The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has tested Saginaw Bay-area municipal water supplies and found them free of toxic dioxin, but the soil in a residential area 22 miles downstream from Dow’s Midland complex has been recontaminated with dioxin and the plan for the long-term work of actually removing the contamination from the Saginaw River watershed is, after 30 years, still in its earliest stages.

Sediment from the Saginaw River enters Lake Huron's Saginaw Bay

Sediment from the Saginaw River enters Lake Huron's Saginaw Bay


Following months of negotiations with Dow, the EPA released a draft proposal for the first steps in a new cleanup plan. The agency has promised to consider public comments on the agreement before finalizing it. The public comment period will run through Dec. 17.

The agency held a meeting in Saginaw on Nov. 5 to take questions and comments.
In introducing the agreement at the public meeting Bob Kaplan, regional counsel for EPA’s Region 5, promised that the agency would take swift action to address immediate health threats posed by the contamination.

“Even though it’s a long-term deal, a long-term administrative order on consent we are not trading off in any way action in the short-term where necessary.”
Some attendees expressed discontent with EPA’s process, questioning the need for a public comment period. One man asked, “[W]hat could a housewife add to your discussion?” Others said they found it inappropriate that the agency had funded a review of the proposed agreement by a consultant selected by the Lone Tree Council.
The consultant, Peter DeFur, was at the meeting and presented a worksheet he’d developed that highlights aspects of the agreement that he said warranted more consideration.

“Under the proposed AOC [Administrative Order of Consent],“ DeFur wrote, “Dow will have control over designing the investigation and the cleanup, with EPA approval. An alternative is that EPA could take responsibility for the initial investigation and then be reimbursed by Dow. EPA could hire contractors to conduct all of the preliminary investigations to gather data, decide if any areas require immediate soil removal and develop remedial alternatives. Dow could then step in and finish the cleanup.”
The proposed agreement doesn’t address cumulative risk faced by residents who have long term exposure to the over 200 chemicals that have contaminated the site, DeFur stated.

He also said that the agreement does not specify how technical information will be regularly shared with the public.
“Fish advisories have been in effect at this site since the 1970s,” DeFur stated. “The first criterion for a successful cleanup is that the site is once again safe for humans and wildlife. With this in mind, the fish should be safe for consumption once the cleanup is complete.”

DeFur has promised to post more detailed comments on the AOC on his website
No dioxin found in local water systems
As the EPA framework takes shape, the agency was able to reassure local residents that sampling shows no dioxin in the Saginaw, Bay City and Midland municipal water systems.

The water testing was a response to concerns that navigational dredging in the dioxin-contaminated Saginaw River could spread hazardous chemicals into the municipal water intakes.

The first round of tests, taken in the summer time weeks after dredging had concluded, had to be partially redone after lab contamination resulted in distorted furan results.

In an announcement last week, the EPA said that a retest of the water shows no elevated dioxin levels.

The first round of samples will be used by the agency as a baseline, and when dredging restarts in the spring, the agency will test water again to learn whether dredging causes dioxin from the river to reach the municipal water intakes.
An EPA report from 1978 warned that that dioxin from Dow Chemical’s Midland facility is migrating through the Tittabawassee and Saginaw rivers and into Lake Huron’s Saginaw Bay and could threaten area water supplies.

According to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, a 2004 sample of sediments at the Bay City water intake, 6.5 miles from the mouth of the Saginaw River, showed dioxin at 26 parts per trillion.

Despite contamination risks faced by the Bay City municipal water system, the city does not routinely screen for dioxin. Neither do the systems for Saginaw and Midland which have a joint intake further north in Saginaw Bay.

Dow has resisted installing sediment traps to block contaminated soils from moving toward the bay during the dredging process. The company has also fought to limit the scope of state-ordered dioxin sampling of the Saginaw Bay.

Dredged soils not tested for dioxin
Saginaw County Public Works Commissioner, Jim Koski, said in a phone interview that he is disappointed that EPA has not followed up on his request that they sample the dredged river sediments for dioxin.

Koski said that the river sediments, which are being disposed of in an unlined pit in rural Frankenlust and Zilwaukee Townships, are easily accessible. Sampling for toxins in sediments removed from the 6th st. turning basin and the Lower Saginaw shipping channel is likely to yield useful information about how contaminants are moving through the river, he said.

Neighborhood recontaminated
One year after the completion of an EPA-ordered emergency cleanup of the Riverside Boulevard neighborhood in Saginaw, soil samples show that the area is becoming recontaminated with dioxin.

The neighborhood was the first residential area in the Dow dioxin zone to be declared by EPA an “imminent threat” to public health. Dioxin levels around these homes near the confluence of the Tittabawassee and Saginaw rivers ranged as high as 23,000 ppt. Levels of more than 90 ppt are supposed to trigger cleanup under state law.
Under EPA supervision, contractors for Dow removed and replaced the top two feet of soil around these homes.

In a September report, the Michigan Department of Community Health announced that the cleanup had successfully reduced the risk of dioxin exposure for residents.
But the health department also warned that future flooding of the Tittabawassee River could redeposit contaminants onto resident’s yards, saying that “contaminated sediments are likely to be deposited onto residential properties during future Tittabawassee River flood events … and people may be exposed to the renewed contamination. This is a potential future public health hazard.”

Last week, EPA officials announced that samples from the Riverside Boulevard properties taken this summer show that recontamination is occurring. The agency said that samples taken by Dow and by the DEQ show levels that range from 0.3 ppt-90.2 ppt.

Brian Schlieger, an on-site agency coordinator, said in an interview that the recontamination was expected and that the agency will supervise Dow contractors as they carry out a sampling plan designed to show the impact of river flooding on contamination levels at the homes.