St. Louis

DEJA VU ON LEMAR DRIVE

The specter of dioxin continues to haunt Missouri

published in the Riverfront Times (St. Louis), Aug. 13, 1997

BY C.D. STELZER

Dan Harris stood next to a home on Lemar Drive in Ellisville on Monday afternoon surveying the situation, his lanky frame hunched over a transit connected to a tripod. As he methodically measured the area, TV reporters scrambled across a nearby front yard interviewing residents about the dioxin that had been discovered in an adjacent gravel driveway.

For Harris, who works for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the scene around him must have been like being recast as an extra in a movie in which he previously played a leading role. Harris had forecast this setting in 1981, when he led the EPA’s investigation of possible dioxin sites in Eastern Missouri. At that time, he suspected that all of the dioxin sites in the region had not yet been discovered. He repeatedly warned his superiors of that possibility and they censured him for trying to do his job.

Earlier this summer, the EPA shut down the dioxin incinerator at Times Beach with much fanfare. Federal and state officials heralded the event as the end of the dioxin legacy in the state. The incineration of the contaminated soil from 28 sites had been completed, and Bob Feild, the EPA project manager for the cleanup, took pride in the thoroughness of the agency’s response. “We investigated over 400 sites, followed up every lead,” said Feild. “We feel virtually certain all the potential sites have been identified and located.”

But within weeks of that announcement, an Ellisville resident came forward with independent test results showing dioxin to be present at up to 195 parts per billion in the gravel driveway off of Lemar Court. The EPA has set the level of concern for dioxin at one part per billion. Discovery of the new site raises questions as to whether there are more dioxin contaminated locations in the area waiting to be found. It is a question that Harris raised fifteen years ago.

When asked to comment about the latest turn of events, Harris declined. “I think you better talk to Hattie,” says Harris, referring to Hattie Thomas, an EPA spokeswoman who was present at the Lemar site on Monday. By way of explanation, Harris adds: “I’ve been demoted twice from this job.”

Harris’ early actions forced the EPA and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) into addressing Missouri’s dioxin catastrophe, and turned the situation into a national issue. He was rewarded by being removed from his leadership position in March 1982. Prior to his demotion, Harris wrote a report in which he stated that there was no assurance that other dioxin contamination would not be found. “It is apparent that this investigation is far from completion,” Harris wrote. “The record does not provide assurance that the public and the environment is protected from low-level, long-term exposure.” In a 1983 interview with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Harris said he was never informed as to why he was replaced, but he did speculate that the EPA was trying to “bury the whole investigation” because it “was tired of finding dioxin sites.”

Unlike Harris, some careers have improved by underplaying the problem. One Post-Dispatch reporter, for example, who covered the Times Beach story during in the early 1980s, later went to work for Fleishman-Hillard. Her duties for the St. Louis public relations firm included the Syntex account, the company held liable for the dioxin contamination in the state.

None of this matters to Charles Bradley, who lives directly next to the new dioxin site. The 66-year-old retired boilermaker has more important things to be concerned about. “I’d like to see it cleaned up and get it out of here,” says Bradley of the dioxin. Bradley, who has lived on Lemar for 31 years, has lymphatic cancer. His wife has cancer of the mouth.

WASTED IN WEST COUNTY

As a prelude to snuffing the flames at the Times Beach dioxin incinerator, the EPA moved more than 4,000 tons of “special” waste from the clean-up site to a controversial landfill in St. Louis County

published in the Riverfront Times (St. Louis) July 9, 1997

BY C.D. STELZER

In late May, when the dump trucks began rumbling down Vance and Sulphur Springs Roads in southwest St. Louis County, residents along the route had no way of knowing that the vehicles were hauling chemically- contaminated soil from Times Beach. That’s because no one from the federal, state or local government bothered to tell them.

Ultimately, over a two-week period, a total of 4,466 tons of non- dioxin-contaminated waste, which had been excavated from the site of the former Times Beach city park, wound up at the nearby Superior Oak Ridge Landfill. The soils contained dangerous volatile organic chemicals, including ethylbenzine, toluene, xylene, tetrocholorethylene and trichloroethylene.

No less than three sources reached for this story refused to comment on the transfer of the waste, citing a confidentiality agreement with the EPA — an agreement the EPA doesn’t even acknowledge exists. An EPA attorney, who did go on the record, said she had no idea how much the city park clean up cost. A public affairs spokeswoman for the agency asked that all questions pertaining to landfill shipments be placed in writing. Although a Freedom of Information Act request was submitted, there have been no answers yet.

The stealthy manner in which the tainted dirt was relocated and the silence since then has led opponents of the Superfund cleanup to further criticize the project, which is now near completion. In advance of a media event to publicize the final snuffing of the flames at the Times Beach dioxin incinerator, the public affairs office at the site disconnected its phone. (park here)
Officials who have been contacted have attempted to diffuse the issue. The word from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the St. Louis County Health Department is that there is nothing to worry about because the soil that went to the landfill contains only low-levels of contamination. Indeed, they emphasize that the latest tests show negligible amounts of toxic chemicals at the city park site. By contrast, the EPA’s own 1986 draft feasibility study claimed that soil contamination at the park went20 feet deep and ground water was contaminated with 13 different chemicals.

In the latest tests, the EPA didn’t search for highly-toxic polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) because none were recorded to have been found in tests conducted in 1991. But earlier tests conducted in 1982 showed PCBs present at the same location, according to sources close to the Times Beach clean up. This apparent discrepancy may be explained to a degree by the natural breakdown of the chemicals over time. Public confidence in the reliability of EPA data has also broken down over time, however, and PCBs are known to be persistent in the environment. Aside from not informing the public in a timely manner, the transfer of the waste to the landfill raises other concerns. The Riverfront Times has learned the following:

* The landfill that accepted the waste from the Times Beach city park has repeatedly been cited for operating violations by the DNR. Superior Services Inc. of Wisconsin, the new landfill owner, has yet to fully rectify the latest problem, according to the Missouri Attorney General’s office. Interestingly, Superior also controls a subsidiary specializing in hazardous waste cleanups. That company has done work for the EPA in the past.

* James B. Becker, who owned the landfill until last year, headed a consulting engineering firm that did survey work at the Times Beach clean up, according to the DNR. Records show his son is still the managing operator for the landfill. The elder Becker, a heavy campaign contributor to County Democrats, has been involved in past political controversies.
* The former mayor of Times Beach and a civil attorney with knowledge of the case both say the city park tested positive for highly- toxic PCBs in 1982. Sampling at that time also found other hazardous chemicals. Tests conducted nine years later, however, somehow failed to find any PCBs In May, the EPA chose not to sample again for the persistent chemical and claims to have found only insignificant levels of other contaminants.

* A driver for Russell Bliss, the waste hauler who sprayed Times Beach with dioxin-contaminated oil, admitted dumping liquid chemical waste at the same site (then called West County Landfill) in the early 1970s, according to copies of government documents obtained by the RFT.

“What’s really strange about this whole thing is they took Superfund money to take material they were afraid was going to leach into the ground water at Times Beach, and dumped it into a municipal waste landfill in West County that has been out of compliance for the lastdecade,” says Steve Taylor of the Times Beach Action Group (TBAG).

Taylor and other local environmental activists have long charged that incineration — the mandated method of disposing of dioxin- contaminated waste in Eastern Missouri — falls short of meeting the EPA’s own stringent emissions standards and thereby endangers human health and the environment. Evidence uncovered by TBAG late last year cast doubt on the reliability of a crucial 1995 stack emissions test, which was conducted to verify the operational safety of the incinerator.

Now that Syntex, the liable party in the dioxin clean up, has finished burning 265,000 tons of dioxin-contaminated soil (more than twice the amount originally estimated), TBAG is concerned about the remaining waste. This separate phase of the remediation has until now received little or no attention. Under the terms of the 1990 consent decree, non- dioxin contaminated materials could not be burned at the Times Beach incinerator. In some cases, barrels of hazardous waste have been shipped out of state for disposal. Soil deemed to contain only low levels of contamination, however, could be legally moved to an ordinary sanitary landfill for disposal.

In the case of the Times Beach city park, the EPA sought and received permits from both the state and county to haul “special waste” to the Superior Oak Ridge Landfill. To move the waste, the EPA circumvented its own strict regulations by deferring to more lenient guidelines imposed by the DNR, according to Martha Steincamp, an EPA attorney. Steincamp referred to the city park clean up as a “removal action not a remedial action.” She compared the landfill shipments to the disposal of other non-hazardous waste at the site such as flood debris and abandoned household goods. When asked why such seemingly benign materials needed to be disposed of at all, Steincamp replied: “Because Times Beach is going to be a park and we want to clean it all up.”
Unlike the high-profile incineration project, shipments of the contaminants to the landfill went virtually unnoticed. The press release relating to the project failed to mention the destination of the waste other than to say, “the contaminated soil will be transported off-site to a licensed disposal facility.”

A spokeswoman for the St. Louis County Health Department doesn’t see why local government should have been any more vigilant in alerting citizens than the EPA has been. “If we put out a news release every time somebody shipped properly handled waste, that’s not news, says Ellen Waters. “What benefit would it be to the citizens to know the waste is being properly handled? It’s good to know, but it almost goes withoutsaying. The assumption is always there — that’s what we do day in and day out.”

If the current name of the landfill — Superior Oak Ridge — seems unfamiliar that’s because up until September of last year the facility was formally known as West County Disposal Ltd. Among area residents it is still simply referred to as West County Landfill. Superior Services Inc., the new owner, is a Wisconsin-based solid waste management firm.
The current violation at the landfill dates back to November 1991, when the Missouri Attorney General’s office filed suit on behalf of the DNR. The DNR had cited the landfill for exceeding its vertical limits because trash had piled up 680 feet high, 40 feet over the limit. Last year, a $30,000 fine was imposed on the prior landfill operator. Since acquiring the landfill in September, Superior Services has not brought the facility into compliance with state requirements, according to Joseph P. Bindbeutel, chief counsel of the environmental division of the Missouri Attorney General’s office.

“From our standpoint as enforcers, … they bought a pig in a poke,” say Bindbeutel. “And they are continuing to sort of pay the dues of operational confusion out at that landfill. There are so many plans, and so many intentions, and so many maps, and so many management techniques out there nobody knew how they were going to operate. … Becker (the prior owner) actually committed the violation,” says Bindbeutel. “But we will be demanding remediation and penalties from the new operator. They bought the overfill. They’re responsible for it.”

Despite the tough talk, Bindbeutel indicates the state appreciates what Superior has contributed — namely a $4 million assurance bond to cover any emergencies or future closure. Bindbuetel also credits Superior for actively seeking to make improvements at the site. “They redesigned the active part of the landfill completely, including a methane recovery system that will very much benefit the environment.”

Peter J. Ruud, vice president and chief counsel for Superior, refused to discuss the sale terms, and cited a confidentiality agreement with the EPA concerning the contaminated waste from Times Beach. But it’s no secret the company has expanded lately through a series of acquisitions in the Midwest. The solid waste management firm also owns a subsidiary, Superior Specialty Services that handles hazardous waste cleanups, including contracts with the EPA

In essence, Superior bought the former West County Disposal Ltd., changed it name and acquired the same operating permit held by the previous owner. The Wisconsin company acquired all potential liability associated with the landfill, too. Mitch Stepro, the special waste coordinator for the landfill, also refused to discuss the Times Beach waste, citing a confidentiality agreement with the EPA. Because both sides are remaining mum, it is unclear why the out-of-state company would buy into a landfill that faces possible further sanctions by the state.

Becker, the former landfill owner, referred all questions to his attorney, Brian McGovern, who accused the DNR of dragging its bureaucratic feet. “There was an exceedence of the vertical elevations, but they’re was also a counter claim alleged,” says McGovern. “Plans had been submitted at the landfill that would have allowed access to additional areas.” But the DNR put off looking at the landfill’s expansion plans for four years, according to McGovern, thus stymieing the operator’s ability to contain the waste in a more appropriate manner.
Problems at the landfill go back more than four years, however.

West County Landfill acquired its first operating permit in December 1972, and public protests started immediately. One early critic, geologist Charles Felt of St. Louis University, told the St. Louis Globe-Democrat : “My research indicates that the area is not suitable for a landfill. In the first place, rocks underneath the area would allow water to pass through.” In 1973, Martin D. Baron of the Coalition for the Environment voiced more opposition, telling the County Council the water quality of the nearby Meramec River needed to be protected.

The pleas fell on deaf ears. The County approved the license for the 129-acre landfill and problems at the site began to mount. In 1983, the state ordered the landfill closed, alleging Becker had failed to take adequate steps to protect ground and surface water from pollution. But West County continued to operate while it appealed the case. Two years later, DNR finally reached a settlement agreement that imposed strict guidelines on the landfill. A DNR official then said the stiff requirements had been imposed because soil conditions at the facility allowed waste to seep into the ground.

In recent years, neighbors of the landfill complained to the St. Louis County Council about odors. Other residents notified authorities of dumping late a night. But the County did little. Perhaps the most telling evidence of official disdain for citizens’ concerns is found in complaint log #8071 on file at the St. Louis County Health Department. In a letterdated May 11, 1996, residents of Greenfield Crossing Court asked for help to stem “the pollution, strong unpleasant odors, noise and traffic caused by the operators of the landfill.” In response, an unknown official jotted in the margin, “What pollution? (These are) all conditions associated with normal landfill operations. Why did they buy property next to a landfill, if they did not like these conditions?”

In 1991, when West County community activist Angela Dillmon started checking out local candidates, she found Becker had contributed heavily to Democrats on the County Council, particularly, the campaign of County Executive Buzz Westfall. By Dillmon’s tally, Becker and individuals and companies connected to him gave Westfall tens of thousands of dollars. “It was serious money,” says Dillmon.

It wasn’t the first time Becker had become involved in local politics. In 1974, he pled the Fifth Amendment 58 times in the perjury trial of then-St. Louis Building Commissioner Kenneth O. Brown. Brown was charged with lying to a grand jury about a $1,500 check he had received from Becker. The prosecution alleged the money was paid to Brown for steering work to Becker’s consulting engineering firm.

Later, from 1984 to 1987, the late St. Louis County highway director Richard F. Daykin got the County Council to give more than $800,000 in no- bid contracts to James B. Becker Consulting Engineers, according to press accounts. At that time, Daykin’s son, Richard J. Daykin, worked for Becker’s engineering firm. While employed by Becker, the younger Daykin helped survey the Times Beach site.

After his father’s death, Daykin befriended Taylor, the TBAG activist. He then told Taylor of irregularities in soil sampling he had observed at Times Beach. He also mentioned safety violations at the site. Daykin repeated his allegations in an interview with an environmental attorney who was preparing a federal suit to try and halt incinerator operations.

But Daykin never got a chance to go on the record. In August 1995, Federal Judge John F. Nangle reaffirmed Superfund clean ups can’t be sued until after they are completed. That judicial ruling is not what permanently silenced Daykin, however. He died of injuries received in a one-car accident early last year.

Taylor is hesitant to broach the subject of his friend’s death. “There was no indications of foul play,” he says. “It is presumed by friends and family to have been an accident. We don’t really know because there weren’t many questions asked. Rich was always hesitant about bringing up things,” says Taylor. “But he came to his own realization things weren’ton the up and up at Times Beach. He thought a lot of things that happened down there were suspicious.”

For its part, the EPA claims ignorance of all these details. “I don’t keep up on St. Louis politics that much,” says Martha Steincamp, the regional counsel for the EPA. “The most important thing to us, of course, is that we are selecting a location that is properly licensed and approved by whomever the licensing authorities are to receive this waste. In this case, there were discussions with the county officials and it was a properly licensed landfill to receive special waste and they did have the conditional use permit.”

In 1995, Marilyn Leisner, the former mayor of Times Beach, told the RFT the city park site contained PCBs, albeit low levels. Her recollection is based on private testing done in 1982 prior to the evacuation of the dioxin-contaminated town. “When the testing was completed, it was determined the PCBs were only at the city park,” said Leisner. “In the cleanup at Times Beach, Syntex is not responsible for the PCBs. So the park cleanup is not being done by Syntex; it is being done separately by the EPA.”

As Leisner and Steincamp both explain it, dioxin at Times Beach fell under Superfund regulation, which made Syntex, the liable party, responsible for its clean up. But the PCB contamination at the city park came under the auspices of another federal law, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). RCRA regulations allow the states to set the contamination guidelines.

Gerson Smoger, an attorney who represented former Times Beach residents, couldn’t corroborate Leisner’s recollection exactly, but he did remember the presence of PCBs at the city park, as well as, elsewhere in Times Beach. “When they were doing the testing, the assumption made in the early 1980s was that dioxin was of such extreme harm that anything else was irrelevant.” Nevertheless, according to Smoger, the concentrations of PCBs alone were high enough to declare Times Beach a hazardous waste site. “One would assume there would still be PCBs there, ” says Smoger. But, according to sampling conducted in 1991, the PCBs — a persistent environmental pollutant — had somehow vanished.

PCBs or no PCBs, significant levels of volatile organic chemicals were indisputably detected at the city park as early as 1982. Private tests conducted at that time for the city of Times Beach showed thepresence of toluene at 120,000 part per billion (ppb), ethyl benzene at 170,000 ppb, acetone at 82,000 ppb and xylenes at up to 510,000 ppb. A Centers for Disease Control spokesman commented then that the contaminants were “of concern, ” but pronounced there was no emergency response necessary. As a result, the chemicals continued to leach into the ground water for another 15 years before they were transported to the Superior Oak Ridge Landfill in late May and early June. Although the landfill now uses pumps and liners to prevent seepage, there is still a chance some of the remaining contaminants could potentially pollute water entering the Meramec River.

Of course, if the waste isn’t hazardous, as the EPA contends, there would be no reasonable cause to move it in the first place. On the other hand, if it does warrant disposal, there seems little logic in shipping it to a landfill in the same ecologically sensitive watershed.
Anne McCauley, the EPA on-site coordinator for the city park clean up says several factors weighed into the decision to send the waste to Superior Oak Ridge. “One was the location relative to the site we were cleaning up,” says McCauley. “It was very close to the city park site. The transportation route was very short in addition to the fact that the facility is permitted to accept this kind of waste.”

Not surprisingly Taylor of TBAG has a diametrically opposed view. “We believe this is more of a toxic-waste shell game than a clean up,” he says. “We feel there’s a lot of secrets. That this whole incineration project was about preserving secrets and protecting commercial interests more than protecting public health.”

One well-kept secret is contained in the files of the Collinsville office of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). In late 1982, after the extent of Bliss’s toxic spraying binge became known, the IEPA asked its federal counterpart for information on sites in Illinois that Bliss may have contaminated a decade earlier.

In one document handed over by the EPA, there is a reference to the West County Landfill. At the time, there seemed to be some confusion by state officials as to whether the landfill was in Missouri or Illinois. The IEPA summary lists the source of the information as Stephen P. Krchma of the Missouri Attorney General’s office. Krchma had in turn based his report on an interview with David Covert, one of Bliss’s drivers. The summary citation reads:
“

Wastes were also reported by Covert to be hauled to the West County landfill in Sulphur Springs (IL or MO?) where the operators were paid off to accept the wastes.”
The reference to Sulphur Springs most likely denotes the St. Louis County road on which West County Landfill (now Superior Oak Ridge Landfill) is located.

On December 23, 1982, IEPA officials interviewed Covert themselves. During the interview, Covert talked about picking up ink from a company in St. Louis County. “It smells terrible and I don’t think it burns,” said Covert. “You just haul that stuff into the west county landfill and open the valve and let it run out.” Before they were banned, PCBs were used in the manufacture of ink.
The reason the EPA and DNR passed over the West County Landfill in their own search appear to be twofold. For one, another Bliss driver changed his story. According to the EPA’s dioxin site tracking list, Gary Lambarth “indicated he had oiled the road in the landfill around 1972.”

Lambarth made that statement in the spring of 1983. By fall, however, he reversed himself, claiming he had confused West County with another landfill. In addition, the EPA dioxin tracking list states that DNR was “deferring action until (the) relationship with ongoing litigation is determined.” As already mentioned, the state agency had attempted to close the landfill in 1983 because Becker had failed to adequately protect ground and surface water from pollution.
In a sense, the waste from the city park completes the contamination circle. Two Bliss drivers initially confessed to dumping waste at West County Landfill in the early 1970s. Only one is known to have retracted the admission. The state cited the landfill for water pollution violations in 1983, but has continued to allow the landfill to operate. Complaints by citizens have been dismissed by the County. Meanwhile, those involved in accepting contaminated waste from Times Beach refuse to comment, citing a confidentiality agreement with the EPA. The silence extends to the U.S. attorney’s office in St. Louis. “We don’t confirm or deny the possible existence of an investigation,” says Jan Diltz, a local Department of Justice (DOJ) spokeswoman. She declined to comment further on whether there is a current federal inquiry into activities at Time Beach.

In 1982, the DOJ — acting on behalf of the EPA and the White House — withheld documents from a congressional investigation, citing executive privilege. Among the documents the DOJ refused to hand over were handwritten notes of EPA attorney James Kohanek, pertaining toproposed activity on Missouri dioxin sites. In a published account, then- U.S. Rep. Elliott Levitas, D-Ga., who sat on House Public Works Committee, remembered exactly when the stonewalling began. “As far as I was concerned, it was just a routine exercise in oversight,” said Levitas of the congressional inquiry. “Right in the middle of it there was a decision made by the EPA … permitting sanitary landfills to be used to receive liquid waste. … Then boom — the door got shut.”

EXECUTIVE INACTION

St. Louis County’s top elected official, Buzz Westfall, refuses to heed the advise of his own citizens watchdog group , which now recommends a new stack emissions test is needed at the Times Beach incinerator

BY C.D. STELZER

first published in the Riverfront Times, (St. Louis) Dec. 18, 1996

Despite mounting evidence of wrongdoing, St. Louis County Executive Buzz Westfall refused last week to call for a retest of stack emissions at the controversial Times Beach dioxin incinerator near Eureka. The St. Louis County Dioxin Monitoring Committee voted unanimously in favor of such a measure on Dec. 10.

Committee members — who are all Westfall appointees — recommended the county executive ask the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to shut down the incinerator until new test results confirm whether the project is safe. The committee’s recommendation follows the release of an EPA ombudsman’s report last month calling for a similar course of action (“Taking a New Stack,” RFT, Nov. 27). Questions regarding the November 1995 stack emissions test surfaced earlier this year, after opponents of the incinerator discovered numerous violations of scientific protocol, including the alteration documents and the unexplained disappearance of sample tubes.

“As of yet, he is not sending a letter to the EPA to shut the thing down,” says Max Scott, a spokesman for Westfall. “I mean it would be a public relations move anyway. The county executive has no power to shut this thing down.”

Scott, however, is exaggerating Westfall’s impotence. The EPA ombudsman has called for public comments on this matter, and a locally elected official’s opinion would certainly be handled with deference. Westfall’s reticence also contradicts his own past position on the incinerator. During his 1990 campaign, he repeatedly attacked his opponent, incumbent H.C. Milford, for not taking a stronger stand on the issue. At that time Westfall wooed Eureka-area voters by telling them: ”The federal government is doing something bad to St. Louis County, and H. Milford is sitting silently by.”

Westfall  and his minions now routinely condemn critics of the incinerator as conspiracy theorists. In a telephone interview last Friday, for example, Scott repeatedly referred to Republican Councilman Greg Quinn as a conspiracy theorist for suggesting anything might have gone awry with the Times Beach project. Quinn represents the district in West St. Louis County where the incinerator is located.

Another Westfall partisan, county counselor John Ross, used the conspiracy theory stigma to discredit a resolution offered by Quinn at the County Council meeting last Thursday. The Democratic majority on the council subsequently defeated the measure 4-2.

Quinn had proposed the council urge the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to order a shut down of the incinerator until the state health department released data on a blood study of residents who live near the facility. Instead, the council passed a measure asking for the data, but not demanding a shut down or retest. The health department has claimed average dioxin levels have decreased among Eureka-area residents, but refuses to turn over the raw data so it can be independently analyzed (“Blood Feud,” RFT, Nov. 13).

After the adoption of the watered-down resolution, Quinn told the council: “What you’re seeing here in this resolution is a misguided effort by the majority party to support the county executive who wants incineration to continue at Times Beach in spite of the fact that we’ve had a unanimous recommendation from his own Dioxin Monitoring Committee. He’s willing to disregard that.”

Westfall was absent from the proceedings, as is often the case when Times Beach is on the agenda. If he had been there, the county executive may have been heartened by the testimony of EPA project manager Bob Feild, who defended the safety of the incinerator based on air monitoring data.

After the meeting, Feild and EPA lawyer Martha Steincamp deflected questions by saying, “We have to catch a plane.” Gary Pendergrass of Agribusiness Technologies Inc., the company liable for the clean up, had even less to say. When asked about his knowledge of a possible cover up of misdeeds during the stack test, Pendergrass stared vacuously at the RFT reporter and remained mute (“Why the Times Beach Incinerator Should be Shut Down,” RFT, Nov. 20).

Members of the Times Beach Action Group (TBAG) have charged that a conflict of interest exists because International Technology Inc. (IT), the incinerator operator, owned half of Quanterra Environmental Services when the stack test was conducted. Quanterra is known to have mishandled sample tubes following that test (“Twice Burned,” RFT, Aug. 28).

The irregularities at Times Beach now raise larger questions. Two thirds of IT’s contracts are with the federal government, including the Departments of Defense and Energy. Revenues from this work in fiscal 1996 are estimated at more $250 million. In the past, Quanterra’s William C. Anderson, the quality assurance officer at Times Beach, has also been involved in a trial burn at the U.S. Army chemical weapons incinerator in Utah. The Army is now investigating the safety of that incinerator, after whistleblowers there have repeatedly alleged that the incinerator isn’t operating properly. In 1993, IT’s St. Louis lab also did sampling for a radioactive waste clean up in Alaska, The Riverfront Times has learned.

Closer to home, incinerator critic Fred Striley — who is a member of the monitoring committee — isn’t satisfied in regard to the accuracy of the air monitoring at Times Beach. “Citizens groups have pointed out over the last couple of years numerous problems with the risk assessment that was prepared for the Times Beach site by CH2M Hill at EPA Region VII’s direction — problems like failing to account for fugitive emissions,” say Striley. Last week, the EPA notified the monitoring committee that its request for an air monitor at the incinerator site itself had been denied, according to Striley.

In 1992, CH2M Hill, one of the EPA’s most frequently relied on contractors, fell under the scrutiny of the White House Office of Management and Budget, the congressional General Accounting Office and the EPA itself. Investigators found the Corvallis, Ore.-based engineering firm had overcharged the government by $5 million for parties, baseball tickets, liquor and country club fees among other things. In addition, more than 95 percent of CH2M Hill’s time sheets were altered. Nonetheless, EPA Region VII choice CH2M Hill to do the Times Beach risk assessment completed in 1994.

Last Tuesday, one TBAG member was arrested at the monitoring committee meeting, which was held at the clean up site offices. Another TBAG protester locked her neck to the entrance gate with a kryptonite bicycle lock.

None of thedemonstrators swayed Retired Army Lt. Gen. Kenneth E. Lewi’s opinion, however. At 66 years of age, the former officer is arguably the most conservative member of the monitoring committee, and he expresses confidence in the safety of the incinerator. Nevertheless, Lewi sided with the other committee members in asking for a shut down and retest.

“The committee has a responsibility to tell Mr. Westfall what we think based on the information we have,” says Lewi. “The reason I voted that way was to remove doubt from the public as to whether or not the (original ) test was valid.”

It remains to be seen whether the Westfall administration will label the general a conspiracy theorist, too.

TAKING A NEW STACK

An interim EPA report recommends a new stack-emissions test at the Times Beach dioxin incinerator but mutes its call for a shutdown

BY C.D. STELZER

first published in the Riverfront Times (St. Louis), Nov. 27, 1996

On Nov. 20, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) interim report recommended that a stack-emissions test at the Times Beach dioxin incinerator may need to be redone to restore public confidence in the project. Such a retest would require snuffing the flames at the incinerator at least temporarily (“Why the Times Beach Incinerator Should be Shut Down, RFT, Nov. 20).

Despite the recommendation, the EPA had by late last Friday taken no action to address the potential public health hazard posed by the incinerator emissions.

“I have absolutely no idea what is going to take place. We have not met on this subject. I am not in any position to comment in any way,” says Rowena Michaels, a spokeswoman for EPA Region VII in Kansas City. Region VII and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) are responsible for overseeing the dioxin cleanup in Eastern Missouri, including Times Beach. The results from last year’s flawed test were used as a basis for the DNR to grant a permit for the incinerator to operate.

EPA national ombudsman Robert J. Martin submitted the interim report to Elliott P. Laws, assistant administrator for the agency’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) in Washington, D.C. As ombudsman, Martin was assigned in May to represent the interests of citizens opposed to the Times Beach incinerator. His final report on the subject is now tentatively scheduled for completion by Dec. 9.

As it stands, Martin’s interim report recommends “establishing a panel of technical and legal experts to consult with the national ombudsman on how to address the issues raised in this case in a final report.” But no such panel has been formed as of yet by the EPA. Moreover, Martin, now speculates that the panel won’t be formed before he completes his findings next month.

“I don’t have the ability to convene the panel,” Martin told The Riverfront Times in a phone interview last Friday. “I have no decision making power. I only have the power to recommend. So whether this panel happens is up to the agency. The agency hasn’t said whether they’ll do it or not.”

Martin’s interim report to Laws concludes that “another dioxin stack test may be essential to restore public confidence in the project.” The report supports that position by citing gross errors in last year’s stack test. “There are salient inconsistencies in the chain-of-custody (of test samples) along with multiple alterations in the supporting documents,” according the EPA interim report. Assistant administrator Laws has not responded to repeated requests by the RFT for an interview.

Martin told the RFT that he is concerned about his inability to put his hands on a copy of the project’s work plans, which lay out the protocols supposedly used during the now unreliable stack test. I have not seen the plans. Apparently, a lot of people have not,” says Martin. “The real question (then) becomes what in fact did they use for a chain-of custody-procedure. We don’t know the answer to that question until we get the work plans. To date, I’ve seen abstracts from the documents, but not the documents in their entirety.

However, the integrity of the interim report itself is now being questioned. Environmental opponents of the incinerator had anticipated that Martin’s review would more strongly advocate a shut down pending a retest.

“It is obvious that the ombudsman lost the courage of his convictions sometime after submitting his report to Elliott Laws for review,” says Steve Taylor of the Times Beach Action Group (TBAG). “We believe that the recommendations in his report were softened. The release of this report is completely inconsistent with the guidance given to us by the national ombudsman.”

As recently as the first week of November, Taylor says Martin told him that the long-awaited interim report would call for a direct and unqualified shut down of the incinerator, pending a retest. Taylor has provided the RFT with taped-recorded telephone conversations to back up his claims. In one conversation, a voice that sounds like Martin’s can be heard saying: “Whatever they need to do to do in the way of a shut down to accommodate a retest is what they should do.”

When confronted with Taylor’s allegations, Martin responded indirectly by saying that his call for a shut down and retest must now be predicated on a loss of “public confidence and not one of legal impropriety.” Taylor contends Martin has waffled on this point, too. In another tape-recorded telephone conversation, a voice presumed to be Martin’s says: “I got to tell you that it wasn’t until this week, going through these documents and then having these discussions with you that I’ve moved from `we have problems’ to `we have potential criminal activities.'”

In the phone conversation, the presumed voice of the ombudsman ruminates over difficulties that his inquiry may soon encounter because of a parallel investigation by the DNR. “The state is likely going to weigh in and say, `no problem,” says the voice on the other end of the line. Then you get into double-jeopardy kinds of issues. I may talk to the FBI. …”

Last week, during his interview with the RFT, Martin denied knowledge of information contained in a key document that is allegedly already in his the possession, according to Taylor. The content of the document, of which Martin now says he is unaware, includes a “Chronology of Events” prepared by the incinerator operator. The chronology indicates that five sample tubes disappeared from the site shortly after the stack test was completed last year. Martin also denied knowledge of a custody sheet from an analytical laboratory showing that sample seals were absent upon arrival. Taylor alleges that he had discussed that issue with the ombudsman as well.

With the release of the watered-down interim report, Taylor has become even more distrustful of the EPA. “It is shocking that the ombudsman had asked the TBAG to sit on information of potential criminal activity pending the release of his interim report,” says Taylor. “In our conversations, Bob Martin gave specific guidance to me to withhold evidence of possible fraud to better facilitate future criminal investigations.”

 

TALENT TO BURN

U.S. Rep. Jim Talent requests a shutdown of the Times Beach of the Times Beach dioxin incinerator

BY C.D. STELZER

first published by the Riverfront Times (St. Louis),Oct. 2, 1996

Last Thursday, U.S. Rep. Jim Talent (R-2nd Dist.) requested an immediate shut down of the Times Beach dioxin incinerator pending an investigation into the mishandling of stack emissions samples at the controversial Superfund cleanup.

The congressman made the request in a letter to Elliot Laws, assistant administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington, D.C. The letter also asked the agency to re-conduct the trial burn at the incinerator near Eureka to assure it is operating safely.

Talent, who is running for re-election against former Democratic Congresswoman Joan Kelly Horn, has long voiced opposition to the dioxin incinerator. His intermittent efforts to halt the project, however, have failed to bring about any change in plans. Talent’s latest attempt to put out the fire follows a copyrighted story in the Riverfront Times (“Twice Burned,”Aug. 28).

The RFT story revealed that International Technologies (IT), the incinerator operator, partially owns Quanterra Environmental Services, the laboratory that handled emissions samples from critical stack tests conducted at the incinerator in November 1995. After Quanterra received the samples, it took seven to eight days for them to reach Triangle Laboratories in North Carolina, according to EPA documents. Environmentalists suspect that improper handling of the samples during that time may have invalidated the test results. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) issued the requisite operating permit based in part on the results of the laboratory analysis.

Although Talent referred indirectly to the RFT’s continuing investigation of the Times Beach project in his letter to the EPA, the congressman refused to be interviewed for this story. Talent’s reticence is not unique. Calls placed to the DNR last week also went unreturned. The EPA has had little to say either.

After the RFT filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request to obtain information on Quanterra’s involvement in the project, the agency’s regional headquarters in Kansas City claimed no such records existed and denied any association with the laboratory. “Please be advised that EPA has no documents responsive to this request. Quanterra has no official relationship with EPA regarding the Eastern Missouri Dioxin Sites Cleanup, including Times Beach,” an EPA offcial stated.

The denial contradicts a clause in the 1990 consent decree signed jointly by representatives of the EPA, DNR and Syntex, the corporation liable for the cleanup. The consent decree states: “…Settling Defendants shall notify EPA and the State, in writing, of the name, title, and qulaifications of any supervising contractor, and the names of principal contractors and/or subcontractors proposed to be used in carrying out the Work. Selection of any such contractor shall be subject to approval by EPA, after consultation with the State, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. EPA shall notify the Settling Defendants in writing of its approval or disapproval within 14 calendar days of receipt of the notice.”

TRYING TIMES

BY C.D. STELZER

first published in the Riverfront Times (St. Louis), Sept. 20, 1995

Fifteen environmental activists are charged with trespassing for their Times Beach protest

“It’s kind of easier to just close your eyes to what’s going, on” says Jillian Borchard. The thought causes her to do just that. She shakes her head, unfurling hanks of tousled brown hair. Traffic noise envelopes her laugh, which is lost in the chatter at the sidewalk cafe on Delmar.

The levity of the moment masks serious concerns the young woman has about her future. Brochard is a 22-year-old art student at Washington University . She is also a criminal in the myopic vision of the St. Louis County prosecutor’s office.

Last Friday, Borchard and 14 other environmental activists were formally charged with first-degree trespassing for their involvement in a protest that took place at the site of the Times Beach dioxin incinerator on July 27. On that day, St. Louis County police arrested the demonstrators who stepped past a gate at the Superfund site entrance. The maximum sentence for the offense is six months in jail or a $500 fine, or both.

Opponents of the incinerator say stack emissions will endanger public health by dispersing dioxin into the air. Officials for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contend that the plan is safe. Test burns may begin as soon as November, with the incineration of some 100,000 cubic yards of dioxin-contaminated soil from 27 sites in Eastern Missouri scheduled to begin early next year.

Borchard and Sarah Bantz, another of the protestors who was charged, are members of the Student Environmental Action Coalition (SEAC) at Washington University. Both suspect that the timing of the issuance of the charges was more than coincidental. In their opinion, the legal hurdles are being used to diffuse opposition to the project as the date of the test burn approaches.

Efforts to stop the incinerator continued last Tuesday, when more than two dozen opponents took over the agenda of the monthly Dioxin Monitoring Committee meeting. In addition, U.S. Rep. Jim Talent (R Chesterfield) met with four West St. Louis County mayors the preceding day. The elected officials discussed seeking a delay in the project. In the past, Talent has asked that the incineration be halted at least until the completion of a congressionally-sponsored study.

Neither Brochard nor Bantz have been informed by the county of the charges against them. Instead, they learned of their legal situation from a news account. “I don’t understand why the public knows about this before the person involved,” says Bantz.

Both women say they felt compelled to commit civil disobedience after other means failed. “Nobody wants this,” says Bantz. “It just seems like everything has been tried, and nothing works. It is not easy to get involved. You’re not expected to do anything except maybe vote,” says Bantz. “You reach this point,” she says, “where you have no option other than throw yourself at the authorities and say, `I am willing to put my body on the line to stop this.'”

Ten of the 15 defendants charged with trespassing at Times Beach are women. Organo-chlorines — including dioxin — have been blamed for increased levels of breast cancer. There is evidence women are at higher risk because dioxin-like chemicals are absorbed by fat and females naturally have a higher percentage in their bodies.

Bantz and Borchard have begun to decorate a wall of their apartment with the responses that they have received from elected officials, all of whom are males, incidentally. There are letters from the governor, the congressman and the county executive. “They’re just all the same,” says Bantz. “I’ve gotten so many responses saying it’s going to be safe — don’t worry about it.”

A benefit concert for the Times Beach 15 is tentatively scheduled for Oct 7 at Washington University. For more information on how to contribute to the legal defense fund call 458-5026, or write: P.O. Box 50, Clarkson Center, Suite 493, Chesterfield, Mo., 63017.

RALLYING CRY

Citizens join together to protest the Times Beach incinerator

BY C.D. STELZER

first published in the Riverfront Times (St. Louis), Aug. 2, 1995

For George and Ida Klein, last Thursday afternoon was no picnic. The temperature that day reached a high of 94 degrees, and it felt much hotter standing in the middle of Lewis Road in West St. Louis County. The Kleins – who lived in Times Beach for 43 years — joined about 100 other people outside the Environmental Protection Agency’s project office to protest the construction of the Times Beach dioxin incinerator.

The rally had been organized by the Times Beach Action Group (TBAG). Members of other environmental groups such as the Gateway Green Alliance, Student Environmental Action Coalition, Greenpeace and the Sierra Club also took part. Fifteen of the more militant protesters were arrested for trespassing, after they crossed behind a gate that blocks access to the old Meramec River bridge, leading to the incinerator site.

St. Louis County police officers escorted or carried those arrested to an awaiting police van, as the crowd continued to chant slogans, unfurl banners and wave placards. About half of those attending the rally were local residents from the nearby towns of Eureka and Crescent.

Kool-Aid provided by Syntex, the company liable for the Superfund clean up, did little to cool Ida Klein’s attitude toward the plan to burn 100,000 cubic yards of dioxin-contaminated waste at the site of her former hometown. “I think it’s terrible. I think they ought to not do it,” says the 71-year-old Klein. “There are going to be so many people sick from it. We’ve got three in our family who got cancer. My daughter had to have a hysterectomy at 30. Two years ago she had to have a breast removed with cancer and have six months of chemo(-therapy),” she says. In addition, Klein says her 81-year-old husband had to have 14-inches of his colon removed, when he was 62-years-old. At the time, the family still lived in Times Beach, she says. More recently, the couple’s youngest daughter discovered at age 33 that she had cancer of the cervix,” Klein says.

It is those kinds of concerns that prompted Mary Derrick of Crescent to attend the rally. “Those people who got arrested, in my mind, they’re heroes,” says Derrick. Derrick was holding one corner of a banner inscribed with a verse from the Bible: “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.”
Before the rally, TBAG members and their allies rendezvoused at an old farmstead in West County. Their preparations included dividing up the placards, banners, moon suits, bio-hazardous waste bags and smoke bombs, which would soon become part of the media event. Outside the 19th-century caretaker’s house, with its massive stone foundation, a portable radio was propped up on the hood of an old Plymouth Horizon. At noon, the voice of KMOX radio reporter Margie Manning could be heard announcing details of the protest, including a sound bite from TBAG organizer Steve Taylor. Then someone shut the radio off, and 20 people quietly held hands in a circle. Some of the veteran activists gave encouragement and advise to the others. Many in the circle would soon be arrested, manacled and held in an unventilated police van.

After the arrests, Rick LaMonica, a member of the Gateway Greens offered his view of the situation. “There are a lot of people who lived in Times Beach for 10 or 15 years who were getting a perpetual run-around from the EPA, DNR (Missouri Department of Natural Resources) and the state department of health. They just know that they’re constantly lied to, and one of the biggest lies is that this is a solution to the problem,” says LaMonica. “Incineration doesn’t so much destroy the waste as disperse the waste,” LaMonica says.

Burning organo-chlorines such as dioxin actually reforms other dioxins, and allows heavy metals to escape through the incinerator’s stack, LaMonica says. “Anytime you have compounds that have chlorine, you are going to be forming dioxins from burning. … EPA knows that. Their own reassessment shows that it’s more hazardous than they have been admitting.

“In the mid-80s, they knew that incineration was not a good technology. Our problem is that they don’t really want to consider any alternatives. There are better ways to clean up Superfund sites, but the EPA doesn’t want to consider them unless they’re forced. … It has nothing to do with science. The science says they’re wrong. The science and medical data have been telling that for decades.They just seem more interested in pushing contract deals with engineering companies that design and build incinerators then really trying to clean up Superfund (sites).”

AIR PRESSURE

BY C.D. STELZER

first published in the Riverfront Times (St. Louis) , July 26, 1995

Last week the St. Louis County Counselor's office
continued efforts to hold the responsible parties in the
Times Beach dioxin cleanup to their word. Not an easy
task, considering they keep talking out of both sides of
their mouths. 
     At issue is the county's right to mandate its own
air-quality standards as spelled out in the 1990 consent
decree.
     As a part of that pact, Syntex, the company liable
for the $118 million-plus cleanup of Times Beach and 26
other dioxin-contaminated sites in Eastern Missouri,
agreed to "apply to the St. Louis County Health
Department ... for a construction and operating permit
governing air emissions from the TTU (thermal treatment
unit)." A thermal-treatment unit is an incinerator.
     In a motion filed on May 11, however, Syntex asked
the U.S. District Court here to turn aside the county's
air-quality ordinance enacted Feb. 8. Syntex contends
the local law exceeds federal standards set forth in the
consent decree signed with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), and the Missouri Department of
Natural Resources (DNR). Syntex is supported in its move
by the EPA. 
     On July 18, the county responded by submitting its
own motion to the court, which challenges both Syntex
and the EPA's opposition to its air-quality standards.
The county ordinance requires the Times Beach
incinerator to emit no more dioxin than the level
specified in the EPA's own health-risk assessment
published in November 1994. That amount of allowable
emissions, which the EPA determined to be a worst-case
scenario, is still more than the EPA's original goal of
99.9999 percent destruction removal efficiency.
     For Martha Steincamp, the chief counsel for Region
VII of the EPA, the impasse is based on the subtle
differences between "administrative" and "substantive"
EPA guidelines. Administrative rules or "paperwork" as
Steincamp refers to them, carry little weight and are
simply a formality. Substantively, the EPA and
responsible parties in a Superfund cleanup are not bound
by any local, state or federal permit, Steincamp says.
In the case of Times Beach, the air-quality standards
that were in place in 1988 -- at the time of the federal
court's record of decision -- are the only laws relevant
to the argument, Steincamp contends. Of course, St.
Louis County didn't have any local air-quality standard
at that time. The fact that the subsequent 1990 consent
decree mandates a local emissions permit is of no
consequence, according to Steincamp. "In my opinion we
are abiding by the law," the EPA lawyer says.
     County Counselor John Ross sees a contradiction in
Syntex and the EPA" position. "At other times, they've
said that their incinerator would exceed our standards,"
says Ross.
     Edward L Noel, the attorney for Syntex, referred
all questions on the latest legal maneuvers to his
client Gary Pendergrass, the Times Beach project
coordinator. Pendergrass could not be reached for
comment at press time on Monday. At the Jan. 26 County
Council meeting, NOel was less reticent ( "Emission
Control," RFT, Feb. 1). The corporate lawyer then
threatened the county with litigation, which could
result in $500,000 in monthly penalties. He also
compared the potential health risks posed by the
incinerator to a traffic problem. "I don't know that
there is any difference in putting one extra truck on
the highway," said Noel, a member of the prestigious law
firm of Armstrong, Teasdale, Schlafly and Davis.
     Despite NOel's opinion, the EPA has seen fit to
award a $50,000 technical-assistance grant to the Times
Beach Environmental Task Force. The money will be used
by the community group over the next two years to hire a
technical advisor, who will review emissions data from
the incinerator to see whether it is operating safely.
     Meanwhile, there is a growing number of opponents
to the incinerator who are still intent upon stopping it
before it begins operating -- perhaps as soon as next
year. A coalition of anti-incinerator forces has
scheduled a rally for this Thursday at 1:00 p.m. at the
EPA's site office on Lewis Road of I-44.

WHY DIOXIN IS MORE DANGEROUS THAN YOU’VE BEEN TOLD — EVEN IF YOUR DAILY NEWSPAPER DOESN’T BELIEVE IT

May 18, 1994

Dioxin, the most toxic of all man-made chemicals. It’s been called the Watergate of molecules. Its poison trail winds through time, from the jungles of Vietnam to the Ozark hills. With more than two dozen confirmed dioxin-contaminated cleanup sites in Eastern Missouri, and a proposed dioxin incinerator at Times Beach, St. Louis could very well be considered the dioxin capital of the world.

The latest scientific evidence indicates increased dangers to the general population. The evidence follows years of continuing debate over the subject in both the laboratory and the courtroom. Research now shows that dioxin and related chemicals may be responsible for everything from fetal abnormalities to male feminization. The case studies are like a cheklist of industrial nations; they span the globe from Seveso, Italy to Times Beach.

It’s a big story. But judging from the coverage in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, it would be hard to tell. Here in Monsanto City, as one environmentalist not-so-fondly calls it, the public is being told not to be alarmed about dioxin-exposure levels, despite evidence of a significant health problem.

Gerson Smoger, a lawyer with more than a decade of experience in dioxin-related cases tell the Riverfront Times that he suspects the newspaper industry is treading softly on the dioxin issue because of its close ties to paper and pulp companies that create dioxin as an unwanted byproduct in their chlorine-bleaching process. Remediation has been a costly proposition that has already resulted in a concerted effort by newsprint interests to loosen Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards on dioxin. “One of the big things to remember, when you are reading this, is that it’s costing newspapers probably billions of dollars. I don’t know how this affects the Riverfront Times, but a lot of major papers own paper and pulp mill,” says Smoger.

The latest news to be de-emphasized is a summary draft of the EPA’s long-delayed reassessment of dioxin, which was leaked to the press last week. Those findings show that all Americans are likely to have already been exposed to levels of dioxin that may cause a plethora of illnesses. The summary among other things, links dioxin exposure to immunological disorders infertility and cancer.

In response to the EPA’s reassessment, the May 11 Post-Dispatch chose to reprint a highly condensed version of The New York Times coverage on page 3A. The next day, a follow-up story was moved to the bottom of page 1B. both stories were given headlines that could be considered misleading. The main headline on May 12, for instance, says: “Draft Report from EPA Gives Assurances on Dioxin.”

The EPA draft itself reads much differently. Here’s an excerpt from the actual EPA report obtained by the RFT:

“Based on all the data reviewed in this reassessment, a picture emerges of TCDD (dioxin) and related compounds as potent toxicants producing a wide range of effects at very low levels when compared with other environmental contaminants.”
Those official words don’t sound too reassuring. But poo-poohing dioxin risks is far from unprecedented. It is uncertain whether the cause of this lax reporting is institutionalized lethargy, individual inattention or something more sinister, as Smoger suggests. But only last week the Post-Dispatch downplayed other dioxin-related news even more than the leaked EPA reassessment.

* A story about the halting of a controversial medical waste incinerator plan in the city ran on page 1B below the fold. No environmentalists who opposed the project were quoted in the story.

* A demand by U.S. Rep Jim Talent, no friend of environmentalists, that the EPA not build a planned $116 million dioxin incinerator at Times Beach was tacked onto the end of the medical-waste incinerator story. The congressman’s remarks, which included pleas for considering alternative technologies, appeared on page 3B without a headline.

* News of the St. Louis County Council’s unanimous opposition to the planned Times Beach dioxin incinerator and the council’s request to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to withhold permits was relegated to one paragraph at the bottom of page 3C.

Under-reporting the dangers of dioxin is something that St. Louisans have been overexposed to for a long time.

“There certainly has been a strong and continuing attempt to linguistically detoxify dioxin,” says Pat Costner, the national director of the environmental group Greenpeace’s toxics campaign. Costner, a 54 year-old chemist, formerly worked for the petrochemical industry that she now opposes. After years of fighting dioxin incinerator in her native Arkansas, she sees the EPA’s report as a clear mandate.
“All of the evidence-gathering considered in this reassessment makes an absolutely airtight case that the government in this country must move as quickly as possible to stop all releases of dioxin into the environment,” says Costner.

It will not be a simple task. If there is anything more complicated than the science of dioxin, it is the politics and history of dioxin. The three are inextricably twisted like together like a mutated triple helix.

“There’s a difference between science and politics. Scientifically, it was very carefully done, and very conservatively done,” says Smoger of the EPA reassessment. “What one has to remember is that the reassessment was commissioned under the Republican administration. The original purpose of the reassessment was actually to downgrade dioxin as a toxin, because the Chlorine Institute wished to relax regulations, because they weren’t complying with emission standards downstream and for incinerators. (But) now the reassessment actually said it’s more dangerous than we thought before.”

The EPA called for its reassessment of dioxin in 1991, in the wake of an expensive public-relations campaign by the paper and chlorine industries. The tactics included industry-financed conferences and studies that purportedly showed proof dioxin was less dangerous than once thought. These efforts were backed up by paper executives directly lobbying William K. Reilly, the Bush administration’s EPA head.

The main cheerleader for lowering dioxin standards on the government’s side was Vernon N. Houk, who was then a director at the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta. Houk has since retired and was unavailable for comment late last week. In 1990, his pro industry activities came under the close scrutiny of a House government operations sub-committee chaired by the late Rep. Ted Weiss of New York. Testifying under oath before the same body in 1989, Adm. Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr., in his capacity as a Veterans Affairs investigator, stated: “I believe that Dr. Vernon Houk … has made it his mission to manipulate and prevent the true facts from being determined.”

The subcommittee questioned Houk himself about his reasons form stopping a study of Vietnam veterans who had been exposed to Agent Orange, the defoliant that contained high levels of dioxin. At a subsequent hearing, the CDC official was grilled over his personal interest in lowering dioxin standards in Georgia at the behest of the paper industry.

A high-ranking public official pilloried by an aggressive congressional inquiry. But a year later, in 1991, the Post-Dispatch failed to mention any of this in a story that used Houk as its main source. “I just didn’t know about it,” says Tom Uhlenbrock, the Post-Dispatch’s environmental reporter. Uhlenbrock’s story — which appeared on the front page of the paper with a banner headline –Houk announced that he had changed his mind about the dangers of dioxin, and now thought the contaminated town of Times Beach should have never been evacuated. Houk had sanctioned the evacuation as a CDC official nearly a decade earlier, which was what made his declaration so newsworthy, Unlenbrock says. The headline for the story read: “Dioxin Scare Now Called Mistake.”

The setting for Houk’s conversion was a conference at the University of Missouri at Columbia hosted by the school’s Environmental Trace Substances Research Center (ETSRC). Armon F. Yanders, who heads the research center, told the RFT that the ETSRC had, over the course of several years, been paid $250,000 by a law firm representing Syntex — the company liable for the Times Beach dioxin cleanup — to conduct soil experiments on behalf of Syntex. Although Yanders was also used as a source in the 1991 Post story, his research center’s financial ties were not mentioned. Yanders has also been paid thousands of dollars to testify on behalf of Syntex in court cases.

According to the Post-Dispatch story, Yanders believes “that dioxin has certain properties that may be useful in fighting some cancers, including breast cancer.
“That was sort of a joke,” Yanders now says. Yanders says it was a reference to a study in which mammary-gland tumors decreased in some rats that were fed dioxin. The humorless fact is that 50,000 American women die of breast cancer each year, according to a report issued by Greenpeace last year. The Greenpeace study showed breast-cancer risks four to 10 times higher in women with high levels of chlorine-based pesticides and other chemicals in their blood.

It could be argued that dioxin, in addition to its known health hazards, has spawned a social disease, an endemic malady that has compromised both science and journalism. Those infected by its subtle but pervasive influence may not even be aware that they themselves are carriers. “We have to realize industry has much more control over setting governmental standards than any environmentalists do,” says Smoger. “The tug-of-war always pushes into industry’s favor.”

At the end of that rope are a wide range of industries facing the prospect of costly retooling, including paper companies that supply newsprint to newspapers. The paper and pulp industry professes to be cleaning up its act, but dioxin effluents are still being released into water sources as a result of the paper-bleaching process.
The most notorious culprit in the creation of dioxin is chlorine, and a chlorine-free environment has become a cause celebre among Greenpeace activists, much to the chagrin of industry. The ubiquitous chemical is commonly used in the manufacture of polyvinyl chlorides (PVCs), a form of plastic. When PVCs are burned in incinerators, they spew dioxin into the atmosphere, and it then moves up the food chain, becoming more concentrated as it goes.

According to the EPA reassessment, there is evidence that dioxin’s effects are related to cumulative exposures. Dioxin also appears to have the ability to interfere with responses that are hormonally controlled. The latency period between the time a person is exposed and the onset of health problems may be many years, which makes it difficult to ascertain the cause. “At this point, we are all swimming around in such a stew of chemicals,” says Costner, “that it is no longer possible by looking at the general population to establish a cause/effect link.”

But, again, the words of the EPA reassessment leave little doubt as to the consequences or how they come about:

“Dioxin exposure from multiple sources may result in a number of bio-chemical and biological effects in both humans and animals, many of which are considered adverse or toxic effects, and some of which occur at very low levels of exposure. A large variety of sources of dioxin have been identified and others may exist.

Because dioxin-like chemicals are persistent and accumulate in biological tissues, particularly in animals, the major route of human exposure is through ingestion of foods containing minute quantities of dioxin-like compounds. This results in widespread exposure of the general population of industrialized countries to dioxin-like compounds.”

The media coverage of the dioxin reassessment emphasized immunological and reproductive disorders that the chemical is now suspected of causing. Studies of women in the vicinity of a 1976 dioxin explosion in Seveso, Italy, for instance, showed they experienced twice as many still births and miscarriages after their exposure, says Greenpeace’s Costner. As for increased levels of cancer among Seveso inhabitants, costner cautions that it is too early to judge. “It only happened in 1976, and you have a 20-to-30 year latency period for cancer. So the exposed population is only now beginning to enter the time frame where you would expect to see cancer,” she says. In The New York Times and Post-Dispatch the threat of cancer is downplayed. Here is what the EPA’s reassessment actually says:

“While the data base for epidemiological studies remains controversial, review of these studies appears to support the position that dioxin increases cancer mortality of several types. The instances of soft-tissue sarcoma is elevated in several of the recent studies. … What emerges is a picture of dioxin as a multi-stage carcinogen in highly exposed populations.”

This year, cancer will kill 538,000 Americans, according to the American Cancer Society. Costner cites an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association from February of this year that indicates “a white male of the baby boom generation is twice as likely to get cancer as his grandfather was. A white female of that age has about a 50 percent better chance than her grandmother did.” The EPA now admits that at least some of the cancer mortality may be attributed to dioxin exposure, albeit at high levels. So the argument, becomes what should be considered an acceptable level of exposure.

“Zero,” says Costner of Greenpeace. According to the reassessment, “humans are currently exposed to background levels of dioxin-like compounds … more than 500-fold higher than the EPA’s 1985 risk-specific dose.” But an acceptable risk level for dioxin is in constant dispute and has never been clearly established. Just two weeks ago in Detroit, a CDC scientist postulated that dioxin levels in the average American have decreased significantly.

Industry sources make careers out of bolstering or condemning such data. Referring to the EPA reassessment, a spokesman for the Chemical Manufacturers Association says: “The whole document is about 2,000 pages, and this is only one chapter. No conclusions can be drawn from any of this research yet. It is way, way too preliminary.”

Barry Polsky at the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA);agrees with his counterparts at the chemical trade group, but he goes a step further. “They (the EPA) haven’t drawn any strong causal connection between dioxin and cancer or other human illnesses. There are a lot of sources of dioxin, not just mill effluent.
Members of the AF&PA;claim they have reduced dioxin emissions by 90 percent since 1988. A press release from the paper association notes that “31 pounds of dioxin are released each year from all sources, of which less than four ounces are released annually from U.S. bleached pulp mills.”

The New York Times reported last week that 500 pounds of dioxins enter the atmosphere each year. Despite disparate data, dioxin is deadly. Studies have shown guinea pigs are killed by a single dose that weighs less than a billionth of their body weight. Monkeys croak when they are fed 0.016 ounces of dioxin per thousand pounds of food.

The bean counters crank out the numbers, and the public-relations flacks play badminton with them. But it’s far from a picnic, and serious people are keeping score with actuaries. Billions of dollars of potential profits could be won or lost. Billions more could end up being spent on legal liabilities for this scourge.

“`Dioxin’ is a term that is commonly applied to a whole sizable group of chemicals,” says Greenpeace’s Costner. “These chemicals are what are called polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. They have two or more benzene ring structures in them of which chlorines are substituted. I know that sounds convoluted. I need a blackboard in front of me to make sense of it.”

Costner doesn’t need to draw a picture of other elements in the dioxin puzzle, however. “The government itself has some vested interest in the detoxification of dioxin, because of (its) own liability in cases involving Vietnam War veterans,” she says.

As early as 1948, Monsanto and other companies began manufacturing commercial herbicides that contained dioxins. They would not be outlawed until 1979. Years before that, Monsanto and Dow were among the companies that sold even more potent dioxin-containing herbicides to the military for use in Vietnam. For nine years, from 1961 until 1970, U.S. forces were involved in the aerial spraying of between 15 and 20 million gallons of toxins on South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. The defoliation campaign was code-named Operation Ranch Hand. its motto — “Only We Can Prevent Forests” — satirized the slogan of the U.S. Forest Service. The herbicide that became known as Agent Orange took its name form the color of the stripe that was painted around each black metal drum.

Before the Vietnam War had concluded, a little of it herbicidal misery returned to Missouri soil. Hoffman-Taff, which was later acquired by Syntex, began producing a component of Agent Orange in 1969 in a building leased from Northeastern Pharmaceutical and Chemical Co. (NEPACCO) in Verona, Mo. At the same facility, NEPACCO made hexachlorophene, an anti-acne medicine that yielded dioxin as a byproduct. Both the zit lotion and the super-weed killer were taken off the market. By then, however, Independent Petrochemical Corp. (IPC) had been contracted to remove residues from the plant’s holding tank. IPC subcontracted Russell Bliss, who mixed the dioxin with waste oil and sprayed it on horse arenas, truck lots trailer parks and the town of Times Beach in the early 1970s.

After more than 20 years, the problem has far from evaporated. Currently there is a burgeoning local environmental movement intent on stopping the dioxin incinerator that has been planned for Times Beach. The EPA, Missouri DNR and Syntex are all involved with that Superfund project.

First published in the Riverfront Times (St. Louis)

–C.D. Stelzer (stlreporter@gmail.com)

BEACH BRAWL: The Times Beach Action Group Begins its Protests in Earnest

April 6, 1994

Press critics may find it comforting to know that a
newspaper is ultimately responsible for the imbroglio
called Times Beach.

The town in southwest St. Louis County began as a river
resort back in the mid-1920s, when the now-defunct St.
Louis Star Times sold property along the Meramec to
increase circulation. A six-month subscription qualified
a reader to purchase a lot for $67.50.

Of course, this was in the halcyon days before anyone
ever heard of dioxin, television or guerrilla theater.
Last Friday, those three modern inventions collided at
the Lewis Road exit to Interstate 44 in front of the
barricaded Route 66 bridge that once served the
now-defunct town.

About 30 members of the Times Beach Action Group (TBAG)
began arriving around 11 a.m. dressed in white "moon"
suits. They came to protest the planned Times Beach
dioxin incinerator, which they believe will be unsafe if
built.

In some ways, the original organizer of the protest was
Russell Bliss, the waste oil-hauler who unwittingly
sprayed the streets of Times Beach and other sites with
dioxin-tainted oil in the early 1970s. At the time, he
was just trying to keep the dust down. Bliss didn't know
his actions would make him the founder of an
environmental-protest movement and the provider of job
security for countless state and federal bureaucrats.
Those bureaucrats with the representatives of Syntex
Inc., the company liable for the cleanup, have been
creeping ahead since their 1990 consent decree to build
the Times Beach incinerator, despite opposition by the
St. Louis County Council and the disapproval of voters
in St. Louis County, who rejected the proposal in a
non-binding referendum.

Last year, a federal judge halted a similar dioxin
incinerator in Jacksonville, Ark., because the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could not be sued
until after the completion of a cleanup. 

TBAG would prefer that the toxic waste be stored until a
proven technology is developed to destroy the dioxin.
State and federal studies recommended exactly the same
thing a decade ago, but the soil was never collected.
Since then, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) and the EPA have decided to burn the tainted soil
at Times Beach. If built, the facility would also torch
the dioxin from 26 other locations in eastern Missouri. 
TBAG has demanded that the DNR reopen the consent decree
on the incinerator on the incinerator so the public can
voice opposition to its construction. The press release
distributed in advance of the demonstration warned of
acts of civil disobedience. In response, a handful of
St. Louis County police and a highway patrolman invited
themselves to the occasion. 

For some, it was definitely an event worth recording.
The TBAG members didn't even have to wait for the TV
stations to arrive before the video cameras started
rolling. One camera was aimed at the protesters from the
security shack. later, a second cameraman who refused to
identify himself, began shooting footage from a doorway
of the rehabbed project offices across the road.
The protesters milled around the parking lot of that
building, talking to reporters and chanting
anti-incinerator sound bites. Most of those in "moon"
suits were college-aged, so it was easy enough to
identify the locals. The latter was Paulette Taykowski,
43, a lifetime resident of nearby Crescent, Mo. She and
her husband, Joseph, criticized the way the Times Beach
dioxin site has already disrupted their lives and both
questioned the efficacy of incinerating the waste.

The leaders of the demonstration used a bullhorn to get
their points across.

"We want a congressional investigation into the coverup
that's been perpetrated by the EPA and industry to
mislead the public about the dangers of dioxin," said
Tammy Shea. She was referring to industry sponsored
reports that diminish the dangers that dioxin poses to
humans. "We are also asking for an investigation into
the unethical relationship between the EPA and the
chemical waste industry. They are working on behalf of
profit not people."

When activist Don Fitz got his turn at the bullhorn he
said the preliminary finding of the EPA's long-delayed
dioxin reassessment reaffirmed that dioxin causes
cancer. The latest evidence also shows that dioxin may
enhance other carcinogens already in the body. "If this
incinerator goes up, the effect it will have will be to
increase the level of dioxin that an already-exposed
population has," said Fitz.

As part of the well-coordinated protest, activists set
up two mock smokestacks made of plywood. They then lit
smoke bombs attached to the cutouts and un furled a
banner across the road that read: "No dioxin
incinerator."

For the grand finale, three protesters walked behind the
gate on the bridge and were summarily busted for
trespassing. One slumped to the ground, while another
held a smoke bomb aloft like the Statue of Liberty.
Meanwhile, their comrades shouted slogans and lobbed
more smoke bombs in the direction of the arresting
officers. A reporter began gasping for air and waving
her arms. The police lieutenant checked the shoulder of
his starched white uniform for smoke damage. A small
plane buzzed over the gathering bearing yet another
motto of opposition.

It all seemed like a movie set, and, to a degree, it was
just that. But with the TV cameras trained on the smoke
and the air show, a moment of reckoning almost went
unnoticed. It came as 19-year-old Lydia Roberts of
Eureka waited to be placed in the backseat of the squad
car. Her hands were handcuffed. Her face and the
arresting officer's were inches apart. "I'm doing this
for family," she said. "What about your children? What
about the land?"

The cop didn't answer.

(first published in the Riverfront Times – St. Louis)

–C.D. Stelzer (stlreporter@gmail.com)