A Newsletter of the Chemical Weapons Working Group
Published by the Kentucky Environmental Foundation
Whistleblower wins suit
against Utah Incinerator!
On August 5, incinerator opponents won a major victory when Tooele, Utah whistleblower Steve Jones won a Department of Labor lawsuit against chemical weapons incinerator contractor EG&G Defense Materials, Inc. Jones was fired from his job as Chief of Safety in September 1994 after citing thousands of safety violations in the plant. Judge Ellin O'Shea found that EG&G did fire Jones as a result of him raising safety concerns, and ordered EG&G re-hire him. The Judge also ruled EG&G to award Jones his full back salary since the date of termination, another $200,000 for his family's economic losses and suffering, and punitive damages. If EG&G refuses to reinstate Jones, the company must pay him an additional $500,000.
Judge O'Shea found that Jones was illegally fired, concluding that "the legitimate business reason EG&G presents [for his termination] is based on a lie." She also strongly criticized nearly every senior EG&G witness writing, "Some of [Tooele General Manager Henry] Silvestri's representations give pause as to credibility..." and that Jones' successor as Safety Manager, Mike Hampton "was not a credible or reliable witness." O'Shea also criticized the Army, noting that Tooele is "uniquely and solely controlled by and subject to [the] military." The decision came in response to a complaint filed for Jones by the Government Accountability Project (GAP), a non-profit whistleblower protection law firm. According to GAP lawyer Joanne Royce, "Steve Jones lost his job for telling the truth and trying to protect the public. We hope EG&G does nothing further to stop justice from being administered."
At the time Jones was fired, the Tooele incinerator was still preparing for "start-up" operations. Jones said his main concern about the plant was that "the facility cannot support the technology." He also stated that in his 20 years as a safety manager, he had "never seen a more unsafe operation" than the Tooele incinerator. Since operations began in August 1996, the facility has experienced several shut-downs due to technical failures and mismanagement. In addition, several other whistleblowers have joined Jones in condemning the incinerator. In November 1996, EG&G General Manager Gary Millar was allegedly fired after raising safety concerns, ending his 22 year- career with the company. In a letter to EG&G President Fred Parks, Millar stated that "safety risks at [Tooele] have been, and will increasingly become unacceptable."
Local citizens have done their part to expose the Tooele whistleblowers, and their allegations against the incinerator. In June, the Salt Lake City group Families Against Incinerator Risks held a "whistleblower parade," at which children and adults marched in the streets blowing whistles, and the whistleblowers' allegations of unsafe operations were presented to the public. Local activist and Utah Sierra Club member Cindy King still wonders what it will take to halt the incineration process. "These shutdowns at Tooele confirm what whistleblowers have stated: the plant is simply not operating safely. My concern is that someone will die before we can shut down the incinerator for good, and replace it with safer alternative technologies." Steve Jones wants the opportunity to make sure the facility operates safely by reclaiming his position as Safety Manager. "I want my job back because I know from reviewing the documents and talking to plant workers that Tooele is still operating unsafely and endangering the citizens of Utah. They need some honesty and integrity out there."
August 24, 1996
Agent detection in the heating, ventilation and air
conditioning filter bank vestibules. Possible agent
release.
September 9
Complete power failure. Possible agent release.
September 18
Decontamination fluid leaked through cracks in
concrete floor to an electrical room below.
September 19
Malfunction of the liquid incinerator slag removal
system.
December 19
M55 rocket jam in the feed gates to the deactivation
furnace.
January 26, 1997
Agent migration inside the observation corridors of the
munitions disposal building. Possible agent release.
March 20
Army Project Manager Tim Thomas admits in court to
six confirmed nerve agent stack alarms, which required
shutdowns.
April 21
Alarms indicate an unusually high reading of agent
inside the plant.
April 23
"Notice of Insufficient Quality" issued. Plant remained
shutdown until June 15 for "routine maintenance."
July 6
Pollution Abatement System blockage. Unknown
amount of agent and other toxics emitted.
Hazardous Waste Chief Cites Safety Violations
at Utah Incinerator, Wins Discrimination Suit
The former Chief of Hazardous Waste Operations at the Tooele, Utah chemical weapons incinerator, came forward on June 25 identifying serious problems with the facility. Since 1993 Allen conducted oversight of plant waste management as Environmental Compliance Inspector before being selected as Chief of Hazardous Waste Operations. Allen says she was ordered to sign-off on a readiness check-list before operations at the incinerator began, despite having presented deficiencies in hazardous waste management operating procedures, training, staffing, hazardous waste sampling and analytical procedures, and tracking of waste and munitions. Allen says she okayed the checklist to protect her job even though the plant was not in compliance with hazardous waste standards. Shortly after being forced to resign, she filed a complaint with the Department of Labor (DoL) against EG&G Defense Materials Inc., the contractor at the Tooele plant.
On September 9, the DoL determined that EG&G had violated federal law by discriminating against Allen, and found that Allen's complaint was "timely and considered meritorious." In the letter notifying EG&G of the finding, the DoL investigator wrote "[EG&G] shall cease and desist from retaliating against [Allen] and/or any existing employees who may be requested to participate in proceedings under or relating to the Act, and to pay [Allen] damages in the amount of $5,000."
Through her complaint, Allen made public portions of 4,000 pages of documents showing environmental, health and safety problems at the incinerator, including:
Dialogue on Alternative Technologies Moves
Citizens and Army Toward Disposal Solutions
In the past, meetings between the Army and citizens opposed to incineration of chemical weapons have been anything but cooperative. At times they've been downright hostile. But a series of meetings between the opposing sides and regulators from state and federal government from all chemical weapons stockpile sites are being heralded as a new beginning towards solving the vexing problem of how to dispose of these deadly weapons. These meetings, called the Dialogue for Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (DACWA), were facilitated by the Keystone Center, a Colorado-based third-party mediation group.
Under the 1997 Defense Appropriations Bill, the Pentagon was given $40 million to "identify and demonstrate not less than two alternatives to the baseline incineration process for the demilitarization of assembled chemical munitions." One of the primary ingredients needed to fulfill that directive -- agreed to by the Army and citizens opposed to incineration -- is direct partnership by citizens in the decision making process leading up to the selection of the technologies to be demonstrated. Meetings between the various stakeholders have been held in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Lexington, Kentucky and Baltimore, Maryland in an effort to resolve the often explosive issue of weapons disposal.
One of the main tasks of the group was to develop criteria by which various alternative technologies can be measured. A Request for Proposals (RFP) has been sent out in the Commerce Business Daily, inviting companies to submit proposals for technologies which meet the criteria set by the Dialogue participants. Any proposals received will be measured against the criteria listed above. After being reviewed by a Program Evaluation Team, appropriate technologies will be recommended for demonstration testing. Results from the tests will be evaluated by the Program Evaluation Team and passed along to the Department of Defense (DoD) Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology. The DoD is responsible for reporting the group's findings to Congress. The deadline for RFPs was September 12.
The group used the consensus decision-making method, an effective, usually empowering, yet time-consuming process. For the Army and many other participants, consensus was truly a new way of making decisions. CWWG members like Evelyn Yates, with Pine Bluff for Safe Disposal, who participated in the dialogue were generally pleased not only about the prospect of safe disposal technologies being used, but also about the new decision-making process. "Through this dialogue, citizens were at the decision making table for the first time. It was the first time I felt we had any input to the activities of the Army," Yates said. "Although the people that were involved in the meetings are from different backgrounds, we were able to come to some kind of agreement about the decisions being made. We're finally making some real progress."
Here's a list of people to contact if you would like more information on the ACWA process:
ACWA Program Manager Michael Parker or Deputy Program Manager Bill Pehlivanian at (410) 671-3948; Kristi Parker or Michael Lesnick with the Keystone Center at (970) 468-5822; or the Chemical Weapons Working Group at (606) 986-7565 to get the names of people from your state who participated in the Dialogue. You can also get information from the internet at www.keystone.org/spp/policy/html, or www.cbdcom.apgea.army.mil/Staff/PublicAffairs/pm_frame.html.
Technology criteria are as follows :
Delegates from across the U.S. met in Silver Spring, Maryland for the sixth annual Chemical Weapons Working Group conference on April 18- 21. Prior to the conference four main areas were identified as priority issues for ensuring safe disposal of chemical weapons: alternative technologies; Gulf War Illness and public health; the agricultural impact of weapons disposal; and legislative action. The main purpose of this year's conference was to develop a strategic plan of action around those issues, to be used in the upcoming year.
Before the planning sessions began, CWWG members heard several presentations from experts in each of the four issues. Jim Tuite, from the Chronic Illness Foundation, presented compelling evidence of Gulf War veterans' exposure to chemical agents and a host of other contaminants which resulted in what is known as Gulf War Illness. Tuite said, "The very same individuals who misled Congress about the exposure of our veterans to chemical warfare agents, and who are associated with withholding vital information that delayed research into their exposures, are telling U.S. civilians that incineration and low level exposure to many of the very same compounds is safe." Dr. Jerry Buccafusco, Professor at the Medical College of Georgia, spoke about health effects of chemical agent exposure resulting in disorders such as chronic memory loss, a symptom experienced by many Gulf War veterans and agriculture workers exposed to pesticides (which are chemically- related to chemical warfare agents).
Legislative aide and environmental advocate Peter Tyler shared some ideas on ways to foster good relationships with legislators. Michael Drescher with the Citizens Clearinghouse on Hazardous Waste together with Alabama CWWG member Suzanne Marshall presented information on the impacts incineration-produced chemicals like dioxin have on beef, chicken, fish raised near chemical weapons stockpile sites. Updates were also given on the Utah legal proceedings and the CWWG's Environmental Justice strategy. Ed Rush, an Organizer with Citizens Clearinghouse on Hazardous Waste then led the group through a strategic planning session, helping CWWG members focus on key actions steps to push forward the movement for safe chemical weapons disposal.
One of the most important parts of the conference was how the CWWG prepared for the Dialogue on Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (DACWA). Assessment leader Bill Pehlivanian, along with Kristi Parker of the Keystone Center, met with the CWWG to explain the format for the dialogues, a list of participant guidelines, and a timeline for the meetings and relevant alternative technology reports. Several items in the proposal didn't sit too well with the CWWG. For example, not all stockpile sites were included in the dialogue, and the timeline did not allow enough time for dialogue participants to get feedback from community members. The CWWG presented Parker with a counter- proposal, which we feel resulted in a more inclusive dialogue, with a realistic timeline.
Monday's press conference and Congressional briefing included presentations by Jim Tuite, Dr. Jerry Buccafusco, Lisa Puchner (Families Against Incinerator Risks in Utah) and Craig Williams. Both events were well-attended, and were followed by personal visits between CWWG members and their Congressional representatives.
If you would like copies of the statements from the CWWG press conference or materials from conference presentations, please contact Elizabeth at the KEF/CWWG office at (606) 986-0868.
Where concerned citizens are encouraged
and empowered, solutions will follow
Press Statement of Lisa Puchner, Families Against Incinerator Risks
As a Utah native, I can tell you it is not coincidental my home state has 43% of this countries chemical weapons stockpile. It is not a coincidence that Utah now has the first chemical weapons incinerator in the continental United States under the current disposal program.
As a "downwinder" myself, who has been exposed to the nuclear testing in the 50s and 60s, as well as the Dugway Proving Ground, I'm here to tell you the Army has once again taken advantage of Utah's patriotic culture of "ask no questions," and look at how we've been rewarded: a chemical weapons incinerator that has been shut down seven times since August of '96 due to technical malfunctions, including nerve agent leaks that we know about. When you consider two whistleblowers, one a former safety officer and the other a general manager, who gave up their careers because they wouldn't sign off on safety issues at Tooele, people like me living in Salt Lake City sit up and take notice.
If the reality of living in the 50 kilometer, 1% kill zone or the idea that my children could become sick or even die prematurely due to low level agent and dioxin exposure isn't enough motivation to push for alternative technologies, then what will it take? I don't want my children to be a health study for the Pentagon ten years from now.
Today, my son, Brooks, is in Utah celebrating his 10th birthday. Just before I left to come here Brooks told me he understands why I need to be in Washington, but what he doesn't understand is why our Army, who should be protecting kids, burns chemical weapons when they don't have to do that anymore. At age ten, my son recognizes incineration is a dirty business.
The Army is spending $30 million of taxpayers money on a public relations firm just to promote the safety of incineration nation wide. What is the rush to burn?
The Army's own evaluation of stockpile stability presented in a recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report states that our stockpile nation wide are secure until at least 2013...that's 16 years.
The incineration of this nation's chemical weapons is not just an issue for Utah. Incineration of chemical weapons affects every state in the union, and the strength of this country will weaken if it is used. If an alternative technology replaces Utah's incineration, the Army will never build another.
On behalf of the 350 members of our group, Families Against Incinerator Risks, I want to make it very clear to the general public, our politicians, and to the Army, that just because the chemical weapons incinerator in Tooele, Utah is up and burning, we are not going to throw in the towel and watch...we are not going to be "downwinders" again.
by Kilali Alailima, Pacific Program Coordinator for the American Friends Service Committee
Editor's Note: For decades, the Pacific ocean has been a dumping ground for the world's toxic waste. The Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposals System (JACADS), the first chemical weapons incinerator, has contributed to the level of pollution in the Pacific. JACADS six-year history has been wrought with fires, explosions and technical failures, which have resulted in delays in disposing of the weapons. In February 1995 the Army requested a permit modification which would allow the plant to operate until the year 2000. The EPA is proposing a permit which would allow ten years for weapons disposal, and include changes like new emissions limits, risk assessment updates, and increased reporting requirements. A public hearing on the proposed permit was held on August 27 in Honolulu, Hawaii. Following are excerpts from the testimony that Kilali Alailima gave at that public meeting:
"I am here to request that EPA deny the Army the permit to burn on the basis that the facility is not operating safely and, further, that EPA oversight in its current form is not adequate to guarantee the safety of the workers.
Many of us around the Pacific have been opposed to using the Pacific to experiment with chemical weapons incineration in the first place. The use of the Pacific in this manner by the U.S. government and military was and is continuing to be a clear case of environmental racism. Combined with all of its past exploits of the region an the resulting damage to people and the environment, the message to the U.S. government from the peoples of the Pacific is that 'enough is enough.'
This opposition reached a peak in 1990 with the transport of the stockpile of chemical weapons from Germany. After assuring the pacific Island leaders by convincing their scientific team that the facility would operate safely, would not release deadly agent, and would complete the burning by 1995, an agreement was reached to allow for the transshipment and the incineration of weapons under the existing permit. It was also agreed to not allow for any further transport of weapons and to dismantle the facility and clean up the environment immediately after the last weapons were burned.
Pacific Island non-governmental organizations, like the Pacific-Asia Council of Indigenous Peoples did not buy the Army's line that such a facility could be operated safely and joined growing groups of citizens from the chemical weapons stockpile sites in the U.S. and Russia to oppose the Army's incineration plan. These groups' preference is closed- loop methods which control and contain by-products of the disposal process. It has been truly a David and Goliath story. Ordinary citizens have prevailed in this 15 year struggle against the Army with all its resources and its propaganda that incineration was the only way. Citizens are now being heard and being taken seriously.
Under the 1997 Defense Appropriations Bill, the Pentagon was given $40 million to "identify and demonstrate not less than two alternatives to the incineration process for the demilitarization of assembled chemical munitions." One of the primary ingredients needed to fulfill that directive, agreed to by the Army and the Chemical Weapons Working Group, is direct participation by citizens in the decision-making process leading up to the selection of the technologies to be demonstrated.
What is especially meaningful about the [development of alternative technologies] for me as a Pacific Islander is that the piloting of alternative technologies is not going to take place in our back yard, the Pacific, but theirs. Had we arrived at this point fifteen years ago when U.S. citizens were opposing incineration as a methodology and the Pacific was opposing the use of their region for the testing of this facility, we might have had a safer facility in place.
Even before JACADS commenced operations, it had serious flaws. In a 1990 pre-operational survey report, an Army survey team found 281 technical and procedure deficiencies. Since 1990, the facility at times has been operating less than 50% of the scheduled operating time with the plant having been shut down for months, four documented releases of nerve agent, a rocket explosion and many other technical and design problems. Modifications to the incineration system have been numerous and what is particularly disturbing is that a significant number of these modifications were made after the Operation Verification and Testing (OVT) was completed in 1993, supposedly proving that the system was operating safely.
JACADS should never have passed OVT. It was done by the military to pave the way for appropriations for other chemical weapons incinerators in the continental U.S. before the incineration methodology had been proven safe. As a result, another unsafe facility was built in Tooele, Utah by Army contractor EG&G. The plant has experienced numerous shutdowns and technical failures since operations began in August 1996.
What does this imply about JACADS? It implies that many of the serious problems at JACADS were never resolved and possibly were minimized at best, or covered-up at worst. We are concerned that these problems are still with us today.
We therefore request EPA to deny permit renewal for JACADS because operations are too risky, and to allow for the alternative technologies currently being developed. However, if it is to be permitted, which we believe EPA will do regardless of what we ask, we request that the Army e granted only five years for the completion of incineration, closure, and dismantling of the facility. A reasonable amount if time is needed to do a thorough clean-up job. However, our current concern about extending the permit schedule echoes concerns raised by the South Pacific Forum seven years ago. The longer this facility remains in place after the year 2000, the more likely it will stay open for continued burning. Indeed, just last month the U.S. Senate passed an amendment introduced by Alaska Senator Murkowsky to have the Department of Defense review the option for transporting chemical weapons to existing incinerators. We understand that Senator Murkowsky drafted this amendment after he visited JACADS.
Secondly, we request that a citizen oversight team with their own technical and scientific people be financed by the Army and, along with the EPA, be allowed to inspect the facility and the records at JACADS."
Groups Meet to Discuss
Non-Stockpile Chemical Weapons
On July 9, representatives from the Chemical Weapons Working Group met in Pueblo, Colorado with representatives of the Army's Non-Stockpile Chemical Munitions Program. The purpose of the meeting was to obtain information on the status of the program, possible munitions disposal technologies and the public affairs plan, and give input back to the Army. Non-stockpile chemical munitions are miscellaneous warfare weapons and other materiel which are not currently part of the chemical weapons stockpile. These munitions, consisting of old weapons such bombs and landmines, ton containers of chemical agent, and chemical agent identification sets are scattered across over 200 locations at 65 sites in 31 states.
Disposal of non-stockpile weapons has been a 'hot' issue for years in some parts of the country. Open detonation of non-stockpile weapons in Maryland, Utah and elsewhere has put nearby communities at risk of exposure to harmful chemical agents. At other sites, buried unstable munitions and chemical agent identification sets have been discovered in neighborhoods and parks. But now, through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) the Army must identify strategies by which allnon- stockpile materiel can be recovered and destroyed. Therefore, it was important that citizens come together to identify issues on a programmatic level. Some of the issues discussed at the meeting were: roles and responsibilities of the Non-Stockpile Program, the Army Corps of Engineers and other players in military toxic clean-up; laws affecting non-stockpile weapons disposal; the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement; environmental justice; disposal technologies; and components of the public outreach/involvement program.
By law, the Army must solicit public comment on the EIS. The NSCMP held regional scoping meetings last winter, and invited written comments on the program. Fortunately, the NSCMP Public Affairs office has recognized the need for further outreach and involvement from community members. "We hope the non-stockpile program has learned an important lesson from the history of the chemical weapons stockpile program: that including citizens in the decision making from the beginning will lead to the safest, fastest disposal of these weapons," said Kentucky Environmental Foundation (KEF) representative Elizabeth Crowe. Robert Ukeiley, with the Ecological Consultants for the Public Interest, was encouraged by the meeting. "If the Army is willing to work with citizens in choosing disposal strategies and technologies, we should be able to come up with a win-win scenario."
Both the Army and grassroots representatives at the meeting committed to continuing the dialogue by sharing information and ideas and holding more roundtable format meetings. The group has begun planning for a meeting in October to be held in Utah, and hopes to recruit more grassroots participants. In addition to touring some disposal technology facilities, the October meeting agenda will include further discussion and development of a public involvement program. If you would like more information on the non-stockpile program, please contact Elizabeth Crowe at the KEF office at (606) 986-0868.
Incinerator permits fought in Alabama...
Families Concerned About Nerve Gas Incineration (Families) and Serving Alabama's Future Environment, Inc. (SAFE) appealed the Alabama Department of Environmental Management's (ADEM) decision to issue 11 permits for the construction and operation of a chemical weapons incinerator at the Anniston Army Depot. The groups are asking the Environmental Management Commission to disapprove the permits, based on a number of errors made by ADEM. Representing the groups is David Ludder with the Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, a charitable environmental law firm.
The Army and its contractor for the Anniston incinerator, Westinghouse Electric Corp., received the permits in June, despite not having submitted a plan to eliminate hazards that would result from an accidental release of chemical agent to the nearby communities. "In the event an accident releases a sufficient quantity of chemical agents, death and injury are likely to occur before the evacuation sirens are activated," Ludder explained. "Evacuation time estimates have not been developed to demonstrate that successful evacuation is even possible. And, adequate transportation for populations such as school and day care children, nursing home residents, hospital patients, prisoners, etc. has not been arranged." He added, "Until a contingency plan that is designed to eliminate hazards to human health is submitted, the Department should issue no permits."
Families and SAFE are also challenging a part of the permit which requires Westinghouse to pay claims of people who may be injured by a chemical agent release. The permit requires Westinghouse to be able to pay $1 million per accident, and $2 million annually for multiple accidents. But the population surrounding the Anniston Army Depot is so high that $1 million wouldn't come close to covering injury claims. The groups argue that Westinghouse should have to demonstrate the capability to pay an amount much higher than $1 million per accident.
The appeal also argues that the permit fails to protect human health because it allows the emission of dioxin, a toxic compound known to be produced and released during chemical weapons incineration. The Environmental Protection Agency stated that the average human in the United States has already been exposed to an unsafe amount of dioxin, which can cause increased rates of cancer, reproductive problems, birth defects, and many other chronic illnesses. In addition, some populations such as breast feeding infants and developing fetuses are known to be extremely vulnerable to the effects of dioxin.
Along with the legal appeals process, Families and SAFE continue to push for non-incineration disposal technologies. "We are constantly fighting the belief that incineration is the only way to get rid of this stuff," said SAFE member Suzanne Marshall. "Its important for people to realize that there are lots of disposal methods that could destroy these weapons without destroying the public health and the environment. Alternative technologies are becoming more of a reality every day." The development of alternatives was even more important as of August 24, when the Calhoun County Chamber of Commerce proposed a study on future use of the incinerator. Marshall said, "For Alabama to move ahead with incineration at this point in time is insane."
"The Army needs to hear the message, loud and clear -- merely because a permit for a chemical weapons incinerator has been issued, we are not giving up," said CWWG member Karyn Jones. In February 1997, the state of Oregon issued a permit to Raytheon Corp. to begin construction of an chemical weapons incinerator at the Umatilla Army Depot, near the Columbia River basin in northeast Oregon. Jones is a board member of GASP, a community group in Hermiston, Oregon which, along with the Oregon Sierra Club and the Oregon Wildlife Federation, recently filed a complaint with the Oregon Circuit Court to stop the incinerator from being built.
The complaint charges that the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) acted improperly in issuing the incinerator permit, because their decision was notbased on the following:
Oregon state law mandates that DEQ and the EQC only permit the "best available technology." In fact, incineration has proven all of the above arguments to be false.
The complaint addresses the failure of DEQ and EQC to ensure adequate monitoring requirements, an evaluation of non-cancer health impacts, emergency preparedness, characterization of process wastes processing information, and many other state and federal requirements. Neither did DEQ and EQC consider the health impacts of toxic chemicals on vulnerable populations like fetuses and infants, the elderly, or people with sensitive immune systems.
The actions by DEQ and the EQC might have been understood if no other disposal methods were available. But in fact, several alternative technologies exist. Neutralization and closed loop follow-up treatments have already been approved for the Maryland and Indiana stockpiles, and the Army is currently conducting a search for technologies other than incineration which can destroy assembled chemical weapons like those stored at Umatilla and other stockpile sites. Still, unless Oregonians keep pushing for these safer alternatives, Bob Palzer of the Oregon Sierra Club said, "Oregon is going to get stuck with an inferior technology and the potential to have it used as a national disposal site. This is unacceptable."
Dioxin is a family of chemicals produced during industrial processes that involve chlorine, or processes that burn chlorine with organic matter. Incinerators, paper mills and chemical manufacturing plants are examples of dioxin sources.
In 1994, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a "reassessment" of dioxin. In that reassessment, they acknowledged that the levels of dioxin present in the average American could cause harm to the immune system, reduce testosterone which affects male fertility, and alter glucose tolerance. In addition, dioxin can cause cancer, reproductive disorders in men and women, birth defects, neurological damage, heart problems...and the list goes on and on. The reassessment showed that most Americans already carry an unsafe body burden of dioxin. The reassessment also confirmed that dioxin is potent in tiny amounts. Anyrelease of dioxin, in addition to current unsafe levels, could produce drastic health problems.
90% of human exposure to dioxin comes via the food chain. In other words, dioxin from the smokestack of a chemical weapons incinerator gets into the grass and soil. A cow grazing nearby eats the grass, and the dioxin accumulates in the cow's fatty tissues and milk. Humans drinking the cow's milk or eating its beef are then exposed to dioxin...and the same occurs when we eat fish, poultry and other foods.. The dioxin then accumulates in our bodies' tissues.
The populations most vulnerable to dioxin are infants. Dioxin can pass through the placenta directly to the fetus, and can cause developmental problems. Breastfeeding infants get dioxin from their mother's breastmilk. A breastfeeding infant gets up to 14% of her lifetime exposure to dioxin from breastmilk. People living near incinerators who raise and consume their own food are also at a higher risk of dioxin exposure.
Yes! Chemical weapons incinerators in the Pacific and Utah have already released dioxin -- and others would do the same. Much of what goes into the incinerator, including residue from some chemical agents, contains chlorine. The Army acknowledges that dioxin will be released from the incinerator, but they have tried to downplay dioxin's health effects. In Utah, the Army and state regulators ignored the health effects of dioxin on infants and local subsistence farmers in a health risk assessment. However, in federal court state officials admitted that the incinerator posed an unsafe risk to these populations.
Incinerators also emit toxics such as PCBs, heavy metals, and furans from the smokestack -- yet roughly 80-90% of incineration emissions have not even been identified. In this case, what we don't know may very well hurt us.
Toxic incinerator emissions, like dioxin, accumulate in humans through the food chain. Because dioxin-contaminated beef, milk, fish and vegetables are shipped all over the country, incineration is everyone's problem -- no matter where you live. Dioxin-laden chicken processed in Alabama, potatoes from Oregon, rice from Arkansas, beef from Utah or fish from the Pacific could end up on your dinner plate at a restaurant or at home. Break the link in the toxic food chain: Support safer alternatives!
There is only one way to break the link in this toxic food chain: stop dioxin exposure at the source. Fortunately, safer, non-dioxin producing technologies exist for chemical weapons disposal. Possible alternative disposal methods include neutralization, biodegradation, gas phase hydrogenation, and electro chemical oxidation. None of these technologies release dioxin like incineration does.
The Army has already agreed to test alternative technologies for disposal of chemical agent in Maryland and Indiana. Another program is investigating alternatives for assembled chemical weapons at other stockpile sites. But in order for these technologies to be implemented, they need support from local residents and decision-makers.
Several food producers across the country, including Keebler, Sara Lee, Perdue and GoldKist have already taken a stand against the siting of incinerators near their processing plants. They realize that dioxin- producing incinerators can take a toll on their company's reputation and profits. Food producers near chemical weapons stockpiles could do the same, working together with concerned citizens to ensure that safe alternatives to chemical weapons incineration are used.
The National Gulf War Resource Center (NGWRC) has scheduled its 1997 National Conference for Atlanta, Georgia on November 7-9, 1997 at the Sheraton Gateway Hotel, 1900 Sullivan Road, phone: (770) 997- 1100. Those wishing to attend should make reservations now and mention they are with the Gulf War conference.
Our keynote speaker will be Congressman Bernie Sanders, a strong advocate of Gulf War veterans. Those groups scheduled to make presentations include the Chemical Weapons Working Group, Military Toxics Project, the Military Toxics Project and the Vietnam Veterans of America. Other presenters include Gary Pitts, the Houston attorney representing veterans who filed suite against chemical warfare agent manufacturers; Dan Fahey, an NGWRC Board member who works at Swords to Plowshares who conducted extensive research on depleted uranium; Jim Tuite, a former Senate investigator who will present his findings on widespread chemical exposures during the Gulf War; and Dr. Doug Rokke, who was the former top investigator for depleted uranium at the Pentagon.
The NGWRC is the only national group focused solely on Gulf War veterans' health issues (much of which revolves around chemical weapons and depleted uranium). Here are a few of our current accomplishments. In two short years:
The NGWRC is incorporated in Washington, DC and we are listed as a tax-exempt organization. We stand on firm financial grounds with the solid support of the Vietnam Veterans of America. Our address is: NGWRC, PO Box 823, Decatur, Georgia 30031. Phone: (404) 373-5507. Fax: (404) 373-5527.
Pine Bluff, Arkansas Residents are
"Too Close for Comfort"
As Deloris Pierce puts her four children to sleep, she often wonders how she will evacuate her family if a chemical accident occurs. Charles Anderson shares the same concerns for his family. They both live in Jefferson County, only a stone's throw away from the Pine Bluff Arsenal and 12% of the nation's chemical weapons stockpile. Now the Army is planning to incinerate its second largest stockpile in the US in the backyards of hundreds of families near Pine Bluff.
If an accident occurs at the Arsenal, the community knows that they're not capable of evacuating their homes in time before being exposed to lethal doses of nerve agent. Some in the community even have a railroad crossing that blocks their only way in and out of the neighborhood. Trains pass as often as 9 times a day. Based on the Army's draft Environmental Impact Statement that explores the environmental risks of incinerating the Arsenal stockpile, Mr. Anderson figures that if an accident were to occur then he and his neighbors would have only 2 minutes and 30 seconds to drive to shelters that are several miles away. If a train is passing at the same time, it could take much longer. The Army has done little to build the confidence of area residents. "I live [close to the proposed incinerator site] and I don't believe the Army has a right to burn nerve gas next to my, or anyone else's house. But if the governor and PC&E aren't going to stop this plan, then the Army should pay for relocating our neighborhoods," said another area resident, Richard Stanley.
Some families feel that their kids are safer while at school because of a shelter in the High School Gym. But the 515 students ages 5 to 12 at Moody Elementary have to run across a field to get to the high school's shelter. Some parents wonder if there will be enough time for their kids to make it to the shelter if an accident occurs.
The chemical weapons disposal plan could pose risks to Pine Bluff even if the incinerator never had an accident. In the 1980s, the Army burned a chemical agent known as BZ in Pine Bluff. Although the Army states the disposal of BZ was "safe and environmentally sound," no one knows for sure what effects it had on the surrounding community. Many residents have reported strange health problems ranging from whole households waking up at the same time with bloody noses, to problems with pregnancies, birth defects and endometriosis among young women. One person has even been diagnosed with symptoms consistent with Gulf War Syndrome. "Low levels of nerve agent released by incineration may pose a risk to civilians similar to what our soldiers faced in the Persian Gulf," charged Jim Tuite of the Chronic Illness Research Foundation and Gulf War Research Foundation.
Congress has frozen plans to incinerate stockpiles in Kentucky and Colorado while a search for alternative technologies continues. It took an act of Congress to get the Army to even consider safer alternatives. Although only Kentucky and Colorado have a temporary "freeze" on incineration, Pine Bluff could be a candidate for alternative technologies. The issue of chemical weapons disposal has remained in relative obscurity here in Arkansas -- but this must change if the weapons are to be disposed of safely. For more information on how Arkansas residents can help ensure safe disposal of the Pine Bluff chemical weapons, call us at the Panel at (501)376-7913.
Citizen Observer Team Travels to Public
Hearings on C W Disposal in Russia
The Chemical Weapons Working Group made yet another appearance in Russia this summer, as part of the Russian-American Cooperation Project on the Safe Disposal of Chemical Weapons. Peter Hille of Common Ground in Kentucky was invited to participate in a citizen observer team to the Third Public Hearings on Chemical Weapons Disposal on from July 7-11 in the Kurgan Region just east of the Ural Mountains. The trip was organized and funded by the EcoBridge Environmental Programs of CEC International Partners, a non-profit organization based in New York which facilitates cooperation between the former Soviet Union and the US on environmental issues. The Hearings, organized by Green Cross Russia and Global Green USA, were paid for through the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program (CTR) of the US Government. These were official "Justification of Investment" hearings held in cooperation with the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD), the federal government, and the Kurgan regional and Shchuche local administrations in order to move forward on design of the proposed chemical destruction facility near Shchuche. The proposed technology is a Russian-developed two-stage neutralization and bituminization process.
Olga Pitsunova, the Russian Project Coordinator from Saratov, and Jennifer Adibi, Director of EcoBridge Environmental Programs were also part of the team. The task of the team was to make sure citizens who have been working on this issue, and who represent those areas which will be affected during the chemical weapons process, have access to information and the decision-making process. Other US participants in the Hearings were Paul Walker of Global Green USA; Mike Lesnick of the Keystone Center; Glen Browder, former Congressman from Alabama; environmental lawyers; representatives of the CTR program; and representatives of the CTR contractors (Westinghouse, Parsons, Bechtel). The group traveled with approximately 50 Russian MoD officials, scientists, and others from Moscow. Two representatives of the Utah Citizen Advisory Commission were also invited to participate.
The Hearings consisted of three days of plenary sessions with numerous reports, followed by questions and answers. The reports were on the chemical weapons demilitarization program, technology for disposal, environmental and medical implications, social infrastructure, monitoring and safety guarantees, and public participation in the process. One day of the Hearings was held in the town of Shchuche, close to the actual stockpile site.
When the Hearing participants arrived in Shchuche by bus, they were greeted by a 300-person demonstration. Town residents were holding up signs expressing their demands for social guarantees, distrust of the military-industrial complex, and demands that they receive their salaries. The Americans entered the crowd and began talking with the protesters only to find they had very little information on the facility and the already-established plans, and on many counts had wrong information. They were concerned for their health, and the long-term impact this facility would have on their region. They feared that the US would ship their weapons to Shchuche for disposal and/or the other Russian stockpiles would be shipped to Shchuche for disposal. The Shchuche Town Hall was packed with local residents. Those who could not get in were able to listen over a loud speaker in the nearby movie theater and on the Town Square. There was little time for Shchuche residents to address the Hearing participants, and no time for dialogue between the Moscow, foreign, and local people. The Shchuche residents were not able to attend two days of the Hearings in Kurgan, as they had no means of transportation. As a result, the Kurgan Hearings were poorly attended and by the last day there were essentially no local residents in the audience. Peter, Olga, and Jennifer succeeded in making contact with several local citizens and initiating dialogue with the CTR representatives. Peter and Olga both made presentations, sharing the lessons learned in the US public participation process and how to apply some of those lessons to Russia..
Even though there remains uncertainty from people on all sides of the chemical weapons disposal issue, it is crucial that citizens be brought into the decision-making process now, and these Hearings were an important first step. Because US taxpayer money is funding the Russian disposal facility, US citizens have a responsibility to make sure the mistakes made under the US disposal program are not repeated in Russia.
"It's a good thing we went," said Peter Hille. The Army brought in two pro- incineration CAC members from Utah. In his presentation at Shchuche one said, "The facility has been proven to operate safely...no gas or no material escapes from the plant, no unhealthy emissions come from the stack...[the] plant that operates under fail-safe conditons... we saw at least one study that the air is cleaner that comes out of those stacks is cleaner than what goes into it." At this the local organizer in Shchuche looked questioningly at Peter, who said,"I shook my head--No way!"
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: |