Common Sense
A Newsletter of the Chemical Weapons Working Group
Published by the Kentucky Environmental Foundation
June 1999
The Chemical Weapons Working Group (CWWG) this month exposed
an internal Army document showing that Deputy Secretary of the Army for
Chemical Demilitarization, Dr. Theodore Prociv, falsely told members of
Congress, the media and community groups that no more federal money was
available to demonstrate non-incineration technologies for chemical weapons
disposal. The group is calling for the resignation of Dr. Prociv, who for almost
a year maintained that no money was available from his agency,when in fact
around $400 million in unspent and unobligated funds was on hand. Based
on this information, the CWWG wrote to Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera
and asked that he demand Dr. Prociv's resignation.
The alternative technologies program, called the Assembled Chemical Weapons
Assessment (ACWA) program, was created in response to a 1996 Congressional
mandate to identify and demonstrate at least two non-incineration chemical
weapons disposal methods. In May 1998 ACWA announced that six such
technologies had passed its technical criteria, making the disposal systems
eligible to move to the demonstration phase. However, an alleged $25 million
funding shortfall meant that only three technologies moved forward into that
phase. Numerous efforts by Congress to shake loose the funds from the
Departments of Defense and the Army failed.
Then this Spring the CWWG obtained a February 1999 internal memo from the
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (OSD) which stated that the OSD had
been "trying to reconcile the reported execution performance of the
Chem/Demil program with the contention that there is no funding flexibility
available to cover urgent emerging requirements." Following a review of the
chemical disposal program's financial records, an OSD Comptroller wrote up
his findings. Statements from this memo include:
The CWWG believes the withholding of funds from the ACWA technology
demonstrations is a major link in a chain of attempts by some Army officials to
undermine the alternative technology program. CWWG Director Craig
Williams said, "For months Dr. Prociv told Congress, ACWA participants, state
regulators, local elected officials and the public saying 'the money is just not
there.' Now there is evidence that statement is false. In order for the chemical
weapons disposal program to move forward with any integrity, Dr. Prociv
should step down."
On June 8, 1999, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), author of the legislation
which created the ACWA program, stated on the Senate floor that the
"Department of Defense has consistently ignored Congressional directive and
intent" in regards to the ACWA program, and that "there is no truth to the
assertion that there were not sufficient funds available to allow for
demonstration of all viable alternatives" to chemical weapons incineration.
The Senate Defense Appropriations Committee Report for fiscal year 2000 reads
"The Committee is concerned with the lack of oversight afforded the [chemical
weapons program] within the executive branch. In a review of the program's
funding, the Committee discovered that funds had systematically been
obligated without being expended and in some instances funds were
unobligated. Rather than facing a shortfall in funding, the program had over
$200 million of Operations and Maintenance funds unexpended at the end of
fiscal year 1998."
Citizens at chemical weapons stockpile sites were outraged to hear that
funding may have been available for all six ACWA demonstrations. In a letter
to Senator McConnell, Richmond, Kentucky Citizens Advisory Commission Co-
chair and ACWA program participant Doug Hindman said "I have to question
whether he has managed [the ACWA program] fairly in the past or can fairly
manage it in the future."
Brenda Lindell, founding member of the Alabama group Families Concerned
About Nerve Gas Incineration, said in a letter to Alabama Rep. Bob Riley, "I am
furious that by this lying and deceit [Prociv] has potentially sabotaged the
ACWA program. Prociv does not have the integrity to be over, or even involved
in, the program."
State of Maryland Department of the Environment and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency on Monday, February 22 issued permits for the Army to
construct a pilot non-incineration technology for disposal of the chemical
weapons stockpile at the Aberdeen Proving Ground. A couple weeks earlier,
communities nearby the Newport Army Depot in Indiana celebrated the
awarding of a contract for non-incineration disposal of chemical agent stored
there.
Through an Army program called the Alternative Technology Approaches
Program, pilot facilities will be constructed in Maryland and Indiana in place of
chemical weapons incinerators. The Aberdeen Chemical Agent Disposal
Facility will use chemical neutralization and biological processes to treat the
1600 tons of mustard agent stored in ton containers at the Edgewood Area of
APG. The facility in Newport will use neutralization and supercritical water
oxidation for treatment of nerve agent in ton containers. Unlike incineration,
which releases toxic chemicals into the environment through its smokestack,
these disposal processes will contain byproducts, and only release them into
the environment after they have been proven safe.
Environmental and public health groups in Maryland, Indiana and across the
nation have been working toward safe, non-incineration disposal of chemical
weapons for over ten years. These pilot plants are success stories in contrast
to the Army's incineration program, now 14 years behind schedule and more
than 800% over budget.
Chemical Weapons Working Group (CWWG) spokesperson Craig Williams said,
"At a time when chemical weapons incinerators are being legally challenged at
stockpile sites in Utah, Alabama, Oregon and Arkansas, the alternative
technology process in Maryland is moving ahead smoothly, with strong support
from local citizens. The only thing standing in the way of alternative
technologies at all stockpile sites is the Army's irrational allegiance to
incineration."
Maryland CWWG member John Nunn noted that the 60-day comment period
for the neutralization pilot plant drew only one comment from the public: a
two page letter from a local conservationist, which was effectively addressed by
the CAC. Nunn said, "Construction of the facility will begin in Fall 1999,
without public opposition, lawsuits and hostility. I hope that the Army will
learn from Maryland's experience and realize alternative technologies can and
should be implemented at all sites."
Sara Morgan, member of the CWWG and Citizens Against Incineration at
Newport seconded Nunn's comment and added, "We have all worked hard to
ensure the safest disposal method is used in Indiana and are pleased that
incineration was abandoned here," she said. "But we are equally committed to
seeing that this dangerous technology is stopped at all other sites. We are not
giving up helping other communities just because we achieved our goals in
Indiana."
We saw it coming years ago, and now it is here: a legislative proposal to allow
the disposal of non-stockpile materiel and other military wastes at chemical
stockpile disposal facilities. Language proposed by the House Armed Services
Committee for the fiscal year 2000 Defense Appropriations bill would "allow
non-stockpile chemical agents, munitions, or related materials specfically
designated by the Secretary of Defense to be destroyed at stockpile facilities
once the affected states have issued the appropriate permits."
Non-stockpile chemical materiel is, in brief, the leftovers from decades of Army
chemical warfare production and testing. Non-stockpile materiel can be found
at hundreds of sites in over 30 states, on military installations and public
land. It includes chemically-configured bombs, projectiles, rockets, agent-filled
ton containers, and much more. Presently, Utah and Arkansas are the only
states permitted to accept non-stockpile materiel, and current legislation
prohibits non-stockpile materiel from being destroyed in a stockpile facility.
This legislation would give authority to the state permitting agency at each
stockpile site to decide whether or not the chemical weapons disposal facility
will accept non-stockpile materiel. Following are some reasons why not to
support this idea.
Alabama
Members of Serving Alabama's Future Environment and Families Concerned
About Nerve Gas Incineration, two groups working for safe disposal of chemical
weapons in Anniston, are awaiting a legal decision in mid-July on an appeal to
the chemical weapons incinerator permit.
West Anniston citizens dealing with PCB contamination from Monsanto,
organized a non-profit group called Citizens Against Pollution. They are about
to open offices in a former bank building so that the community can be better
reached for education about the issue, environmental justice, and health
information. The group has hosted several well-attended forums on the PCB
issue which were held at the 17th Street Baptist Church in Anniston., pastored
by Rev. N.Q. Reynolds. The group continues to work to organize and educate
all the people of Anniston about toxic pollution issues.
Arkansas
Members of Pine Bluff for Safe Disposal on June 15 presented the local chapter
of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
with a petition calling for a halt to the construction of a chemical weapons
incinerator, and additional support of safer, non-incineration technologies.
Over 200 local residents signed the petition, which also stated support for an
Environmental Justice complaint soon to be filed by Pine Bluff for Safe
Disposal.
The NAACP was asked by Raytheon, the contractor responsible for construction
and operations of the Pine Bluff incinerator, in March 1999 to publicly endorse
the incineration technology for disposal of chemical weapons. Pine Bluff for
Safe Disposal members encouraged the NAACP to hear information on
alternatives to incineration before making a decision.
Colorado
Members of the Sangre de Cristo Group of the Sierra Club recently participated
in a public meeting on disposal of the Pueblo stockpile. In 1996, Congress
placed a moratorium on incinerator-specific construction at that site until the
Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) non-incineration
technologies were demonstrated.
Local anti-incineration activists recently compiled information showing that
implementation of a non-incineration Assembled Chemical Weapons
Assessment technology at the Pueblo site may mean final destruction of the
weapons there years before the mission could be accomplished with
incineration.
Kalama Island/Pacific
The Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System (JACADS), the first
chemical weapons incinerator, located on Kalama Island, was shut down
temporarily in March when a piece of a munition containing solidified mustard
agent broke off inside an incinerator furnace and damaged two protective walls
inside the burner. The accident occurred because a seal on the munition had
not been loosened prior to being moved through the incinerator. Pressure
inside the munition caused a piece of it to shoot into the incinerator wall.
Kentucky
The Senate Defense Appropriations Committee has passed an amendment
offered by Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell which would suspend
technology-specific construction at the Richmond, Ky. Blue Grass Army Depot
until all six ACWA technologies have been demonstrated. On
July 22 a community meeting sponsored by the ACWA program and the
Kentucky Citizens Advisory Commission will be held in Richmond to introduce
results from the three completed ACWA demonstrations, and allow program
managers to answer questions and compile feedback from local residents. The
meeting will cover 'technical' information as well as explanations of the
criteria, developed cooperatively by citizens, the Army and state regulators,
used to evaluate the incineration alternatives.
Oregon
While construction of the chemical weapons incinerator near Hermiston is
almost half completed, local and statewide environmental organizations
continue to fight the facility, and push for safer disposal technologies. Karyn
Jones, member of the Hermison group GASP reports that the group is trying to
stay informed on incinerator construction developments.
GASP, the Oregon Wildlife Federation, Oregon Sierra Club and the Oregon
Center for Pollution Reduction are also waiting for the state Environmental
Quality Control commission to reinvestigate use of carbon filters for the
incinerator.
by Perrin deJong, KEF Legal Intern
The Chemical Weapons Working Group, Sierra Club and Vietnam Veterans of
America Foundation went back to court on June 7, 1999 in Salt Lake City,
Utah, alleging that the U.S. Army and chemical weapons incinerator operator
EG&G Defense Materials, Inc. are operating the Tooele, Utah incinerator
outside of the bounds of public safety and the law. Mick Harrison, lawyer for
the plaintiffs, offered evidence showing that the facility has violated
environmental regulatory guidelines and poses an imminent risk to downwind
populations.
The three plaintiff organizations, with support from local Utah grassroots
groups Families Against Incinerator Risks and West Desert HEAL first took
safety allegations to court in the summer of 1996, asking for a prelminary
injunction from Federal Judge Tena Campbell to prevent the incinerator from
beginning operations. This request was denied, and since operations began on
August 26, 1996 the facility has been plagued with operational failures,
technical mishaps, and worker exposures to chemical agent. In addition,
numerous plant whistleblowers have stepped forward with evidence of serious
safety incidents.
During the two week trial in Salt Lake City, Judge Campbell heard lawyers for
the citizen plaintiffs and the Army question witnesses including incinerator
plant managers and employees, Utah state environmental regulators, health
risk assessment officials, and public health experts, and her judgement on the
fate of the incinerator may be months in the coming. A few of the facts she
heard during the trial are:
(Note: The preceding article has been revised from the original article that appeared in the newsletter.)
A lot of exciting and challenging work is underway on the non-stockpile
chemical weapons issue. In 1998, the Non-Stockpile Chemical Weapons
Citizens Coalition was formed as a grassroots network to promote
environmental justice in the Army's non-stockpile program. Already the group
has made progress in that mission. Here's an update on some non-stockpile
activities:
For more information on the Coalition and the non-stockpile issue, please
contact Elizabeth Crowe at (606) 986-0868 or by email at
kefcrowe@acs.eku.edu.
New fact-sheets and previous newsletter articles on non-stockpile materiel are also
available on the CWWG web site at www.cwwg.org. Check it out!
Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel is a catch-all name for the leftovers from
Army chemical warfare production and testing. The materiel includes bombs,
projectiles and rockets containing chemical agents, chemical agent testing kits,
buildings contaminated by chemical agents, and much more.
Non-stockpile materiel can be found at hundreds of sites in over 30 states; on
military installations and public lands; in urban and rural areas; in
neighborhoods and communities of all kinds; on and near Native American
lands.
The Army's Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Program is responsible for the
disposal of non-stockpile materiel. Program officials work with the Corps of
Engineers, local installation commanders and numerous contractors and
federal agencies.
Arkansas state and national veterans' organizations joined environmental
groups and children's health advocates on February 16, 1999 in filing an
appeal challenging the permit issued to the Army and Raytheon
Demilitarization Company to incinerate deadly chemical and blister agents in
Pine Bluff. A hearing before the Arkansas state environmental agency
administrative judge will be held in September 1999.
Five Arkansas state and two national groups filed the appeal to the permit
issued by the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
(ADPC&E). The groups are: Pine Bluff for Safe Disposal; Women's Action for
New Directions (WAND); Vietnam Veterans of America, Arkansas State
Council; Chemical Weapons Working Group; and Vietnam Veterans of America
Foundation. Among the issues raised in the appeal were that:
"Our objective here is to ensure that Arkansas' chemical weapons are disposed
of in a way that protects the public," said Evelyn Yates, President of Pine Bluff
for Safe Disposal. "We do not want to stop the overall mission of destroying
the munitions." The plan to incinerate chemical weapons has been abandoned
at the stockpile sites in Maryland and Indiana. Instead, chemical agents will
be destroyed with non-incineration methods, which do not release toxic
chemicals into the environment. In contrast, the organizations now
challenging the Arkansas permit submitted over 130 pages of comments to
ADPC&E, raising issues from inadequate identification of toxic emissions to
the history of agent leaks at the Army's incineration sites in the Pacific and
Utah.
In addition to Maryland and Indiana's chemical weapons stockpiles being
disposed of through non- incineration methods, Colorado and Kentucky are
prohibited from building incinerators while alternatives to incineration are
undergoing demonstrations. Currently, three non-incineration technologies
are being demonstrated as part of an alternative technologies program called
the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA). The ACWA program
was created under a 1996 Congressional directive.
Although the petitioners' comments contained extensive information on
alternatives to incineration, ADPC&E deferred to the Army's choice of
incineration as outside their authority. They said, "The Air Division did not
choose incineration or have the authority to require another technology to
treat the material." Shelia Witherington, former member of WAND responded,
"If 83% of our stockpile is the same as Maryland's, why are we being
discriminated against when it comes to technology selection and allocation of
resources?"
Yates noted, "I'm an Arkansas representative to the Assembled Chemical
Weapons Assessment Dialogue and they are demonstrating non-incineration
approaches right now for chemical agent munitions disposal. We should not
be left behind with an outdated and dangerous approach while others reap the
benefits of modern science."
Pine Bluff for Safe Disposal filed an Environmental Justice (EJ) compaint with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on June 22, 1999.
Accompanying the complaint was a petition with 200 signatures of local Pine
Bluff, Arkansas residents, asking that construction of a chemical weapons
incinerator be halted and safer non-incineration disposal technologies be
implemented.
In 1994, President Clinton recognzied EJ in Executive Order 12898, noting that
a disproportionate amount of toxic waste is stored or released in low-income
communities and communities of color. The Order requires federal agencies to
identify EJ issues in their programs, and make efforts to stop this trend. Pine
Bluff for Safe Disposal member Brainard Bivens described EJ as meaning "that
every citizen has the right to have input into introduction of toxics which
would jeopardize their quality of life. This is a basic human right," he says,
but not one that has been afforded to people of color.
Residents of the African-American communities in Pine Bluff have for years
raised EJ concerns regarding chemical weapon disposal there. Toxic Release
Inventory data compiled by the Environmental Defense Fund shows that aside
from local Army activities, nearly 2 million pounds of toxic chemicals are
released annually into the air of Jefferson County, in which Pine Bluff is
situated. That county also ranks in the top 20% of all U.S. counties for air
and water releases of known and suspected carcinogens.
by Jennifer Adibi and Melissa Tuckey
The partnership between the Chemical Weapons Working Group and chemical
weapons communities in Russia has moved into yet another phase of
cooperation. From 1991 until 1995, with a climax at the Citizen Summit in
Saratov in 1995, we were busy getting to know each other and figure out where
our situations were similar and where they were different. In 1996 and 1997 we
started gathering first-hand accounts and learning from each other through
visiting each other's communities, going on-site where possible, attending each
other's conferences, involving our high school students in environmental
exchanges with a focus on chemical weapons disposal, and jointly lobbying the
US government in regards to funding for chemical weapons disposal in
Shchuchye, Russia.
Now with the imminent construction of at least one disposal facility in Russia
and a rapidly deteriorating political and economic environment, our Russian
partners have asked us to assist them in creating a dialogue/public
involvement mechanism for chemical weapons communities in Russia. In
March 1999 seven citizens from US chemical weapons stockpile sites traveled
to Russia as part of an exchange program on chemical weapons disposal. The
exchange was made possible with support from the Trust for Mutual
Understanding. Our goals were 1) to share information with our Russian
colleagues about the history of public involvement on chemical weapons
disposal in the US and, 2) to learn more about the experiences of our Russian
counterparts. More specifically, we were asked to present the model of the
Citizen Advisory Commissions (CAC). CACs were mandated by Congress to
serve as a conduit for information and dialogue between the military,
regulators and citizens in order to raise the level of public involvement in the
chemical weapons disposal program.
Our delegation consisted of John Nunn, CAC Chairperson from Maryland;
Doug Hindman, CAC Chairperson from Kentucky; Sara Morgan, member of
Citizens Against Incineration at Newport in Indiana; Jason Groenewold,
Director of Families Against Incinerator Risks in Utah; Kristi Parker from the
Keystone Center, a non-profit public policy mediation group; Jennifer Adibi,
Russian Project Coordinator at Harvard who has been leading exchanges
around chemical weapons disposal since 1993; and Melissa Tuckey,
Development Director and Organizer at the Kentucky Environmental
Foundation. We were invited and hosted by Mr. Vadim Petrov of the Udmurtia
Chapter of the Union for Chemical Safety. While in Russia we attended a
Green Cross hearing on chemical weapons disposal held in Moscow, and met
with residents from chemical weapons stockpile communities of Kizner,
Kambarka, and Shchuchye.
The NATO bombing in Yugoslavia definitely made our work in Russia harder. In
response to the bombing, our group had many long conversations and decided
to begin our meeting by sharing our concern and opposition to the bombing.
Beginning our meetings in this way helped to disperse some of the tension and
allow us to get on with the business at hand.
Since we left Russia in early April, we have received word from the Russian
Project Coordinator, Vadim Petrov, that they have drafted Guidelines for the
creation of CACs. Vadim gathered proposals from the various sites (Kizner,
Kambarka, Shchuchye) and integrated them into one document. In the Kurgan
Region where Shchuchye is located, the guidelines are currently being
discussed in the Administration. There is also an effort to lobby for the
creation of CACs at the national level.
Full reports on theUS/Russian exchange are currently being developed. If you
would like more information on this exchange, or would like to know more
about chemical weapons disposal in Russia, please contact Melissa Tuckey at
(606) 986-0868, or by email at keftucke@acs.eku.edu.
"The thing that impacted me the most were the people. Our cultural
backgrounds are very different, but our concern for the well being of humanity
is identical. We understand what happens when our governments are
unaccountable and they make decisions for the people without ever consulting
what the people actually want. This type of blind leadership is what led us to
the military build-up during the Cold War. We let our governments divide us
and build the walls that kept getting higher and higher as more time went on.
We have the chance to take down those walls now."
Jason Groenewold, Utah
"The people we met at each site were friendly and interested in our message. I
was amazed by how many issues are common to chemical weapons disposal in
the US and Russia. However, I was struck by the fact that in Russia I heard
no mention of stockpile storage safety, instead the drive to dispose of these
weapons appears to be driven in large part by the economics and infrastructure
improvements that a disposal plant would bring to a community."
John Nunn, Maryland
Excerpt from an article in the Kambarka local newspaper, regarding the
meeting between Russian and U.S. chemical weapons activsts:
"Each of the eight Americans told about his/her work, problems, future plans.
Then the Russian participants shared their opinion on what they had heard. It
seemed that we were not ready to talk at that level yet. But we did understand
each other, the questions were asked with interest, the answers were given with
pleasure. Of course not everything from the experience of the American group is
suitable for us....Probably [the Americans'] salaries are high enough to
compensate moral and physical expenses because they can allow themselves to
eat enough and to have good rest. We cannot afford such things, because even
our demand to be paid and to be given allowances regularly has not found any
support in State Council. In any case we need sooner or later to learn to
understand each other. Chemical weapons have to be destroyed." N. Rylova,
Union for Chemical Safety
After almost five years of legal battles, Steve Jones resumed his position as
Chief Safety Officer at the Army's Tooele, Utah chemical weapons incinerator
on May 3, 1999. Jones was illegally was fired in July, 1994 for raising safety,
health and environmental issues at the plant. He sued EG&G Defense
Materials, Inc. under federal whistleblower protection laws and was successful
in regaining his former position, compensatory damages and back pay in spite
of a series of appeals by EG&G following each decision.
Twice EG&G appealed to the Administrative Review Board of the Department
of Labor (DoL) and lost both times. Having exhausted all remedies within the
DoL, EG&G turned to the 10th Circuit Court requesting they stop enforcement
of the DoL ruling until after they heard the arguments of their latest appeal.
The 10th Circuit turned down EG&G's request and ordered EG&G to reinstate
Jones in March of this year. "Every ruling from every venue has gone my way,"
said Jones, "I feel completely vindicated about my actions in the past and am
looking forward to returning to my position and finishing the job I was hired to
do."
Since Jones' firing there have been several other high ranking employees either
fired or pressured into leaving. The former General Manager, Gary Millar, left
the plant after raising issues about the readiness of the plant to begin
processing the deadly nerve agents stored there. Millar left the plant, settling
with EG&G for an undisclosed amount of money. Before leaving, Millar wrote
a letter to the President of EG&G comparing the Utah incinerator with
disastrous incidents at Chernobyl and Bhopal, and of the space shuttle
Challenger.
Former Chief Hazardous Waste Manager Trina Allen was also retaliated against
by EG&G for revealing that she was pressured to sign off on the readiness of
the plant by her superiors. Allen was later vindicated by the DoL on her initial
claims and continues to seek damages from EG&G. "The pattern is
unmistakable," said Craig Williams, CWWG director. "If you're not willing to
go along with your superiors to cover-up problems at this facility you're
retaliated against either by demotion or being fired."
The Chemical Weapons Working Group, Sierra Club and Vietnam Veterans of
America Foundation are challenging the ongoing operations of the Army's Utah
incinerator in court (see update on page 5). Grassroots organizations and
individuals in Oregon, Alabama and Arkansas are also fighting the incineration
of chemical weapons in Oregon, Alabama and Arkansas, claiming the facilities
will not adequately protect the health of citizens and the environment. The
groups continue pushing for implementation of safer non-incineration
technologies for treatment of chemical weapons.
 CWWG Home Page |
Contact us: |