Part 1: A Long History of Dioxin Delays

  • In 1981, Valdus Adamkus was appointed to a regional Environmental Protection Agency office. One of his jobs jobs was to study dioxin pollution that got into the Great Lakes. His office compiled a report that said dioxin is a cancer risk, and that a Dow Chemical plant in Michigan was responsible for some dioxin pollution. (Photo source: Dantadd at Wikimedia Commons)

Dioxin pollution has been present in a
watershed in central Michigan for more
than thirty years. People around the
country might think it’s just a local
issue, but there was a time when this
very same pollution problem made national
news. In the first part of a series
on Dow and dioxin, Shawn Allee met the man who took the issue to Congress
and who feels it should make news again:

Transcript

Dioxin pollution has been present in a
watershed in central Michigan for more
than thirty years. People around the
country might think it’s just a local
issue, but there was a time when this
very same pollution problem made national
news. In the first part of a series
on Dow and dioxin, Shawn Allee met the man who took the issue to Congress
and who feels it should make news again:

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan appointed Valdus Adamkus to a regional Environmental Protection Agency office. From the get-go, one of Adamkus’ jobs was to study dioxin pollution that got into the Great Lakes. His office compiled this report that said dioxin is a cancer risk, and that a Dow Chemical plant in Michigan was responsible for some dioxin pollution.

Adamkus says his bosses in Washington called this report “trash.”

Adamkus: “We simply refused to retreat from our findings.”

Allee: “Did they ask you to retreat from your findings?”

Adamkus: “Yes, unfortunately we almost got instructions, let’s use a very mild word, to change our report. And that brought us Congressional hearings, which probably the entire country was watching on TV networks.”

Koeppel (ABC Archive ): “An official at the EPA today said the Dow chemical company was allowed to participate in the redrafting of a report on dioxin contamination that had been critical of Dow. And that official charged that Dow’s involvement was at the direction of the EPA’s acting chief.”

That was March 18, 1983, and ABC’s Ted Koeppel wasn’t the only one covering the Congressional hearings.

All the TV outlets caught this line from Adamkus –

Adamkus ( ABC Archive ): “It’s unethical, unusual, unprofessional to get the internal document approved by outside company.”

So, higher-ups in the EPA allowed Dow to edit the report critical of the company. But, in some ways, Adamkus won. His boss got ousted and Ronald Reagan gave Adamkus a civil service award for integrity.

As for Dow Chemical’s involvement?

For a month, I asked for comment.

A Dow spokeswoman said the company was interested in talking about the future, not the past.

Adamkus eventually left the EPA and he became President of Lithuania. But back in the US, there was a surprising follow-up to his fight over dioxin.

Mary Gade was a young staff attorney back when Adamkus was on TV. Twenty-three years later, President George W. Bush appointed her to Adamkus’ old job. When Gade arrived – dioxin was still a problem in Michigan.

“My staff in the region characterized this as probably the worst dioxin contamination in the country.”

And, she saw it as a national issue.

“You’d like to expect that your government will function appropriately, that corporations will act responsibly and that you can be assured of a safe and healthy environment for you and your family.”

So, Gade ordered Dow Chemical to clean up some hot spots.

“They would either do the work themselves or the federal government would go forward and do it on their own, and then go back and sue Dow to cover our costs.”

Michigan politicians complained about Gade, and some state officials felt some of her actions were counterproductive. In May 2008, she was forced to resign.

Gade told the Chicago Tribune, it was for being tough on Dow.

The EPA hasn’t commented on that, and Dow denies any involvement.

Recently, Mary Gade’s old boss, Valdus Adamkus, returned to his old EPA office to say hello. He asked about the dioxin problem in Michigan, and he learned it’s still around – after all these years, and after all the trouble he and Mary Gade got from it.

“When I hear from them what enforcement actions are being still considered, and that they are not big progress in that respect, that’s what really bothers me and to me this is inexcusable.”

Dow and the EPA are negotiating a final resolution on cleanup right now.

But Valdus Adamkus knows details need to be worked out, and he says all of this has been promised before.

“God help them. I hope this is really coming to the end.”

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Preview: The Trail of Dioxin and Dow

  • A Dow Chemical sign on the Tittabawassee River stating 'Enter At Your Own Risk' (Photo by Vincent Duffy)

If you learned your town was polluted
with toxic waste, you’d just want to
get it cleaned up. That’s not how things
have worked out with dioxin contamination
in central Michigan. Dioxin’s been a problem
for at least 30 years, but the Dow Chemical
Company, the federal government, and
the state of Michigan are just now hashing
out final cleanup plans. We had Shawn
Allee tour the area to see the
extent of the problem and what’s at stake
for the rest of us:

Transcript

If you learned your town was polluted
with toxic waste, you’d just want to
get it cleaned up. That’s not how things
have worked out with dioxin contamination
in central Michigan. Dioxin’s been a problem
for at least 30 years, but the Dow Chemical
Company, the federal government, and
the state of Michigan are just now hashing
out final cleanup plans. We had Shawn
Allee tour the area to see the
extent of the problem and what’s at stake
for the rest of us:

I wanted to begin my tour with interviews at Dow’s chemical plant in Midland. That’s where dioxin and related compounds were created: the dioxins were by-products of chemical manufacturing.

After a month of calls and emails to Dow, a spokeswoman said the company was interested in talking about the future – not the past. But the past is the reason there’s a problem now.

So, I start my tour a bit downstream.

Michelle Hurd Riddick picks me up near the plant. She’s with The Lone Tree Council, a Michigan environmental group. We follow the Tittabawassee River and the path dioxins took over time.

“This is Freeland Festival Park. Freeland is kind of like a bedroom community of Midland.“

Hurd Riddick says fishing is a huge past time in Michigan – but dioxin’s made it complicated.

Allee: “There’s a fish-advisory sign right there.“

Riddick: “Right. So, they’re telling you to not eat the fish.“

Actually, the signs tell you which fish to avoid, and how much to eat, or not. The US Environmental Protection agency worries dioxin causes cancer and diseases that affect immune, reproductive, and developmental systems.

“Pregnant women shouldn’t eat any, children under a certain age should only eat it once a month.“

Fish advisories cropped up in 1978. That’s after Dow warned Michigan and the federal government about dioxin in the Tittabawassee River. While the plant’s dioxin pollution is well below federal limits, the old dioxins are still around, and they’re not just in the river.

Allee: “Where we coming up here?“

Riddick: “This is Imerman Park, it’s on the Tittabawassee, too, and it’s very frequently flooded.“

Flood waters leave behind contaminated silt. Dioxin’s been found in the soil of yards and in parks like this. One worry is that kids would get exposed by getting dirt in their mouths.

Riddick: “Those are the hand washing sinks. They put the sinks there to use the hand-washing sink to wash their hands as a way to mitigate their exposure.“

Allee: “There’s the sign – contamination advisory: avoid contact with soil and river sediment. Please use soap and water to wash off soil and sediment.“

Other parks and some yards had soil scraped and removed. Dow cleaned up several dioxin hot-spots in recent years. Michigan and the US EPA want more of a top-to-bottom effort. That might include a sweep of fifty miles of river and part of the Great Lakes.

Riddick: “This is the Saginaw Bay of Lake Huron. As a child, I came up here a lot. I’m sure someplace I have a picture of me near these trees.“

Riddick’s middle-aged now. The dioxin was in rivers and Lake Huron before she was born. No one knew that far back. But residents did learn about the problem thirty years ago. Today Dow, the US EPA and Michigan are still debating a final solution.

“We’ve had many, many starts. If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone say this is how we’re going to achieve this cleanup, I’d be a wealthy woman.“

Hurd Riddick says the whole country should care about how this plays out.

Riddick: “People need to care about how this process because could play out in your community.“

Allee: “Maybe not dioxin but something else?“

Riddick: “You want to know that that the people your tax dollars are paying to protect you are the ones calling the shots.“

A final dioxin-clean up could take more than ten years. Michelle Hurd Riddick says she can wait that long – if it’s done right.

But she says it wouldn’t hurt if the clean-up got started now.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

EPA Targets Chemicals of Concern

  • BPA - one of the chemicals the EPA is focusing on - is found in many canned foods and drinks. (Photo source: Tomomarusan at Wikimedia Commons)

The Environmental Protection Agency
says it’s been operating under an
outdated law. The EPA administrator
says the agency has not been able
to adequately test the safety of
plastics and chemicals. Lester Graham
reports:

Transcript

The Environmental Protection Agency
says it’s been operating under an
outdated law. The EPA administrator
says the agency has not been able
to adequately test the safety of
plastics and chemicals. Lester Graham
reports:

There’s this notion that the plastics and chemicals in the products you buy all have been tested for safety.

That is just wrong.

The administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, wants Congress to pass laws to better regulate chemicals in the things we use. But getting a new law will take a while. So, in the meantime, Jackson says the EPA will do more under the existing law.

“Do as much as we can to identify the chemicals that are of concern to the public and move quickly to evaluate them and determine what actions need to be take to address the risks they may pose.”

The agency plans to first look at chemicals such as Bisphenyl A – BPA – used in some hard plastics, phthalates used in cosmetics and plastics, PBDE’s – a flame retardant that’s turning up in mother’s milk, and benzadene dyes and pigments.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Dioxin Deal One Step Closer

  • A sign on the Tittabawassee River, downriver from Dow Chemical Plant, stating to avoid contact with the soil and not eat the fish due to dioxin contamination (Photo by Vincent Duffy)

The federal government and a major
chemical company have reached an
initial agreement about cleaning
up one of the nation’s largest dioxin
pollution sites. But, Shawn Allee reports, the public will
have to wait a bit to examine the
fine print:

Transcript

The federal government and a major
chemical company have reached an
initial agreement about cleaning
up one of the nation’s largest dioxin
pollution sites. But, Shawn Allee reports, the public will
have to wait a bit to examine the
fine print:

Central Michigan has a dubious distinction: The Environmental Protection Agency
claims that a flood plain there has some of the highest dioxin levels ever found in soil.

That dioxin came from a Dow chemical plant decades ago. The EPA and Dow just
concluded negotiations over a clean-up deal.

Wendy Carney is with the EPA’s regional Superfund cleanup office. Carney says the
deal is not done, though.

“This agreement doesn’t actually contain any cleanup options. It also doesn’t
address any cleanup levels for the site. That would be a part of things we would talk
about with the public in a public forum to get their feedback on those issues.”

Carney says the EPA could unveil its agreement with Dow in two weeks.

The EPA suspects dioxins cause cancer and other health problems.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Your Pet and Toxic Toys

  • The government does not regulate pet products at all. An environmental group looked at pet toys and found some were contaminated with lead. (Photo by Jessi Ziegler)

An examination of pet products
on store shelves found some of
them were contaminated. Lester
Graham reports there is currently
no regulation of toxins in pet
toys and other products:

Transcript

An examination of pet products
on store shelves found some of
them were contaminated. Lester
Graham reports there is currently
no regulation of toxins in pet
toys and other products:

Your puppy’s chew toy might be poisoning him.

The government does not regulate pet products at all. An environmental group looked at pet toys and found some were contaminated with lead.

Mike Shriberg is with the Ecology Center.

“We found over a quarter of pet products had detectable levels of lead in them. Over 7% would have been recalled if they were children’s products.”

Signs of lead poisoning in dogs can be more aggressiveness – even toward the pet’s owner – or withdrawn behavior.

So, how do you tell whether your pet’s toy or bedding is safe?

“There’s no real way to tell. Our data base, healthystuff-dot-org is a first step. But, remember, we only tested a small percentage of the millions of pet products out there.”

Shriberg’s group is calling for the government start doing something to stop toxic chemicals such as lead from being used in pet products.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Pollution Causes Portion of Animal Cancer Cases

  • Beluga Whales along the Canadian Atlantic coast developed tumors after they came in contact with chemicals from aluminum smelters. (Photo courtesy of NOAA)

A new report in the journal Nature Reviews
Cancer looks at cancer in wildlife. Mark
Brush reports, the disease in animals is
sometimes caused by pollution:

Transcript

A new report in the journal Nature Reviews
Cancer looks at cancer in wildlife. Mark
Brush reports, the disease in animals is
sometimes caused by pollution:

The authors of this paper looked at a lot of research on cancer in wild animals. Some of these studies linked the cancer cases to pollution.

Beluga Whales along the Canadian Atlantic coast developed tumors after they came in contact with chemicals from aluminum smelters. And some fish and clam species have developed cancers after being exposed to pollution.

Denise McAloose is a veterinarian with the Wildlife Conservation Society. She’s the lead author of the paper.

“People should care about cancer in wildlife because, especially in those cancers that are driven by environmental factors, those environmental factors affect not only the animals, but people as well.”

For example, the people who worked in those aluminum smelters also had higher rates of cancer.

She says more research into the link between pollution and cancer in animals needs to be done. Because looking at how the disease affects wildlife might help us treat or prevent cancer in people.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Using Trees as Cleaning Tools

  • Argonne researchers and technicians are tracking how well poplar trees are containing and removing toxic solvents (such as Trichloroethane, 1,1-Dichloroethane, and 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, Trichloroethylene) from underground water. Pictured here are Cristina Negri, Lawrence Moss, John Quinn, Rob Piorkowski. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

When you think of cleaning up toxic waste, you might think of technicians digging huge holes
and carting off contaminated soil. It’s expensive, and they’re often just putting the soil and the
problem, somewhere else – say, to a hazardous waste landfill. Shawn Allee met researchers
who hope trees can clean some toxic waste, and leave the landscape in place:

Transcript

When you think of cleaning up toxic waste, you might think of technicians digging huge holes
and carting off contaminated soil. It’s expensive, and they’re often just putting the soil and the
problem, somewhere else – say, to a hazardous waste landfill. Shawn Allee met researchers
who hope trees can clean some toxic waste, and leave the landscape in place:

Argonne National Laboratory is a Big Science kinda place.

It’s a federal lab southwest of Chicago where they study particle physics, nuclear energy, and
advanced environmental clean-up.

The irony is, the place has been around so long, it’s now cleaning up its own environmental
messes.

In fact, it’s Larry Moss’s job. He takes me to a toxic waste site where trees help clean the soil.

More on those trees in a sec – first, here’s why Larry Moss needs them.

“This site was a very busy site back in the 50s and 60s. We had a large manufacturing process
for reactor components – did a lot of testing of reactor assemblies and different fuel mixtures. And to
do that you had to clean all that equipment and a lot of that solvent came down here.
There was a unit that was called a French drain, which basically was a trench filled with gravel. They would come down here and dump chemicals into this trench, and their theory was it would dissolve into the ground. They
thought it would just go away.”

Those solvents did not go away. They leeched into underground water.

The solvents potentially cause cancer and other problems, so the government said Argonne
needed to do something about the mess.

Researcher Christina Negri lays out what the options were.

“Put a parking lot on top of the pollution area
and basically leave it there forever. The other extreme, it would have been: dig out the soil, take it
somewhere – where you haven’t changed much. You’ve moved it from here to a landfill. That’s not the solution as
well.”

Those options – covering it up or carting it off – are also expensive.

So, Argonne researchers figured they’d try something new.

Negri says they hope to eliminate pollution on site – with the help of poplar trees.

Negri: “We’re taking advantage of a trait that these trees have to
go about finding water.”

Allee: “Let me get a closer look at a tree, here.”

Negri: “What you have to picture in your mind – See the height of the tree?”

Allee: “I’m looking at one that’s as tall as a three story walk-up building I live in.”

Negri: “You have to flip it 180 degrees and imagine the roots are going down that deep.”

Negri says they coaxed the roots into going straight down instead of spreading out. It seems to
work; the poplar trees are sucking water out of the ground and taking up solvent.

“Part of it is degraded within the plant. Part of it goes out into the air, which sounds like an
ominous thing to say, right? But if you do your calculations right, there’s much less risk when
these compounds are in the air than there is when they’re down 30 feet below.”

Negri’s team hopes the poplar trees will be more sustainable and cheaper than alternatives, but
they’re likely to be slower.

After all, it took years for the trees to grow. That’s fine for Argonne, because no one’s at risk – but that’s
not the case everywhere.

“Arguably, this is not the remedy you would adopt if you had, like, a tank spill or something that
you really need to go in right away, clean up and be done very quickly. It’s not a remedy if there’s
anybody’s at risk.”

This isn’t the only attempt to use plants to clean up toxic waste. The science behind it is called
‘phytoremediation.’

In other examples, scientists tried alpine pennycress to clean up zinc, and pigweed to suck up
radioactive cesium.

Negri says the trick is to use the right plant for the right toxin and know whether the plants stays
toxic, too.

Still, she says, toxic waste is such a big problem, it’s good to have lots of tools in your clean-up
toolbox.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Perception of Pollution Way Off Base

  • A study found that people think of pollution coming from big environmental disasters, and not daily exposure to chemicals from carpeting, furniture, cosmetics and other things we buy (Source: Immanuel Giel at Wikimedia Commons)

A new study finds people are
surprised to learn how much of their
exposure to chemicals comes from the
things they buy. Rebecca Williams reports:

Transcript

A new study finds people are
surprised to learn how much of their
exposure to chemicals comes from the
things they buy. Rebecca Williams reports:

In this study, researchers showed women the results of tests done in their
homes. The researchers sampled dust and they also measured chemicals in the
women’s bodies. On average, they found about 20 different chemicals.

Rebecca Gasior-Altman is the lead author of the study in the Journal of Health
& Social Behavior.

“Participants were surprised about where these chemicals were coming from
and did not anticipate that they were likely coming from products they brought
into their homes every day and used on their bodies unknowingly and were not
from big industrial dumps.”

She says, before, the women had thought of pollution coming from big
environmental disasters, and not daily exposure to chemicals from carpeting,
furniture, cosmetics and other things we buy.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Interview: Grist on Shower Curtains

  • Many new shower curtains contain PVC (Source: DO'Neil at Wikimedia Commons)

A new study looked at off-the-shelf
shower curtains and came up with some disturbing
findings. The Center for Health, Environment
and Justice studied polyvinyl chloride plastic
shower curtains and found that PVC shower
curtains can release as many as 108 toxic
chemicals. Lester Graham talked with Sarah
Burkhalter with the environmental journalism
site: grist.org. He asked just how
much of a concern these PVC shower curtains
are:

Transcript

A new study looked at off-the-shelf
shower curtains and came up with some disturbing
findings. The Center for Health, Environment
and Justice studied polyvinyl chloride plastic
shower curtains and found that PVC shower
curtains can release as many as 108 toxic
chemicals. Lester Graham talked with Sarah
Burkhalter with the environmental journalism
site: grist.org. He asked just how
much of a concern these PVC shower curtains
are:

Sarah Burkhalter: “It depends. This group – The Center for Health, Environment, and Justice –
tested five shower curtains, and their claim is that new-shower-curtain-smell is up to 108 nasty
chemicals that have been added during processing. At the same time, you know, there are
chemicals in everything. So, to an extent, you just have to choose your battles. Shower curtains
have become the emergency-du-jour, if you will. But, there is plenty else to worry about if you
already have a shower curtain. It’s not an emergency.”

Lester Graham: “Now we should point out that these shower curtains are not special shower
curtains. These were bought at Bed Bath and Beyond, and Kmart, and Sears, and Target, and
Wal-Mart. And I don’t even know what I would replace my shower curtain with. Got any ideas
about that?”

Burkhalter: “Sure. Well, the thing about these shower curtains, you know, it’s not even the shower
curtains themselves. It is the plastic they’re made of. And that is plastic #3. Its poly-vinyl chloride,
or PVC, or you may sometimes you may just see it as vinyl. And at grist.org, our advice columnist
always says, ‘no vinyl, that’s final’. That’s her tagline. She says, ‘no PVC for me’. That’s her other
way to remember it. Really, as much as you can avoid this plastic #3. Which, is difficult to avoid.
It’s in toys, and hospital tubing, and jars, and pill bottles. But as much as you can avoid this, is for
the benefit, certainly. As far as shower curtains go, there are a lot of alternatives. You can always
go for a door instead of a curtain. When our advice columnist, Umbra, wrote about this very issue
in 2006, she recommended polyester shower curtains. They also make organic cotton, and nylon.
There’s a different plastic, its PVC-free, its called ethylene vinyl-acetate, or EVA, so if you look for
EVA plastic shower curtains, those are a good alternative. Or, you could always take up
exhibitionism.”

Graham: (laughs) “Well, how hard are these things to find – these other, non-PVC shower
curtains?”

Burkhalter: “They’re going to get easier and easier to find as time goes by. Actually, IKEA phased
out PVC shower curtains over a decade ago. Sears, Kmart, Wal-Mart, and Target are all in the
midst of phasing out PVC. And, actually, Target had a goal for this spring, I think they said 88% of
their shower curtains now don’t contain PVC. So, if you look at the labels, and try to avoid things
that say PVC, you should be able to find alternatives, even in these big box stores.”

Graham: “So, what do you have hanging in your shower?”

Burkhalter: “Well, I have to say that I took a shower this morning, and it is a plastic shower curtain.
But, you know, I’ve had it for a couple of years, and the Center for Health, Environment, and
Justice, when they tested, they found that some of these chemicals hung-out for a few weeks, but
after a month or so, your shower curtain has probably done off-gassing all the chemicals that it’s
going to. So, if you’ve had your shower curtain for a couple of years, you know, really, instead of
trashing it, it’s probably best just to hold on to it. Don’t’ burn it – that is something that you really
don’t want to do with PVC. That’s kind of one of its great dangers, is that it releases dioxin, a nasty
chemical, when it’s burned. So, but as long as you’re not licking it regularly, you can probably hold
on to your old one.”

Graham: “I’ll avoid that. (laughs) Alright, thanks Sarah, thanks very much.”

Burkhalter: “Sure, thanks Lester.”

Related Links

Cargo ‘Sweepings’ Called Into Question

Every year freighters wash two hundred million pounds of refuse into the Great Lakes leaving the equivalent of underwater gravel roads along shipping lanes. The practice is called “cargo sweeping” and it’s allowed in spite of U.S laws and an international treaty banning dumping in the lakes. The GLRC’s Charity Nebbe has more:

Transcript

Every year freighters wash two hundred million pounds of refuse into the
Great Lakes leaving the equivalent of underwater gravel roads along
shipping lanes. The practice is called “cargo sweeping” and it’s allowed
in spite of U.S. laws and an international treaty banning dumping in the
lakes. The GLRC’s Charity Nebbe has more:


The dumping occurs when cargo ships pump water over the deck and
through loading tubes to wash away any refuse that has collected from
the loading and unloading process. Industry insiders say the practice is
necessary to protect the safety of the crew and the integrity of the cargo.


James Weakley is President of the Lake Carriers’ Association.


“I’m very confident that what we’re putting over the side are naturally
occurring substances… and we’ve been doing this practice for hundreds
of years and as yet we haven’t seen an environmental harm.”


Critics are concerned about toxins that might be carried in the coal, iron
ore, and slag jettisoned by the ships, and they’re concerned about the
habitat that might be buried under the refuse.


This year the U.S. Coast Guard is reviewing the 1993 interim policy that
allows cargo sweeping, but as of yet no scientific study has been
commissioned.


For the GLRC, I’m Charity Nebbe.

Related Links