I, had instructed her to have these lines removed.
' ,:; Dr. Bracken also t.old me that Dr. John Todhu nter had reviewed
the document, and that these were his or�ers to her. At that t½'te
• �;, Dr. Bracken told-I· asked Dr. Bracken, Why are ;i:ou removmg
1 these lines? Do you feel that. they should be removed?
:1bout the
f/- She said it didn't make any difference how she or I feltImes
rom
.::< validity of thes e studies .or about the removal of· these
•; the report. -·. · ... · ·, ,... •,. ..• ··
. .
: ·, f ,
..,,.Ji She stated. in 'addition that no headquarters.concurr ence. on Jhe ___
removed. Now I W';ffit
liries
'";cr.eport would.I>!! giv.en.\lllless
;1; to indicate to you at this_ time that the reaosn that w e were trym_g
,i. to g et some type of concurrence from headquarters on th e report IS
.'t,· that we. are not tryip.g ,.to distribute a minority report, we are
.I,,( trying to distribute a document from the Ag ency which represen ts
,: a unified EPA p<>!!itiOn qn' dioxin, not simply a regional position. ,.
.. : , ,._
.�:.',., I will give this_ back.to.Dr. Clark at this tim e.
called_
fl· · Mr. CLARK. On either.•J.Jll,Y 15 or July 16, pr... Barnes__alsg
� .I_I!_� 3!!d__ �ISLl!!eh .th11lll:!.�.lm!l!!...!h���!)l�-!.efeged to had to.be
·
,
: .
�:;;, remov ed 1rom t e report.���·--.:-··- . .
I asked him why do·_these hav:e to be remo':'ed, andJ?!:..13.�es ...
directly communicated. the se.Jo him.
said that Dr. TodhunterJM!d
""
', .. I objected· imd-said thafT<lid'.noCwant to have these .lines re-·· r:'§j}f moved. I would take a chajii;�.in language but I did not want them
. t.bac!,_ talk�_� D!· Todhunter and
CD
�-¥i'. to be removed,.J?r--�es..,_w_!!n
�- said.that these lines liiiif.i9.�_rei;nov�: _And tliat'/f t�ere were any
,rjl
�/,; obj�io'¥1 we v.:ould have -� _orclj.est�ate �ose obJecbons from our
,· · · · .
region directly into headq\lal'ter&'.n:,,,:;,,! ,:·,•:r· ·: .
·'"; . I actual!� believe �t _ � . conversation r bad . occurred before
"fffi• Mr. Bremer s conversation,:wi�_Dr.-Bracken.,_:,. ,. , . ·. .m. her
�k- . I should like to point out 88,oneJinal statement here that
May 18 review, Patricia Roberts.",who :waa an _EPA attorney on t):ie
1fi
-�-5-T case inv_ol�
<?
·.
:-

i

.

I
_1,;;;;-:·

: ""i
. ·i

i

those

were

I''":·.
..,t"· ·

ff
i;

.1

lA'!,�':�C.: .�-S���-� t·�:5;.?8C

 506
' cally asked, or sugge!rted, that the Alsea study. be� included in the
. i repg_,:t_apd certain lariguaieiiut "into tlfatreport:' c:: ! l ••,; r ·a_··,·. ·,- .,
\ ·-And I complied with tliat, and that·was the. reason �hy· it was in
the report. I think that is all that I have to say-at this �ime. ·, ·
.. Mr. ADAMKUS. Mr. Chairman, that describes the chronologial se­
quence of events of the report from the regional point of view.. ··
Mr. SLATIERY. Are ther� any other comments? < ·. '·. • •
Mr. BREMER. The only comments I have about this are that those
documents were supplied to Mr. Dingell; I mean the background
documents that were used in our explanation of the chronology of
·· · ·what actually occurred. '
. · ·
Mr. SLATIERY. At this time the chair would like to recognize the
gentleman from New York for questions, Mr. Scheuer.
Mr. SCHEUER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Adamkus, we appreciate your forthright testimony and that
of your colleagues, Mr. Bremer and Dr. Clark, very much.
Mr. Adamkus, did Dr. Hernandez ever request that Dow Chemi­
cal be permitted input into this working draft· during the internal
review process?
Mr. ADAMKUS. Not-directly requested personally in a special tele­
phone call to me. I believe, Mr. Chairman,. there are a lot of events
leading to Mr. Hernandez's involvements specifically with me.
Those are actually not related to your direct question because .he.
was not involved from the very beginning of that report preparation that was described here by my colleagues.
. .
Mr. SCHEUER. As I understood it, the Perry review process· takes
place on the final report, the final internal report of the EPA .sci­
entists. Isn't that correct?
Mr. AnAMKUS. Correct.
Mr. SCHEUER. When they have finished their work, when they
have done their thing, so .to speak, that final report is. then distrib­
uted for peer review, -and it seems to me that would be the appro- ·
priate t(m!l for the Dow Chemical professionals
and experts to have
·
··
had their mput.
Isn't
it
unusual
for
an outside private sector company to provide
.
mput, whether invited or not, during the process by which the EPA
scientists are doing their final internal scientific study? .
Mr. ADAMKus. I agree with you. This is a very unusual case.
Mr. ScHEUER. Mr. Adamkus, did Dr. Hernandez ever characterize
the ¥,ay 1981 draft by Dr. Clark here as containing "sorry sci·
·
ence, or words to that effect?
Mr. An'.'MKUS. I held a conversation, I believe this was my third
conversat10n, and the'l!Bst one, direct with Dr. Hernandez when we
had discussed the report, and people who are working on the
· ·
report. And he has expressed his opinion to me. ·
· Mr. SCHEUER:--Did you indicate to Dr: Hernandez during this
period what you just indicated to us, that ·it was unusual for an
outside company who. was ·directly involved in the internal study
process, to be intervening through the good graces of Dr. -Hernan­
dez? Did you indicate this was unusual and perhaps-improper?
Mr. ADAMKUS. Mr. Congressman, in light of the tone of the con-·
ve�s';'tin� I don't believe I had any chance to express my personal
opm101
was told.
.
Mr. L----'UER. You were told? · .

507.·
:1;'·

•

• • •

•

•

.

•

• .

.

•

.

'

·-

. · �- M�, AnA'i.iirns." About his <ipinicin about. the report and abo_ut the·:;.
·..�ple·.: ·.: ;··,;:··�·� ,�·;�f:'.i7-:'rf:':-:..;·· ... ··.:,.�': :-!:-· ·· ;.- : _. :S'! ,.,., i. ·:
!IMc Mr. ScHEUER. Did you assume that you -yer!l getting your march­
,.,.fag orders _from Dr.· He1;1and� wJ:en he. md�cated � you _th!'t he : .
· �·wanted the Dow Chemical scientISts to review thIS prehmmary
�report before it was finalized during the study process, and that he c:
and integrate them into the
•expected you to take their suggestions
.
. .a ...-r.<.' ·.:.-.:,' ·.
.
:
.
'·
.
.
.
. ;report? .
,ii' Did yoii f4?el you were _getting your ma_rching orders? ·.:' ·' ·.· ·
· ·_,, Mr. ADAMKUS. I received the marching orders, but not · m the ·
·: '·
·· ·
·.
· }Jight that you have described }t to IDE:, .
:,'i; Mr ScHEUER Tell us what impress10n you did receive.
understand the entire situa­
'"ff· Mr: AnAMKU�- If you would likeyouto the
very· first telephone call
·i tion I· would like to d_escribe to
and third, which prob­
s�ond
the
through
"and'going by sequence
probably answers a lot of
and
story
entire
the
you
for
unfolds
ably
l.
·
·
, your questions.
;, Mr. ScHEUER. Thank you ve'ry much. Dr. Bremer-' ' Mr. AnAMKUS. Can I do this? This is what I am asking you, Mr.
: Congressman.
. :; Mr. _SCHEUER. Of course.
. .
. •J Mr. AnAMKUS. After the June -13 date was mdicated, before the
� { Toronto newspaper story, Dr. Hernandez for the first time called
-� me personally on the phone inquiring about the published �tory
that the regional staff has
and strongly indicating or implying
·
·
· -� leaked the story out to the pres_s.
.
.
1
,. "; I had advised him that I am extremely disturbed about the .!:.::_ clos�re of that working document and. that _I h�ve conducted al­
"1-� ready among our regional .me1nbers an mvestigation a!'d _requested
the division director immediately to fmd out how did it happen
�- that the report has been released. ·.
, ,;. And all my indications are -that there is absolutely no way that
the report has been released fr.om the .regional office, because I was
told that only one single copy at that tim!l has been sent frol!' the
group, and that 1s the
;/ region on to the headquarters to the working
·
involvement.
: ·,'. extent of the regional
�, We were told by the regional people that when they received the
one single copy from us, they xeroxed additional copies and ha':'e
�-;, distributed those copies among the working group members m
'.fi_ � headquarters. And the next thing we fotlhd out was that they
sources-t�at the
�$ found from someone-I don't know-undisclosed
with the
�i newspaper. has received in Toronto a copy of the report
·
•. ·( removed title page which said a draft document.
-;} Mr. ScHEUER. Mr. Adamcus.
. ·>1, Mr. SLATrERY. The time-of the_gentleman has.expired. T�e Chair
e
t
Ohio.
:. :.- at this time would like to recog nize h gentleman from
could
i, Mr. OXLEY. If I may follow up on the questioning, if you
.

i;

;,,.r,
.f

.J

•"t

�. � �- . - � .
. iJ con t'1nue your answer.

·lt?t·

. ·

Mr. AnAMKUS. I want to give you actually the answer what was
asked to me. So I don't believe-I am at the end of the conversa­
J§,,'.'- tion, I can speed it up, that I have �onvinced Dr. Hernandez that
s. A
the document to th!!
I: _the region has not intentally leaked call
}l,�agam.
me
came
to
telephone
second
a
couole davs later

r·

00
CD
-.:1'

..

 EPA OVERSIGHT ON DIOXIN CONTAMINATION

HEARING
BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES,
AGRICULTURE RESEARCH AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION'
MARCH 23, 1983

[No. 68]
Printed for the use of the
C9mmittee on Science and' Technology

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

29-956 0

'!Gr

WASHINGTON : 1984

 ... .

�

.,

}l

---­

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

;.

COMM!TI'EE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
DON FUQUA, Florida, Chairman
ROBERT A..ROE., New Jersey
LARRY WINN, JL, Kansas
GEORGE E. BROWN, Ja., CaliCornia
MANUEL LUJAN, Ja., New Mexico
JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York
ROBERTS. WALKER. Pennsylvania
RICHARD L. OTTINGER, New York
WILLIAM CARNEY, New York
TOM HARKIN, Iowa
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Ja.,
MARILYN LLOYD, Tennessee
Wiscoruiin
OOUG WAI.GREN, Pennsylvania
JUDD GREGG , New Hampshire
DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas
RAYMOND J. McGRATH, New York
ALBERT GORE, Ja., Tennessee
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico
CLAUDINE SCHNEIDER, Rhode Island
ROBERT A. YOUNG, Mwouri
HAROLD I. VOLKMER, Mwouri
BILL LOWERY, California
BILL NELSON, Florida
ROD CHANDLER, Washington
STAN LUNDINE, New York
HERBERT H. BATEMAN, Virginia
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
SHERWOOD L BOEHLERT, New York
DAVE Mc:CURDY, Oklahoma
ALFRED A. (AL) McCANDLESS, California
TOM LEWIS, Florida
MERVYN M. DYMALLY, California
PAUL SIMON, lliinois
NORMAN Y. MINE:I'A, California
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MICHAEL A. ANDREWS, Texas
BUDDY MAcKAY, Florida
TIM VALENTINE., North Carolina
HARRY M. REID. Nevada
ROBERT G. TORRICEW, New Jersey
FREDERICK C. BOUCHER, Virginia
J. H. POORE, E:tec.utive Director
- RoeERT C- K!:rcHAM, Gtntral Counsel
REGINA A. DAVIS, Administrator
DAVID S. JEFFERY, Minorit, Staff Direc.Wr
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE RESEARCH AND
ENVIRONMENT
JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York, Chairman
RAYMOND J. McGRATH, New York
TIM VALENTINE, North Carolina
TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CLAUDINE SCHNEIDER, Rhode Island
ROD CHANDLER, WB5hington
MICHAEL A. ANDREWS, Texas
BUDDY MAcKAY, Florida
TOM LEWIS, Florida
ROBERT C. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
GEORGE E. BROWN, Ja., California
(D)

.CONTENTS
WITNESSES
March 23, 1983:
David Buzzelli, manager of manufacturing and environmental services,
Michigan division, the Dow Chemical Co., Midland, Mich., accompanied
by Dr. Perry Gehring and Dr. Robert Bumt>..,-=-=--c--=---Valdas V. Adamkus, Administrator, EPA Region V, Chicago, Ill., accom-,
panied by Robert M. Andersen, Associate Regional Counsel for Ware!,
Toxics and General Administration; Gary A. Amendola. Chief, Ohio
Field Investigations Section; Karl E. Bremer, Chief, ro�ic Sub�tances
Section; and Dr. J. Milton Clark, Health Effects Specialist, ToXJc Sub­
stances Se<:tion----------···-=--:--:=-:--:---:--::--:-····
Charles Poole, doctoral student in epidemiology,
Harvard School of Public
Health-,,,-:-=--:-=-·............ ----------:-:....···-:--::--,--..
Dr. Vemon N. Houk, Director, Cenrer for Environmental Health, Cenrers
for Disease Con trol, Public Health Service, Department of Health and
Human Services, __________

....
3

124

157
173

APPENDIX
ADomoNAL MATERIAL SuBMnTED FOR THE RECORD
Dioxin repo>rt.--------------- ____
Original report
Report after editing_________
- -...,-;:-_-.,....., ..::::::::;::::;:.
---_
Memo written by Dr. Clark outlining the mandated changes in the
Pro�b�h·d�f�·study in Midland..... ::::::::::... --------­
Material supplied by DOW:
Information on dioxin sampling at DOW plant-----·----Statement by Paul Oreffice on dioxin study ____________
Dioxin and human healt:h..------------------Article on reproductive events and dioxin ..........
Article on dioxin and reproductive events .............. .. .
Dioxin in the environment:
Article on 11trace chemistries of fire"------------::::::::::::.::
EPA analysis of article ---------···..................... _
---Answers to questions.

--_::::::::::::::=

mu

193

226
254
274
277
298
313
323

356
375

386
411
418

 150
really work for is the American people.What peopl e seem to stop
to think here is that Dow Chemical was not calling the shots. You
are really there to protect a lot of people from ge tting hurt. The fact is a lot of people have gotten hurt.· You know, sitting there
today, some people are going to get very hurt.
We have seen birth defects. We can suspect cancer. You know
some people are going to .die, and no one was there to protect them,
all beca l!,S8 you were concerned about Mr. Hernandez, Mr.Hernan­
dez was concern ed about Mrs.Burford, and Mrs. Burford was con­
cerned with Ronald Reagan.
Mr.ADAMKUS. I don't have a comment, sir, because you don't
listen to us, what we are telling you all the time.That is all that I
can say.
Mr. ANDERSEN. I would like tJ:> respond.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Go ahead.
Mr. ANDERSEN. Re gion V has continued in its efforts to study
and analyze the problem. One of the most important aspects of
that proble m is the discharge into the Tittabawassee River. For a
period of approxi"mately 1 to 1 ½ years, we negotiated with Dow to
attempt to get the information necessary to develop that permil It
is a matter of fact that the State of Michigan is the primary agent
in developing that permit.
However, we offe red our technical and legal assistance to them,
which includ es use of our legal staff and our technical staff, to de­
velop a BAT permit. We went to Dow, tried to negotiate that with
them. When it became obvious that it was impossible to ge t the in­
formation-the chairman questioned them, and they have assured
us they will let us on the site now if we have protocols.I wish the
chairman would have asked them that a year ago, about the 308
request, because we are now in court simply be cause region V will
not quit, will not stop pursuing the information that is necessary.
We will assist the State in developing the NPDES permit.
In addition to that, almost simultaneously, we embark ed on a
caged fish study, which Mr. Amendola and the scientists can speak
to.That is an integral part, even though Dow at the same time re­
fused to let us put fish in its effluent on its property and refused to
let us sample fish from its sewage lagoon. We moved in the direc­
tion that we thought was the gre atest concern, and that is in the
river.We moved as expeditiously as possible, completely unrelated
to the data gathering.
I think the Congressmen should recognize that the purpose of
that study was to gather existing information. That information,
for the most part, existed in the lite rature already. The enforce­
ment efforts and the efforts that our water division undertook were
something independent from that and are proceeding.
Mr.ToRRlCELU. What finally is your expectation now of where
we go from here with Dow Chemical.
Mr.ANDERSEN. The re ar e a number of things that have to be
pursued.The 308, the first question, we litigated this issue already,
by the way, in the Illinois district court, whe re the region, with
very little assistance from headquarters or the Department of Jus­
tice, litigated the issue and won it on December 28. We have the
authority under 308 of the Clean Wate r Act to go up the pipe to

151

obbilil information

in internal waste streams, to ob� �orma·uon about processes. That is on appeal in the seventh circUJt. ..
I think that will have a trem endous impact on the Dow litigation, which is more or less the same questi�n.
..
Another thing that has to be addressed is t_he 18;Jl d deposi�10n_ �f
dioxin on the site. To date, all that we have, in spite of continum_g
requeste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, IS
-Dow' s own sam-ples. They could not tell you today where those five
samples were placed, but I think I can tell you that they a�e wrong
at least in telling you that all five of them w ere on the site. I be­
lieve two of them, at least that is what the scientific people tell me,
are around the site.
We do not have enough information.� Mr.Ad8;ffik�s h!3-5 stated
elsewhere, the dioxin work group just m the region is nght now
working on further responses to the problem, both on the land and
with respect to their discharge.
Mr. ScHEU�R.Would my colleague yield?
· Mr.TORRICELLI. Certainly, Mr. Chairman.
Mr.ScHEUER. Mr. Anderse n, as you have no doubt noticed, we
are very much conce rned about the testing of the soil sampl es and
whether that was adequate to protect the public interest, and you
have no doubt gleane d from the convers�tion that too_k place beforee
that we have every intention of requesting_ EPA region V and t�
m
Centers for Disease Control toge ther to design a protocol and go_ng
and do an absoh.:�olv professional, painstakingly thorough sampli
within the county and within the confines of the Dow plant l? _de­
te rmine whether the concentrations of dioxin ha�� reached c:it1cal
levels !.�:-t. imply critical health effects to the citizens of Midland
County and to the employees of Dow Chemical.
We have had reports, and these are not scientifically valid! that
of a sample of 40 women, 40 pr egnant �omen who are married to
Dow engineers, chemists, and .profe�s1?nals, that 90 perce�t of
them had serious birth defects m their infants or suffered misca�­
riages. We intend to ask you to investigate that, as well as the soil
samples.
..
In view of your own skepticism that you have e xpressed about
the five soil samples that Dow evaluated and analyzed, how woulds
you re act to a formal request by this subcommit�, and perhap
m
the Health Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee, to egove ry
there and do a job and find out what the truth is, _turn over e an_d
stone that needs to be turned, and tell the American_ �opl .t 1s
�
the Congress what your estimate is as to the level of dioxin thi
e ncan
there and whether this constitutes a health threat to the Am
people, the residents of M_idland County, and the employees and
.
their spouses of Dow Chemical?
all _due �
Mr.ANDERSEN.It would be absolutely positive, and, withmy
right r-,.
to
man
e
gentl
e
th
_
respect, Mr.Chairman, I must say that
as a
day,
this
of
as
that
on
g
workin
e
ar
e
w
and
you
is ahead of
�
matter of fact.
ncy,
e
ag
the
There are any number of tools that are available toand
the y �re
all of which can be stopped at the gate of the plant,
e being
ar
tools
Those
ck.
bailiwi
my
is
which
s,
all legal problem
say
would
I
,
e
for
e
r
e
Th
es.
purpos
analyzed right now for those same

 Mr. CHANDLER. Would the report that is in question here be used
by the State of Michigan in the permit process or in the enforce­
ment of its laws for regulation of water?
Mr. ANDERSEN. If you are talking about the i nitial report that
Dr. Clark developed-­
Mr. CHANDLER. Yes.
Mr. ANDERSEN. Tha t was not the purpose of the report.·
Mr. CHANDLER. What was the purpose of the report?
Mr. ANDERSEN. The purpose of the n:port, I think as Mr. Adam­
kus stated, the primary purpose, if I can repeat his testimony, was
to compile the rt!evant existing data in one place for its most effec­
tive use i n dissemination i n the ongoing efforts that develop the
control strategy for dioxin emission.
Now as to a permit, t he type of inform ation that we would re­
quire is very specific. It is not information about dioxin that is i n
the river. It is information about the toxic chemicals that are in
Dow's internal waste streams on their property and the processes
that discharge those particular chemicals. That was not informa­
tion that ever existed in the report that Dr. Clark had begun to de­
velop.
Mr. CHANDLER. What I am trying to get at is sort of the so wh
o_f all of this. If that report had-well, let me ask you another queas­t
tio n.
I believe it was you who talked about Dow litigation?
Mr. ANDERSEN. Th at is correct.
Mr. CHANDLER. What is the Dow litigation? What is at stake
there?
Mr.. A!'fDERS_EN. The Dow litigation is a chase that region V, after
negotiat ing Wlth Dow for a period of to 1 ½ to obtain all of the
in­
fo rm?tion that I have jus t referred Lu, the internal waste stream
data and the process-re lated data, after being unsuccessful i ob­
taining that by making formal requests, region V in April of n1982
felt that it had no choice but to refer that matter to EPA head­
quarters for litigation, where we go to the court and ask
de­
claratory judgment, saying EPA has the right under sectionfor
308
the Clean Water Act to obtain this information that is internal, oof
n
the property, and the process information.
Now Dow's greatest concern in that regard, as they ha ve stated
here today, is tha t the process information at least-th
y are
claiming there is a proprietary interest, that it contains i neform
tion which, if released, would give their competitors an advantagae­.
We do not believe that that is co rrect, and we have fil
e I
b_elieve just 1 month ago, 1 ½ months ago. Dow has notedasa ofcasthi
s
tune answered.
Mr. CH"'.-NDL:ER. ls the que stion of who is the primary co�tributor
to con�mmat10� of the Tittabawassee and Saginaw Riversis th at
a question that 1s of impor ta nce in that
litigation?
Mr. ANDE;RS�N. Ab sol utely. The whole purpose of the litigation is
to control d1oxm before it gets into the river.
Mr. CHANDLER. If I can stop you there because want this
answer to be very clear , when yo u, EPA, the headquIartersI do
not want to get into the Torricelli misunderstanding here-wh
en
EPA asked for and got the change from "EPA concludes" to "EPA

speculates" then that is important to the outcome of this litigation
that you are discll8.5ing? ,.
,·Mr.ANDERSEN. As a lawyer, no-I-.
.
Mr. CHANDLER. Oh. I misunderstood you. I thought you Just said
.
that. .
.
of Mr. ANDERSEN. No. As a lawyer, the information that ism that
report does not have any impact on the liti gation.
.,, Mr. CHANDLER- But I askedMr. ANDERSEN. That was information that had been rele ased
before. That conclusion preceded 1979, I believe. Tha� w�lUld not
have an impa ct on the litigation whic� was re�ly seeking informa­
tion which was different from the mformatton that we already
have.
Mr. CHANDLER. All right. I will not be a t 1t to d eath. I thought
you said-and this is from Buzzelli's testimony. He said that Dow
has been-the statement was made that Do� has been the primary
contributor to contamination of these two nvers. My 9uestion was,
with regard to this litigation, does that m ake any d1�nce and
re
e
and" spec ulat"a
es
how you couch that. The terms " �o.nclu d"
_
very different ones. What I was _dn�g �t was, does that n: ake any
difference to t he outcome of this bt1gat1on. Your a nswer is apparently no, it does not.
Mr ANDERSEN. No. The outcome of this litigation, Congre ssman,
will be whether or not EPA has the authority unde r section 308, as
a m atter of law, to go up the stream, _get internal waste stream
data and to get process-related infor mation.
�- CHANDLER. If you don't, we ought to change the law so that
you do.
· �as very c I ear
Mr. ANDERSEN. The law_ is yery clear to_ I!l e, and. 1t
to the District Court of Illinois when we ht1gated 1t this fall.
Mr. CHANDLER. I have just one fmal question fo r Mr. Adam� us .
You talked about, on page 4, the deletion of se ver�l conclus1ons
and recommendations contained in the rep?rt re l�tt�e to human
consumption of contaminated fish, a s ynopsi s of dioxi n and furan
health data, and references to EPA's Alsea-that is how you pronou nce it; I used to fish in it-Oreg., dioxin study.
What is the significance of those items? What were the conclu­
sions a nd recommendations that you had i n the report that were
deleted? What is the signifi�nce of those, a�so _this he�lth data,
and the refer ences to the EPA s Alse a , Oreg., d10.xm study.
Mr. AoAMKUS. The significance of Alsea , as told by my staff, �as
a great on e . I believe th at they can repeat to you t he scie nt ific
basis, how t h ey arrived at this.
.
.
I believe at that point I was more or les s relieved, kno�m g t hat
this i nformation already was a public document released m 1978. If
that would be the hangup of approval or disapprova_l of the :eport
at that time, it was not impacting our �ork or the mf�rmation. It
is not suspended from the general public. It was a public record. It C'l
was a matter, probably, of principle that it was not allowed _ to _beJ ..._
included in that particular work, but I would re_fer for the s1� 1fi -�
cance from the scientific point of view-I would like to defer thi s to
Mr. Bremer.
Mr. CHANDLER. All right.