[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

Re: E-M:/ Public comments on the proposed Consent Order with Dow



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enviro-Mich message from "Paul Hanly" <PNARH@bigpond.com>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are any of the supporting documents for the consent order, particularly any
human health risk assessment, available on line?

I am looking for comparative information to assess a proposed dioxin
remediation at Rhodes, NSW, Australia, near the site of the Sydney 2000
Olympics at Homebush Bay.

Rhodes Remediation & Redevelopment Website
http://www.rhodesnsw.org

Our issues with the EIS we have had exhibited to us are at:
http://www.rhodesnsw.org/Meriton/EISIssuesM.htm

They may provide some useful information for those commenting on the Consent
Order of Dow at Midland.

Cheers
Paul Hanly

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Dempsey" <davedem@hotmail.com>
To: <jlanigan115990MI@comcast.net>; <enviro-mich@great-lakes.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: E-M:/ Public comments on the proposed Consent Order with Dow


> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Enviro-Mich message from "Dave Dempsey" <davedem@hotmail.com>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Everyone closely tracking this issue knows that the illegal elements of
the
> earlier proposed consent order persist in the new draft. Whether they are
> renumbered or on different pages, or slightly reworded, matters not. What
> matters is that this is the most blatant giveaway of the public trust I've
> witnessed in 20 years of environmental policy work. Citizens must fiercely
> oppose it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: Jack Lanigan <jlanigan115990MI@comcast.net>
> >Reply-To: Jack Lanigan <jlanigan115990MI@comcast.net>
> >To: enviro-mich <enviro-mich@great-lakes.net>
> >Subject: E-M:/ Public comments on the proposed Consent Order with Dow
> >Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 20:22:17 -0500
> >
> >I have spent some time reading during the last few days.  I read the
> >proposed Consent Order between the DEQ and Dow Chemical that was released
> >recently for public comment.  I read (some of) the excellent assortment
of
> >technical and scientific articles posted by The Ecology Center on their
web
> >site as they relate to the problem in Midland, and I read the collection
of
> >relevant memoranda also posted on the subject.
> >
> >I found one part of the whole package troublesome.  The press release
> >posted by The Ecology Center talked about many "illegalities" in the
> >proposed Consent Order and referred the reader to memoranda prepared by
Mr.
> >Robert Reichel and Mr. Mike Leffler of the Department of Attorney
General.
> >Those memos were addressed to several honchos at the DEQ including Mr.
Art
> >Nash.  (I found only Mr. Reichel's memo; the referenced memo from Mr.
> >Leffler -- while quoted liberally in the press release -- was not posted
by
> >The Ecology Center.)  I also noted that both memos reportedly carried
dates
> >three weeks to over a month earlier than the draft Consent Order released
> >for comment.
> >
> >Frankly, I could not find any of the "illegalities" specifically cited in
> >Mr. Reichel's memo.  Mr. Reichel cited several passages as being
> >particularly troublesome, but I could not find those passages in the
> >current draft released for public comment.  It is obvious to me that he
> >commented on an earlier draft that was substantially rewritten before
> >release -- probably as a result of his and Mr. Leffler's review.
> >
> >What I find particularly troublesome myself is the use of one set of
> >comments to pass judgment on a revised document when one knows they are
no
> >longer linked.  This tactic is a manipulation of the press (and of a
> >trusting public) that I find objectionable.  I have seen this tactic
> >condemned in many messages posted to this august bulletin board.  If we
are
> >to condemn someone for using the tactic while employing it ourselves, we
> >can be no better than the original perpetrator. (Or does the end, in
fact,
> >justify the means?)
> >
> >I implore everyone who wishes to comment on the proposed agreement to
read
> >it (as I did) and understand it (as I tried to) in order to make an
> >informed decision.  There are some good parts to the order and some not
so
> >good parts, too.  You be the judge.  If you intend to prepare comments
(and
> >I encourage everyone to do so) please base them on the facts and on your
> >own interests, but please do not base them solely on what you read in the
> >newspapers.  The comment period is open through December 9.
> >
> >Jack Lanigan
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>
>
> ==============================================================
> ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
> and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
> http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/
>
> Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
> majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info
enviro-mich"
> ==============================================================



==============================================================
ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"
==============================================================