General Membership Meeting Minutes – March 12, 2021
The meeting recording is available at the following web link with the password below, with timestamps included in minutes:
Meeting Recording: https://us02web.zoom.us/rec/share/rHfbMt7xP-
Access Passcode: 5H3*zJTc
The meeting began at 6:45 pm via Zoom with Secretary Brittany Fremion as host, with 26 partic-ipants.
Vice Chairperson Ed Lorenz presiding and called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
I. Approval of February minutes. (Doug Brecht/Wayne Brooks)
II. Treasurer’s Report [00:01:35]: Gary Smith, Treasurer
A. February 2021
1. The General Fund Checking balance stands at $4,933.96. The Money Market Ac-count (Oxford Automotive settlement) has $65,069.28. TAG grant money available for the Former Plant Site (FPS) stands at $9,619.26. The Velsicol Burn Pit (VBS) has $48,744.28. Velsicol Burn Pit (VBP) Fund Checking $85.62. The complete reports will be attached to the permanent minutes.
2. We have received approximately $630 in donations with annual memberships this year.
B. Reminder about annual dues ($5/year). Send checks to PO Box 172, St. Louis, MI 48880. T-shirts are available for $12.
C. Still awaiting news on merit review process from EPA; no news on audits.
D. Gary submitted the amended information to EPA for theTAG, as well as annual taxes and non-profit status.
III. Correspondence and Communication [00:07:05]: none
IV. Program [00:07:30]: CAG Member JoAnne Scalf presented her work on the Pine River Vol-untary Health Map, a health mapping project she began several years ago. The project tracks health problems of people who lived or who now live near the Superfund Site in St. Louis.
A. JoAnne developed the project over the past 5 years, amounting to nearly $100,000 in personal hours and resources donated to the project. She recruited more than 500 par-ticipants in the study, which documents the variety of health problems residents of St.
Louis have experienced, including but not limited to: cancers, birth defects, and fertility issues. With this in mind, the study is designed to answer two questions:
a) Do any of the health issues occur at higher levels than expected for the general population?
b) Could any of the health problems be caused by exposure at the chemical plant and/or misuse of products at the facility?
B. In answering these questions, the study:
1. Gauges the need for future health studies;
2. Identifies possible decease clusters in multigenerational populations starting at the source;
3. Delineates the overall scope of the problem;
4. Raises awareness about potential exposures and their significance;
5. And alerts state and/or federal agencies to the need for well-funded, -controlled, and -designed studies to establish health surveillance programs for this high-risk commu-nity.
C. Methods include a voluntary survey and GIS map that documents the occurrence of ill-ness, which demonstrates higher outcomes of certain diseases—and in the absence of a comprehensive health study. JoAnne’s project ultimately demonstrates that is a legacy and multigenerational issue, and the need for more research.
D. Discussion:
1. JoAnne shared some personal testimonies she gathered from community members through discussion of survey provide additional insight into the presence of chemi-cals in personal residences and likely exposures from childhood play, such as chemi-cals found stored in residential basements and kids playing in puddles of mercury.
2. Dr. Tom Corbett, a PBB whistleblower and scientist, commented on some of the find-ings, such as similarities in cancers likely tied to PBB exposure, particularly gastroin-testinal cancers, which became prevalent and predominant among that community in the 1990s. He also noted that this is important information that can be tied to repro-ductive health and exposure to other chemicals. He commended and congratulated JoAnne on the amount of work she has done and the information she documented.
3. JoAnne is working to bring this information to the attention of scientists at the Univer-sity of Michigan’s School of Public Health and Epidemiology, and is collaborating with a member of the Citizen’s Climate Lobby. But it has been hard because the study is popular epidemiology, rather than scientifically-based. But the information she has documented again demonstrates the need for further research.
4. The CAG will continue to push for help in getting a comprehensive health study.
V. EPA Report [00:27:15]: Tom Alcamo, Remedial Project Manager
A. Update on Area 2, Phase 1 of the Velsicol Site – Cooling cycle ongoing.
B. State of progress in Area 2, Phase 2 of the Velsicol Site – heating cycle – Jacobs and Terra Therma working on ISTT and expect to start system testing within the next week, with heating in early April depending on testing. The website is being updated to include air monitoring data. As circumstances improve, EPA also hopes to resume tours of the site. Well 12, a well water well installed to provide additional water to Odowa(?), with permitting and design under review, with construction starting this summer. This is part
of the cooperative agreement with city in case there are some effects on well water, that EPA has funding to respond quickly.
C. Phase II of Carbon Study — EPA should have an update and report ready by the end of month.
D. State of progress on OU-3 and OU-4 of the Velsicol Site (the St. Louis dam, banks, ath-letic field, and downstream floodplain) — Still evaluating risk assessments with RI drafted and expected to be ready for release later this summer.
E. Discussion
1. Clarification on sampling and ecosystem study in floodplain (OU-3 and OU-4), near carbon amendment study. We still need a feasibility study for further downstream ar-eas (OU-4), but EPA will be walking the river and looking at additional banks and floodplains. Could be sampling as far as Chippewa River, which there doesn’t seem to be indication of risk, but EPA will evaluate as part of contract for RI.
2. Will OU-3 work be related to carbon amendment study? No. Alma College collabora-tion and study tied to OU-4, Phase 2 work plan, under review, with release expected at end of month. Diane will send information via email when available.
3. Is EPA doing any PFAS sampling? No current PFAS sampling, but EPA will do some for groundwater investigation. Initially the state evaluated the site and didn’t find fluorinated compounds or PFAS, nor did a study in adjacent Mill Pond fish, which had non-detects. The CAG Technical Advisor, Scott Cornelius, asked Erik Martinson to share a copy of the report(s).
4. What is the status of funding for the Velsicol Burn Pit Site? Recent changes in lead-ership in Region 5 headquarters may lead to additional funding for new sites, alt-hough there are a large number of unfunded sites that are new, including Velsicol Burn Pit (Velsicol site is ongoing, so not new); it’s unlikely that we’ll get funding for VBP anytime soon, especially with changes to contracting process.
5. Is there an update on the slurry wall investigation? No new information here because EPA is on hold until it gets a new contract for remedial design, which won’t happen until mid-summer, with hope of award by June/July. New contracting mechanisms for EPA are supposed to help save money, but they are not more efficient. Expect more information this summer.
VI. EGLE Report [00:42:25]: Erik Martinson, Project Manager
A. State of progress on railroad spur contamination site – Still no response form Mid Michi-gan Railroad regarding access package, which was submitted in early February. They provided a 6-8 week timeline and we are still within that timeframe. Westin will follow up next week.
B. State of progress on bird and nest studies in the ANP – No timetable but it is on EGLE’s radar. Preliminary discussion with Westin, but there is no anticipation of action soon.
C. Discussion
1. What chemicals are going to be analyzed in work plan for railroad study?
a) EGLE: VOCs, SVOCs, metals, DDT (both isomers). Erik will send Scott Cor-nelius, CAG Technical Consultant, the work plan.
VII. Old Business [00:46:05]
A. PBB Leadership Team Update – We want to be more comprehensive tonight, especially with the focus on health studies tonight. But we have lots of updates with the Michigan PBB Registry (Emory University team) and state health department, MDHHS.
1. Letter to Michigan Public Health Institute regarding lost file of 20 consent forms from people in the 1970s PBB long-term study – Norm Keon
a) MPHI was formed because the Michigan Department of Public Health (now MDHHS) wanted a nonprofit, research agency that could operate without the need to go through the state legislature—essentially, get around bureaucracy. Over the past several years, MPHI has grown tremendously, especially in con-tracting (see recent article in Detroit News here: https://www.detroit-
b) MPHI lost records on a thumb drive related to PBB Registry several years ago, causing alarm. Fairly recently, through our work with Emory, we learned that they had waivers from 20 people that were never processed by MPHI and thereby never sent to Emory or acted upon. This was a last straw so the Executive Com-mittee decided to send a letter to MPHI and copied public officials, that Jane wrote and Norm edited.
c) Discussion
(1) The CAG considered following up with the Detroit News journalist, depending on MPHI’s response to our letter.
(2) According to the Emory team, MPHI has a new team in place and the fact that they reported the oversight is promising.
(3) When Norm first found out about MDHHS website, especially regarding next of kin records, he thought of his friend, whose father worked as machinist at the chemical company, and “could make any part.” He worked in all areas of the plant and died of a rare stomach cancer. Norm shared the next of kin forms with his friend, who has Parkinsons, and they weren’t in favor of com-pleting it because it’s so onerous. It also costs money to get some of the rec-ords. The requirement for several proofs of documentation constitutes a ma-jor, initial roadblock for community members.
2. Difficulty in obtaining PBB records for deceased relatives on State webpage—Brit-tany
a) While there is definitely positive progress in our work with the MDHHS on PBB research, there remain some complications. MDHHS has a new website dedi-cated to PBB with the next of kin form. However, as Norm mentioned, the agency requires significant documentation, which has both deterred and complicated community access to deceased ancestors’ records, which are important to their descendants health. So the PBB Leadership Team recommends that community members just complete the first page of the form and submit it incomplete to demonstrate interest in the records.
(1) MDHHS PBB website: https://www.michigan.gov/mdhhs/0,5885,7-339-
(2) Link to Next of Kin form: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdhhs/2020-
b) Discussion
(1) Jim Hall shared experience of a friend who lived on Jackson Road, downwind of the landfill, and also developed Parkinson’s. Dr. Corbett commented that there are likely higher incidences of Parkinson’s because it is linked to certain chemicals, as documented by JoAnne’s study (5 incidences).
(2) Ed Lorenz shared a memory from the early 1990s, when he saw a bunch of drums stored on Smith Farm. There was an EPA settlement about the drums that predated work at the plant site. They just sat out in the open, “there were a ton of them.”
3. Notification to former chemical workers and their families about State webpage on PBB, Michigan PBB Registry studies, and upcoming appointments—Ed [01:15:00]
a) Summary and updates on current health work that’s ongoing to raise awareness and encourage others to get involved, which include the projects below, but we really want people to take advantage of opportunity to return Registry records to study (next of kin form).
(1) Recruitment and Maintenance of Comprehensive Health Study (CHS, known as the Michigan PBB Registry)
(a) Participants include 3,569 family members from quarantined farms and 251 chemical workers who volunteered in 1976 when the study began.
(b) Chemical workers were dropped from the study in 1990.
(c) Now includes about 7,000 participants from children who have been added to the study, along with restored chemical workers.
(d) There is a waiting list of around 1,900 people who want to be tested and added to the Registry, recruited from community meetings, but we need funding (about $300,000).
(2) Clinical Trial Extension (CTE) – Weight loss study to remove PBB
(3) Effort to match Registry members with cancer death index
(4) Multigenerational Epigenetic Study (MGES)
(5) Public Health Action Plan
(6) State Biomonitoring Grant includes PBB
(7) PBB Oral History Project
(8) Adding back next of kin records
b) Current Upcoming Efforts (all events are socially distanced, no large gatherings this spring):
(1) Recruitment Appointments May 15-16 and May 22-23 in 65 mile radius of St. Johns.
(2) Overcoming blood sample processing delays related to lab instrument issues and then the pandemic.
(3) Fundraising to add people to the CHS (tied to discussion of website below).
(4) Informing families of deceased record access (next of kin form).
B. Progress on new website – Ed
1. We have done a lot of work on the website. We received many donations this year with memberships, perhaps because of website push, but we don’t have a portal to
raise funds through memberships, purchase of shirts, or donation online. There is a platform called Donor Box which is a recurring donation system that allows people to sign up for monthly donations. The host platform takes a small percentage of pro-ceeds, as well as a small fee for processing credit cards, but the funding would go to Emory to pay for processing bloodwork for people on the waitlist.
2. Discussion
a) Can CAG use TAG money to support some of these updates to the website? Also, this would help us to meet our requirements for non-profit status. But we must consider how fundraising would impact taxes and TAG status. Tom asked Ed and/or Jane to email him about scheduling a meeting to discuss. These ques-tions are really important, because you can’t intermix the TAG and CAG, but there could be partial funding for website based upon our work for community.
C. Update on CMU class public history project – Brittany
1. Students have broken into four groups focused on four components: a digital time-line; an interactive map tied to JoAnne’s study and to acquaint visitors with the com-munity, river, and site; a “digital archive” that works like a gateway or clearinghouse for primary sources; and curriculum tied to those components. We hope to have a draft of the project prepared for presentation at the April CAG meeting for community input and feedback.
D. Ed is presenting at a virtual forum on the Superfund budget, using St. Louis as a case study, Thursday, March 18th from 11-12:30 pm.
Meeting adjourned 8:40 pm.
Annual dues are $5/year. Send checks to PO Box 172, St. Louis, MI 48880. T-shirts are availa-ble for $12.
Next meeting date: April 21, 2021
Respectfully submitted,
Brittany B. Fremion, secretary