Document v1RQDy6DKXoV5pdVD1qBwLmLm

ST. JOE MINERALS CORPORATION Lead Smelting Division Herculaneum, Missouri 63048 To: J. W. Sherman March 27, 1976 From: D. H. Beilstain Subject: L1A/ILZR0/AMC Meeting on CDC/EPA Child Study A meeting was held in ILZRQ offices on March 26, 1976 to discuss the above study, the results which have been distributed, and what actions are to be taken. The results of the Pb (B) study were discussed and it appears that generally there is no problem with blood leads in children, except for the Bartlesville, Okla. smelter. There are no ElPaso's or Bunker Hill's shewing. Bartlesville did have children with higher Pb(B) - 9 in the 40's 2 in the 50's 4 in the 60's 2 In the 70's 1 in the 80's vs. Herky 5 in the 40's (highest - 44). Bartlesville is probably due to extended years of emissions from the horizontal retorts and the general lack of ground cover (similar to Bunker Hill and El Paso), but the horizontal retorts are almost abandoned at Bartlesville, they are going to electrolytic within a year or two. The Cd(B) results are all very generally in the normal range (less than 1 ug/100 ml is the std.) Most were below this or just very slightly over - showing no major problem. Blood FEP (Free Erythrocyte Protoporphyrin) was also essentially belcw problem levels. The Std. is less than 60. The Missouri smelters were all In the 613-120 level, Including the control town, Perryville (82), Herky (92). There may be some thing in the soil which is picked up by the vegetation and/or drinking water to raise CONFIDENTIAL DR 3403183 2- - the blood levels,, or it could be general slight anemia or something else - but it is no cause for concern. In regard to action to be taken, it was generally agreed that the best course would be to meet with our various State Health Departments, discuss the results with them, and let the State Health Departments carry on with their publicity program about the lack of any problems as shown by the study. There was some desire by some smelters to publicize themselves, but this was shown to be a poor course, let the State (who have primarily involved) do it. The LIA/AMC will try to get a meeting set up with GDC/EPA to go over the results, with particular emphasis on why some of the so-called Standards were arbitrarily lowered (eg: Fb(B) from 40 down to 30). Urinary Arsenic was talked about, but the only questionable area was Ajo, Arizona, with fairly high levels, but (unknown to EPA/CDC) the Ajo water supply is twice the level at which HEW proposes rejection of the water supply. The public water system is being updated at present. David Swan of the Copper Producers brought up the present brouhaha re: Finklea diddling with the CHESS study results (by removing, or otherwise mani pulating data) to make it show his personal contention to lower the S0X and S0^ standards. Swan felt that this was almost an "EPA Watergate". Swan has been in touch with U.S. Representative Rogers, who is proposing to hold hearings on the matter. In addition, Senator Randolph is also proposing that the Senate hold hearings as well. (The House would be the better place because of committee make-up, the Senate Committee might be more inclined to white-wash Finklea and the EPA). The general tenor of the discussions concerned formation of a commi tee chaired by Allan Kirk, with membership: Bill McDonald - Utilities Joe Mullen - Coal ' DR 3403184 David Swan - Non-Ferrous Smelters -3- to pursue the Finklea-EPA affair and: . 1) Get Congress to reconsider emission limits (which were set and based on Finklea's interpretation of the CHESS study). 2) Propose that EPA regulations be reviewed by Non-EPA or Non-NIOSH actually NON-GOVERNMENTAL groups prior to approval and enactment, to forestall future bias as shown by the Finklea affair. Swan was all for using this to push for Tall stacks, ICS, SCS, which we all felt was unwise, since it would only cause the Congress to say "They are back again with the tall stack bit". We felt it would be better to: 1) Demonstrate that EPA used this data, developed by Finklea in a wrong manner, to influence the Congress to pass S0X and SO^ regulations that were not necessary. 2) . Show how Finklea manipulated the data, by calling various scientists in EPA, NIOSH, Nat. Acad, of Science, etc. 3) Do NOT try to pin Finklea to the cross, and do not make this a rallying point for tall stacks, etc. Use this incident to cast doubt on the objectivity of the whole process by which EPA fed information to the Congress which resulted in regulations which are actually doing great harm to the industrial health and climate of the United States. In this respect, it was suggested that we get the FEA (Federal Energy Administration) into the act on our side. Use the episode to re-structure the rule making procedures of EPA (and by fall out OSHA, etc.) so that the various groups do not gather, evaluate and then make rules all by themselves; there must be outside oversight and evaluation to prevent this from happening again. DHB/cds Attachment cc: H. R. Bianco, L. K. Wheelock, J, G. Sevick, G. E. Welch, R. E. Peppers , D. H. DeClue '