202-225-9679 Line 1



### DAVE CAMP 4TH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS RANKING MEMBER JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION 

## ~ouge of Reprefsentatibeg Obingtott, IDC 20515-2204 January 14, 2010 The Honorable Lisa Jackson Administrator Environmental Protection Agency 1200Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest Washington, DC 20460 Dear Administrator Jackson: 09:40:32 a .m. 14-01-2010 2 /3 

# tate!9 341 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515-2204

(202)225-3561 FAx :(202)225-9679 WORLD WIDE WEB: http://camp .house_yov DISTRICT OFFICES: 135 ASHMAN STREET MIDLAND, MICHIGAN 48640 (989)631-2552 FAx:(989)631-6271 121 EAST FRONT STREET, SUITE 202 TRAVERSE CITY, MICHIGAN 49684

(231) 929-4711 FAx :(231)929-4776 TOLL FREE: (800) 342-2455

1 amwriting to request additional information fromthe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding dioxin and dioxin exposure, prior to providing my comments during the public comment period on the agency's recently released interimpreliminary remediation goals (PRGs) for cleanup of dioxins in soil
. 1 . Has EPA, or any other federal agency, conducted an economic analysis to determine the financial impact of implementing the interimPRIG? Ifso, please outline the costs to private and public entities, the expected impact onjobs, and commercial and residential property values
. 2. What was the impetus to issue PRGs by the end of 2009? Similarly, why have you selected the end of 2010 as the date by which a complete dioxin reassessment is to be completed? 

### 3. 1-lowmany sites are currently on EPA's National Priorities List (NPL) for dioxin contamination? How

many sites would be added ifthis interimPRIG is adopted? 4. How

many sites currently have dioxin contamination that is classified under the Superfund Alternative (Site Listing) Approach? How many additional sites would EPA expect to pursue under this approach if the interimPRG is adopted? 

### 5 . Whatare the dioxin toxicity equivalent (TEQconcentrations in NPL and Superfund Alternative sites that have been identified as having dioxin contamination? 6 . How

many households arewithin NPL and SuperfundAlternative sites that have been identified as having dioxin contamination? What is the total population ofthese locations? How

would this change under the new PRG? 7. Given that the dioxin contamination in Tittabawassee River/SaginawRiver and Bay Contamination Site andwithin the City of Midland are not listed in the EPA's database as either on the NPi
. or through the SuperfundAlternative Approach, how will you accurately estimate the effect on the new PRIGon the nation and its citizens? 

# Congregfs of tbe llniteb

THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER202-225-9679 Line 1 09 :40:46 a .m . 14-01-2010 3/3



### Page 2
8
. How

many residential sites have received cleanup decisions for dioxin contamination? Will EPA be reviewing those sites that have received cleanup decisions in lieu of new interimor final PRGs? 9. Under Michigan state law, residential properties that have dioxin contamination would be labeled as "facilities" (Part 201 of Michigan state cleanup law)
. How many residences within the Tittabawassee River/SaginawRiver and Bay Contamination Site and the City of Midland would be labeled as toxic facilities based upon you the new interim PRG? What are the economic consequences regarding such a finding to both property owners and the local municipalities? What is the appeal process for a property owner and what would their disclosure obligations be as a result of this finding? 10 . Upon the issuance of EPA's final dioxin reassessment and final PRGs by the end of 2010, does the EPA anticipate to re-evaluate cleanup decisions made with the interim PRGs simultaneous with the release of the final PRGs, or after the release? How many sites does EPAanticipate to re-evaluate? If done after the release of the final PRGs, when does EPA anticipate finalizing those re-evaluations? 

### 11 . Which studies, if any, studied how and to what extent soil dioxins are absorbed into the human body? Did any of those studies specifically examine the health risks associated

. with exposure to soil dioxins'? 12. How

does lowering the soil criteria reconcile with EPA's ownassertion that contact with contaminated soil is only 1% of a person's total exposure? "EPA's Review ofthe University of Michigan Dioxin Exposure Study, Page 8 ." 13. How

has the EPAworked with Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in determining this newlevel? Ifso, what was ATSDR's involvement and contributions? Has ATSDR agreed that this interimPRGlevel is appropriate to safeguard public health? 

### I respectfully request that you respond to these questions in writing by February 1, 2010 . Please do not hesitate to contact me, or Brian Sutter of my staff, at 202-225-3561 should you need further clarification
. Thank you for your timely attention to this matter.

DAVE CAMP Member ofCongress DLC : bds202-225-9679 Line 1



### DAVE CAMP 4TH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS RANKING MEMQER JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION 

# Con.gre.ses' of the Vnciteb 30awe of Aeprezentatibez aofngton, -MC20515-2204


## Fax Cover Sheet 09:40:24a .m . 14-01-2010 1 /3 

# tate,5 341 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515-2204

(202)225-3561 FAx :(202)225-9679 WORLDWIDE WEB

: http://camp

.house.gov DISTRICT OFFICES: 135 AsHMAN STREET MIDLAND, MICHIGAN 48640 (989)631-2552 FAx:(989)631-6271 121 EAST FRONT STREET, SUITE 202 TRAVERSE CITY, MICHIGAN 49684

(231) 929-4711 FAX : (231) 929-4776 TOLL FREE: (800) 342-2455



### DATE: I 

## /I L(/Io
SENT TO

: (NAME) 

# PA L-,e, Af T*'-,c, A, .-- :_Xt?qLt 1 

# (7-1a*
...'k- (COMPANY) -, .'Ob ft 

### (FAX NUMBER)_ Z1101"'O
. 

# 5 A 

# 01- Ism,
SENT BY: JIM BRANDELL ADAM PRADKO SAGE EASTMAN BRIANSUTTER ROB GUIDO ASHTON STROHKIRCH ALLIE JUDSON DAVIDTHUROW LAUREN PHILLIPS NUMBEROF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER) : NOTES:

THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER