(The following is excerpted from the April 1998 issue of "Common Sense", the newsletter of the Chemical Weapons Working Group, published by the Kentucky Environmental Foundation.)
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.
 CWWG Home Page |
Contact us: |