=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #400
—July 28, 1994—
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
The Back issues and Index are
available here.
The official RACHEL archive is here.
It’s updated constantly.
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-
weekly-request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s
free.
===Previous
Issue==========================================Next
Issue===
EPA INVESTIGATES MONSANTO
An internal memorandum by an official of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency [EPA], has accused EPA of conducting a
“fraudulent” criminal investigation of Monsanto, the St. Louis
chemical corporation. [1]
The 30-page memo, from William Sanjour to his supervisor, David
Bussard, dated July 20, 1994, describes a two-year-long criminal
investigation of Monsanto by EPA’s Office of Criminal
Investigation (OCI).
The Sanjour memo says EPA opened its investigation on August
20, 1990 and formally closed it on August 7, 1992. “However, the
investigation itself and the basis for closing the investigation
were fraudulent,” the Sanjour memo says.
According to the Sanjour memo:
** EPA’s investigation of Monsanto was precipitated by a memo
dated February 23, 1990, from EPA’s Dr. Cate Jenkins to Raymond
Loehr, head of EPA’s Science Advisory Board.
** The Jenkins memo said that EPA had set dioxin standards
relying on flawed Monsanto-sponsored studies of Monsanto workers
exposed to dioxin, studies that had showed no cancer increases
among heavily exposed workers.
** Attached to the Jenkins memo was a portion of a legal brief
filed by the plaintiffs as part of a trial known as Kemner v.
Monsanto, in which a group of citizens in Sturgeon, Missouri had
sued Monsanto for alleged injuries they had suffered during a
chemical spill caused by a train derailment in 1979.
** The Jenkins memo had not requested a criminal investigation;
instead Jenkins had suggested the need for a scientific
investigation of Monsanto’s dioxin studies. But in August 1990,
EPA’s Office of Criminal Investigation (OCI) wrote a 7-page memo
recommending that a “full field criminal investigation be
initiated by OCI.”
** Plaintiffs in the Kemner suit made the following kinds of
allegations (which we quote verbatim from the Sanjour memo):
“* Monsanto failed to notify and lied to its workers about the
presence and danger of dioxin in its chlorophenol plant, so that
it would not have to bear the expense of changing its
manufacturing process or lose customers;…
“* Monsanto knowingly dumped 30 to 40 pounds of dioxin a day into
the Mississippi River between 1970 and 1977 which could enter the
St. Louis food chain;
“* Monsanto lied to EPA that it had no knowledge that its plant
effluent contained dioxin;
“* Monsanto secretly tested the corpses of people killed by
accident in St. Louis for the presence of dioxin and found it in
every case;…
“* Lysol, a product made from Monsanto’s Santophen, was
contaminated with dioxin with Monsanto’s knowledge.” [The
Sanjour memo says that, at the time of the contamination, “Lysol
(was) recommended for cleaning babies’ toys and for other
cleaning activities involving human contact.”]
“* The manufacturer of Lysol was not told about the dioxin by
Monsanto for fear of losing his business;
“* Other companies using Santophen, who specifically asked about
the presence of dioxin, were lied to by Monsanto;…
“* Shortly after a spill in the Monsanto chlorophenol plant, OSHA
measured dioxin on the plant walls. Monsanto conducted its own
measurements, which were higher than OSHA’s, but they issued a
press release to the public and they lied to OSHA and their
workers saying they had failed to confirm OSHA’s findings;
“* Exposed Monsanto workers were not told of the presence of
dioxin and were not given protective clothing even though the
company was aware of the dangers of dioxin;
“* Even though the Toxic Substances Control Act requires chemical
companies to report the presence of hazardous substances in their
products to EPA, Monsanto never gave notice and lied to EPA in
reports;
“* At one time Monsanto lied to EPA saying that it could not test
its products for dioxin because dioxin was too toxic to handle in
its labs.”…
OCI’s August memo alleged that “Monsanto did, in fact, produce
‘research’ to defend its position. ‘The Record however, shows a
deliberate course of conduct designed to convince its employees
and the world that Dioxin is harmless,’” the OCI memo said. [2]
OCI’s memo concluded, “Based upon review of the available
information submitted to the EPA-OCI by the Office of
Enforcement, it is recommended that a full field criminal
investigation be initiated by OCI.
“Information in the plaintiff’s brief indicate a potential
conspiracy, between Monsanto and its officers and employees,
exists or has existed to defraud the US EPA, in violation of 18
USC 371. The means of the conspiracy appears to be by (1)
providing misleading information to the EPA; (2) intentional
failure by Monsanto to fully disclose all pertinent TSCA [Toxic
Substances Control Act] related information to the EPA; (3) false
statements in notices and reports to EPA; (4) the use of
allegedly fraudulent research to erroneously convince the EPA,
and the scientific community, that Dioxin is less harmful to
health and the environment.”
OCI went on to note that, “In addition to the conspiracy,
substantive violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act seem
to exist for Monsanto’s failure to report to EPA, pursuant to
TSCA 8(E), the adverse health effects of 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
Violations of 18 USC 1001 also appear to exist, although the
statute of limitations may have run.” Eighteen USC 1001 is a
federal law outlawing false statements on any matter within the
jurisdiction of any agency of the United States government.
The criminal investigation was opened August 20 and was formally
closed 2 years later with Monsanto neither found innocent nor
found guilty. OCI said, “The investigation is closed. The
submission of allegedly fraudulent studies to the EPA were [sic]
determined to be immaterial to the regulatory process. Further,
allegations made in the Kemner litigation appear to be beyond the
statute of limitations.” In other words, OCI did not finish its
investigation of the allegations against Monsanto because OCI
found that some of the alleged criminal activities were more than
5 years old and thus could not be prosecuted; and, further, they
found that the government had not relied on Monsanto’s “allegedly
fraudulent studies” in setting regulations.
The Sanjour memo is a documentary history of EPA’s 2-year
investigation, based on a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request for all documents related to the investigation. The FOIA
request produced a foot-thick stack of papers, all carefully
redacted (whited out) to remove the names of individuals.
Sanjour writes that:
** “One gets the impression, on reviewing the record, that as
soon as the criminal investigation began, a whole bunch of wet
blankets were thrown over it. Almost nothing appears in the
record about the first three charges [in the OCI memo] once the
investigation began. The investigation concentrated on criminal
fraud in the Monsanto studies.”
** A finding of criminal fraud would have required first a
finding that Monsanto’s studies were scientifically flawed. Only
an analysis by government scientists could have reached such a
conclusion, and no EPA scientists were engaged in EPA’s Monsanto
investigation. “None of the scientific groups in EPA, it seems,
wanted to touch this hot potato, and no one in position of
authority was instructing them to do so,” Sanjour writes. This
left the criminal investigation essentially crippled. As Sanjour
said, opening a criminal investigation without undertaking a
scientific analysis was like “trying to make tiger stew without
first catching a tiger.”
** Rather than investigating all the allegations regarding
Monsanto, EPA actually spent two years investigating Cate
Jenkins, the whistleblower whose memo, Sanjour says, precipitated
EPA’s criminal probe of Monsanto.
After OCI investigators interviewed Jenkins she wrote them a memo
on November 15, 1990 (and another on Jan. 24, 1991), describing
ways that agencies of the U.S. government –including EPA and the
Veterans Administration (VA) –had relied on the Monsanto studies
in setting regulations and policies. (Sanjour points out that
OCI had to ignore Jenkins’s lengthy, detailed memos in closing
the investigation on the grounds OCI stated.) Jenkins said the
VA used the Monsanto studies to deny benefits to thousands of
Vietnam veterans who claimed their wartime exposure to dioxin and
Agent Orange had caused cancer and other diseases.
When Jenkins released her Nov. 15 memo to the press, it was the
first the world had heard of EPA’s criminal investigation of
Monsanto and it made headlines. According to Sanjour’s memo,
Vietnam veterans grabbed hold of the new information in Jenkins’s
memos and successfully pressured Congress to give benefits to
Vietnam vets who had been denied them before. For her work,
veterans organizations awarded Jenkins a plaque for exemplary
service.
EPA punished Jenkins for her whistleblowing by giving her no
assignments during almost 2 years; in April 1992 she was finally
given work to do, but it was clerical. She holds a Ph.D. in
chemistry. Jenkins filed a complaint with the Department of
Labor. The Labor Department found in her favor, that she was
being illegally harassed. But EPA appealed that decision to an
administrative law judge, thus continuing the harassment. The
judge ruled in Jenkins’s favor, but EPA –now with Carol Browner
at the helm –appealed AGAIN, this time to the Secretary of
Labor. He eventually found in Jenkins’s favor, thus ending the
long period of harassment. Jenkins was reinstated and her
attorneys fees were paid.
Sanjour summarizes, “When Jenkins made her allegations, and when
the veterans groups made known the full implication of those
allegations, a government with a decent respect for the welfare
of its armed forces would have publicly ordered a full and
impartial investigation with all the resources and support
necessary and let the chips fall where they may. Instead, our
top government officials were silent or even worse, they let it
be known that they despised the messenger and had nothing but
friendly feelings for the accused. The United States government
gave no support or encouragement to a scientific, civil, or
criminal investigation of Monsanto.”
                
                
                
                
    
–Peter Montague
===============
[1] William Sanjour, EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, “Memorandum: The Monsanto Investigation” to David
Bussard, Director, EPA Characterization and Assessment Branch,
dated July 20, 1994. Available for $5.00 from Citizens
Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste, P.O. Box 6806, Falls Church,
VA 22040; phone (703) 237-2249.
Descriptor terms: william sanjour; whistleblowers;
whistleblowing; epa; monsanto; fraud; david bussard; criminal
investigations; alleged felonies; cate jenkins; raymond loehr;
epa science advisory board; sturgeon; mo; kemner v. monsanto;
spills; trains; railroads; accidents; dioxin; epa oci; office of
criminal investigation; foia; sab; carol browner; vietnam
veterans; agent orange; dioxin; tsca; chlorophenol; santophen;
lysol; mississippi river; st. louis;