On Tuesday, January 11, 2000, IKE sent this letter to Commissioner Lori Kaplan.  Click here for Word Perfect Format.

Dear Commissioner Kaplan:

The chemical spill and subsequent fish kill in the White River has been a serious challenge to the State, to the river itself, to the citizens and communities along the river, and to those organizations and people that represent those citizens. While I speak only for myself and Improving Kids’ Environment, I appreciate the excellent efforts of IDEM and its staff in responding to the spill in the past two weeks. I also want to thank you and your staff for the greater sustained effort to communicate with stakeholders and the public about the incident. The technical meetings for environmental groups and the four public meetings are excellent opportunities to better understand what happened and what is next.

After the technical meeting you held for environmental groups on Thursday, January 6, I had the unpleasant experience of viewing a cut from the meeting on television. The story lead-in was "Environmental Groups Voice Anger at IDEM." I was shown passionately declaring that the State doesn’t know what actually caused the fish to die. That is true but out of context. I am passionate about the problem, and I am concerned that the source of the problem was not identified quickly and conclusively. But I am not angry at IDEM. And I did not mean imply that IDEM is doing something wrong if it doesn’t know the specific chemicals and interactions that killed the fish. We all want to know for certain but it is not always realistic to demand it.

After mulling over the events for several days and talking with other concerned citizens, I decided to convey in writing my understanding and concerns about the chemical spill and IDEM’s performance. While normally, such an analysis should wait until the incident is entirely over, IDEM’s efforts to communicate what happened has provided enough information to make preliminary observations. Also, the incident may continue for many more weeks given the problems at Anderson wastewater treatment plant. A delay could cause the issues and concerns to lose their clarity. In addition, I feel a responsibility to correct any unintended implications I may have conveyed.

In short, my impression is that the chemical spill and fish kill in the White River has been an incident of extraordinary proportions with widespread environmental implications and potentially significant public health concerns. Unfortunately, IDEM’s initial response appeared to treat it as an ordinary incident. The response was inadequate on several fronts – even if it was entirely consistent with existing protocols – especially with respect to communications. However, once the dimensions of the damage became apparent, IDEM responded ably and effectively in a variety of ways, especially its communications efforts. The agency did not have all of the answers, but I felt comfortable that it was sharing what information it had on the extent and source of the damage and the potential threat.

My initial concerns, which have largely but not completely been addressed, were fourfold. I am including them here in hopes they will be helpful to the agency in its response evaluation and can therefore have a positive impact in the future.

With 80,000 fish dead and the chemical puzzle not fitting together, there should have been serious concern for the environmental consequences and potential public health implications of the incident. Yet the public was almost completely unaware of the severity of the situation. The media was providing little to no coverage, and IDEM was not making notable efforts to get the word out. Even the Friends of White River, which has been recognized by the State for its special knowledge and interest in the White River, was essentially unaware of the problem.

The agency appeared to be in the mode of not communicating to the public and concerned citizens until it had all the answers. As late as January 4, IDEM’s press secretary reinforced this impression at a press conference that I attended.

Therefore, Brant Cowser and Kevin Hardie led an outstanding effort to make sure the public knew of the situation and to ensure that IDEM/IDNR got the word out. Beginning with the press conference on December 28, IDEM began to change its approach. During the intervening week, its communication efforts improved dramatically. While there are still unanswered question, I can comfortably say that IDEM is now more effectively communicating to the public and concerned citizens the essential information it has.

I fervently hope that IDEM continues to embrace the right-to-know approach that now marks its current response to this ongoing incident. Keep up the good work!

2. Valuable Resources Were Not Called Upon Early Enough

As a former emergency responder, incident commander and emergency preparedness trainer, I have seen and studied many chemical emergencies. The most serious impacts often result when an incident commander gets "tunnel vision." The commander tightly controls the situation, makes assumptions about the forces involved, and does not call on outsiders resources that could improve the response.

While I do not know that this situation was occurring at IDEM, it certainly appeared that way. Local resources and technical experts outside the agency were available but were not listened to early enough in the incident. Involving them can yield unexpected results that can avoid dead-ends and potential tunnel vision. River activists have an intimate sense of the river’s health that can provide valuable insight. They keep a close watch on potential problems and are willing to report them to the State. As soon as the chemical name became known, several activists could immediately recall that the same chemical caused a similar incident that damaged the Indianapolis wastewater treatment plant in 1991. Outstanding chemists in the community feverishly began to research the chemical and provide the agency with ideas.

I hope the agency realizes that there are many people in the community that are ready, willing and able to help to the best of their ability, especially in an extraordinary incident. Please begin to identify them now and be ready to call even if there is no obvious or essential need. While the effort may take critical time, I am sure that the overall response will benefit.

3. The Public Health Threat Was Not Taken Seriously Enough

This incident was extraordinary in many ways, two of which were that:

• The fish took several days to die. Without a sound understanding of the reasons for the delayed impact, there were valid concerns that people, animals and birds would also be affected. While the intervening week has given us confidence when IDEM stated that higher organisms would not be affected, there still seems to be no explanation of the delayed fish lethality, and, thus, only a weak affirmative basis for the initial statement.

• The toxicology was not consistent with the reality. When you look at each chemical involved, the damage should not have been as severe as it was. Our understanding of synergistic effects is so incomplete that it provided little guidance to IDEM during the response. Even now, there are no clear explanations. And the possibility of that the fish kill was the result of an as-yet unknown chemical or unanticipated synergism is a distinct, albeit remote, possibility.

The bottom line is that there is still a slight shadow of doubt about the public health concerns. IDEM needs to be careful how confidently it declares that there is and was no public health threat. While I have little doubt that chlorination would be adequate protection, there are no guarantees.

I strongly recommend that IDEM enlist the help of the best and brightest at our state universities to research the situation and gain a better understanding of what happened. This needs to happen quickly to avoid the trail from becoming stale. While the results will definitely not come in time to impact the incident, citizens deserve to know. And industry and municipalities need to know in order to prevent similar incidents in the future.

4. The Response Was Based On A Poor Understanding Of The Material’s Toxicity

When I first learned that dimethyldithiocarbamate was involved, I had to step back and think through the chemical structure carefully. Despite my chemical engineering degree and many years of experience in the chemical industry, it was a new chemical to me. With thousands of chemicals in industrial use, many with tongue-twisting names, that is not an uncommon reaction. In addition, even though I had experience working with dimethylamine and carbon disulfide, I was unfamiliar with their impact on water. That is why I called upon several top-notch chemists and toxicologists to discuss observations and draw conclusions.

During the initial stages of the event, IDEM appeared to have struggles that were similar to mine. At the December 28 press conference, I had difficulty getting much more than an ambiguous acronym from IDEM. I had concerns that IDEM may not be accessing the key experts, especially the experts on metal finishing chemicals. This list includes Dr. Peter deFur, Dr. Jack Leonard, Dr. Jeff White at Indiana University, and Heritage Environmental Services. In the case of Dr. DeFur and Dr. Leonard, I believe they were already on contract with the agency to provide technical assistance but were not used. I am sure they would have been willing to help.

This is not a new issue. In October, IDEM acknowledged it needed to evaluate resources available to IDEM to improve agency expertise on toxics issues and communication of risk. In the 1999-2000 version of the IDEM/EPA Environmental Performance Partnership Agreement, IDEM made the acknowledgment and decided to "establish an external advisory group to advise the agency on priorities for the development of programs (regulatory and non-regulatory) for reducing exposure to toxics and risk related issues by December 31, 1999. The group will meet at least (4) times and make recommendations to IDEM by May 31, 2001." I hope that this effort leads to a statewide network of chemical, toxicology and technical communication specialists that can provide resources to the agency in the event of chemical releases.

In summary, I believe that the following should occur.

IDEM should move quickly to develop an incident response evaluation involving not only people within the agency but outsiders who were involved and concerned with the incident or who can provide technical expertise regarding the hazards or the response. In particular, research contracts should be made available to study the event to the state’s institutions of higher education or other technically qualified organizations.

IDEM should put in place procedures to ensure that it continues the right-to-know approach toward incidents affecting the community that it has recently been using in this incident.

IDEM should develop protocols to identify and call upon community resources (activists, concerned citizens, and technical experts) to assist in formulating response to incidents affecting the community or the environment even if there is no obvious or essential need.

Other actions that could significantly reduce the chances of a recurrence of such an emergency are:

• IDEM should meet its commitment to get delegation from EPA to administer pretreatment program oversight. While there is no indication that the lack of authority caused problems, I believe having a strong pretreatment programs could have helped. But along with the legal authority, IDEM needs to ensure it has the technical and financial resources to manage the program. More funding and more staff will be needed.
• IDEM should immediately notify metal finishers and municipalities that accept metal finishing wastewater about the:

• Potential hazards of dimethyldithiocarbamate and its derivatives;
• Need to control it; and
• Responsibility to promptly report potential problems.

Despite the high profile of the incident in Central Indiana, many of these organizations may not be tracking the issues closely enough. Specific notice and, perhaps, chemical-specific regulations, are in order.

• IDEM should continue to listen carefully to the ideas and concerns of the public and their representatives at public meetings and other forums.

Finally, like rivers and streams throughout Indiana, the White River is a treasured resource for our community. We have seen how fragile it can be. And we hope for its quick rebound. Only by maintaining our tight focus on the value of the river, can we succeed.

Please contact me at 317-442-3973 to discuss any questions or issues you may have.

Sincerely

Thomas G. Neltner, JD, CHMM

President