QUESTIONS PROVIDED TO EPA, DEQ, LMD for response in 7 days: I am under significant pressure from my constituents and government agencies to demand that a safe disposal method is used for the removal of this M6. More than 6000 people are applying pressure due to their intense concerns for this matter. It is my duty as an elected official to ensure that all methods are used to push for a safe disposal technique. To not do so would be negligent and irresponsible. I’m sure you can understand why I need to ask some of the tough questions that are being posed to me. • An Agreement of Consent for an open burn of explosive materials (Page 10; 8-b) was developed, signed, and implemented without notification by State or EPA to any local government or official here in Webster Parish/District 10. It was signed by the Pentagon, EPA, La Military Department, and LDEQ. Why was no notification provided, given that Camp Minden houses a local prison, effects local communities, and is relied on for response by local hazmat, fire, emergency, law enforcement, and medical response agencies? • Who drafted this Agreement of Consent that specifies the Statement of Work to utilize open burning for the M6 and the CBIs? (Page 10; 8-b) • The Agreement of Consent mentions approximately 320,000 pounds of an additional material to be specifically open burned, Clean Burning Igniters (CBIs). (Page 9; 8-a.) Why has there been no mention of this additional product to be disposed of in any of the previous briefings with the EPA? What is the stabilizer component of this particular CBI? • Will the EPA be determining the methods used for implementation of the disposal or has this responsibility been assigned to another agency? • The test burn that I know of was conducted without notification to ANY local government, response agency, or officials. Why was that, when the EPA On Scene Coordinator and the Louisiana State Police both were managing the implementation of that test and were well aware of the parties who had requested notification? • The test results presented at both the executive officials briefing and the public meeting in December are claimed to have used parameters for modeling based on the emissions of an incinerator or closed burn of M6. Is this true? If so, why was the data skewed for public presentation? • The Agreement of Consent also makes mention in the Statement of Work that the disposal of numerous other hazardous materials will be encompassed in this project. Is this true? If so, please discuss now about those materials and the rough quantities that remain on the Site. Specifically, the explosives (Page 6; 4-d); but also please explain about the origin of the materials associated with the Super Critical Water Oxidation Unit. (Page 11; 8-p.) • The Agreement of Consent discusses the requirement of “periodic assessment” of the explosive storage magazines and materials for the prioritization of removal. Does this mean that stability testing will now be implemented as a part of this project? (Page. 10; 8-e) • I see on page 1 of the Agreement of Consent that the State has signed away its rights to contest anything in the Agreement. Is this true? • A Governor’s State of Emergency Declaration was filed in September of 2013 and kept in affect to date without notification to the Webster parish OHSEP Director, Webster Parish Police Jury or Webster Parish Sheriff. Can anyone here tell me why they were not notified? • We have received overwhelming amounts of hard data to support the claim that open burning of these products in these quantities is entirely unsafe; yet we have been presented no data by LDEQ or the EPA to support their claim that it is perfectly safe for the public and the environment. Why is that? Do you have this data to show us today? • The EPA released a statement last Friday indicating that additional test burns would be conducted. It is our feeling that if the EPA had sufficient proof that open burning is safe, additional test burns would not be needed. And if additional testing is needed to prove safety, our area should not be your guinea pigs. o Does the EPA need to conduct these test open burns to determine the safety of open burning of these products? o Will these open burns be conducted on site at Camp Minden? o Is there a laboratory setting to allow for safer testing? o Will the EPA consider testing and documenting comparative results using incinerators or closed containment/detonation chambers? • The EPA’s statement has indicated that their choice to use open burning was made based on the guidance from United States Department of Defense’s Explosive Safety Board. It is my understanding the USDOD Explosive Safety Board lists open burning of propellants as safe for small projects; and lists other disposal methods for use for larger projects. This is admittedly not at all a small project. Why were other cleaner, safer and equally expedient methods listed in this guidance not even considered? • It is my understanding the DOD owns at least two large incinerator/closed burning chambers that are readied for 48-hour deployment with response teams for use in emergency disposal situations. If this is truly an emergency situation, then why hasn’t the Army, deemed the Responsible Party, executed deployment of those assets onsite to Camp Minden? • Experts in the field have stated their concern that this Agreement of Consent, unusually specifying the disposal method in the Statement of Work, was not executed in accordance with the laws provided in CERCLA, NCP, and SARA Title III which provide for local and public input prior to determining the removal technologies chosen unless the requirements for Time Sensitive Removal Action are met. Further, it is their advisement that the time frame of two years since the identification of the problem has not constituted Time Sensitive Removal Action; and therefore an Agreement of Consent signed prior to local jurisdictional involvement for selection of disposal methods would be unlawful. Do you have any comments to make towards this argument?
Posted on: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 00:15:17 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015