for more information contact:
Craig Williams: 859-986-7565
for immediate release: Tuesday, March 11, 2003
Nearly two dozen organizations representing the interests
of communities downwind of bases where the U.S. Army plans to
burn the nation's stockpile of chemical weapons today sued the
federal government for violating the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) in its pursuit of the incineration program.
The lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in Washington,
D.C., claims the Army "failed to adequately assess and compare
the impacts from the incineration of chemical weapons with non-incineration
alternatives" and, "failed to update their assessments
of the impacts expected from the baseline incineration program,
including the impacts on workers." It seeks to ban any additional
spending on incinerator construction or operation until the Army
complies with NEPA requirements to review and update its agent
destruction plans.
The plaintiffs charge that the failed performance of
prototype incinerators in the Pacific and Utah was never incorporated
into ongoing environmental plans as legally required. According
to reports from other federal agencies, the incinerators released
live nerve agent releases into the environment and exposed facility
workers to agents. In addition, the emissions from the two facilities
contain significantly greater quantities of toxic compounds than
contemplated in the Army's original environmental planning documents.
The Army decided to build and operate chemical weapons
incinerators at eight stockpile sites in 1982. Since then, public
pressure has forced the abandonment of incineration plans in Maryland,
Indiana, Colorado, and Kentucky. Instead, the Army has agreed
to destroy the lethal agents at these facilities using technologies
that advocates say present fewer environmental dangers.
According to Craig Williams, Director of the Chemical
Weapons Working Group, "These safer alternatives have never
been adequately considered for the sites named in today's suit."
NEPA requires Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements
to be prepared if, "There are significant new circumstances
or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing
on the proposed action or its impacts," or "[t]he agency
makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant
to environmental concerns."
"The unacceptable performance of the existing incinerators,
even after hundreds of major modifications to their original designs,
coupled with the Army's own acceptance of safer disposal options
at four sites clearly meets the NEPA requirements for a supplemental
study," Williams concluded.
Evelyn Yates, leader of Pine Bluff for Safe Disposal in
Arkansas summarized the plaintiffs' position, "If some communities
are being afforded safer destruction methods, Why not here in
Arkansas and at the other sites? We all deserve 'maximum protection'
as directed by Congress and required by federal law."
 CWWG Home Page |
Contact us: |