by Kilali Alailima, Pacific Program Coordinator for the American Friends Service Committee
(The following is excerpted from the September 1997 issue of "Common Sense," the newsletter of the Chemical Weapons Working Group, published by the Kentucky Environmental Foundation.)
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."
 CWWG Home Page |
Contact us: Chemical Weapons Working Group Kentucky Environmental Foundation P.O. Box 467 Berea, KY 40403 phone: 859-986-7565 fax: 859-986-2695 For comments about this WWW page contact Lois Kleffman. |