for more information contact:
Larry Howe-Kerr (Pueblo) at 719-544-9861
Dan Hobbs (Avondale) at 719-947-0491
Ross Vincent (Pueblo) at 719-561-3117
Craig Williams (CWWG) at 859-986-7565
for immediate release Tuesday, April 10, 2001
Bias on the part of key Army officials may preclude a fair and objective decision on chemical weapons destruction in Pueblo and result in unnecessary costs and delays in getting rid of the obsolete chemical weapons stored there. So says a group of concerned citizens from Pueblo who have been following the Army's decision-making process.
Citing internal Army documents and the public statements of several Army officials, they say that the Army has violated the spirit and the letter of a federal law known as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). That law requires federal decision-makers to examine and to disclose in advance the likely impacts of major decisions they are about to make and to evaluate reasonable alternatives prior to making those decisions. The results of these analyses must then be published for public review in an Environmental Impact Statement .
There are currently two such Environmental Impact Statements being prepared for Pueblo. One, by the Army's Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization (PMCD), examines options for the destruction of the mustard agent rounds stored at the Army's Pueblo Chemical Depot. The other, by the Department of Defense (DOD) Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) program evaluates the Pueblo site as one of several candidate sites for deployment of non-incineration methods for destruction of the weapons stored there. By law, both Environmental Impact Statements must be issued in draft form for public comment before any decision is made.
In what they call a "smoking gun", the groups released
an Army memo which proves, they claim, that key Army officials
have already decided that incineration, the technology the PMCD
chose almost 20 years ago, will be chosen for use at the Pueblo
Chemical Depot. That is illegal, they say.
The April 2000 memo, from a high-level Army lawyer, advises the
Army's top acquisition official to begin preparing others in the
Army hierarchy for the selection of incineration as the preferred
technology for Pueblo. The author of the memo, the Army's deputy
general counsel for acquisition, recommends that the Army assistant
secretary take steps to "condition the expectations of Army
and DOD personnel associated with the ACWA program."
"Inform Army and DOD supporters of the ACWA program," he advises, "that the chances of an ACWA technology being selected to destroy the stockpile at Pueblo is minimal (sic)..." The memo goes on to note that "to rule out the possibility of using an ACWA technology, however, would be improper in light of the requirements of the NEPA process."
In addition to the memo, concerned citizens point to other evidence of illegally premature Army decisions on chemical weapons disposal at Pueblo. For example, they quote an Army representative at a public meeting in Pueblo last November as saying: "The process that we propose to bring to Pueblo is basically an incineration process that has been modified to address the unique requirements of the Pueblo stockpile."
"The trail of internal Army documents and both public and private statements by Army officials is really disconcerting," said Charlie Skidmore, a Pueblo union organizer. "The people of Pueblo deserve a fair and objective review of alternatives and a meaningful opportunity to participate in choosing the best approach for Pueblo -- one that can get the job done in a manner that best protects and meets the needs of this community. The evidence suggests that we may not get that opportunity."
The law governing preparation of these Environmental Impact Statements requires that: "Procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken." The law also requires that "(e)nvironmental impact statements shall serve as the means of assessing the environmental impact of proposed agency actions, rather than justifying decisions already made."
"The Army's incinerator advocates have really painted themselves into a corner with all of their maneuverings," said Anne Cain, Chair of the local Sierra Club's Conservation Committee. "I don't see how they can choose incineration for Pueblo without inviting an expensive and time-consuming legal battle. That would mean more cost overruns and more delays -- and they claim that their major concerns are cost and schedule."
"Various groups and citizens have been following this issue and will continue to monitor the Army's performance as the official decision-making process unfolds," said Larry Howe-Kerr, with the Catholic Diocese of Pueblo Human Development Commission.
"After all, this is our community," said Dan Hobbs, Avondale farmer and founding member of the Boone-Avondale Citizens' Alliance. "Our health, our livelihoods, our families are on the line here. We will be heard and we expect to be taken seriously," he said.
"All of this underscores the critical importance of leadership from our elected officials," said Skidmore. "These decisions will ultimately be made in Washington and at the Pentagon and we need the support of our elected representatives to make sure that the interests of our community are protected."
A copy of the Army General Counsels' memo is available from
Ross Vincent or Larry Howe-Kerr at the above numbers. Please supply
a fax number or an email address. Email copies will be delivered
in PDF file.
 CWWG Home Page |
Contact us: |