Browner Recuses Herself from Times Beach

[Cdstelzer@aol.com]

KEEPING A SAFE DISTANCE

Last year, EPA boss Carol Browner withdrew from
decision-making about Times Beach. Meanwhile, inquiries about
dioxin incinerator rage on

BY C.D. STELZER

first published in the Riverfront Times (St. Louis) Sept. 11, 1996

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)administrator Carol M. Browner has
withdrawn from all
decision-making responsibilities concerning the Times Beach cleanup, The
Riverfront Times has
learned. 
Browner recused herself from addressing any aspects of the controversial
Superfund project in an internal agency
memorandum dated April 5, 1995, which apparently has never been made public.
The administrator's office in
Washington, D.C. provided the RFT with a copy of Browner's statement last
week upon request.
The recusal statement does not specify why Browner bowed out of the case. An
EPA spokeswoman now says
Browner relinquished oversight because the administrator's sister works for
the corporation liable for the cleanup.
Michelle Browner, the EPA chief's sibling, is a research scientist for Roche
Bio-Science in Palo Alto, Calif. Roche,
a Swiss pharmaceutical conglomerate, purchased Syntex Corp. in 1994. Syntex,
the responsible party, must burn
the dioxin-contaminated soil at Times Beach and 26 other sites in Eastern
Missouri, according to the to the1990
federal consent decree with the EPA and the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources (DNR). A subsidiary of
Syntex, Agribusiness Technologies Inc., is carrying out the plan.
News of Browner's withdrawal follows the initiation of a DNR inquiry into
whether stack emissions samples were
handled properly last November, after a trial burn at the Times Beach dioxin
incinerator near Eureka. Earlier this
year, the DNR issued a permit for the burner based in part on the results of
those tests. Opponents of the
incinerator, including the Times Beach Action Group (TBAG), raised concerns
last month about a potential conflict
of interest, when they discovered International Technology Corp. (IT), the
incinerator operator, partially owns
Quanterra Environmental Services, the lab that handled the samples (Twice
Burned, the RFT, Aug. 28) . 
"I am aware of the allegations by TBAG, and we are checking on those
allegations," says DNR director David
Shorr. "I don't believe there were any shenanigans here. The only question
that I am looking into is whether there
was a prospect of a breach in the chain of custody (of the stack emissions
samples). ... It's not that we believe that
there was a breach in the chain of custody, but we've have had that inquiry
made to us."
Shorr expresses equal confidence in Browner's hands-off policy. "I am not
aware of her ever being involved in
Times Beach during her tenure," says Shorr. "She has properly recused
herself. All decisions from EPA, at least
that we have had, have been through either Elliott Laws, the assistant
administrator for waste or deputy
(administrator) Fred Hansen."
Martha Steincamp, chief counsel for Region VII of the EPA in Kansas City,
views Browner's recusal as
insignificant. "Frankly, there have been no decisions that would be made at
the administrator's level on this case,
anyway," says Steincamp. "The decisions are made out here in the Region. 
"The really important thing to remember is this is what one does, when one
wants to take one's self out of the
decision making process -- you recuse yourself," says Steincamp. "She didn't
consult with me when she did it.
Until you told me, I didn't know that it was her sister or what this person's
name was. That's not what I need to
know to do my job. What I need to know to do my job is don't go looking to
Carol Browner on decision making on
Times Beach."
The EPA administrator, however, does wield statutory power over the Times
Beach Superfund project. According
to the consent decree: 
EPA shall review the remedial action at the Facilities at least every five
(5) years after the entry
of this Decree to assure that human health and the environment are being
protected by the remedial
action being implemented. ... Settling Defendants shall be provided with an
opportunity to confer with EPA on any
response action proposed during the EPA's 5-year review process and to submit
written comments for the record
during the public comment period. After the period for submission of written
comments is closed, the Administrator
shall, in writing, determine if further response action is appropriate. ...
In other words, the EPA could have reviewed the safety of the project and
implemented changes to the plan at any
time since the 1990 decree was signed, but the agency was required to do so
within five years. The decree mandates
that based on that review the EPA administrator take appropriate steps to
protect public health and the environment,
if necessary. 
It didn't happen. The five-year deadline expired July 19, 1995. According to
the EPA internal memo, Browner
recused herself on April 5, 1995. 
Steincamp, whose signature appears on the consent decree, says the Times
Beach agreement is superseded by a
clause in the Superfund law, which requires that the "remedial action" (in
this case incineration) be completed before
the review takes place. 
A high-ranking official at EPA headquarters in Washington, on the other hand,
says the Superfund provision means
the Times Beach project can't be reviewed because the incinerator hasn't been
operating for five years. The cleanups
at Times Beach and other Eastern Missouri dioxin sites, however, have been
going on for well over five years. 
The two interpretations of the law share one thing in common -- they thwart
any review of the project until after the
incineration is completed. Here is how the pertinent Superfund clause
actually reads: 
If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous
substances, pollutants or contaminants
remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial action no
less often than each 5 years
after the initiation of such remedial action to assure that human health and
the environment are being
protected by the remedial action being implemented. ...
Hugh Kaufman, an EPA whistleblower, is candid in his opinion as to why
Browner chose to distance herself from
the project. "Well, Times Beach is getting hot now," says Kaufman. "Carol
Browner tries to find a reason to recuse
herself from any sticky-wicket case," he adds. "She did that with the WTI
(Waste Technologies Industries)
incinerator. Apparently, her husband works for a group called Citizen Action,
where she used to work. Citizen
Action, at one time, ... signed a letter asking the state of Ohio to relook
at this mess. ... The real reason she recused
herself is because it's a big sticky-wicket issue involving Jackson Stephens
... and the Clinton/Arkansas
connection." 
Kaufman is referring to the WTI commercial hazardous waste incinerator in
East Liverpool, Ohio. Stephens, who
founded WTI in 1980, is a Little Rock financier who has padded the campaign
coffers of both Republican and
Democratic presidential candidates in the past. Stephens and WTI have also
been linked to the Union Bank of
Switzerland, which has been implicated along with the CIA in the BCCI and
Nugan-Hand banking scandals. The
WTI incinerator was permitted to operate even though it emitted unsafe levels
of dioxin.
In 1983, Kaufman felt the heat from Times Beach himself. The whistleblower
then appeared on the Phil Donahue
TV talk show and alleged that U.S. Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.) had received a
list of potential dioxin sites in
Missouri, while state attorney general, and had failed to do anything about
it. During that period, Kaufman was the
EPA's chief hazardous waste investigator. His inquiry here led him to suspect
that Russell Bliss, the waste hauler
responsible spreading the dioxin, had connections to the "power-elite
culture" in Missouri. "When I raised the issue
of him being part of the old boy network of which Danforth was a member,
Danforth screamed bloody murder,"
says Kaufman.
The current dilemma with the incinerator has parallels with the past,
according to Kaufman. He compares the
political and social climate in Missouri to a banana republic. "Nothing
changes, " he says. "Especially, when you've
got Ralston Purina and Monsanto, you've got an elite club, and the disposal
boys are a part of that club. It's like
Arkansas -- you've got an aristocracy -- and then you've got everybody else."
Confirmation of Kaufman's jaded view can now be seen billowing from the
stacks at the Times Beach dioxin
incinerator, where state and federal regulators continue to turn a blind eye
to an obvious public health risk. Studies
by the EPA itself indicate dioxin is a probable human carcinogen and the
cause of immunological and reproductive
problems. The agency also acknowledges that incineration is one of the means
by which dioxin is created. 
Nevertheless, the EPA and DNR claim the Times Beach incinerator is safe.
These assurances have continued
despite a series of toxic releases at the incinerator this spring that
bypassed pollution control devices and dispersed
contaminants into the air. The odds of similar accidents occurring increased
in July, when Syntex pushed back the
completion date of the burn until next year because an estimated 70 tons of
additional dioxin-tainted dirt will need to
be destroyed. 
Prior to firing up the incinerator, federal Judge John F. Nangle, the jurist
responsible for the consent decree, ruled
in the EPA's favor, outlawing a St. Louis County ordinance that would have
required that stack emissions meet the
agency's own stringent standard of 99.9999 percent destruction efficiency.
    Fore more on Times Beach go to
http://home.stlnet.com/~cdstelzer/chrono.html