STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARtMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM
LANSlN<1

DICl
STEVEN E. CHESTER
GOVEnr«)R DIRECTOR

March 24, 2008

Ms. 'Susan P. Bodine, Assistant Administrator

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, ~ (5101T)
Washington, DC 20460

Dear Ms. Bodine:

SUBJECT: Follow Up to February 26, 2008. Meeting Regarding The Dow Chemical Company
(Dow); MID 000 724 724

Thank you for the opportunity to meet with representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA) and Dow in Washington, DC, on February 26, 2008. During this meeting,
we discussed roles and responsibilities for regUlatory oversight of Dow's off-site corrective
action program, including the Tittabawassee River, Saginaw River. and Saginaw Bay corrective
action investigation areas as identified in Dow's hazardous waste management facility operating
license (License) issued pursuant to Part 111, Hazardous Waste Management, of the Natural
Resources and Environmental Protection Act, ~ 994 PA 451, as amended (Act 451). At the
meeting. you reiterated to Dow that the State of. Michigan would continue ~o lead the corrective
action process under the License and the U.S. EPA would provide resource support and
assistance, where necessary.. We also appreciated the opportunity to join in your separate
meeting with the Michigan environmental groups that visited your offices on that same day.

During the meeting with· Dow, they made a number of statements that, upon review with my
staff, I have found to be either inaccurate, or at a minimum .highly misleading. I wanted to take
this opportunity to clarify these iSsues for the record: . ,.

1) Dow stated that the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MOEQ) does not
agree with. or support the use of, the U.S~ EPA"s December 2005 Contaminated
Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites (2005 Guidance).

This is not accurate. In fact, the MDEQ cites the 2005 Guidance in:the MDEQ's
Remediation and Redevelopment Division Operational Memorandum No. 4, Site
Characterization and Remediation Verification, Attachment 3 - Sediments, which is
available on the Internet at: http://www.deq.state.mLus/documents/deq-rrd-
OpMemo_4Attach3Sediments.pdf. Page 7 of this Operational Memorandum'specifically
directs MDEQ st~ff and the pubUc to'this document for fUrther information regarding
sediment remediation, operation and maintenance, and remedy verification. .
H ~
.... • '~~ ••. ~:., .'t ~ .~.

As stated in the Introduction to the '2005 Guidance, ~.~·:this:docurilent does not impose
legally binding· requirements on, EPA. states, or the regulatedcorTimunity, and may not
apply to a particular situation. based upon the specific circumstances.i' Rather, the
document suggests approaches that may be used at particular 'sites-as appropriate,

CONSTITUTION HALL - 526 WEs-r ALLeGAN STREET - P.O. BOX 30413 -LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909-7913
www,michigar1.g<W • (BOO) ll82·9278
Ms. Susan P. Bodine 2 March 24, 2008

given site-specific circumstances: To that end, the MOE the

technical found . . the
ent t at certain administrative processes apply to the U.S. EPA's application of the
2005 Guidance, the MDEQ has its own processes and procedures (in this case, the
process associated with the License). The MDEQ will continue to use the 2005
Guidance in this manner.

2) Dow also claimed that prior to the MDEQ Approval with Modifications of the Saginaw
River and Floodplain and Saginaw Bay (SRB) Scope of Work (SOW), the MDEQ did not
consider or review data and information that had been provided by Dow during the
review period.

,e~~~~illt~~~~~~~~:':J:s~that Dow was reguired to make in

ac~ should be noted, however, that the
re uired data submittals were provided in a manner that made it extremely difficult for
the MDEQ to conduct meaningful review. For rovided large analytical
data 400+ . the
locations of wher . .. Jess, the MDEQ
co ducted a review of these submittals and considered that information prior to
approving the SRB SOW with modifications.

It should be further noted that the'MDEa review also included the Dow September 14,
2007, Current Conditions Report for the Saginaw River and Floodplain and Saginaw
Bay. Dupng tl:1is !=eviettl , the MOED was unable to locate critical data on, or discussion
of, bedload dioxin concentrations in the Saginaw River. This data, which was collected
by bow In the upper Saginaw River In 2006, indicates that those high Jevels of dioxins
a furans are m' ratin downstream alon the surface Of the Saginaw River cfiinnel.
Because the MDEQ consl ers this type of information critical, it IS no c ea w y w did
not discuss this data explicitly in their Current Conditions Report.

3) Dow stated that the MDEQ was attempting to expand the scope of the required
Remedial Investigation Work Plan (RIWP) to include investigation of a portion of Lake
Huron that extends beyond Saginaw Bay.

We believe that Dow has misunderstood the modification that the MDEQ has made to
the SRB SOW. The extent of investigation reqUired by Dows License is specified as
follows: uThe Saginaw Bay Study Area is defined in the License as an off·~ite area that
exceeds the environmental protection standards pursuant to Sections 20120a(1)(a) and
(17) of Part 201 [Environmental Remediation, of Act 451} and is further defined as an
area impacted by off-site migration or transportation of contaminants.·
.

Ms. Susan P. Bodine 3 March 24, 2008

In essence, Dow is r i Bay

re a ed to the Dow facility. If contamination above the applicable standards extends
b'eyOlid Saginaw Bay, then bow would be required to follow that contamination. The
MDEQ believes that Dow's concern stems from the following sentence and the
referenced figure that was induded in the SRB SOW Approval with Modifications: -For
clarity, Saginaw Bay is defined in the SRB SOW as the area from the Saginaw River
mouth to U.S. EPA lake Huron Station HU 95b (reference Figure 2-2, enclosed)" This
sentence was included to acknowledge the presence of a long-term sampling station
that was previously established by the U.S. EPA in Lake Huron at the outer edge of
Saginaw Bay. This sampling station (HU 95b) has been, and will continue to be, used
as a trend monitoring station to evaluate the migration of contaminants from Saginaw
Bay into the main body of Lake Huron.

The MDEQ is not requiring Dow to expand the RIWP to include an investigation of
SagTnaw Bay into the main body of Lake Huron, unless the data clearly indicates that
sucH an expansIon would be appropnate. If, based on the data, InvestigatIon Inm the
m-aln bOdy otLake Huron was deemed to oe-appropriate, Dow would only be required to
characterize the overall extent of contamination that was clearly attributable to Dow.
Further, if such an expansion were appropriate, the MDEQ would require such
expansion of investigation pursuant to Condition XI.S. of the License, which reserves the
MDEQ authority to perform further corrective action or response activities beyond those
specifically identified in Parts XI and XII of the License.

The MDEQ has discussed this issue with Dow and intends to provide further written
clarification of this issue to Dow.

4) Dow indicated that the MDEQ had taken no action with respect to the Ecological Risk
Assessment (ERA) work that Dow has been in the process of conducting.

This also is not true. The MDEQ has been in the process of reviewing Dow's work plan
and has coordinated those review activities with the U.S. EPA, Region 5. The MDEQ
will be providing comments on DoW'S ERA as part of a Notice of Deficiency that is being
prepared on the September 7, 2007, revised RIWP for the Tittabawassee River and
Floodplain Soils, Midland, Michigan. Dow's ERA process relies heavily on work being
conducted by Michigan State University (MSU) with a grant from Dow. The MDEQ has
met with Dow, their contractors, and MSU on several occasions over the last two years
to discuss the ERA. The resolution of this issue has been complicated and slowed by
the fact that Dow is proposing a nonconventional (population-based) ERA and the need
for the MDEQ to acqUire external expert review of this novel approach. The MDEQ has
requested a joint meeting with Dow, the U,S. EPA, anciMS.UjQjyI1t!~ftlISC{fS-nh1fERA-
as part of the RIWP revIew process. Dow has agreed to that meeting. ----

Again, thank you for the opportunity to meet and discuss off-site corrective action related to
Dow. We look forward to working cooperatively with the U.S. EPA in the resolution of this
complex environmental issue.
 II

Ms. Susan P. Bodine 4 March 24, 2008

cc: Ms. Mary A. Gade, U.S. EPA, Region 5

Mr. Ralph Dollhopf, U.S. EPA, Region 5
Mr. Jim Sygo, Deputy Director, MDEQ
Ms. JoAnn Merrick, Chief of Staff, MDEQ
Mr. George Bruchmann~ MDEQ
Ms. Delores Montgomery, MDEQ
Mr. Allan Taylor, MDEQ
Off-Site Corrective Action File