Times Beach Dispatches (Part III)

[Cdstelzer@aol.com]

VENTING ANGER
Another accidental release of dioxin at Times Beach heats up the debate over
the incinerator's safety
BY C.D. STELZER
first published in the Riverfront Times (St. Louis), May 15, 1996
 
It happened again. 
 A power outage at the Times Beach dioxin incinerator near Eureka caused a
release of unknown quantities of dioxin into the air on Monday morning. This
time the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) blamed wildlife for the
malfunction, according to Chesley Morrissey, a member of the St. Louis County
Dioxin Monitoring Committee.
 "This is really getting to be to much," says  Morrissey.  "A squirrel got
into a transformer. ... This isn't supposed to be happening."  Morrissey says
the DNR informed her the problem had been rectified and the incinerator would
continue to operate as usual. "I don't think they should start putting feed
back into it until they are more thorough," says Morrissey. The monitoring
committee is scheduled to meet with officials to discuss the continuing
problems at the incinerator on Wednesday at the Environmental Protection
Agency's offices at the site. 
 Meanwhile,  opponents of the Times Beach dioxin incinerator have announced
plans to meet with U.S. Rep. Jim Talent (R-Chesterfield) this week. They also
anticipate speaking to the EPA ombudsman, who will be in St. Louis. In
addition to the technical problems at the incinerator, Among the subjects to
be discussed are recently obtained court documents that indicate Monsanto
Chemical Co. provided samples of dioxin to the Army Chemical Corp as early as
1952. 
 Since burning began at the Times Beach dioxin incinerator in March, there
have now been four documented emergency releases in which untreated dioxins
have been released. After the incident on April 28, the Missouri Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) shut down the Superfund project to evaluate its
safety.  Following the recommendation of the Missouri Department of Health,
the incinerator was allowed to start back up last week.  After the Monday
emergency release, a spokeswoman for the DNR continued to expressed
confidence in the incineration project. "If we didn't feel it was protective
of public health, we wouldn't do it," says Nina Thompson, a spokeswoman for
the DNR.
 Despite the latest official reassurances nettlesome questions remain as to
why such a flawed technology would be approved when it carries with it the
potential for harm to both the environment and humans.  The lax attitude of
the of the DNR and  EPA has led Steve Taylor of the Times Beach Action Group
(TBAG) to conclude that the regulatory agencies are generating smoke other
than that pouring out of the incinerator's stacks. 
 "They don't want a close scrutiny of what is being burnedsay Taylor.  Taylor says the past withholding of soil samples by the EPA is
 part of a coverup. Letters between Monsanto and the Army obtained by TBAG
add credence to his allegation.   
 According to a 1952 correspondence, Lt. Col. Loyd E. Harris of the Army
Chemical Corp asked Monsanto research director Russell Jenkins for samples of
the toxic by-product of the chemical 2,4,5-T. The context of the letters
indicates the Army was investigating the possibility of using the substance
as a chemical weapon not a herbicide. The Army Chemical Corp expressed
interest in the then-unnamed toxin after an industrial accident at a Monsanto
plant in Nitro, W.Va. in 1949.  A Subsequent letter  from Harris to Jenkins
indicates the Army had dropped its interest in the compound.
 TBAG obtained the correspondence from Peter Sills, a former attorney for the
Vietnam Veterans of America, who acquired the evidence after the 1984
settlement of the Vietnam veterans' class-action suit against Monsanto and
other manufacturer of 2,4,5-T, the dioxin contaminated component found in
Agent Orange. Sills, who is writing a book on the subject,  says the
 military continued its research on the deadly toxin before introducing Agent
Orange to Vietnam in the early 1960s.
 "We already know this (type of) waste is associated with the production of
Agent Orange," says Taylor of TBAG. "We feel this waste is associated with
Monsanto. Analysis of this soil would produce even further questions or
confirm some of our suspicions that Monsanto's involvement is being covered
up."
C.D. Stelzer
http://home.stlnet.com/~cdstelzer/environ.html