Correspondence between

November 9 is the correct date regarding our Cornpliance Communication letter, Stephen Busch, PLE. MDEO Lansing District Coordinator Office of Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance Lansing and Jackson District Supervisor 517-643-2314

We have a few media inquiries asking if we have received a response to our letter. | know you are still working on figuring out if we have everything we need, but I'd like to get them an interim response. Is this accurate? Can | say within a few weeks, or how long do you think it will be before you've gone through the data? Finally, is Nov. 9 the correct date of our letter? | don't have it in front of me. The DEQ has received a response to our Nov. 9 letter to the city, and staff is in the process of reviewing the information and communicating with the city on any follow-up questions. We hope to have more information to share within a few weeks, and we will get it to you as soon as we can.

Any communications concerning the Flint drinking water issue must now be reviewed by the Director before it can be sent out. xxxEND_PAGE:deq18_b225_1674_1674_1

Hi Brad: | am working on an update/wrap-up on the Flint water issue. | have a few questions and | am hoping you can provide answers by the end of the day 1 xxxEND_PAGE:deq19_b12_0919_1015_92 Tuesday. | am also copying two DEQ officials referenced in the questions, in case they want to answer directly. The questions are based on e-mails obtained through FOIA by Virginia Tech researcher Marc Edwards, and by the Michigan ACLU. 1/ Have any DEQ officials been re-assigned or disciplined in relation to the Flint drinking water issue, other than Liane Shekter Smith? 2/ Why did Stephen Busch say in a Feb. 27 e-mail to the EPA that Flint had “an optimized corrosion control program” when in fact Flint had no corrosion control program? 3/ On June 25, Adam Rosenthal of the DEQ's Office of Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance sent an e-mail about the water samples to Michael Glasgow, a utilities administrator with the City of Flint. "Just wanted to remind you/confirm that Flint is on track for a few items," Rosenthal wrote in the e-mail. "We hope you have 61 more lead/copper samples collected and sent to the lab by 6/30/15, and that they are will be (sic) below the AL (action level) for lead," the e-mail said. "As of now with 39 results, Flint's 90th percentile is over the AL for lead." Was Rosenthal encouraging Flint to collect samples that would be below the action level for lead? Many people are reading his e-mail that way. Is there any reason why I should not? 4/ Why was the DEQ strict in 2015 about disqualifying the sample with a high reading from the home of LeeAnne Walters, for the stated reason that she used a water filter, but not strict in disqualifying other samples for other reasons that could have been used, such as that they were not among the 100 homes that were sampled in 2014, or that they did not come from homes at high risk for lead (for example the homes on Flushing Road that had received a new water main in 2007?) Why is it that of the homes sampled in 2014, only homes that had tested below the AL for lead were sampled again in 2015 and none of the homes that had sampled above the AL for lead in 2014 were sampled again in 2015? Were the samples being cherry picked, as some have suggested? 5/ LeeAnne Walters says she never received a promised letter or email that was to follow up with her from the Aug. 4 meeting in Lansing with DEQ officials and aides 2 xxxEND_PAGE:deq19_b12_0919_1015_93 to the Governor. Was she ever sent the letter, which was to explain to her, among other items, why the sample from her home was disqualified? Thanks, Paul Egan Detroit Free Press Lansing Bureau 517-372-8660 xxxEND_PAGE:deq19_b12_0919_1015_94

FYI