| Home About Us Press Releases Publications Contact Us Links |
 |
Top Ten Disturbing Disclosures from the September 1999 Arkansas Contested Case Permit Hearing
Links to More Information on Admissions about Emissions, et al.
- Testimony from Federal Trial in Salt Lake City, Utah, June 7-June 18 (Transcribed from Notes Taken at the Trial)
- Chemical Weapons Incineration on Trial
- Excerpts from Personal Journals of Don Smith, a Quality Assurance Specialist at TOCDF
- Excerpts from Testimony of Timothy Thomas, TOCDF Program Manager for the Army
- Excerpts from Deposition of Christopher W. Bittner, Environmental Scientist, Level 3, Utah DSHW
- Excerpts from Testimony of James J. Cudahy, Consultant to the Army
Top Ten Disturbing Disclosures
from the September 1999
Arkansas Contested Case Permit Hearing
(Excerpted from May 2000 issue of CWWG's newsletter "Common Sense")
The following disclosures were extracted from the official
record of the three-week contested case permit hearing held
before a Hearing Officer of the Arkansas Department of Environmental
Quality in September 1999. As yet, no decision has been made
on this citizens' challenge to the permit for the Army's chemical
weapons incinerator being constructed at the Pine Bluff Arsenal.
1. Before the risk factors for the Pine Bluff chemical weapons incinerator's Health Risk Assessment were calculated, the State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) had already decided that the numbers would not prevent the construction of the chemical weapons incinerator at the Pine Bluff Arsenal.
2. Although infants were identified as one of the most sensitive members of the population affected by the emissions of the proposed incinerator, the Arkansas Department of Health did not determine what a safe dose of dioxin might be for an infant before submitting infant risk estimates and analysis on the acceptability of that risk.
3. State regulators who issued the incinerator permit did not know if DEQ employees, in their preparation of the permit, had taken adequate steps to ensure the protection of breast-feeding infants from the incinerator's dioxin emissions.
4. DEQ failed to adequately address the risks associated with mercury exposures. In the face of an unfavorable risk determination for mercury emissions, DEQ abandoned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's mercury standard in favor of a less protective standard followed by the Federal Drug Administration.
5. DEQ decision makers do not know if the chemical warfare agent monitors the Army plans to use will detect the presence of chemical warfare agents in a timely and accurate fashion.
6. Key DEQ decision makers involved in the issuance of the permit were unfamiliar with the numerous significant, systemic problems encountered at other Army chemical warfare agent incineration facilities such as: agent releases; worker exposures; agent monitor alarms; agent migration; agent spills, power outages; agent residue (heels) hardened in munitions.
7. Key DEQ decision makers are unfamiliar with the specific contents and conditions of the munitions at the Arsenal.
8. The synergistic impacts of the chemicals expected to be emitted from the Pine Bluff incinerator have not been assessed.
9. DEQ decision makers are ignorant of how the significant amount of hazardous waste that will be produced during the operation of the incineration facility will be treated.
10. Persons responsible for approving the permit for the Pine Bluff facility do not know what types or quantities of chemicals will be emitted from the stack during trial burns and agent operations.