A Newsletter of the Chemical Weapons Working Group
Published by the Kentucky Environmental Foundation
The Department of Defense Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) announced on October 7, 1997 that seven non-incineration technologies for destroying the nation's chemical agent stockpile have passed its initial evaluation process. Last year in response to pressure from anti-incineration activists, Congress instructed the Pentagon to identify and demonstrateat least two alternative approaches for the disposal of the chemical weapons stored at seven sites in the U.S. and Pacific.
The ACWA program is a unique effort in which citizens, the military, government and regulatory agencies are working cooperatively to find alternatives to chemical weapons incineration. In order to facilitate the ACWA decision-making, an ongoing dialogue was established which included citizens from affected communities; federal, tribal and state environmental regulators; relevant EPA staff; and representatives from national chemical weapons activist organizations. This consensus decision-making process broke new ground in that for the first time, citizens were involved in developing the criteria for evaluating disposal technologies. The criteria required the proposed technology to 1) be a total ACWA solution for at least one single agent-filled munition type; 2) be an alternative to incineration; 3) be capable of meeting the ACWA schedule; 4) have had lab-scale testing completed with agents and energetics or simulates of each. The final criteria was that offerors must have the legal right to use any proprietary technology.
An earlier alternatives program called "Alt Tech I" in 1996 selected non- incineration technologies for disposal of chemical agent stored in Newport, Indiana and Aberdeen, Maryland.
Craig Williams, spokesperson for the Chemical Weapons Working Group, said the ACWA process "shows that citizens, private industry and the government can work together to develop solutions to complex problems" like chemical weapons disposal. Even the task of reviewing the disposal technologies was done in a cooperative manner, by representatives of the Dialogue, Department of Defense, and an independent technical consulting firm. Of the twelve proposals submitted, seven passed the criteria (see chart). Vendors for those technologies are currently filling in "data gaps." Those which pass the second evaluation will move to demonstration phase.
Federal judge orders incinerator contractor to cease retaliation against whistleblowers
A U.S. Department of Labor judge on January 27 handed down judgment against Utah chemical weapons incinerator contractor EG&G Defense Materials, Inc. in yet another whistleblower lawsuit. Ms. Trina Allen, former Operations Hazardous Waste Coordinator at the Tooele Chemical Demilitarization Facility (TOCDF) charged that she was demoted after raising serious safety and regulatory concerns regarding the handling and disposal of hazardous waste at the plant. Her most serious allegations involved the unpermitted burning of Lewisite, and releasing toxic wastes directly into the environment.
Judge Samuel Smith ordered that EG&G 1) "cease and desist from retaliating against" Allen; 2) reinstate Allen to her former position under the terms and conditions she had before she was demoted; and, 3) award her back pay from July 1, 1997. In addition, EG&G was ordered to cease and desist from retaliating against other employees who may be involved in the Department of Labor case. This is not the first time the Department of Labor (DOL) has ruled against EG&G in a whistleblower case at TOCDF. In September 1994, Steve Jones, former chief Safety Officer at the plant was fired after raising thousands of serious safety concerns. A DOL judge ruled in August 1997 that EG&G must either 1) restore Jones to his job and pay him almost $500,000, or 2) pay him $1 million.
Chip Ward, with the organization West Desert HEAL, lives downwind from the Tooele incinerator and has long been concerned with health and safety issues in and around the plant. Ward said, "The Army and their contractors have a pattern of dealing with safety and compliance issues by firing the people who raise them. Ms. Allen's victory, following that of Steve Jones, is good news for incinerator workers who are trying to do their jobs conscientiously, despite poor leadership and harassment by EG&G. We expect the parade of whistleblowers to continue." Environmental attorney Mick Harrison, Allen's legal counsel, said "Employees at the Tooele incinerator should be heartened by this decision. The DOL has made it clear that they won't tolerate any more retaliation against employees."
It's nice to be recognized for hard work, especially by others who are working just as hard. Last October, the Chemical Weapons Working Group was recognized by the CCHW Center for Health, Environment and Justice, for our work toward environmental justice in the chemical weapons disposal issue. An award certificate was presented at CCHW's "Winning Justice Step By Step" conference. Craig Williams, Director of the Kentucky Environmental Foundation and Chemical Weapons Working Group, accepted the award on behalf of the coalition.
CCHW is one of the most effective, well-known grassroots organizations on environmental issues, and has helped the CWWG in innumerable and invaluable ways. We thank them for recognizing our work, and for their continued support!
Tragedy occurred at the Pacific chemical weapons incinerator on November 27, 1997 when a welder, David Gibbs, was killed while repairing a feed chute in the Deactivation Furnace System (DFS). Gibbs was an employee of Raytheon Demilitarization Co., the Army contractor at the incinerator, called the Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System (JACADS). None of the other three workers in the room were injured.
Gibbs was repairing a "tipping valve" on the DFS feed chute when an overhead section of the chute fell on him. Raytheon did not require training for the type of work he was doing, and there was no written description of how to approach the problem in his work order. The DFS feed chutes have been problematic for the JACADS facility since 1990. In March of that year, a jam in the feed chutes resulted in a fire in the DFS room. Attempts to solve the feed gate problems have led to several equipment modifications. It appears that the equipment Gibbs was working on had received an approved permit modification. Lack of approval of such a modification would mean there was no standard operating procedure for repair of the equipment, a factor which may have contributed to his death.
In a December 1997 letter to Department of Defense officials, Hawaiian Congressional Representative Patsy Mink stated, "The employees on Johnston Atoll work with very hazardous conditions. Numerous accidents and injuries have been reported over the last few years. In 1990, these workers were denied the ability to organize a union....In light of this tragedy, and to prevent a perception of impropriety, I strongly urge you to establish an independent investigation team outside of the military."
The Kentucky Citizens Advisory Commission held a meeting on March 12 to inform the public on the progress of the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA), the program which identified and set evaluation criteria for alternative technologies to incineration of chemical weapons. Present at the meeting were over 100 local residents; community, regulatory and military participants in the ACWA process; members of the National Research Council ACWA committee; and ACWA facilitators from the Keystone Center.
Ten years ago, citizens were only dreaming of this kind of meeting. Rather than having another shouting match between representatives of the Army's Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program, the National Research Council Stockpile Committee, and citizens opposed to incineration, the NRC ACWA committee, whose job it is to help analyze the technologies, instead took constructive input from residents on the technology evaluation criteria. Input from citizens ranged from prioritizing safety over cost and schedule considerations, to plant monitoring capabilities and the contractors' performance record. In addition to making oral comments, meeting attendees were asked to write down and submit comments for the NRC's consideration.
The commitment of concerned and informed citizens is what brought alternative technologies to the table, and gave citizens a seat at the table. This commitment must continue until, at the end of another decade, the stockpile has been completely destroyed.
Over ten years ago, Common Ground emerged as a grassroots effort in central Kentucky promoting safe disposal of chemical weapons. In 1991 the Kentucky Environmental Foundation (KEF) was formed to give the issue full-time attention. With consistent and steady leadership and community support, progress has been made in redirecting goals from the unsafe incineration process of destroying chemical weapons at the Blue Grass Army Depot to the safer consideration of alternative technologies.
The leadership of KEF, and its network called the Chemical Weapons Working Group, has been competent and responsible. Because of this, many citizens of Madison County, Kentucky think the leadership no longer needs continuing support of the individuals of this county and state.
But even though alternative technologies are on the horizon, there is still a great need for people to stay involved in the issue. When doctors, nurses, firemen, or police are "off-duty," but may be needed for emergencies and public need, they are considered to be "on call." Now that alternatives to chemical weapons incineration have become the focus of concern by many citizens in Kentucky -- including the Army and our local Depot, the legislators, and the National Research Council, the citizens of Madison County need to dedicate themselves to be ON CALL. Not on-duty every minute, day or month, but ready to lend their presence and support on the upcoming issues. Those who are "on call will play a large and important role in the movement for alternatives, for the benefit of everyone involved in the issue.
Gulf War report links chronic illnesses to chemical agent exposure
Gulf War veterans and citizens concerned with chemical weapons
incineration were heartened by an October 1997 Congressional report
from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, which
included in its findings evidence linking Gulf War Illness with veterans'
exposure to chemical agent. In the seven years since Desert Storm,
thousands of Gulf War veterans have suffered not only from debilitating
illnesses, but from the Department of Defense's denial that chemical
agent and other warfare toxics played a role in the illnesses. DoD has
long maintained that "what we don't know about chemical agents won't
hurt us." The report, titled Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses: VA, DoD
Continue to Resist Strong Evidence Linking Toxic Causes to Chronic Health
Effects, stated that
* VA (Veterans' Affairs) and DoD (Department of Defense) health
registry diagnosis protocols continue to be based on the unwarranted
conclusion that, unless there is an immediate and acute reaction,
exposures to chemical weapons and other toxins do not cause delayed or
chronic symptoms; and
* Exposures to low levels of chemical warfare agents and other
toxins can cause delayed, chronic health effects.
The burden of proving that health problems resulted from exposure to low levels of chemical agent has been on the shoulders of sick veterans and civilians. Hopefully, this document and the continuing work of veterans' and grassroots organizations will result in shifting that burden to DoD. Until we find out whether or not there is a safe level of exposure, DOD should assume that no level is safe.
For more information on Gulf War Illness, please contact Paul Sullivan, National Gulf War Resource Center at (404) 373-5507.
Army takes 30 years to admit to nerve gas sheep deaths
The weather was far from optimal on March 13, 1968. There were ominous thunderheads and shifting winds. It was not the best day to play with nerve gas, but a bunch of VIPs were visiting Utah's Dugway Proving Grounds and the Dugway crew was eager to show off. A Phantom jet loaded with more than a ton of nerve agent in a spray tank closed in on its target and expelled its load. And then some. Apparently, a valve didn't close and about 20 pounds of VX agent was inadvertently sprayed beyond the target zone. Soon after, about 30 miles away in Skull Valley, sheep started to convulse and die. Over the next few days, more than 6,000 sheep sickened, dropped, shuddered and expired.
The Army denied any responsibility, though they eventually compensated the sheep owners for their loss. Today, they still deny responsibility. Data on the sheep, they say, is "inconclusive." But a recently discovered Army document says otherwise. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, the report confirms that traces of VX were found in the death zone. Added to other reports showing chemical indications of nerve agent in body samples from the dead sheep, the new evidence closes the case on the Army's responsibility.
Between 1951 and 1969, over 1,600 open air "field trials" using live nerve agent were conducted at Dugway. More than 55,000 chemical rockets, artillery shells, bombs and other munitions were blown up to understand how nerve agent would be dispersed in combat. All totaled, a half million pounds of agent were released to the wind -- that's the equivalent of 3.5 trillion lethal doses. Rabbits, guinea pigs, dogs, horses, cows, monkeys and even antelope were used and killed in the tests. Army documents reveal that the tests were not particularly successful. Often, less than 20 percent of the agent hit the target grids. Where the rest of it went is anyone's guess. Sometimes shells and rockets went astray and didn't explode. More than 1,400 square miles of public land in Utah is now contaminated with unexploded ordnance, some of it containing nerve agent. Open air testing was banned in 1969.
Guinea pigs were not the only guinea pigs. The Dugway Workers League has gathered the names of more than 300 former Dugway workers who are chronically ill. They suspect exposure to nerve agents, pathogens which were also open-air tested, and shots they received. It is hard to document their claims since the medical records for most of them are missing. Health problems were highly concentrated in families who were downwind from Dugway in the '60s. Their health complaints are remarkably similar to those of Gulf War vets exposed to small amounts of nerve agent. Then there are the residents of Skull Valley who suffered flu like symptoms after the '68 sheep kill and have suffered long term health problems since. The Army never did any follow-up studies on workers or civilians. In 1996, West Desert HEAL did a community health survey of residents of Grantsville, a small town near Dugway, and found high rates for cancer, birth defects and other chronic illnesses.
Today, the Army is trying to remember where it buried those sheep and the denials continue. First they acted recklessly, then mistakes were made and a thirty year cover-up followed. Now they want to use a controversial method for destroying nerve gas in our back yards. The incineration program is many years behind schedule and ridiculously over budget, the pilot plant is plagued with problems, and a parade of whistleblowers has marched out of their Utah bomb burner. Trust us, they say, we know what we're doing. Who do they think we are? Sheep?
Andrew Goodman, James Chancy, Michael Schwerner, Medgar Evers, Viola Luis, Martin Luther King Jr. and Dense McNair, do you know who they are? They marched, they wept, and they were attacked by dogs, water hoses, and beaten with nightsticks. They sacrificed, endured, shed blood and died.
These people were just like you and me, everyday people, who stood up against injustice, despite the label "everyday people." Because they were committed, they made a change. Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, Jesse Jackson, Julian Bond, Daisy Bates, the Little Rock Nine, Dr. Lawrence A. Davis Sr., J.B. Johnson, Edna Mays, Elijah Coleman, Harold Flowers, Henry Wilkins and Wiley Branton were also ordinary people who dared to make a change. Because of the choices they made, we benefit from the gains that were achieved. Without a doubt we do them an injustice when we fail to honor their memories by not making an effort to participate in a change. We show them disrespect when we fail to truly educate our children about the struggles that brought us to the front of the bus.
One of the main reasons that society has degenerated to its present condition is that we started saying things like "It is not my problem" and "What can one person do?" We have allowed people to take advantage of us and we have refused to stand up and band together in protest. After years of being silent and accepting the deviant conditions of crime it has become the norm for us to come home and find all of your hard-earned valuables stolen and to be comforted by a neighbor who was home but didn't see a thing. There was a time when we were a nation that stressed values such as caring, and we made an effort to show we were concerned about each other. If you reflect a moment, you too can think of a time when you felt we could make a difference. It's not too late. No matter who you are, stand up, ask questions, and demand answers and accountability.
We as individuals absolutely can make a change. If each person takes one stride, look how many steps collectively that would be. If everyone sits back and says "I can't make a difference," then there will definitely be no change. If the equality strugglers had made no efforts, the rights that we take for granted would only be a dream. We would still have to use "Colored" toilets, have unequal educational systems and the Klu Klux Klan might still be hanging us in trees.
Again I affirm that only you can help assure that your community is safe and conducive to raising your family and future generations. Remember that the struggle for equality remains a perplexing problem that has crossed over the color lines and the poor, and now embraces a larger minority of the middle-class working people. Stand up and please join the struggle. You and I can make a difference if we just unite. One person can make a change, and if we all move, even one step at a time, what a great change will take place!
Public meeting in Pine Bluff informs citizens about alternative technologies
On January 29, a public meeting was held in Pine Bluff, Arkansas to inform the local community on the alternatives to chemical weapons incineration. Over 100 people attended the program. To me, this was the first meeting at which the Pine Bluff community was truly represented. After years of thinking incineration was the only way, the community heard that alternatives to incineration are being developed, and may be used in Pine Bluff.
Several faculty and staff members from University of Arkansas Pine Bluff (UAPB) helped with the welcome and introductions and facilitation of the meeting. Program presenters included several people who are involved in the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) program, which is the current alternative technologies program including representatives from the Department of Defense, state regulator agencies, and most importantly, community representatives. Following the presentations, there was a helpful question and answer session.
The meeting was very successful for a number of reasons. The diversity of the group, with blacks and whites from all walks of life coming together around a common concern, was inspiring. It was also successful because of the number of local and state organizations that have stepped out against incineration. Many veterans organizations have also gotten involved. But the best part about the meeting was that the information on alternatives finally reached the public in a clear way. Other stockpile sites are on the road to having alternative technologies used for their chemical weapons. The Maryland stockpile site will be having a neutralizaton/biological treatment for the mustard agent stored in ton containers. Many people don't know that 83% of Pine Bluff's stockpile is also mustard agent in ton containers -- which means any technology used in Maryland could also be used here for that part of our stockpile. More and more people in Pine Bluff are realizing that incineration in Pine Bluff is a bad idea, when there are safer alternatives available. Alternatives technologies are a light in the darkness of a proposed incinerator. Now it is up to us to make sure it becomes a reality. --by Evelyn Yates
Environmental Justice Complaint Filed in Alabama; Citizens demand safe alternatives for all communities!
Environmental justice is the simple idea that all people deserve an equal right to clean air, water, food, and jobs. Unfortunately, in the United States low income people and people of color are most likely to live near polluting facilities, while wealthier whiter communities have been able to keep polluters out of their communities, or move away from polluters.
In what may be one of the first tests of the EPA's new guidance on environmental justice, the Chemical Weapons Working Group, Sierra Club, and Serving Alabama's Future Environment (SAFE) filed an environmental justice complaint with the EPA December 15th. Incineration of chemical weapons in Anniston, Alabama violates the President's Executive Order on Environmental Justice and title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Complainants are asking that safe alternatives to chemical weapons incineration be made available to all communities, not just those with the most political clout. A letter of support from the complainant was signed by more than 100 activists representing groups from 40 states. Suzanne Marshall of SAFE explained, "Building a chemical weapons incinerator in Anniston will continue Alabama's pattern of discrimination by race and poverty. African-American and other low- income people living in this area have long been exposed to many forms of pollution from inadequately regulated industries." Elsie Boateng, an Environmental Studies Major at Jacksonville State University said, "Minorities are being unjustly taken advantage of environmentally. The government decided what to do without the support of the community, just like they are now trying to bring more chemical weapons in. That's the wrong way to do things."
Anniston is 46% African American with one in three citizens living in poverty. Citizens of Anniston and surrounding communities have already suffered more than their share of toxic pollution. The Army's 1994 Toxic Release Inventory ranks the Anniston Army Depot second in the nation for emitting over 581,000 pounds of toxic chemicals in (Pine Bluff Arsenal in Arkansas was ranked first). The African-American communities of Cobbtown and Sweet Valley have sued the Monsanto corporation for PCB-poisoning after more than 50 years of toxic operations.
One positive step toward Environmental Justice in Alabama is the recent forming of an Environmental Justice Task Force in the Alabama Sierra Club chapter. The Task Force is being co-chaired by SAFE's Suzanne Marshall, and Aaron Head of the Acmar/Moody Environmental Justice Society. Marshall said "The focus of the Task Force is to work on environmental justice , like the incinerator, that affect Alabama citizens. We hope the group's actions will pave the way for greater successes in the future."
Editor's Note: If fighting for environmental justice itself isn't enough, we are now fighting for justice in the EPA's process for filing environmental justice complaints. Because the Environmental Justice complaint was received by the EPA one day late, due to a "miscount," EPA's policy is to disregard the complaint without even reading it. Complainants have appealed for a waiver on the deadline. In doing so, we have learned that over 30 similar complaints have been thrown out completely for missing the deadline within days. Clearly this issue must be addressed.
When the Army announced in the mid-1980s that chemical weapons were being stored in nine U.S. military bases, many people living in surrounding communities were surprised, shocked and angry. Over the next ten years, the debate over how to get rid of the chemical weapons became more and more intense, as citizens fought for a chance to make decisions about disposal technologies.
As the debate continues around disposal of the chemical weapons stockpile, another clean-up program, the Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Program (NSCMP), is getting more attention from the public. The Non-Stockpile program is significant not only for its clean-up mission, but also because it provides an opportunity for Army decision- makers to "do things differently," and involve citizens in the decision- making process from the beginning. While several decisions affecting the course of the program have already been made, the NSCMP, with an initial timeline of 40 years, is still in the "beginning" stages. Therefore, it is critical that citizens be informed and involved.
Non-stockpile materiel are miscellaneous bombs, projectiles, chemical agent identification sets (CAIS) and other warfare "products" which are not part of the chemical weapons stockpile. These non-stockpile weapons are scattered at 65 sites -- mostly military bases or former military bases -- in 31 states. In many cases, these weapons were dumped or buried in places which are now near civilian neighborhoods and public access areas.
The Kentucky Environmental Foundation has been slowly developing a network of grassroots groups and individuals affected by the non- stockpile program. This network may be to the non-stockpile issue what the Chemical Weapons Working Group is to the chemical weapons stockpile program. Aside from that, a "stakeholders' committee," is currently being formed as a cooperative effort by grassroots organizations and individuals and the Project Manager's office for NSCMP. The group has already had two meetings, in July and November of 1997, to identify and discuss programmatic issues in the NSCMP and begin developing a process for citizen involvement in the program . There is a need for more involvement from affected citizens in both the grassroots network and the stakeholders' committee.
Issues around the non-stockpile program can be divided into two main categories: public involvement and outreach; and regulatory and technology issues. Draft strategies for a national public outreach program, part of which are an environmental justice strategy and separate Native American outreach strategy, are being reviewed and altered. Technologies for disposal of CAIS sets and non-explosive weapons have been developed by the Army (see chart), and may soon be tested. Technologies to destroy explosive non-stockpile weapons have not yet been identified, although several have been developed.
If you live near a non-stockpile site and are interested in getting informed and involved in the program, please contact Elizabeth Crowe, Kentucky Environmental Foundation, (606) 986-0868.
Last November, an Anniston, Alabama newspaper printed excerpts from a letter from Timothy Garrett, environmental coordinator at the Anniston Army Depot (AAD) to the state environmental regulators suggesting that AAD treat, store and dispose of non-stockpile weapons in addition to its chemical weapons stockpile. Garrett said he was asked by 'higher command' to inquire about the non-stockpile weapons.
Federal law allows non-stockpile weapons to be transported to permitted storage facilities. Currently, the only two such sites are at the Pine Bluff Arsenal in Arkansas, and the Deseret Army Depot in Tooele, Utah. The law does not allow use of chemical weapons stockpile disposal facilities to dispose of non-stockpile weapons. That law is of little assurance to Anniston residents, who fear that having more weapons brought in will guarantee them a chemical weapons incinerator. After all, laws -- and permits -- can be changed.
Recovered non-stockpile weapons need to be safely stored until they can be destroyed. Understandably, Tooele and Pine Bluff are not interested in being the only two sites to receive the weapons. But under Anniston's current circumstances, it is understandable why local citizens don't want the weapons, either.
At the same time the NSCMP seems to want citizen involvement in the program, keeping such important decisions from the public undermines any positive advances. If the NSCMP chooses to operate in a more open, honest manner, they may be able to ultimately destroy the non-stockpile weapons without destroying their credibility.
Army employees and anti-incineration activists coming together to compete in a volleyball game? A volleyball game? Can you believe it?
On Sunday, October 19, employees at Kentucky's Blue Grass Army Depot (BGAD) played 3 rounds of volleyball against community activists with Common Ground, an organization working for safe disposal of the chemical weapons stored at BGAD. The game was part of an event held in Richmond, Ky. called "Celebrating Common Ground!"
Activists in Kentucky felt that the movement toward safer chemical weapons disposal technologies warranted some kind of celebration -- so a celebration is what we had! The event included music from the Reel World String Band, Mitch Barrett and Carla Gover, Keith Otterson and Dr. Jack and the Medicine Show; story-telling by Jeff Hatmaker; a raffle of 30 prizes with everything from restaurant gift certificates to pottery and original sculptures; and a "cyber cafe" which enabled people to access web sites dealing with chemical weapons disposal and other grassroots solutions to military-industrial toxic pollution. The sunny Sunday celebration symbolized the hope of a "new way of doing business" with Army officials around chemical weapons disposal. When it comes down to it, we all want the same thing - to have the weapons gotten rid of. Citizen involvement in the decision-making process should result in safe disposal - a win-win situation for all of us.
We may be on the way to a win-win situation for chemical weapons disposal, but as for volleyball? Common Ground won 2 games to 1.
The Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) on February 7, 1997 made its final decision to accept the United States Army's application to build a chemical weapons incineration facility near Hermiston, Oregon. Despite evidence that incineration is the worst option for destroying the nation's obsolete chemical weapons stockpile stored at the Umatilla Army Depot, the EQC has given the green light for the Army and Raytheon Demilitarization Corporation to spend $1.3 billion in taxpayers' money to construct five incinerators. Apparently they are willing to sacrifice public health and ecosystem integrity for corporate profits and questionable military agendas.
Widespread opposition by citizens' groups, environmental organizations, health organizations an Native Americans has not deterred the Army from designating incineration as the preferred method of detoxification for the chemical agents stored at Umatilla. The technical literature describing the limitations and adverse impacts of incineration is extensive. The incineration of chemical warfare agents poses unacceptable health risks of both an immediate and long term nature -- the greatest dangers being cancer, birth defects, reproductive dysfunction, immune system disorders and neurological damage. These adverse effects are known to occur at even very low exposure to incinerator emissions.
Some of the quantifiable chemicals and metals that will be released at Umatilla include unburned nerve and mustard agent; persistent and bioaccumulative organochlorines such as dioxins, furans, chlorometh- ane, vinyl chloride and PCBs; metals such as lead, mercury, copper and nickel; and other toxics such as arsenic. These represent only a fraction of the thousands of chemicals and metals that will be emitted throughout the Columbia River watershed. In addition to emissions, highly toxic ashes and effluents will be created, posing a significant health threat. Contrary to what incineration advocates claim, the stockpile at Umatilla -- or elsewhere in the U.S. -- has small potential for explosion or chain reaction as a result of decay. The danger is not nearly as grave as the Army proclaims. According to a 1994 General Accounting Office report, the National Research Council's original estimate of 17.7 years of safe storage is erroneous; the actual figure is 120 years. In addition, the Army has repeatedly ignored the option of reconfiguring the stockpile (separating the agents from the energetics and propellants), which would entirely eliminate the question of safe storage. The Army has the knowledge and capability to accomplish this quickly, and has testified to this in 1994 Senate hearings. By ignoring this logical option, the Army has been able to capitalize on the public fear of a spontaneous decay explosion, forcing incineration as the only option.
Even a cursory glance at the facts shows that there is no justification for incineration. There are several alternatives to incineration that provide the community with a safer, mobile, cheaper and more timely solution while insuring that Oregon will not be saddled with a permanent hazardous waste facility once this ill-fated project is complete. In a February 27, 1997 letter to President Clinton, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen stated, "I am committed to going the extra mile to explore whether there may be safer and more environmentally sound alternatives to incineration." It appears that everyone involved in this national issue is looking for an alternative to incineration...everyone except the Army and the Oregon DEQ.
Recently, the Oregon Chemical Demilitarization Citizens Advisory Commission was told by the Hermiston Fire Chief, Jim Stearns, that in case of a chemical weapons release at the Umatilla Army Depot, "Don't call 911." Why? Because the Hermiston Fire Department has not received personal protective body suits, respirators, air monitors, mobile decontamination equipment, antidote kits or adequate medical training -- therefore, they could be of little help in the event of an accident at the Depot. This begs the question, if the Army is so concerned that the Umatilla Depot is dangerously close to leaking live agents, thus the need to incinerate before a disaster occurs, why have they done so little to help prepare the community for the impending disaster?
Chemical weapons incinerators in Utah and the Pacific -- which are the models for the Umatilla incinerator -- have displayed dismal performance. Testifying at a hearing on an environmental challenge to the Utah incinerator, Army manager Tim Thomas admitted that several incidents, including detection of chemical agents in the facility, have occurred since incineration began there in 1996. In addition, the Army's prototype facility, called JACADS, located in the south Pacific, has been a case study in unsafe technology. According to the Army's own data, a fire, explosion, 32 internal releases of nerve agent and several releases of nerve agent into the atmosphere have occurred. Some incinerator mishaps resulted in EPA fines totaling more than $100,000. The facility is 450% over budget and had over 30 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act non-compliances in 1995 alone.
There is still time to stop this tragedy from occurring. Please join us in halting the incinerator in favor of safer disposal technologies, for the sake of Oregon's people and environment.
A court hearing began on Tuesday, January 20, 1998 on challenges to several permits issued by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) for the construction and operation of a chemical weapons incinerator in Anniston, Alabama. Army contractor Westinghouse Electric Corporation plans to incinerate 661,529 weapons stored at the Anniston Army Depot. Citizens groups are pushing for safer alternative technologies to take the place of incineration to destroy Anniston's chemical weapons stockpile.
The petitioners in this case, Serving Alabama's Future Environment (SAFE), Inc. and Families Concerned About Nerve Gas Incineration, say the incineration project has three major deficiencies: 1) emergency response officials are not prepared to prevent the 10,000 potential fatalities which could result from a release of chemical agent; 2) Westinghouse is being required to allocate only $1 million to compensate victims and the families of their victims for their injuries; and 3) the emission of dioxins from the incinerator stack, combined with current background dioxin levels would put area residents at a health risk. Representing the citizens' groups is David Ludder, with the Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation in Tallahassee, FL.
Testimony from two witnesses showed a lack of full knowledge about the health risks associated with incineration. Westinghouse Plant Manager Richard Harral testified that he only briefly discussed the incinerator application with Army officials on the day he signed certification papers. He further admitted under oath that he has never read the health risk assessment or the contingency plan contained in those documents. These two portions of the application are supposed to demonstrate protection for human health and the safety of the over 70,000 people living near the proposed incinerator site. Jacksonville resident Rufus Kinney said "This shows a gross disregard for the health and safety of Alabama's citizens!" Local resident Michael Marvinny added, "How can ADEM permit a facility of this complexity when the chief plant manager does not have a complete understanding of the permit?"
Dr. Brian Hughes, toxicologist with the Alabama State Health Department, said that he was responsible for reviewing public comments on the health risk assessment submitted to ADEM. He said that ADEM provided him with some of the comments but not the supporting material containing various recent scientific publications on the health effects of exposure to low levels of nerve agent and exposure to dioxin. Kinney asked, "Will Anniston become another example of Gulf War Illness after we are exposed to nerve agent?"
If the permit is allowed to go on uncontested, the citizens' groups will file an appeal. However, if the citizens' groups prevail, the permit will be disapproved, construction of the incinerator will cease until a new permit is obtained.
Common Sense is published by the Kentucky Environmental Foundation (KEF), a non-profit organization working to support the efforts of grass- roots groups in Kentucky and across the world, who seek the safe disposal of chemical weapons. KEF is the democratically-elected lead organization of the CHEMICAL WEAPONS WORKING GROUP, (CWWG) a coalition of grassroots organizations in the U.S., Pacific and Russia who work toward safe disposal of chemical weapons. In order for this publication to be truly representative of the movement, we need your input! Please submit your pictures, poems and articles to Elizabeth Crowe, c/o the Kentucky Environmental Foundation, P.O. Box 467, Berea, Kentucky, 40403. We distribute newsletters on a quarterly basis; please call the KEF office at (606) 986-0868 for submission deadlines. Your comments and suggestions are always welcome!
 CWWG Home Page |
Contact us: |