Home  |  Out & About  |  Dining  |  Events  |  Singles  |  Classifieds  |  Archive  |  Advertising

Death By Dioxin:

The Ill  Conceived Plan to Dredge the Saginaw River

By Robert E. Martin

        With a state standard that allows 90 parts per trillion, the discovery of the highest Dioxin levels yet in Mid-Michigan with a concentration of 16,000 parts per trillion south of the Genesee bridge in downtown Saginaw, should serve as an alarming wake-up call to each of us.
     

With a toxicity level 176 times the state standard, the sad fact is that virtually none of our local, state, or federal political leaders has summoned the courage to properly address this issue.  Consequently, the responsibility is placed directly upon the shoulders of citizens.

 

More troublesome is the fact that the window of opportunity to do something about this mess is rapidly dwindling, compounded by a governmental response to the situation that should sicken and outrage us to the point of mobilization.  (If it doesn't kill us all first).
   

The issue at hand is the plan by the Army Corp of Engineers to dredge and develop a dump site on the Saginaw river for 3.1 million cubic yards of river sludge loaded with lethal toxic contaminants such as dioxin, PCB's and mercury.

 

Earlier this month, DEQ officials issued a permit that allows Saginaw County to develop the dumpsite. While the county must still acquire the land, details of the plan reveal glaring problems that officials have yet to properly answer or address.

The project awaits a water discharge permit that is due at the end of this month, yet is flawed in terms of selective dredging problems and the dangers posed by dispersing toxic sentiments downstream.

Indeed, in a report issued by the Environmental Planning & Evaluation branch of the United States Environmental Protection Agency to Les Weigum of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (COE), the EPA recommends that because Dow Chemical and the MDEQ are currently negotiating an approach to address dioxin contamination in the watersheds, the Corp coordinate their efforts with the EPA in light of any agreements MDEQ may reach with Dow.

The report also urges the COE not sign a Finding of No Significant Impact for this project until issues are resolved to the Agency's satisfaction.

A main concern cited is that because the Saginaw River is a primary source of dioxin to the Great Lakes, there is no reassurance the COE recognizes this or will dredge to minimize the release of dioxin laden sediments to Lake Huron.

Other areas of concern with the dredge plan consist of the fact:

* DEQ has yet to fully characterize the extent of the contaminated sediments in the Saginaw River/Bay. Yet the COE proposes without objection from DEQ there be no threshold limit for dioxin placed in an unlined container.

* No sampling has been done of soils in the proposed excavation site.

* Dioxin is one of the most toxic substances known, yet there is to Environmental Impact Statement, no risk assessment for impact on wildlife or human heath, and no hydro geological study of the fate and transportation of leachate from the dredge site.

* There is no liner or daily cover or cells to manage materials for runoff.

*There will be no air quality monitoring.

In short, all things considered, this proposed dredge site is an accident waiting to happen.

DANGERS of DIOXIN

Dioxin is the name given to a group of 200+chemicals that are formed as unwanted by-products of industrial manufacturing & burning activities.  The major sources of dioxins include chemical & pesticide manufacture, burning household trash, forest fires, and burning of industrial & medical waste products.

 

In the case of the Tittabawassee River flood plain, the source is known to be derived from Dow Chemical.
       

There are 75 different dioxins, 135 different furans, and 209 different PCBs. Each different form is called a 'congener'.
      

Not all the 'dioxin-like' chemicals have dioxin-like toxicity, and the toxic ones are not equally toxic; however 29 different dioxins, furans, and PCBs, all exhibit similar toxic effects caused by a common mechanism: binding to a particular molecule.

Some people restrict the use of the word 'dioxin' only to 2,3,78,-TCDD, the most toxic and most studied dioxin. This is a grave mistake insofar as the adverse health affects associated with other forms of dioxin exposure include liver, pancreatic & stomach cancer, male & female reproductive problems, hormonal imbalances, decreased lung function, and a host of other nasty ailments. (See chart above).
     

If you've ever been afflicted or lost a loved one due to one of these diseases, you should memorize everything contained in this story.

LEGACY of DELAY

        The issue of Dioxin has been 'studied' to death. Back in 1983 a small group of concerned Midland citizens filed a petition to investigate the extent of contamination in the Midland area.
That investigation proved that Dow's incinerator was the major source of dioxin contamination in Midland, and that the levels of dioxin in Midland soils were higher than most industrialized communities in the United States.
      

The highest level of dioxin discovered at that time (over 500ppt) was found in the Tittabawassee River downstream from Dow.
    

With the contamination in the Saginaw Bay the concern is magnified, as the Bay is a source of drinking water for tri-city residents and ultimately ends up in Lake Huron.
      

A few years later, after receiving EPA funding, the MDEQ resampled soils for dioxin and found levels exceeding limits of concern.

In the meantime, Russell Harding (then Director of DEQ) met with Midland City officials and Dow and made a promise not to do anymore off-site dioxin sampling. This was done behind the scenes without any citizen input.
      

According to Midland dioxin activist Diane Hebert, "About six or seven years ago there was a change in Dow management. This group replaced many of the people who were involved in a relatively successful 2-year pollution project with NRDC and local citizens. Many of these 'new' management people are from the 'old school' and have very little interest in pollution prevention. Their time is spent denying that dioxin is a proven health threat and fighting with the agencies over clean-up and sampling."
 

Indeed, a review of history proves Hebert's point. A soft-tissue sarcoma preliminary assessment by the state health department found an increase of soft tissue sarcoma in males from 1979-1982. The physician at the time was Dr. Dan Williams, who got so fed up with delays and politics surrounding the study that he left the department.

In May 2002, Congressman Dale Kildee sent a letter to families living in the contaminated area calling for the federal government to assure they would be informed and included in the dioxin assessment process.

Ironically, the Review has learned that Kildee has buttoned-up the funding for the dredge project, which is why local & state officials are so eager to move forward with the flawed plan.

Muzzling of the DEQ

   Three years ago in April of 2002 I had the opportunity to conduct an extensive interview with Jennifer Granholm back when she was running for Governor.

At that time the Lone Tree Council had unveiled documents going back two years that showed dioxin levels 80 times higher that than State  recommendations, yet then DEQ Director Harding was trying to raise the standard.

I asked Granholm what should be done about the dioxin mess in Saginaw County and also whether legal covenants that Harding had drawn up stating that perpetrators would not be responsible for clean-up were acceptable.
       

This is what she had to say:
   

"It sickens me how long that information was withheld. First, we need to recombine the DNR and DEQ.

Secondly, we need to reinstate some of those boards & commissions so citizens can have input once again into policies that affect their land & water.

Third, we need to ban drilling & diversion of Great Lakes Water and implement smart land use policies. We are literally defined by our natural resources. If we do not have policies that reflect this, we are missing the boat. It's a public trust issue and a constitutional requirement and the next Governor has to follow that constitutional obligation.

If somebody pollutes, they should be responsible. If you can trace it directly to that party they need to take away whatever they put into the land & water."

Apparently, Granholm does not heed her own words very well. After a protracted negotiating period with all the parties involved, DEQ had a public process in place that was working well. However, in June 2004, Granholm agreed to go behind closed doors with Dow Chemical until February of this year.

        In November 2004, Dow distributed a Community Update minimizing the risks associated with dioxin. DEQ management told members of Tittabawassee River Watch that a response was being prepared but it never came to fruition.
   

According to Michelle Hurd Riddick, "The problem is the DEQ paper went to the Governor's people and was never permitted to be shared with the public. Imagine that. Regulatory agencies charged with protection of public health and natural resources not permitted to respond to inaccurate information that puts people and communities in harm's way."
     

The MDEQ analysis comments were eventually leaked and posted on a list-server. Too lengthy to be listed in this article, they can be found on the website of TRW at www.trwnews.net.


GRANHOLM Responds

After meeting with pivotal & informed citizens concerned about the closed-door sessions and the planned dredging project, I forwarded several questions to Governor Jennifer Granholm.
Steve Chester, Director of MDEQ sent the following replies to me one day prior to deadline, with the following comment. "As the DEQ is the lead on these projects, I can hopefully provide you with all of the information you are looking for."

Review: DEQ had a public process in place prior to going behind closed doors with Dow Chemical from June to February. What justification is there for going behind closed doors with the polluter? Secondly, what was wrong with expanding on the existing public participation process? What motivation was there for reinventing the wheel?

Chester:  The negotiations that led to what eventually became the Dow Framework agreement were obviously lengthy and initially involved many interested parties and stakeholder groups. 
At a certain point, as is the case with most regulatory negotiations, it was decided that the most appropriate step was to meet directly with the responsible party on a one-on-one basis.  That decision allowed us to develop the Framework, which is an important first step in a longer process. 

The Framework should allow the State and Dow to move more quickly to a comprehensive, final resolution to the dioxin/furan situation than we could have done before the Framework was negotiated.  Quicker resolution will create significant benefits for the public, the environment, the State, and Dow.

Importantly, both the DEQ and Dow recognized during negotiations on the Framework that the public would need to be directly involved in developing the long-term solution to the dioxin contamination, and this involvement would need to extend beyond the scope of the CAP meetings. 

The Framework clearly indicates that such public involvement will be undertaken and that is precisely what is occurring now.

Review: Why is the EQ now doing stakeholder meetings by 'invitation' only and is it true that an independent facilitator agreed upon by Dow and DEQ will moderate?

Chester:  When we made the decision to negotiate with Dow on a one-on-one basis, we assured the stakeholder groups that they would have a role in developing the final resolution to the dioxin contamination.  We are now beginning that process. 

These four meetings for groups in Midland, Tittabawasee, Saginaw, and Bay City, is only the initial step in that process.  One of the purposes of these meetings is to gather information from participants and known organizations about how we can most effectively involve the larger community.

 In other words, we are using the expertise and experience of a group of community members to help us determine how best to communicate with the community as a whole.  There will be a facilitator at these meetings acceptable to both the DEQ and Dow, and both parties will make a presentation, be available for questions, and most importantly, hear what the community has to say. 

While invitations were sent out, the public is also welcome to attend these meetings to listen in on what is being discussed, and it is therefore not accurate to characterize these meetings as by "invitation only."  We fully expect that the next stage in the process will provide ample opportunities for anyone in the community to provide input into how to resolve the dioxin issue.

Review: Does the State of Michigan acknowledge that Dow is the responsible party for the dioxin contamination in the Saginaw & Tittabawassee River. If so, does the polluter pay for the clean up?

Chester:  Dow has suggested that their historical operations may have contributed to the contamination of the Tittabawassee River and Saginaw River and Bay sediments and floodplain soils, and the DEQ has indicated in the hazardous waste facility operating license issued to Dow that they are responsible for the release of dioxin off-site from the Dow facility in Midland, and furthermore are responsible to pay for the necessary clean-up.  The DEQ acknowledges that other parties may also have contributed to dioxin contamination in the Saginaw River and Saginaw Bay.

Review: I have been covering this dioxin issue for nearly two decades now in my publication. Will cleanup of the rivers be initiated by the Granholm administration?

Chester:  Clean up is underway.  The first step in any clean up is to investigate the contamination and determine how it can best be addressed.  Dow is already conducting such studies in some of the affected areas and more will be undertaken as described in the Framework.  The DEQ intends to move this process forward as quickly as possible given the widespread nature of dioxin contamination and the number of communities affected.

Review: Why have you not allowed your agencies to respond to Dow's misinformation about the science of dioxin? Do you feel you have a responsibility to ensure that people are getting the best information available?

Chester:  The DEQ makes every effort to keep the public informed about the potential risks related to dioxin.  When we have significantly disagreed with Dow on a given matter and felt it crucial that the public be aware of the DEQ's position, the department has clearly communicated this to the public. 

For instance, DEQ, in conjunction with the Departments of Community Health, Natural Resources, and Agriculture, provided a detailed critique of the Dow Wild Game Study, as well as responded to comments from Dow regarding the department's preliminary ecological study. 

Although we may not be able to respond to every instance of misinformation, the DEQ is committed to providing the public the best information available regarding dioxin contamination. 

Review: The dioxin levels in the Saginaw river are the highest to date and yet there is no EIS and no risk assessment for impact on wildlife or human health. Both Environmental Impact Statements from the 1980s and 1993 Saginaw River Cheboyganing Creek letter eliminate the west side of Saginaw for dredged spoils due to the potential for flooding and dust from prevailing westerly winds. Neither of these dynamics has changed. So how can you allow this project to continue?

Chester:  The responsibilities associated with Dow's release of dioxin and furan remains a separate issue from the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) project for siting a dredge material management facility. 

The Corps is responding to a need for supporting commercial navigation in the Saginaw River.  This requires the removal of sediments in a manner that provides for adequate containment. 

The Corps determines the need to perform an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for the dredging project.  Once all of the hydrogeology and operation management plans are submitted and reviewed, the DEQ will determine if we concur with the Corps Finding of no Significant Impact, assuming that the Corps issues this finding.

Review: There is no liner, daily cover, cells, or threshold levels of dioxin to be placed in this pit proposed by the Army Corp of Engineers. There is no hydro geological study proposed until after it is sited and no wastewater treatment. Do you feel it proper to allow a system to go forward that will invariably leak these poisons into the Saginaw River watershed and flow into the Great Lakes?

Chester:  The proposed dredged material disposal facility has to meet water quality standards established by law or it cannot operate.  The 401 Certification will be the most stringent certification issued by the DEQ for a facility of this kind.  A groundwater authorization will also be necessary for the facility and will require a hydrogeological investigation to determine the thickness, extent, and homogeneity of the underlying clay layer.  Ultimately, the applicant will not be able to go forward with the project unless surface waters and groundwater are protected.

Review: Why is the U.S. EPA report & comments on the COE Phase 2 Report not being taken into consideration and should it not form sufficient grounds to deny 401 Certification?

Chester:  The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) comments and the Army Corps of Engineers Phase 2 report have been taken into consideration during the process and there is an expectation that the Corps will meet and address the issues identified by EPA.  The conditions set forth in the 401 Certification also address certain of the concerns identified by EPA.

Review: Has the governor's position changed since the last time I interviewed her and she commented that the answer to the dioxin problem was to make the responsible parties clean it up, given the enormity of risks posed to citizens?

Chester:  I do not believe this position has changed, as we firmly believe that the responsible parties should, and will be, held accountable.

 

home  |  out/about  |  events  |   personal  |  store  |  classified  |  real estate  |   forums  |  archives  |  contact
© 2009 Review Magazine.  All rights reserved.