Document 2JnQ7jor3ZeyRjr2M09DxZnx5

4 * *. ^ ta te 0 of & m m c a Before the U.S. Department of Labor Cate Jenkins, Ph.D., Chemist U. S. Environmental Protection Agency COMPLAINANT v. William K. Reilly, Administrator U. S. Environmental Protection Agency RESPONDENT Case No. 88 SWD-2 November 13,1991 AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS: Retaliation for Statements Concerning Monsanto Corporation's Dioxin Fraud and EPA's Criminal Investigation Thereof \ Dr. Cate Jenkins is amending her whistleblower complaint under the RCRA statute yet again to include new retaliatory acts by the Respondent, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These retaliatory acts were motivated by statements by the Complainant (Dr. Jenkins) regarding EPA's criminal inves tigation of Monsanto Corporation's dioxin standard. The EPA is seeking to pro tect Monsanto from adverse publicity. On October 29, 1991, Mr. Petruska, the Complainant's supervisor, deliv ered a final evaluation of the Complainant's job performance for the past year. This performance evaluation was rated as only "fully successful," rather than the "exceeds expectations" ranking received by the Complainant for the past several consecutive years. The reason for this lower job evaluation was explained by Mr. Petruska On October 16, 1991. Mr. Petruska stated several times that he was giv ing a lower job evaluation because the Complainant had made public statements regarding EPA's conduct of a criminal investigation of fraud by Monsanto Corporation. **;* The October 29 "fully successful" evaluation will result in the Complainant not receiving her annual cash award for "continued superior per formance" for at least two years; reversing the precedent of the awards she has received for several years. This lower job evaluation will also jeopardize the Complainant's opportunity for good assignments and reduce her opportunity for promotion or obtaining other jobs in the federal sector. These current pleadings address the retaliatory nature of EPA demand ing compliance with this EPA policy by the Complainant, while other EPA offi cials are confirming in several public forums the existence of a criminal investi gation of Monsanto's dioxin studies. In addition, these pleadings document the deliberate failure of the Complainant's supervisor to follow federal personnel poli cies in determining Complainant's work output to be evaluated against this al leged EPA policy; a deliberate contrivance to find some aspect of Complainant's work output to "downgrade." Further, Mr. Petruska did not have the authority to interpret whether or not the Complainant actually had disobeyed the EPA policy. May 28,1991 Pleadings, Retaliation of Including EPA Policy on Communications in (Complainant's Performance Standards On May 28, 1991, the Complainant supplemented her whistleblower complaint to include the retaliation of including "adherence to EPA policies on communicating with the public" as a criteria for ranking her job performance. As detailed in the May 28 supplemental pleadings, including this criteria consti tuted deliberate entrapment, apparent from the fact that the Complainant was only informed on April 29, 1991 that there was such an EPA policy purporting to prohibit statements to the public about EPA criminal investigations. This "policy" was imposed on the Complainant through performance standard process without proper notice and opportunity for comment. The Complainant attempted to re dress this retaliation by discussions and memoranda to her supervisor without success. The May 28 pleadings further document that the Complainant's division director stated on March 20, 1991 that even he had never seen any EPA policy pro hibiting communications on criminal investigations, and that Mr. Petruska had not circulated this "policy" to the branch as he had claimed. Unilateral Imposition of Communication Ban Regarding EPA's Criminal Investigation of Fraud by Monsanto upon Complainant On October 29, 1991, the Complainant's job performance evaluation was downgraded for the past year because she communicated to the public that there -2- r was an active criminal investigation of Monsanto's conduct of its epidemiologic. This is in stark contrast to the sanctioned public communications by other EPA of ficials regarding the Monsanto criminal investigation, statements by Monsanto Corporation itself regarding the investigation, and the copious press coverage of the fraudulent Monsanto's dioxin studies prior to EPA opening a formal criminal investigation (the point at which the EPA policy might take effect). On Maj' 30, 1991, Ms. Sylvia Lowrance, the Director of the Office of Solid Waste (the EPA program office in which the Complainant works), wrote to Congressman Carroll Hubbard about the criminal investigation of Monsanto, specifically mentioning the fact that the Complainant had been instructed to pro vide evidence in this investigation. On June 3, 1991, Mr. Hubbard forwarded this letter from EPA to Mr. John Lyons, a Vietnam veteran. It is ludicrous that the Complainant's supervisor then downgraded the Complainant's performance sev eral months later for a similar communication about the Monsanto investigation. In addition, EPA representatives other than the Complainant have made other definitive statements to the press confirming the criminal investigation of Monsanto on many occasions (see Science, February 8. 1991, page 626, the Stars' and Stripes, etc.). Monsanto Corporation itself has confirmed to the press on several occa sions that a criminal investigation of its dioxin studies was underway. In December 1990, the St. Louis Dispatch, United Press International, Chemical Week, and the Stars and Stripes (a national veterans' publication) carried state ments by Monsanto acknowledging the criminal investigation, and statements that Monsanto itself was requesting an EPA audit of its studies in order to obtain justification. (See the attached letter from Monsanto to EPA requesting an audit of its studies, and the Monsanto briefing in the U.S. Court of Appeals describing the EPA criminal investigation.) Failure to Evaluate Complainant's Performance According to Federal Personnel Policies; Contrivance to find Work Output to Downgrade The Complainant's supervisor, Mr. Petruska, was forced to disobey established federal personnel procedures in order to downgrade her performance evaluation. Complainant's finalized performance standards were only delivered on ^pril 29, 1991. It is established personnel policy, both at EPA, and in the offi cial Federal Personnel Manual, that an employees job performance should only be evaluated for that period for which final performance standards are in place. This was confirmed by Mr. Carlton Cox in EPA's Office of Human Resources, after consultation with his supervisor, Mr. Chuck Smith, on October 21, 1991. -3-  In other words, Mr. Petruska made the Complainant's performance standards retroactive so that he could find some work output to which to apply the "follows EPA communication policies" criteria. The only work products to which this criteria applied were Complainant's November 15, 1990 and January 24, 1991 submissions of evidence to EPA's National Enforcement Investigations Center. Mr. Petruska was obviously aware of the fact that the January 14, 1991 draft performance standards had no effect, since he did not provide a midyear performance evaluation for the Complainant. (The "sign-ofF portion of the final performance standards is blank, indicating that Mr. Petruska is not attempting to lie about providing a midyear review.) Furthermore, Mr. Petruska failed to give the Complainant an opportunity to rate her own performance prior to his final evaluation, which is also written, established EPA policy. There were no assigned duties performed by the Complainant after April 29, 1991, the date her final performance standards were provided, under the, "critical job element" that had as a criteria following the EPA communication policies. Thus, if Mr. Petruska had followed established personnel policies, the critical job element to which the EPA communication policy applied would have been dropped. The overall evaluation of the Complainant's performance would have been rated as "exceeds expectations." On October 21, Mr. Cox of the Human Resources office offered to meet with Mr. Petruska and the Complainant in order to help straighten out the mat ter. On October 28, however, Mr. Petruska stated that he had spoken with Mr. Cox, and that no meeting had been suggested. The Complainant asked if Mr. Petruska would refuse to participate in such a meeting. Mr. Petruska said that he would not refuse. Before a meeting could be set up, however, Mr. Petruska slipped a finalized copy of the Complainant's standards under her door, a "done deal." on October 29. Lack of Authority for Complainant's Supervisor to Determine Whether EPA Communications Policy Followed Mr. Petruska does not have the proper authority to determine whether the EPA policy on communications concerning criminal violations had been vio lated by the Complainant. On April 30, 1991, the Complainant requested the EPA Office of Criminal Enforcement Counsel whether the clause in the EPA policy on the public's right-to-know took precedence, particularly in light of the fact that ex tensive publicity had already occurred. On April 30, 1991 Mr. Petruska admitted -4- to the Complainant that he did not have the proper expertise to make such a de termination, and that he would wait for a reply to the Complainant's inquiry. No reply has been received. Mr. Petruska also admitted that EPA policies could not be imposed on employee-*- without their consent, stating as an example the EPA policy on prohibiting tape recordings. (An audio recording of these admissions by Mr. Petruska was made.) Thus, Mr. Petruska's unilateral interpretation that the Complainant had disobeyed this policy, and subsequent downgrading of her job evaluation, is again demonstrated to be retaliatory. This retaliation is motivated by protecting the private interests of Monsanto Corporation, and not the health of U.S. citizens. Respectfully submitted, Dated: November 13, 1991 Cate JenkinsT^h.D. Waterside Parcel Box No. 102 Waterside Mall Washington, DC 20024 (202) 260-4792 # CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of "AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS: Retaliation for Statements Concerning Monsanto Corporation's Dioxin Fraud and EPA's Criminal Investigation Thereof was provided to the following parties on November 13, 1991 in the follow ing manner: BY CERTIFIED MAIL Elizabeth Culbreth, Director Office of Administrative Appeals U.S. Department of Labor Room S-4309 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20210 Cate Jenkm ^^h.D. Waterside Parcel Box No. 102 Waterside Mall Washington, DC 20024 (202) 260-4792 \ Hayward Reed, Esq. Attorney, Office of General Counsel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M. St., SW Washington, DC 20460 BY REGULAR MAIL: Paula V. Smith, Administrator U.S. Department of Labor Room S-3502 200 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20210 The Honorable Theodor P. von Brand Office of the Administrative Law Judges U.S. Department of Labor 55 West Queens Way, Suite 201 Hampton, Virginia 23669 6-  / 4 Monica Gallagher Associate Solicitor U.S. Department of Labor Room N-2716 200 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20210 The Honorable Nahum Litt Chief Administrative Law Judge Office of the Administrative Law Judges U.S. Department of Labor 111120th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 1 \ / -7- .it*7 * i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 MAY 3 0 1991 JUN01 1 ismiSO LID W ASTE A RESPONSE . ' ' . ; . v.; . . Honorable Carroll Hubbard House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr. Hubbard: . v ' '*. - A>rAVAi *'u ,;... * - ..t Thank you for your letter of May 6, 1991, regarding John Lyons's concerns about exposure to dioxin. The memorandum Mr. Lyons referred to was written by Cate Jenkins, a chemist in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Regulatory Development Branch. Ms. Jenkins claimed to have information concerning certain data submitted to EPA by the Monsanto Corporation. EPA directed her to provide this information to John West and Kevin Guarino, whom she mentioned in her letter. The memorandum of January 24, 1991, that Mr. Lyons sent you was part of this information transmittal. However, the allegations and conclusions are Ms. Jenkins's personal conclusions, not EPA's. EPA is currently reassessing the toxicological data on dioxin compounds to make sure that we are using the most accurate information in developing regulations and taking other actions that involve dioxin compounds (e.g., site cleanups). The Department of Veterans Affairs has revised certain policies to allow veterans compensation for Agent Orange exposures that result in soft tissue sarcoma. You may wish to have your staff contact the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for the latest information in this area. Thank you for sharing Mr. Lyons's concerns with us. Sincerely yours, Printed on Recycled Paper } ! CARROLL HUBBARD CONGRESSMAN ISTDISTRICT, KENTUCKY 2269 raybuhn'H o u s O ffice B uilding W a sh in gto n , DC 20516 (202) 225-31 IS Congmt of tf)e Gmteb &tatt House of ftepresentattoeg SBagfjmgton, 20C 20515 June 3, 1991 REGIONAL WHIP . COMMITTEES; BANKING, FINANCE AND URBAN AFFAIRS MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERAL OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS OF THE BANKING COMMITTEE John L. Lyons 139 Walnut Court Benton, KY 42025 Dear John: I want to share with yoii a copy of the response I have recently received from Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director of the Office of Solid Waste with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. John, I am hopeful that the response adequately answers all your questions concerning this important matter. However, if you believe I can be of further assistance to you, please contact m e M again. Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to be of assistance to you. With best wishes for you, i am Sincerely yours> CH/jl Enclosure Carroll Hubbard Member of Congress / ^'10SX- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 MEMORANDUM O F F IC E OF S O LIO W ASTE A N D E M E R G E N C Y RESPONSE DATE: April 30, 1991 SUBJECT: EPA Policy on Communications .Regarding the Criminal Investigation of Monsanto's Dioxin Studies FROM: Cate Jenkins, Ph.D. C U ' - ' Regulatory Development liranch Characterization and Assessment Division (OS 332) TO: Richard Emory Office of Criminal Enforcement Counsel OECM (LE 134 X) I am requesting.a determination from -you whether or. not I have violated the constitution rights of any person in my communicating with the public over the Monsanto investigation. Your office is responsible'for interpreting the 1989 EPA policy regarding stating that there should.be no confirmt ion.,to the public whether or not a criminal investigation was in fact underway, in order to protect the constitution rights of persons who,are accused. My immediate need for this determination stems from the fact that my supervisor, Mr. Michael Petruska, first made me aware of the existence of this policy, yesterday. .Mr. Petruska also informed me that this policy was the one which had been incorporated by reference as a criteria for evaluating my .job performance.1 The criminal investigation subject to communications with the public is that of the dioxin health studies conducted by Monsanto. Corporation. On November 15, 1990, Mr. Kevin Guarino (NEIC) first requested that I not discuss the existence of the criminal investigation with the public. Mr. Guarino did. not inform me of the existence of any EPA policy on this matter at this time, but merely said: he was making a request, and that he had no authority to enforce such a request. I informed Mr. Guarino essentially that not communicating with the / 1 My superiors have been aware that I have communicated with /the public regarding the Monsanto investigation, but have not told 'me that I was violating any EPA policy in so doing, or' that I wae incorrectly following any other procedures. Printed on Pecycma Piper public would serve no purpose, since the natter of the fraudulent Monsanto dioxin studies, and the investigation of sane, was already a natter of. public debate. I provided anple examples to Mr. Guarino on November 15 establishing that further public discussion of the Monsanto investigation would not cause any greater public revelations than had already occurred. 'For example, prior to the opening of any criminal investigation, my February 23, 1990 memorandum discussing the probability of fraud by Monsanto received wide press coverage. Furthermore, over the previous years, there had been extensive press coverage of the fraudulent dioxin studies by Monsanto during the course of a civil proceeding. Testimony by Monsanto officials admitting to the invalidity of their own studies had been widely circulated and commented upon by the press. Furthermore, I informed Mr. Guarino that my upcoming meeting with him, and the controversy over alloying; official t i m e .for this meeting, had already become a mattet 'of open record in another civil proceeding. Also, X had addressed a Vietnam veterans' group the prior weekend regarding the upcoming meeting on the Monsanto matter. In addition, it is apparent that the EPA policy does not apply to Monsanto Corporation. This is because the policy clearly states that its purpose is to protect the constitutional right of persons.; Monsanto is a public corporation, not defined as a person, and therefore not having rights under the amendments to the .U.S. constitution. ^f Furthermore, I have evidence that NEIC is also at this time informing the press that a criminal investigation of Monsanto >is underway. This fact supports my contention not only that there is no need to deny whether or not an* Investigation exists, but that EPA has no waived the communication policy. There is also an immediate health need for the public ...tPL.be aware of. the ongoing criminal, investigation of the Monsanto"" sudies; another justification7"for waiving the EPA* policy ^regarding communications. Industry is continuing to utilize these studies as a basis for justifyincr exposing humans to higher levels of dioxins. The public shoulalbe properly alerted, so as to question the validity of these studies. cc : Mike Fetruska, Chief, RDB, CAD David Bussard, Director, CAD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN: DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MICHAEL F. RYAN, et al., Z Plaintiffs, - against - DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, MONSANTO COMPANY, HERCULES INCORPORATED, T H AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION COMPANY, INC., DIAMOND SHAMROCK CHEMICALS COMPANY, UNIROYAL INC., and THOMPSON CHEMICALS CORPORATION, " 1 Defendants. In re AGENT. ORANGE Product Liability Litigation SHIRLEY IVY, et al.. X Plaintiffs, - against DIAMONDSHAMROCK- CHEMICALS COMPANY,, et air; * - 7^ Defendants, --------------------RONALD L. HARTMAN, et al., .j. x s Plaintiffs, s - against - ; DIAMOND SHAMROCK CHEMICALS COMPANY, et al., --------- Defendants. x 79 C V 747 MDL NO. 381 C V 89-3361 (JBW) ^ -v --r. CV 90-3928 (JBW) AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES H. SENGER ^ *'1* m ST. LOUIS COUNTY ) i ) ss.: STATE OF MISSOURI) JAMES H. SENGER, being duly sworn,, deposes and says: 1. I am a former Vice-President of the Environmental Policy Staff of Monsanto' Company ("Monsanto"), a defendant in the above-captioned actions. Until I retired in June 1991, I had been employed byj Monsanto in various positions continuously tor,, nearly 40 years. As Vice President of Monsanto's Environmental^Policy Staff, I was responsible for tiie determination and implementation of thecompany's environmental policy. Additionally, Monsanto's medical and health sciences department,- including its epidemiology group, reported directly to me. 2. I make this affidavit on the basis of personal knowledge*3*5in*iTprther support of defendants' motion to dismiss I w and Harttnan 7~rand in response to the "affidavit of Catherine L. Jenkins, sworn to on September 2, 1991 ("Jenkins Affidavit") and submitted by the I w plaintiffs in further reply on their motion to remand. 3. This affidavit is addressed solely to that part of the Jenkins Affidavit (HI 391-400) that charge's (1) that two epidemologic studies sponsored by Monsanto of ! Monsanto- plant workers exposed to dioxin were fraudulently conducted; and (2) that the reported conclusions of those studies -- i.e., that among those workers there was no statistically significant excess of cancer incidence or mortality associated with dioxin -- are therefore invalid. 4. The studies in issue, however, were peerreviewed, and their conclusions were and are valid. Jenkins' allegations of fraud are unfounded and false. The fraud charge derives not.from a n y .competent epidemiologic analysis ., by Jenkins (a chemist, not an epidemiologist), nor indeed from analysis by any qualified epidemiologist or scientist. Rather the fraud allegations have been lifted from and largely parrot the same charges made by a plaintiffs' attorney in another litigation against Monsanto, Kemner v. Monsanto C o . . No. 80-L-970 (Cir. Ct., St. Clair Cty., 111.). ' 5. Kemner is an action for personal injury and property damage brought by 65 residents of Sturgeon, Miissouri. Plaintiffs therein alleged they were ex*posed to and injured by a trace amount of dioxin released in a rail car spill of a Monsanto product, orthochlorophenol. Their attorney, without benefit of expert testimony on the point, unscientifically manipulated certain study data to attack the validity of several epidemiologic studies of Monsanto's Nitro 2 West. Virginia plant workers-,- i n d u i n g the two studies attackeid^^ Je^^to^as; fraudulent. A f terthree and one-half years off trial ^ t r ^ j u r y fourid that n o p 1aint iff had. suffered bodily injury, but. awarded $l.tTft eachf plaint if f for' -1 economic l s s a n d j S 16 .2 ^ m i l l i o n viih *general punitive damages. '-vw. -- n Monsanto's appeal, tH~ppelTfe' Court of Illinois reversed the* award both.-o^ p u n i t i v e -damages and. for economic , * " -f, loss. Kemner v. Monsanto C o . . 217 111. App. 3d 188, 576 ' 1 " 'vr - - '* 3 Sfri;*'?! * J N.E.2d 1146 (1991) / .* ";r * 6V The Kemner plaintiffs'^. charges of fraud, and a1legedfbases for the s a m e w e r e set f o r t h i n plaintiffs' j J el 54 S ij ii S "* J ^ r - brief in^opposition^to Mpnsanto's appeal. This inflammatory and inaccurates informatiorr the' unscieritiiic work product of 'plaintiffs'-'attorney -- was passed to Jenkins. She rqcycled<the';charges, passing them to officials of her employer;^ the'Envirpnmental. Protection. Agency ("EPA"). Although.JJenkinsf fraud charges^da not reflect the EPA's official ,f:they provoked a preliminary'criminal investigation;of studies by the EPA. 7. Even before news of the EPA investigation first surfaced in 1990, I had requested on Monsanto's behalf, in a letter to the EPA dated October 1, 1990, that the EPA through the auspices of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health conduct a full scientific I -^'7 audit off the epidemiologic studies in issue. I further requested that the government publish the results of that i audit in a peer-reviewed journal. A copy of my letter to the EFA is annexed hereto as an Exhibit. To my knowledge, no such government audit has been completed. Monsanto is confident, however, that the challenged, studies will withstand scientific scrutiny and that the requested audit will confirm the conclusions reached by the scientists who j - 4- I! Monsanto james h. sengeh VbaPnmamt 800M. Urttvgi flawad aioaUimi)01S7 October 1, 1990 Mr. Donald Clay A ssistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response O ffice o f Solid Waste and Emergency Response CJ. S. Environmental Protection Agency Waterside Mall 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 * V RE: Monsanto Company Sponsored Dear Mr. Clay: Earlier this year, an EPA employee on your staff, acting in her private capacity but utxlizina the form at o fa n u n -a g e n c y a w M . forwarded to the EPA't S cio n A d v f c o r y f c S K J ? ooaa raised in an appellate b n rf Hied in a private lawsuit involving Monsanto Comoanv TT^ u n tn e allegations repeated in that memorandum referenced to two health sm d ia roo^n'm j hv Monsanto to examine any impact o f possible exposure to <nTin in emplov e e s ^ n ^ J f ? ^ . production o f herbicides at Monsanto's N itre, V est Virginia pinf. ^ " the study results baddeW sram ly bnder-reporad J S - 'S i 5 S S S S ^ these c h a r eo h a v , been thesubject o f prior correspondence m t h e A g e n ^ y n S t f S d bv M onsanto's Chairman. Richard Mahoney. Notwithstanding our effo r a to c o rr e ctth e these baseless charges have Bern w idely repeatedinaaw spaper accounts i S T ^ b r fo S T ^ Congressional Subcommittee where the charges were portrayed as fact, thus eiriim An inirr. impression that in s the government's view that thm X < M ,m f f ^ _ o incorr?ct diat the Agency did issue a cantcrive statement i n d S S individual capacity not a n Agency employee iTpremumg dm m m S E d S . ^ 3 2 S r m em oru d u a dom pot reflect the Agency's official position. However. th a tliS n M tlm s ^ o t rem edied the preblems censed by contmtml references to dm s a n a tio n s rep eea d ta tfie memorandum which was prepared on Agency stationery, w uw la view o f theinibiU ty o f Monsanto to belt or correct the many erroneous reports with resoea to Ui m two studies sad in view o f the extreme prejudice being suffered by M onstouTand^h! individual icm aosts associated with the studies. Monsanto is remW _ in rh. strongest sense possible, that the United States Environmental Protection A M n w 'S ^ S h th . " W " f. complete audit on the two m n n S T S d ie ^ f a u ^ 'r ^ 8^ Zack/Suskind and Z ack/G affey) referenced within dm m Mo n a a S , 1. . . the d i t wiU confirm the condnsioh. treched by dm *" urged herem would serve to put an end to this false caamsverrv A hnv * 3 , . a . Monsanto w ill continue to suffer m ia government action. G iven the Company s science* based focus, preservation of Monsanto's reputation for nerformtno cu ra te world-class.research is o f critical importance to our business S ^ S S t v S S 7 Furthermore, since NIOSH is m the process o f issuing study results based, in I - 2- ~_... j ^-; population involved in Che two to d ies sponsored** Moomiio. it should be important for ,h ,, - govern m en t remove any stigma mipropsdy attached to MIOST* work as a ^ S f r f S i S r i i ^ charges raised against tbn predecessor spi<i&. faicohnecdon with W OSW i D iid a r Program, Monsanto has pteviousiy furnished NIOSH Witlfcomplete data sets n n r i t o i t k ? M a,nlyn Fingertat at NIOSH has t . n petfann an impartial, independent audit. If Monsanto, can provide futdier .assistance faciU tate completion o f an .-v furnishing anyadditionaldata, itw ouid h happy y ^* -J 'TX} wish to stress that Monsanto believes the charges,raisedagiiiist the two studies are utteriv without merit, but that Moosanto's own ability to counter:these chargea has been impaired bv the incorrect impression created in the media that your Agency ha* challenged the vaiidrv of tfie ' studies. This enoneous impression is perhaps best resolved via direct government invovent in performing an independent audit of the two studies followed with'a publication byth e aovem ment in a peer-reviewed journal of th'resuifo f that audit If ybFhVe other alternative* besides the suggested audit to respond to this situation, please feel free to contact my office Wez look forward to receiving the commitment o f the government to' proceed with this work. * D F S d d o /1 3 cc - ' Raymond C. Loehr; PhJ)r. ri Chairs Executive C om m ittee^ ; .V . T -- Science Advisory Board V< ' O ffice o f the Administrator U S . Environmental Protection'Agency Waterside M all 402 M Street, SW WashingtL D C '' 1 ^"" "m;T Xi ^ Donald Barnes, PhD . Director, Science Advisory Board O ffice o f the Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Waterside Mall 402 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20400 / Marilyn A . Flngerhut, PhD . Chief Industrywide Studies Branch NIOSH Robert A . Taft Laboratories 4076 Columbia Parkway Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998 cxcirymenron the last day o f the meeting. "hockey stick" curve, nirdoes receptor bind scientific cnrnmumrt--and if it in ;.v.r oix. Insrcad o f direct measures ot receptor bind ing necessarily imply a ."safe" dose, says an advantage oxer the status quo. "*I his -s , ing, they used a handy surrogate: the in Silbergeld. who thinks her colleagues are improvement, nor a cure all," warns creased activity o f the cytochrome P450 underestimating the intricacies o f receptor Once the model is complete, perhaps - v cn/yine xvjstcm, widely considered the most theory. Nor is she convinced "that the result biggest question, in terms of dioxin's slanutr* sensitive response to dioxin in all species. [of the new model| will he that different is chc background exposure of the genc-ij No toxic effects are known to occur at levels* from EPA's current figure. As a scientist, I population, uttich comes chieflx from below rlu>se required fbren/xm c induction; object to the KPA model. But |irs predic but also from environmental sources*,.iitt bha.vvk After reviewing data on the nccessarv dose tions! may be very, very-close, for totally ground exposure is comforrablv bclow :::c tbr en/xnie induction in all species. Gallo, llirnbaum, Seheuplein. and others rook turns at the blackboard, trying to calculate what die "safe" level in humans might be. Their irrelevant reasons." . Working* with KPA scientists. Gallo Ts now setting out ro refine the risk number for dioxin. George L.ucierand his colleagues praetieal "threshold" needed tor rev.epu jetixation point-R;in the figure', then r:*er *huy indeed.be'a safe d<sc. But it backup umi-i exposure is higher, near the "threshold j rough, back-of-the-cnvclupe calculation: l at NtKHS are doiug'thc same. The idea is ro i point A I, "then there is no margin for .id*, ti >3 picograms per kilogram per day--several build a conceptual model of cellular re ditional exposure." says Moore. Background! hundred rimes higher d u n current U.S. * sponses to dioxin and.then turn thatoverTo -exposure is now estimated to be about l standards and in the same ballpark as those*' mathematicians to develop a predictive tool picogram pec kilogram per dav--slightK be- set bv some European countries, which ar to estimate dioxin's risks--not jilsr-for loxv the rough "safe" number the Banburv rived there by an entirely different method. cancer but for any toxic endpoint- Willianr* group caiiie'up xxith--which'max not x ; i; Not so fast, says Maryland's Silbergeld; Farland, who runs the dioxin risk assessment much room for additional exposure. who cautions against "replacing one stupid effort ar.EPA, expects a "'straw n u n "-model? . At this juncture. EPA officials are entltio model with another." For one, a receptor- to be complete in about a year. The ricxfsti'p; astically embracing the new scientific- r based model docs nor necessarily predict -a would be to see if it passes muster with the'- prtuch. Don Barnes, a dioxin expert .: executive director of HPA's ''cieiuific V* sory Board, talks of "a real breakrhrou-g;:. Monsanto Studies Under Fire -- = < 3sa sea change in ourxiew of'dloxin." in rac:. ytopic is deemed important enough m.-.* spcial briefing is planned frr EPA adm.. The Environmental Protection- Agency has launched-a. criminal investigation ^to^ 'trator William Reilly and to^agenev ofiL .. ' determine whether Monsanto Corp. o f St. Louis falsified three epidemioibgie-Sth dies, x; ."..But boh far is KPA likclv to go - o f its workers, which showed no increased health risks from dioxin other than the skin - modeling exercise docs rcual that diox::' disease chloracne. The investigation, which EPA is mandated to conduct in response - less riskv than the agencies now calcv, at. to a petition requesting it from the activist group Greenpeace USA, shpuld:rcsolve, Gouuh of OTA, for one. thinks char once and for all, the allegation? that have been swirling around these, studies for-,' `Onswcrjs not very Mr " I mdmm i-*ri:c almost a year. EPA officials would, not confirm or deny the existence-of tHe_^ potent,carcint>gL*n exer resred. tfrhex ba, investigation, but Science obtained internal agency memos discussing it. y ; ofl'thisamc, they will open the door r o e w The EPA has not notified Monsanto that it is under investigation, but says Dan chcmieilt manufacturer in the world" win > Bishop, the company's director o f communications, "We hope there is one, we - chemical acts n the same xxay. "That :> welcome it. It is the only way to put this matter to rest." In fact, the company wrote dour.they will reluctantly open." Gallo o - to EPA twice over the past few months, begging the agency to perform a scientific tends that the door will open just a crack. audit o f the studies. Bishop calls the fraud allegations "bald-faced lies." . : rthere'^irare less than a dozen carcmo-*ae The main charges are that-Monsanto epidemiologists misdassified exposed work- * - knowaito work the way dioxin sloes. Ansi ers as unexposed in their contrbl grpup and that they omitted workers whodiad.dicd predicts that the new receptor-basest r o f two cancers that have been linked to dioxin exposure in other .epidcmTotogici :: mtRteBxvill cut both ways: sonic caremog, studies. The charges first came to light last February when a plantiffslaxvycr in" J wiUpturn out to be far riskier d u n n Kemner v. Monsanto, a case involving a tank-car accident, reviewed the studies,. predicted; others, like dioxin, less risky. decided they were fraudulent, and alerted the press to the alleged cover-up. That Moore agrees that change will not brought in Greenpeace, and also Cate Jenkins, a chemist in EPA's regulatory branch. easy, "For issues this emotional, you haw Shehas since mack: the Monsanto studies something of a personal crusade, petitioning be purer chan Caesar's wife anytime EPA's Science Advisory Board to audit these and other studies, and meanwhile propose to change the status quo. TV sending num erous copies o f her memos to various environmental groups, Vietnam would have to be a fair degree of supj veterans organizations, and her friends on Capitol Hill. Jenkins maintains that xvithin the scientific community for ii Monsanto's studies have directly affected how EPA regulates dioxin. Other agency come to pass, especiallv if the potet officials deny that, saying that EPA's current--and verv stringent--standard for change is a `relaxing' of the number." dioxin exposure is based on animal studies. Eric Brctthauer. EPA's assistant adm Everyone Science spoke with who is familiar with the Monsanto studies agrees that trator for research and development, they are flawed, but probably not as the result ot ^rmunal incent. The scientific cedes that,"the agenev hasn't tradicin questions about the studies may now be moot. however. as all but six ot the relaxed numbers." But. lie s.i\s. ~l t Monsanto workers in the three studies have been .-ucfuiU rccxjmined as part of a there is a willingness at the policy lex larger federal study just published, w-hich suggests "*cn Jio\m doses can cause take it on. Mv xiew is we luxe to be op< ,human cancer (sec box on page 625). The other q u o t . "ux be tougher to resolve. changes in science. \\ ha icier their effe When EPA completes its investigation, the agemx > ! -vp*>a to the Justice De regulator)' policy." He adds, however partment and recommend.either that they prosecute Jose the case. L.R. "the science has to be xerx clear." Lh.si.iE Rot f2h si .: M h. Xx* ..i . LT.8ptRW/P0*M3tp*tCh landing near Hr holma south of OTatlon. Tha homo was. destroyed by strong winds Tuesday afternoon. Usaiy and 3aha, war not homo at tha tima of the atomi. B" u.t..t.h..e.i..r..p..a..r.a..k..e..e..ta.$pto,u was home, and it survived. irquette state Part 'with Mends In a Held north of 0*Fnl- ' . ` tonWhen he was apparently picked up Wlledtotweatijer-. fiy t strong wind In Tuesday's storm kfentin.Chicasoi ' and slammed against (roes. He rewereInjured In the- malned In critical condition with head with fourremaining Injuries at St John's Mercy Medical One fa John Frer- Center late Wednesday. %who was hunting J Only three, people suffered minor lOjurteslnCoIu In minois, a n from Ch^,cagowho died trying to diiIve through 1:2-foot- deep water In a closed, vjaduct Wednesday was fhe'onty person killed In a series of stolen* that battered the state. Iflee STORM,Page IS DATAPAQE WORKERS wart ready for s dissetar, executive* . aay....,I ln tn iiW M H H I I IM iil Pag# 18A COLD SNAP did Itttla damage to plants In the area, horticuKurtato PagotBAS t y U U U I l H M i n U H I IIMUM Brita n 's New Prem ier amis Rivals To Cabinet CompiledFromNeu s Sente LONDON -- rime Midister John Major welcomed his defeatd rivals Into his Cabinet on Wednesday and called for a natli n In which all may prosper accordlig to Htheir talent, their appllcatk n and their good fortune." "I don't promt! t you that Uwill be easy, and I don't promise ybu that It will be quick," h njor said outside 10 Downing St. attesi being conftiirmed as prime minister bj Queen Elizabeth 1L "U you forgive me," he added, MI will go Into No. 10 straight away and make a start right now." Major, at 47 the youngest prune minister of the century, had displayed both talent and tenacity In overcom ing childhood poverty and rising rap idly through the government it was his fortune to be the popular choice of a party tom by rebeUtoo against hit patron, Margaret Thatcher. Hours after saying farewell to her. Major announced a new Ceblael ttee- 5f MAJOR, Page 13 . Davidstanino jr ill (right), president of tat-Air Insurance Co.; and son leaving the courthouse In Jefferson City to ststo Is seeking receivership of the firm. President Arthur spresentattve from and the chairman irance Committee, 12infederalcourt its of drug dealing, dosed that, he was umtyer Insurance and last year, has come up iro ny. Bel-Alre funds nd owned by Thlg- in to Arizona and Louisiana. Alio disclosed Wednesday: Blumeyer signed a letter that of fered to post $30,000 of Bel-Atre's _andsas a personal recognizance bond for Thigpen In U.$. District Court In Cheyenne. Wyo. Thigpen pleadejl guilty Sept 12 to ges of violating federal law In the process of bribing the Wyoming Insurlce commissioner. Seven employees werereljn- ;?>SeeBEL*AiRE, Pago II Greenj dace, Chemist Challenge Monsai ito On Dioxin Findings By William H.Fi'i tvbdml Poit-DfspstehWash ngtonBuite WASHINGTON --Greenpace and a whistle-blower it the Environmen tal Protection A enCy are accusing Monsanto Co, of raUdulently under stating the health isksofdtoxfa. ' Both the Interni tinal environmen tal organization fd fhe EPAchemist called upon the d ency to coAduuct an Independent even etlon of what they say are flawed M<nspnto0 studies indi eating that dioxin ti little health etfeet on humans. ' The EPA chemist Cite also urged a criminal tnvesugadoe etf the Arm, alleging that it covered 9 evidence of dioxin'sill effect* A Monsanto spokesman sqld Wednesday that there appeared ta be e criminal inquiry under wav and declined to comment on X charges. But the company said that grace's allegations were untrue and at the firm stood by the studies. He noted that Monsanto sent a letter to See DIOXIN, Page It it- >ur 114th Y *ar NUMBER 4 tt-THEONLYNATIONAL VETERANS' NEWSPAPER WAStBNOTON, D .C, MONDAY, 10 DECEMBER I960 , rSePFB r*oo EPA Probing Alleged Manipulation 'I Puip^eri?*R : e.-.:*_**j*w. * *jit ji* . "**"*'v,,*mi* 6 f Dioxin Health Studies !-'..:.liJ-' s Zi vi ) VtsMxikm, DC ( tif Q -lk B v In its report, O iw p e s e acid Ttora criticsm y while laboratoy 'ito n e ta lPiDlcOhp Agency la tte EPA> Office o r p ista a l En steal atotfiea suggest high to*ic avestigmingcfariniiMiBdieml- forcement had begin preh'minwy ily, bsrnifol efleets have nut teen ih compwny inyoporiy rnstpo- Inquiries into pouiMe mxnipcla- verified in exposed hainans. Med actentiflc (todies id sta i tion o f three key dkrxiri studies Dioxin M a by-product in the s i th possible health tacci sponsored by Monswila.i manufacture o f certain pesticides bmed29Nov.sed by dioxin, officials coo- Ashed shout (bo Greenpeace and hefUddes^' iiMBt notably report, cn EPA official w b otiied Agent O range., ite defoliint DiKlocure o f the EPA prate not to be Identified raid:"T hat is w iddy ased during Me Vietnam tane as Greenpeace, the fntem i- in investigation underway." The V . It also is generated in indti- kmal environmental group, re official declined to elaborate on erebon and ihe bteaching o f wood cam i a report detailing alleged tte specific! o f the investigation. pulp for white paper products. rregoteiliej la (todies rprasared Glynn Yotmg.a spokesman for T te three Monsanto studies at IjyMonsanto O x , c maker o f pes Monsanto, laid tte company ted isspe exam ined; health effects ticides and other chemical prod- not been notified o f any EPA in tang,norites at the comparty's feCtl. vestigation and thatk stoodby tte heriricide plant in Nitrb.WV, who ,, Greenpeaceclso Wed(petition studies as sound and anWaaed. At were exposed t6 dioxin Adoring with theEPA urging theagency to the sune time, te said Monsanto routine operations from 1935'to tighten hs eoobola on dioxin.I t e had asked the Ef'A to review tte 1977as well as ina 1^49 industrial petition maintained theEPAhcav- studies again fatlighto f iM (nega accident that released larger Byrelied on tte Momento studies tions. amounts,o f the contaminant ' In getting bs ttfulatrxy policies, Young sak) the eUegatJocs The studies, published from bui (geney oH lclils raid that wax in| [Wirnw againstthe stodies wdk ran liti gation againa Monsantoi* which 1980 to ;t983. am important becrase dmy represent one o f the ; Tte-'peddtH died "credible Greenpeace was active pen ld - ' -m oll comprehensive assessments Concerns thrt tte agency's cxlst- tng (dkniu) human efTecu (tea bue il polluted by incorrectfnforration, that the human health ef fects of (dioxin)may be t o none thin originally believed, and that ite polluted data tea fed-ihe agency to `go (oft' on (dioxin)." panLH echancteriseddiefteea- o f dioxin's health Impact on hu- peace reportasatehash" o ffsro ei. raised in coctl T te Monsanto studies found no T te Monsanto rtudies have tanefurim evidence >o f serious been died by some sefestista in health efTectt-ench cancer or challenging federal policies that liver dam age-doe to dioxlfi expo- generally categorize dioxin as a acre. Aa with other studies, the ^ co n risittliflin etiiin ccf posed s - 'A Disease ratesamong dioxtii- r w txkm 7waj"chloiaa>e, severe exposed w ok en , were compared to m o f skin lesions. -to Utoess in a "coctroT group of Alcoa| 'other.allegations, the "worker who supposedly werenot - Greenpeace report suggested the exposed, but actually were. A s a M onstiuo atudiea were m anipo-' result, the report raid. diiTerences highly toxic agent to Monsanto reports suggest the only teed fa tte c r-rC-:. V ' . ; ' 'V . EPA Probiag, Pg. IS GAO: VA Home Loan Program It e saJd.-T-'V -f'l,,2" was sacked by tte Reagan admini- *But now.fteprogram ispfam -' oration, and ihefact that it w ill be May Lose $2.5 Million Imeting into the red. T te present incurring further losses really happened In places like Houston. tcrisia, tte VFW spokesman m id, ; comes as no surprise to us." ' Oklahoma City and Denver," te rcao t e blamed on tw o factors Ite.^ 'This notwhhsbndmg,theOAO added."Now Ulookslike theprob isourlzg economy and the R eagin~report indicated that foreclosures BjDarlaHangen mtUEon cuataaJfci homo Ioann lem is going u move into the larknaiistJXtkM-njrdeted VA d i- s a lly dropped from 49JOOO in w en being serviced by tte pro Northeastand the Midwest,where tvertincm from 111home loan port: FucxlYear(FY) 1988 to43.000in I, A rash o f hoesing foreclosures gram, Them loans had an esti a general recession is likely to te f(ffolio fi5o tote ecarnly Ily9u8wte.-'<''- '. ; nF f jito9.. 'xpeeted to result from a slumping mJCatAeKdiflfrinenmrmfiiatieWoL-fli4o1w5ta2MbmibiMtNo-rMn-' 'felt most**nun. ------------------- :------ --V.` *TVxthootastrorigpcrtfollo.tte ^ - I n h b was the first year the VA - programbecameunfitfor(hed iffl-' experienced a lessening o f home cult financial times which were on loca foreclosures since 1980," tte } tte way" be said. % report sa id ' i - A cmirrsman forthe American - Some legislative changes > :r*si. i N * *, MV4tu* tf umfUtuifliv iwuiiMUMia a * percent fee from everyone, under ultimately make the older Loan - new law veterans will be required ^ Guarantee Fund still mortfreliant to pay from zero to 1.875 percent, Jo n "congressional appropriations^ of the home's down' payment!to mnce newUran nriginnrinn fees: ' receive a loan. This, according to ^vvill be deposited in theoew fund, the House Subcommittee. staffer, j & 4fWhile the future losses'don't : is expected to reduce the number count against us," the House Apof loan defaults and subsequently propriationj aide saitU'^U means reduce foreclosures.ra th e long ijjess money will be available for run.' '-f ,the VA-and the government gen- The law also created .* * T h eerally -in th efu tu r^^ V ;, ?; ..FTom l^;^ EPA officials said that, aa with, p o th e r* chemicals,' the v agency largely developed its dioxin,poliv ,`V ; disease rates between the t w o qjj the.basisvof labtritoiy >. groups were muted.'" animalstudies in which 'relatively' v Dioxin-exposed workers dosesofdioxin caused cancer, V were arbitrarily placed into differ-JT birth defectsand liver, kidney and em groups thatwere. studied sep* ^nerv d a m a g e ! A iely.ThegrouisweresoanaUin % hea]lh number that it became virtuallySv. - . . * . . . .. l \ r . impossible to d e m . a a t i s t i c a H y ^ ^ ^ s ip tfe a n t'incre. ases -in diseasjiS-1 JOTrangveewnoarnsin forestry*.w' forfkie1r*s W-*h with long-term occupational cxT par? 1Cn * lJn posue to Agent Orangenor in for- Some cases of ^ and ^ with long-termoc- heart disease among dioxin-ex- r , __ - . . ___ . -- r posed w jrtets inexplicably w u e^- c o ^ L to te d excluded from some studies. ,**. * - y t Greenpeace said its report, en- if - The EPA'has'acknowledged titled "Science'for Sale,"rwas . the uncertainty about'dioxin's based on independent analysis of impact on human health, but the the Monsanto studies, internal' ! agency has decided to. err on the Monsanto memos and the sworn V side of caution and has pushed the testimony ofMonsanto employees v paper industry, and others'to re- and consultants,. ''A*1;-, d,;uce diox ^ contamination* * r: ; Ji 4,V-*-i-vi-1# V - -V^ - r ~ - !t'. (ratuntfabfs)orma>is ABsoiuiebeta Movie Videos, P.O. Box 130, Remington, VA 22f34. `AI Videos GuarenteecT ` ` PREMIUM V . ; 31"1LONGSTEM , / .v ROSES \\. $39 ' FREBDELIVERY-USA o n r boxed- uax>r credit cards iAvis(Jiomn Worldwide , 1-800-438-AVIS ' America?s 24 H our F lorist ;WQrlandwl th 1BI9 iNugunti&n H aA bdum .pbw - I eamtmrieir p n w w .lcn fw it . ... (latw, h * p e e e w .h m ix ih Iw d o w l F Urm tj b * y lb M )C M * d iV a lto ii iN lH p o o f; bow. _ . 0 7 J O ind. Urn tn d Chadi m Mwy, ' w11**w1,aC*Bfn.wNwofovdMerE**c*A*weaD.O*em.'3*vuhrrl-4>41P-M.Ot.B.h \1 THE SOURCE COMICS AND GAMES 30% DISCOUNT ONIUICW COIflCS 10% DISCOUNT , ONALLNEWOAMES SEND FOR YOUR FREE CATALOG INDICATE YOUR INTEREST IN C 0 U C 9 , PANTS. OH BOTH WSSHPTOAMYAPOFPO THE SOURCE 0 B.N.SNELLMOAVE ST.PAUL, UN9510 : 1-800^78-3113 Ths prog onto sing .. . ___, |iV v - "LT,8peftoe/Port-DtopetOh landing nsar her horn south of O'Parton. Tho homo waedestroyi dby strong winds Tuesday afternoon. Usury and ilSene, were not home at the time of the storm. But their parakeet, tolo," Was home, and It survived. rosette State Park ' with friend* in a field north of CTFil* InJurieslnColuIV Jlfl., |j . !' ' \ltfn when he v ai apparently picked up kUfedtae weather-. ' bye strong wind In Tuesday'* storm tienilo,Chicago! and dammed against trees. Be re were Injured In the* mained Incritical condition with head wtthfour.ftmalnlng Injuries at SL Joan's Mercy Medical |One Is John Frar- Center late Wednesday. In Illinois, a n| infrom CM,0cd0(0 who died trying to d to p through l1a-foot* deep, water I ocloMd.vloduct Wednesday was e'only person trilled Urseriesofsto ml that battered the state. i DATAPAQE WORKERS wars reed y fo ra disaster, executWat s a i fw<n i11 Psfl# ISA COLD SNAP did little damage to plsnta tn the arsa, horticulturists say..I l l l SHIM -- MHHOMW W Pegs ISA t, who Wat hunting Only three people suffered minor toSTRAtoagelS i:--r.i's Ne1w P rem* ier *i; Name isRivals To Cabinet OomptM PromNid* S m tett > will go Into No. 10 straight oway and LONDON - f rime Minister John make a start right now.* Major welcomed his-defeated rivals Major, at 47 the youngest prime Into bts Cabinet on Wednesday and minister of the century, had displayed calledtor a natli nlnwhictv-ollmayr both talent and tenacity In overoom- protper^accordlig to "their-Mont,. Ing chtldhood poverty and rising rap tie tr applicant n a n d th e tr gpp<l idly through the government' fortune.* : - *It was bis fortune to be the popular "I don't promh s you that tt will be cholceof a party torn by rebellion- deBas9y/t,.uainiud a1,udovan'|t pprjuoumuisNe /yvduu tuhuaut siti a g a ln it h li p atro n , M argaret will be'quic.k..,."..N....jr saMid oooutride 10 Thatcher. Downing St after! being confirmed as Hours after saying farewell to her. prime minister bj Queen Elizabeth IL Major announced a new Cabinet line* "If you forgivi me," bo added,-*! See MAJOR, Page 11 David Stilling ir III (right), president of BshAIrt Insurance Co.; and ion leaving th courthouse In Jefferson City w stats Is seeking receivership of lhs firm. i President Arthur pen In Arizona and Louisiana. Also disclosed Wednesday: spresentettve Bom Blumeyer signed a letter that of and the chairman fered to port 130,000 of Bel-Aire'! irance Committee, hinds as a personal recognizance bond 12In federalcourt for Thigpen In U.S. District Court In rts of drugdealing, Cheyenne, Wyo. tosed that he was. Thigpen pleaded guilty Sept. 13 to umeyer insurance charges of violating federal law In the autd last year, process of bribing the Wyoming Insur has come up fro* ance commissioner. ay. Bel-Aire funds Seven employees wereretyn- downed by Thlg* j'-SeeBEL-AIRE,page II Greenj nee, Chemist Challeng Monsanto On Dioxin Findings ByWnnam&MtvtasI Poil-Dfipste*Waiti ngtoniBfturned WASHINGTON - Greenpeace and a whistle-blower it the Enylronmen- tel Protection A ericy are accusing Monsanto Co. of raUduIently under stating the health IsKsofdlorlm Both the Intern tldnel environmen tal organization ai d me EPA'chemist called upon the oj ency to conduct on Independent evat atlon of wnat they say are flawed M<nshnto studies Indi cating that dioxin has little health ef fect on humans- ' ' The EPA chemist, Cate Jenkins, also urged a criminal Investigation of the firm, alleging that it covered up evidence of dioxin's ill effects. A Monsanto spokesman sfl'4 Wednesday that there appeared to be a criminal Inquiry under way and so declined to comment on Jenkins* charges. But the company said that Greenice's allegations were untrue and iat the firm stood by the studies. He noted that Monsanto sent a letter to See DIOXIN, P age ii li H Q Vn i > % I O ri fce <di Ecology is for le, fifav.30, m < : { icutmfc te de r- Ca. hpredtet of terftefafa ppensafcng, waste indnendkia end all expected n d a te a business or pdhft flfwipnwg - ! a&teul other Industrial processes Dioxin F o r e c c f a i e no toeg***bufld Ptfaw f i Not long fio air potkidi mas Wamwl h < n .d the oust hade pathetic diemi- pulp milli L dies became it costs f b en Hier trees. Seriously. Fo n t UiL c u k i i i i i a t o c a i u e j. much to oan up. The same logic am jid e i n t e f l t Ro&aUl Reasn^a d n e f oT staC D v e a p e fa =be .aggressive erririm- to re n t hisLess derisions That's eodkgE- s DonaM Begac, daned that trees failed Mac-atfL SuotatM lQ) car e d u u s t, (Mbs* u e n td advocac organization, potiioned the V S . Eodrocnentai Protection Agency cal CCDQOOK- ^J ItB itm eab to asiu p tiM tltttd d d triai fanes. he tried to aube us b d f a on Thursday to "revote ell past faisions wanning. pusoos hi eround water; 4n bare aused ix> probtems. Tree* ocre the te e d on thse toadies." Greenpeace says ow e bole, rel pollution. and acid rare to new scientific eteen re shows dioxin to be curn aive I : destrayiag b d b n our eya* Iksi kind af c m talk has beat rented fix more toxic % human than prewoudy ardntectutaUeweli *: es Prague 'aid hi HeVhUe Bouse though;g te n half a thmghL Cracow, v x d not be aa severe bed .b e d u nce John Suatnu, Premoent Buh's Reputable smmtists here disagreed link betwoe: the ecology and ccnwoeiip Doaak Rubo, vraild soon m h e ft. A about diaxm fb o ears and are notliky been achiKvsdged 9t< r 30 years ago., t monthmm fie felled,by * mere rfcfcker, to to Teach ocmnan ground just to ytease Instead. Ih John Suaunm of the m lffl the G ten Air,Ac thM Canadians hape Greenpeace B uuontonie profits are not keep fanyn; Muck u money. If pure iiU ciE oupaeidnix the only ream tar toe impasse. Scientific comes to d ie , the White House has red. fa n a a is not alone; Many cfanaaur ream nong the Patanne. The slnggte fir reputations are s: sta te The U.& gnrem* ru n t could re litote tebfifioas o fbilan yreypletaptepdtluy,j-amyicicwratos )arbtMouMtwtWheatie^ciwonanjr s d e m r eovucniaent esa never stop fae- in damages if th; court* fared thataoxm But we *4 . urate uy even the fanfe- cauae <ne person** poUutfon is another gare people earner while federal rgula- dead in jrftfci B atte them nugfty pononfs profit toc wrelnnl n*w-- fauwt- j enough w lilA y t e tU t eoolopcat Far uampto. B ee n e bertfafcte are Kb, the lin e c cnvtromnehtel reajonai- nomks cm rack -- that the costhendEt a m panfluhfta. dicnftcal in te tty giants ai y is not goinrto be settled. But rot all analysis oc a y nuger economic d e ra te sa d ag Itonttwto aid BSAF new stand is lim it. P eo p les beginning to nolise must incMcgirabahle oast o f ccntagfat. noetoed-- not by any court b at by a pri the economic ooa of pollution is too seri- eonsequmots vateoryanlzaikHi --cfpromoting arientifl- ourto be felt toxnve*t*drul conomats. With loci reUonat gtvenxncnts erei* ealfe thmduleat studies minlttnrinc dm- . fiowiy butsury, an e n o ito g aeadatn- where wifiv e e up in time. -> geraaszxhded wifhtiearuae; k ttadpUne oSee some hope. Call it'eeo - Bogdta EfiSag is a rn u f e ff drefehm This par&euiidjr sasty case involves kgsal economy'*-- a method of foctwing writer im ejfl M u fa jp w M fr& ty') <90i .i 'i o n a l j>aSj<2- r j i i o e a J d+ m c S XK x%<D XPXv cO1 sc<n>n cn n-, Ko> Groups attack dioxin studies, ask MPCA to revoke perm its r SulTWrrtcf MdiwLb>'ttewwhwiw- ________ Tkt M m FoarcivinnHaml(rcajHiegM Me Ik n d iriiitN k fn iiitk itlq i m ia d m m k M a tod M uft uadkt of A otis, a Irak chankM r a tt.k iiiQ M B iftM ia lM M to etn . TidWc wMnPJCi ApepweMmmmemto iMmtmeeeun- T k r ittt i era a to a v d or * Loot "Omttxrmaa t e l CMphifcaujfcy '1 it_t_o_eo H MPCA rnw iM narr GartM Wdk3 ik t e M t a d M ir m p n M - tiUMem taaaalM iM tycaeidqr t o a fla m e heMUl" WatalMii. M liim c fM M ik d r a a B n t S m S S l He aid Ac MPCA Hi M i d r t ) M H M M MMU dneia "i i hr he Me mom in a cM tiM i at Me Mm momc mMtccaicaMt oKaMlMm ntpo of Rc "' OO MMM e^ U^SAa, QMa l X X Mm, DakotaComp CM c m ii'i | wcmI id MM a tent iactoeK r, aad Me Ooqari _ la WtoaeXM. D C , Ac ETAlaid M m jor ( t o n tw o ] to (> *- t o k r h t o O x p .t o a |M d n it IcakiaaitaoGrcmfracg'i rWiMt. * in k r . The MPCA Miff ant eeh- H P >! eniM inei (rett), ia Ik* atod _by toam y^gradaeed hr a r tw a in M aw nn chy. f c iiP A f t c f M Q ia r M ir ir f loiatctGCutcaodCe Coorp, a*e* eecnm G rttapcet, id Me nay n Me a a .i....i.a...to ta u caal W h, Mia.. Ike t o Mm Ma MPCA m i anoae eevea held M__m M se a a a lot c f aaccitthay K a n lo i m R m m ead Me aatkM mmmMv toaM iMhenMa die uiia ead Mi m MeEPA H i u,emU iioM ssia. iMtoaidiy. (tu coaicaa t o he cMiniat dieia. TWy darytd Mm tic to a d y Ho w m . WMm t o HeMPCAlIm Berafaa ead C iiutai rujafkamum t o Me fahmy ttSSaim rn Me N a d Etaaaaaa, wife* ' Oneapeaee t nMn--d Me EPA ym- iea to ia to ir o l rajah h ta M ia OoaKt, Man. la Midi ie w fct oa an t9 ctoaate aneor e a n aT da U i Ear Moita. The ta rirra ta n l pcaa Ajeacy (EPA) Mm to aMed Mat Me MPCA Hypon Me ( M pX . V* ^ o w * l a- O m m - f r c ? VCA'r-p [Via Greenbase] S*forj-fs o k . Dn&^iCfc [2] 30-NOV-90 0*58 EST (Editorst Repeating earliar storyy -- EPA probing alleged manipulation of "dioxin health studies By GEORGE LOBSBNZ WASHINGTON (UPI) - The Environmental Protection Agency is investigating charges that a chemical company improperly manipulated scientific studies to minimize thepos Bible health threat posed by dioxin, officials confirmed. 7 Disclosure of the EPA probe came as Greenpeace, thaf' international environmental group, released a report Thursday detailing alleged irregularities in studies sponsored by Monsanto Co., a maker of pesticides and other chemical products. ` Greenpeace also filed a petition with the EPA urging the agency to tighten its controls on dioxin; -The petition" maintained the EPA heavily relied on the Monsanto studies in settingiite^xegulatory policies, but agency officials said that was not:the case. \ The petition cited: "credible concerns :thatthe agency's existing (dioxin) human effects data base is polluted?by incorrect information, that the human health effects of (dioxin) may be far worse than originally believed, and that the polluted data has led the agency to 'go soft' on (dioxin). In its report, Greenpeace said the EPA'8 Office o Criminal Enforcement had begun preliminary inquiries into -possible manipulation of three key dioxin studies sponsored bv Monsanto* Asked about the Greenpeace report, an EPA officiai who asked not to be identified saidi "There is an Investigation under way." The official declined to elaborate on the specifics .of the investigation. Glynn Young, a spokesman for Monsanto, said the company had not been notified of any EPA investigation and that it stood by the studies as sound and unbiased . A t the same time, he said Monsanto had asked the EPA to review the., studies again in light of the allegations* 'r ? Young said the allegations against the studies arose from litigation against Monsanto in which (Greenpeace was an active participant* He characterized the Greenpeace report as a "rehash" of issues raised in court. The Monsanto studies have been cited by some scientists in challenging federal policies that generally categorize dioxin as a highly toxic agent to humans* Those critics say while laboratory animal studies suggest high toxicity, harmful effects have not been verified in exposed humans. Dioxin is a by-product in the manufacture of certain pesticides / a n d herbicides, most notably Agent Orange, the defoliant widely used during the Vietnam War* it also is generated in incineration and the bleaching of wood pulp for white paper products The three Monsanto studies at issue examined health effects among workers at the company's herbicide plant in Nitro, W.Va*, who were exposed to dioxin during routine operations from 1955 to 1977 as well as in a 1949 industrial accident that released larger l -> amount of the contaminant. The studies, published from 1980 to 1983, are important because they represent one of the most comprehensive assessments of dioxin's health impact on humans. The Monsanto studies found no conclusive evidence of serious health effects - such as cancer or liver damage - due to dioxin exposure. As with other studies, the Monsanto reports suggest the only consistent ailment among exposed workers was chloracne, a severe form of skin lesions. Among other allegations, the Greenpeace report suggested the Monsanto studies were manipulated in that* - Disease rates among dioxin-exposed workers were compared with Illness in a "control" group of workers- who supposedly were not exposed, but actually were. As a result, the report said, differences in disease ratetr between the two groups were muted. - Dioxin-exposed workers were arbitrarily placed into differ ent groups that were studied separately. The groups were so small in number that it became virtually impossible to detect statisti cally significant increases in disease among exposed workers compared to the unexposed. - Some cases of cancer and heart disease among dioxin-exposed workers inexplicably were excluded from some studies. Greenpeace said its report, entitled "Science for Sale," was based on independent analysis of the Monsanto studies, internal Monsanto memos and the sworn testimony of Monsanto employees and consultants. EPA officials said that, as with other chemicals, the agency largely developed its dioxin policies on the basis of laboratory animal studies in Which relatively low doses of dioxin caused cancer, birth defects and liver, kidney and nerve damage. Those health effects have not been observed in studies of Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange nor in forestry workers with long-term occupational exposure to dioxin-contaminated herbicides The EPA has acknowledged the uncertainty about dioxin's impact on human health, but the agency has decided to err on the side of caution and has pushed the paper industry and others to reduce dioxin contamination. #*** 2 Charles Laszewski, "EPA to probe alleged problems with Monsanto dioxin studies; Greenpeace says reports falsified," in "The Journal of Commerce," Pacific Edition, November 30, 1990, pp. 7A. EPA to probe alleged problems with Monsanto dioxin studies; Greenpeace says reports falsified The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency confirmed Wednesday it was investigating whether Monsanto Corp. manipulated and falsified studies of workers exposed to dioxin to make the chemical appear less harmful to humans. The environmental group Greenpeace, in a report, claimed that three studies done by the company in the early 1980s, and relied upon by the EPA, falsely concluded there m s no apparent link between dioxin and the deaths of employees at the company's Nitro, w.V., herbicide plant. Dan Bishop, director of Monsanto corporate communications in St. Louis, said he was unaware of that investigation,, but his ' company asked the EPA in October to do an audit of the studies. I'm delighted to hear it and welcome it," he said of the EPA investigation. "I think that is the only way we can put it to rest. I wish they had started yesterday. We deeply resent these accusations We stand on the record with those three studies" But Greenpeace's Joe Thornton, who wrote the report on dioxin, was just as adamant about the Monsanto studies and another one done by the giant German chamical company BASF. Both studied employees who either worked routinely with dioxin-contaminated products or were exposed to it through accidents. "These are politically motivated and untrue," Mr. Thornton said of the dioxin studies., " Gwen Brown, an EPA spokeswoman, said the agency had not seen the Greenpeace report and would not be able to comment. She confirmed there was an investigation under way by the agency's office of criminal investigation into Monsanto's handling of the studies. The problem is that industries have used the studies to claim that no deaths have occurred because of dioxin exposure, Mr. Thornton said. Also, the studies have been used to convince EPA /hot to aggressively ban dioxin from the environment, he said. / The e p a has from time to time said it was going to downgrade the health risk of dioxin, although it has never followed through because of objections from its science advisory board. The result has been constant: uncertainty on just how dangerous dioxin, which is now present in-most humans, might be to health. Earlier this year, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency backed off from a stringent dioxin standard for state rivers and lakes that would have required major changes by paper mills in particular. The agency staff was convinced by testimony produced by Boise Cascade that there was lot of uncertainty about dioxin and the EPA might be re-evaluating its toxicity. But, Mr. Thornton said, Greenpeace's evidence of false studies, combined wtih numerous other studies that indicate dioxin may cause heart disease, lymphatic cancers and neurological effects, verifies the animal studies that for years have shown dioxin to be one of the moat toxic chemicals ^known. Even, minute amounts have caused cancer in lab animals. Greenpeace was expected to deliver a petition Thursday to the EPA in Washington demanding that the agency stop relying on the Monsanto studies, revise all policy decisions based on it and establish a national dioxin program to eliminate all major sources of dioxins, Mr. Thornton said. That would require phasing out the use of chlorine in pulp and paper mills, ' prohibit [sic] chlorine in any form in incinerators and eventually eleminating all uses of pure chlorine in industry, he said. Mr. Thornton said the Monsanto studies included people who were not routinely exposed to dioxin, which diluted the results. Testimony by the researchers in a Missouri court against Monsanto .verified many of the study's problems, he said. FrhtoWmafflaarattftMO/torTifasHa Groups attack dioxin studies, ask MPCA to revoke perm its Bybni '^ a d advene health ctfceu. SufTW rilcr The studies were cnnducted or & Four r o r iir a tm u l trou pi urycd the Minnesota Pollution Control Apency T b u n d ayu (evoke pcnaits that they MPCA Commissioner Gerald W ilict tudfcs o f ^ iifj a chcsoicBl told the ca v tro a a ira ljfa a y o w d sy waste, by two m ajor chemical m m s- that k ii u n c y shares their eoaccm batuta. bool dim in. He said the M PCA trtau damili "ss by k r Ih* K M The MPCA p c n g iu ille l! opera- ta w cheatical wc w r iltta " f boo o fl Piter mill Ib tl U x cm However, WiUct said fee MPCA t o u u co n ica l could be tm itiiaa dim - 0 used the industry etudes fa <V ttnin. They chaiged that lb* iadim ry rtw iin fo atn tl retain- ud iti w i m anipulan) lo co ----- he mid, it rtfaa on dude ib u then is mo m nrisikw Mudici be the U i EnviionMcaiaJ between buiaaa esponine lo d faifa Frouxuon Agency (EPA) that fo oaed oo dwsin*nflgM on faborotolyiiim h . "O ur permit* reflect our philosophy that when c m lt a ii fafam aiioa n k ii, tbc safest course is to fO with the data that lend to the K M prossclioa o fhuman heafch," WBIe*mid. H e n et yesterday id Sl Paul with repraeauuves o f the four troupe O n a i c t t USA, d ean Water Ac- lion . Dakota County G lb caa Against la n u a j and C ittzeas Concerned n la t: theiBMQaotqc hwiE)Mipaiun.hon. flw rap rsw i aad Cteaa Water Action t ie an fan ai p n tp a that have been active in M innrtota The Dakota Couaty group was lam ed to fifb t the cou aly'i proposal 10 build a lan e incinerator, and the Q oqucl croup was fam ed teecoily to plans by Potlatch Corp. to espand its puip n iill operam os trtatiy fa the northeastern M iuesota city. The (our groups contend that the incinerator and (be m ill, as well as nilar plants ehewtere ia Minneso ta, coukl ( n il d toiio. Gieenpcnce petitioned the EPA yo tciday io implement a aslionaI ausitgy to ctiastaate a q o r source* o f d io ifa. The envitonsaeaial group asked that (he MPCA tuppon the pet ition, but W illei dntinrd u eon n il the agency. He said, however, that he nrwH rrwiidrT such apport. la Washington. D .C , ibe EPA aaid it b lookfai falo GroeapeaocTachaipca. Jota O'Argo, o f the Chkano office o Greenpeace, aaid the rally at the M PCA waa am ong seven held around the nation ycsicntoy lo call Tbc covtroam calaUttt noted that tbe dionn naiutatd tor M inaesoia n reri aad lu a i uiai would have required Ajar f i l e r s tyrjw per m ills fa particulai. The MPCA s u it was con vinced by testimony produced by Raise C airadf Corp., w akb operstes a auH fa International Falls, M faa., that there was a lot o f iiactn sfaly about dfasfa and that the EPA migbt nevafaate its tonicity. V<*- i H Q Vn v3 * 1 Q ri he Ecology is for life, not just jobsd i he * r- dbodn, a> b p ro d u ct o f h eriid d es, p tp e tu to n t w aste Indnendtoa and n a n i t tt r Id u stria l processes. I n i n fifa*.30, w o ' j r jiM f lM dffirwB5 a ll expected cost* into business o r p d b t decisions. t F o r eurqfie, w e no longer buBd sate f i Mot long ago d r pcUuttoa^ h 4 M o f dm n e t toxic synthetic d e n i* p u lp mills L titie s because i t costs .to on Id ler trees. Seriously. F a n n e r US. o l i known to m ence. m uch to o a t up. T he s a n e logic a p d id e presbfeut Ronald Reagan'* ch ief o f sta ll Greenpeace, zhe aggressive em non* to most tnsLess d erW n a That's eMUOffi* s Donali Began, daim ed th at trees faded m ental advocac organisation, petU oned caleoononk. .. 1 the fe . Smokestacks, c a r n rh fe ttt, intis* the U S- E feirecaentB i Protection Agency I t a ram ciahle assuaptien that c t4 trial femes, he trie ! to m ake a s bette**, on T hundsy to "revoke all past deiistons waradng, p&aas to eround water, t o banc <au$ad no problems. T reea e re the based o n these dudies." Greenpeace says ozone hole, **1 pcH utiin. and acid rain near scientific ematenee shows dtoxui to b e corrosive I : destroy# before our eyes Thai kind o f sa y taHc has been m ated m m ore batic t hnmarcs then preously arehitoctucaiJewels sush as Prague a i l h i Ike'W hite Souse though dtoen half a tlaughL Cracow, wxwi not be as severe had-ttb chaw s John S w um , Pm toflcnt Bash's R eputable sem itista have dia a t e t d link betwee: the ecology and economic Doaafc R m w o ld soon l e f e e i t A about dioxin, facyeaxs and are not likely been ackiK ^dged 3C<r 50 y ean ago,. i m o o th he felled,by a m ere whbfcer, to to T eeth c c m n n ground just to {-tease Instead, lb John Suaunus of the ward- kitt the Clean A ir A c th a t Ceaariiasa hope G reenpeace P u m m oiate profits e e n e t keep bray jp Muck is money. If film v d ld c n up arid n ix the atoy reason ta r th e impasse. Scientific comes to s te e , th e W hite House has sad. Skmmi la not alone. Many dtoasaurs reputations aire sz s ta te T he U.S: enrem* repeated^, m e e n n about the econeay roeai *ong th e Fotocnae. T he fitirtygle for omrit could se tild e A r tollioas o fd slla n w illtop M rju a e a la l consderathm a a tim er envieonraeiit can n ev er scop be in dam ages if ths courts found th a t cioxhi B ut we*-i_ wake ap even the farak- cause <oe person's pollution is another gave people e u s e r while lderai atguls* dead in j d k s R attie them roagtfy person's p ro fit toe w in ted at o o en tiir ftaud. enough u a ftte y see fla t eooJogkalee* Par h a a p h B eeaoe h e r if a ts s m Ko, th e issue c environm ental responsi' nomics ean o d e -- tb it the eost-beneft verj fanfltahto, d ienieal industry giants bi& is not gotopto b e settled. But to ta li analysis ocacy m aser economic detisk a and; as Monsanto asd BSAF new stand is U eah. People u ro beginning to (valine m ast iadadiKUQfaafale coat o f ccotagieti accused-- not by any court b a t by a pri the economic coi o f pollution is too seri- pinifparwo t vate orianlxatica-- cfprom otiiuaetentift- o u rto b e fed to owiveutidnal eem om sts. W ith le d satiooal fin e n o e n ls a ^ > calf) flnmduknt studies m iniuaring dan- S-owfy but surcy, a n emerging ararti- w here will v jse u p sa tin e . -> M ersan d ated TNrithtiear use, k d sd p tia e o tite some hope. Call it'eeo * Bogdan f& a g Is a Canadian tie e fe m This p a rtk n M y aasty case M w kgjsal economy"-- a m ethod of fectwring w ritertiriajtl Wasidtsstan D.C *1 3 3Hx ro r5<*_xHo! O' U<hl. cn Ao =-~,yK^> 2i* f ^ A ' i HkiL <sdii"icnal v & -fa'. r^.'ioe UcrbneS tuttf States ot America B efore the U .S. D epartm ent o f Labor Cate Jenkins, Ph.D., Chemist U. S. Environmental Protection Agency COMPLAINANT William K. Reilly, Administrator U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ) ) ) ) ) ) ) v. ) .v ) ) ) RESPONDENT ') ) _____________ :______________________:______ ) C ase No. 88 SW D-2 ,, May 28,1991 AM ENDED COM PLAINT AND SUPPLEM ENTAL PLEADINGS V* The Complainant, Dr. Cate Jenkins, is supplementing the record in the above men tioned case to include new retaliatory actions by the Respondent, the U .S. Environmental Protec tion Agency (EPA). These supplemental pleadings document the continuing retaliation against the Complainant for her efforts to control dioxin exposures, which were first brought to the Depart ment o f Labor (DOL) on April 11,1988. As o f this date, the DOL has failed to provide the Com plainant with a hearing,* the only vehicle that could prevent further retaliation and redress the past adverse personnel actions. The recent retaliatory acts, subject to these pleadings, entail the imposition o f new, retroactive, entrapping, and highly retaliatory clauses upon the Complainant through her job per formance standards, upon which her employment conditions are based. On April 29, 1991, Complainant's supervisor,'Mr. M ichael Petruska, first provided a signed, effective copy o f Com plainant's official performance standards. The two new clauses in question are as follows: * Currently, the Secretary of Labor has on her desk for review the issue as to whether federal em/ ployees are protected under the environmental statute whistleblower provisions. Review of this issue should have been completed in the early fall of 1989. Failure to do so has left the Complainant in the adverse situation described herein and in previous pleadings. First, a clause prohibits Complainant from deviating from inapplicable (and probably illegal) EPA policies regarding communication with the public. A s a result o f this entrapping clause, prior communications with the public about the Monsanto criminal investigation w ill be used to downgrade her job performance evaluation, and possibly to support termination o f her employment. (This clause was also inserted into the Complainant's performance standards as a mechanism to spare Monsanto from adverse publicity.) The second retaliatory clause forces the Complainant into the impossible task of tailor ing technical and scientific judgements for new hazardous waste listings to an available budget. This clause does not simply lim it the scope or certainty o f her scientific and technical assessments to the available budget The second clause was added after the peffoimance standards Complainant had helped draft in the fall o f 1990, and was totally unknown to the Complainant until April 29, 1991. Mr. Petruska's spurious excuse for not telling the Complainant o f the existence o f the sec ond clause in her standards was that since the Complainant had in the past refused to sign her stan dards, it was not necessary to make her aware o f the provisions or provide an opportunity for comment (audio recordings are available). The retaliatory nature o f the two clauses is explained below. The motivation for th two retaliatory clauses is also discussed. RETALIATORY CLAUSE ON ADHERENCE TO EPA POLICIES ON PUBLIC COM M UNICATIONS The retroactive clause in the Complainant's performance standards regarding adherence to previously unidentified EPA policies on public communications is a strategy to give the Com plainant an unsatisfactory rating based on her unwitting failure to adhere to it. An unsatisfactory performance rating could be used to justify an onerous intensive supervisory period on Com plainant, or even justify termination o f Complainant's employm ent The clause was inserted into the Complainant's standards in a surreptitious manner, with no notice o f the meaning o f the clause, designed to entrap the Complainant This clause on adherence to EPA communication policies is motivated by a desire by EPA to protect M onsanto Corporation from adverse publicity. On February 23, 1990, Com plainant first brought to EPA's attention fraudulent dioxin health studies performed by Monsanto on its workers. In the ensuing months, Complainant worked with EPA's National Enforcement Investigation Center (NEIC) to assist in a criminal investigation o f Monsanto's conduct o f these / -2- studies.* Complainant's February 23,1990 memorandum (prior to the initiation o f an official EPA investigation) and subsequent materials prepared by the Complainant to support the investigation were also subject o f press coverage. Such adverse press coverage has been shown to directly ef fect the economic health o f corporations in the past. The retaliatory motivations for including this clause in the Complainant's standards is also indicated by the fact that no other staff member, even those participating in criminal investigations, has this or a similar clause in their performance stan dards. The Complainant's superiors failed to provide notice o f the existence or applicability o f the EPA policy on communications before the period where the Complainant was to be held liable for adhering to it. This constitutes entrapment. Oh April 2 9 ,1 9 9 1 , Mr. Petruska first informed the Complainant that the clause "follows all EPA policies regarding communicating with the pub lic" referred to an hereto unknown EPA policy on criminal investigations. EPA employees were not to confirm or deny whether EPA was pursuing a criminal investigation. The Complainant was unaware that the clause in her performance standards ("follows EPA procedures on communica tions with the public") referred to criminal investigations. At the time she reviewed the draft stan dards in the fall o f 1990, she assumed that the clause referred to obtaining the proper written con currences for certain categories o f correspondence with the public. Because the clause was move^to a more prominent position in the final version of the performance standards provided on April 29,1990, the Complainant was prompted to ask Mr. Petruska to what he referred. Mr. Petruska stated that the clause referred to the EPA policy on not confirming or denying the existence o f a criminal investigation, namely that being conducted against Monsanto. Mr. Petruska assured the Complainant that he was aware o f no other EPA policy regarding com munications with the public, and this particular policy on criminal investigations was the only pol icy, to which the clause in the performance standards referred. Mr. Petruska claimed that he had provided earlier notice o f this policy to the Complainant, saying he had distributed a copy to every staff member in the first month o f 1991. This is untrue, since neither the Complainant nor other staff member received such a policy any time over the past year. Further proof o f the intent to entrap the Complainant is seen by the fact that Mr. Petruska never took any opportunity to notify the Complainant that she had not adhered to EPA policies after she distributed her November 15,1990 and January 24,1991 memoranda which ref erenced the EPA criminal investigation against Monsanto. This would have been the appropriate / / * The previous refusal of Complainant's supervise to allow her to even participate in the Monsanto ' investigation as part of her duties was subject to an amended whistleblower complaint filed with the Secretary of Labor in September, 1990. - 3- 4 time for a supervisor to bring to the Complainant's attention her failure to follow the alleged EPA policy. Other com pelling evidence exists that Complainant's superiors were attempting to en trap the Complainant: The Complainant had a conversation with her division director, Mr. David Bussard, on March 20,1991 regarding the existence o f any EPA policy on communications about criminal investigations. Mr. Bussard stated that he had never seen such an EPA policy, although he believed one existed. The Complainant informed Mr. Bussard not only that she had never seen ) such a policy, but had seen a Department o f Justice directive to federal agencies stating that unlike , criminal investigations o f private citizens, the government was obligated under the law to reveal to the public certain aspects and/or the existence o f criminal investigations o f corporations. Mr. Bus sard acquiesced* and did not follow up the conversation later by supplying the Complainant with a copy o f the policy. (An audio recording of this conversation with Mr. Bussard is available.) On November 14, 1990, there was an ideal opportunity for the Complainant to have been notified o f this EPA policy, if it were applicable. It was this occasion which provided the greatest degree o f assurance to the Complainant that there was no reason not to speak o f the ongo in g criminal investigation to the public. Mr. Kevin Guarino, EPA's NEIC investigator on th e1 Monsanto case, after having completed an extensive interview with the Complainant about her evi dence, called her up on the telephone. He requested that she not speak o f the investigation. Shereplied that this request was somewhat belated, since she hafi already referenced the investigation in an open public document, when she amended her whistleblower complaint in September, 1990 over her superiors failure to allow her to participate.. Complainant also told Mr. Guarino that she had spoken o f the upcoming Monsanto investigation in a speech before the National Coalition of Vietnam Veterans the previous weekend. The reasons Mr. Guarino gave for not speaking to the public about the investigation were also weak. First, and most importantly, Mr. Guarino did say that his request was based on any EPA policy. He did not allude to an EPA policy in any manner. Second, the rationale Mr. Guarino gave for not speaking to the public was that he might have to speak to "Monsanto execu tives," and presumably wanted any relationship developed in such a meeting to be smooth and conducive to his personal ends. (The awe with which Mr. Guarino spoke o f his future meetings with these Monsanto executives came through loud and clear on the tape recording.) Furthermore, if there were a genuine a need to be silent about the investigation had any real importance, then Mr. Guarino should have made the request in September o f 1990 when he first contacted the.Complainant. The legality o f the EPA policy not to confirm or deny the existence of a criminal inves tigation is also in question, or the ability o f EPA to force its employees to adhere to this policy. The stated purpose o f the policy is supposedly to protect the constitutional rights o f the accused, as 7 well as to facilitate an investigation. There is no conceivable constitutional right o f a person (much -4- Y 4' . less a corporation such as Monsanto) under the constitution to not being subject to open accusa tions o f crimes. The only`constitutional guarantee is to be assumed innocent by the prior to a trial.* Others are free (under the constitution) to make responsible allegations in any arena.* Furthermore, no facility o f investigation could have been achieved by keeping the exis tence o f a criminal investigation o f Monsanto's study secret, since extensive press coverage o f the fraudulent studies occurred before the initiation o f the investigation. Monsanto itself went on record that in October, 1990, it had itself requested such an investigation. Extensive allegations about the fraudulent Monsanto studies were covered by the press beginning in the early 1980's, when the studies were at issue in suits brought by Monsanto's Nitro, W est Virginia employees, then later by a township in Missouri (Kemner. et al. v. Monsanto). Further press coverage o f the allegations agains: Monsanto resulted from Complaihant's February 23,' 1990 memorandum dis cussing the fraud, long before an EPA investigation was initiated On April 30, 1991, the Complainant requested confirmation from EPA's counsel for enforcement as to whether or not the EPA policy was applicable in this instance, whether it should be waived, and whether it was legal in the first place. No reply has been received. j* RETALIATORY CLAUSE IN PERFORM ANCE 'STANDARDS REGARDING TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC ASSESSM ENTS "4 The second retaliatory clause was added after the performance standards Complainant had helped draft in the fall o f 1990, and was totally unknown to the Complainant until April 29, 1991. This clause states that in order to obtain an acceptable performance rating, the Complainant must modify her scientific and technical assessments according to the amount o f funding available. This highly unethical clause w ill lead to environmental regulations not based on valid science, but instead psuedo-science not revealed to the public as not being based on true science. If the one sci entist on a regulation is silenced by such a clause, then the resulting regulations w ill not be science. The Complainant's performance standards state that the effective date o f this clause is retroactive to October 1,1990, but was only provided to the Complainant on April 29,1991. Mr. Petruska's spurious excuse for not allowing the Complainant to review the existence of this retalia tory clause in her standards was that since the Complainant had in the past refused to sign her stan dards, it was not necessary to make her aware o f the provisions or provide an opportunity for comment (audio recordings are available). ' The recent case brought against Senator Kennedy's nephew is a well known example where allegations were openly made and reported upon by the press, not subject to censure due to some alleged constitutional rights of the accused, or due to the inability to investigate if allegations were public. - 5- The motivation for the clause attempting to control Complainant's scientific and techni cal assessm entson new hazardous waste listing regulations w ill be demonstrated to have derived. directly from her preliminary work to list as hazardous wastes from glycol ether solvents. She demonstrated the very large and continuing use o f these solvents (despite industry's 1985 procla mations that substitutes would be used) and their severe, demonstrated reproductive and neurological effects on humans. The Respondent, EPA, is attempting to tailor the scientific and technical assessments o f these solvents to what was already known "in house" at EPA in 1985. Mr. Petruska explicitly informed the Complainant that any new glycol ether solvent hazardous waste listing should be based solely on the data available to EPA in 1985, the date when the Environmental Defense Fund sued EPA to have the new hazardous waste' listing promulgated. W. ' *T. ' H ISTO RY O r EPA 's CO M PLICITY W ITH TH E DIO XIN-PRO DUCING INDUS TRIES AND E ETALIATION AGAINST THE COM PLAINT FOR HER EFFORTS TO CONTROL DIOXIN EXPOSURES EPA has a long history o f conspiracy with industry to protect it from onerous regula tions to control its dioxin em issions, as w ell a liability for harming human health from past expoV sures. Beginning in 1979, EPA began the long process to ban the use o f dioxin-contaminated 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy (2,4,5-T) herbicides (one o f the ingredients in Agent Orange). The adverse* impact on industry from dioxin regulations soon became apparent, and in the 1980's, EPA started covering up the dioxin levels in fish in the Great Lakes. An EPA Region 5 report named Dow Chemical company as the culprit. During a 1983 congressional investigation, it was revealed that EPA Deputy Administer John Hernandez had forced an EPA regional office to delete all references to Dow as well as the health risks from eating Great Lakes fish. Then it was revealed that EPA had concealed a report on the miscarriages in the Oregon women. This set the tone which exists today at EPA; whenever a new regulation is developed which must address dioxin contamination, EPA does all possible to gut it, defer it to a weak ineffective statute (dioxin contaminated pulp mill wastes to TSCA), or promulgate a weak regulation. The Complainant first ran afoul o f certain identifiable dioxin-producing powers and their EPA/congressional allies in 1987 when she sought honest hazardous waste regulations for dioxin-contaminated wastes from wood treating chemicals. The written record shows that the in dustries involved, the large timber companies and chemical manufacturers, bragged on paper in 1988 about using their congressional influence to remove the Complainant Beginning in May, 1990, the Complainant stressed the environmental and legal importance o f chemical analyses o f dioxins in the solvent wastes, by way o f meetings and exhaustive issue memoranda. The Com plainant stressed the importance o f these analyses, whether the scope o f the solvents she would address were lim ited to four solvents, or the utmost importance o f these analyses if the solvents included petroleum distillates, known to be contaminated with dioxins. The Complainant was re/m o v ed from the project in August, 1990. Then, in memoranda describing the funding needs to support regulating Olin Corporation's UDMH wastes, the Complainant noted the likely formation - 6- M o f dioxins in these wastes by the same chemical mechanism that formed dioxins in pulp and papeim ill wastes. The Complainant was also removed from this project in August, 1990. The re fusal TO allow die Complainant to contribute to a criminal investigation o f dioxin fraud by Mon santo also possesses this common "dioxin" thread. The Complainant alleges that EPA is responsible for implementing a dioxin conspiracy on behalf o f the dioxin-producing timber and chemical manufacturing industries.* This conspiracy ' is directly parallel to that proven to have been implemented by the U .S. Centers for Disease Con trol (CDC) and the Veterans Administration to deny Vietnam Veterans benefits for Agent Orangerelated diseases. The interdependence between the CDC/VA conspiracy and the EPA dioxin con spiracy is aptly exemplified by a memorandum from the Reagan White House. This memorandum . expressed the fear that acknowledging cancers in veterans would make denying the existence o f dioxin cancers due to hazardous wastes sites impossible:** The bill w ill make it far more difficult to stop broader victims compen sation schem es involving hazardous wastes and substances. D ioxin - the toxic ingredient in Agent Orange - is a major issue in this area (Love Canal and Times Beach are largely dioxin exposure cases); we w ill be in the tenu ous position o f denying dioxin exposure com pensation to private citizens while providing benefits to veteransfo r often low er levels o f exposure. Respectfully submitted, Dated: May 28,1991 Cate M ddns, P hD . CougarAssociates Waterside Parcel Box No. 102 Waterside Mall Washington, DC 20024 (202) 382-4786 * See "Exposing the EPA Dioxin Conspiracy," and an article by Dr. Jenkins in the June, 1990 issue of Pesticides and You, published by the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP), Washington, DC. -7-