Army Signs
Contract to Burn Indiana VX By-Product in Texas
CHEMICAL
WEAPONS WORKING GROUP
P.O. Box 467, Berea, KY 40403
Phone: (859) 986-7565
Fax: (859) 986-2695
www.cwwg.org kefcwwg@cwwg.org
for
additional information contact:
Craig Williams (859) 986-7565
Hilton Kelley (409) 498-1088
Sara Morgan (765) 498-4472
Nerve Agent Waste Previously Rejected by Ohio and New Jersey Now Going to Texas, while Indiana Residents Say "Do It Right--Treat it On-Site"
Craig Williams (859) 986-7565
Hilton Kelley (409) 498-1088
Sara Morgan (765) 498-4472
for
immediate release: Tuesday, April 10, 2007
ARMY SIGNS CONTRACT TO
BURN INDIANA VX BY-PRODUCT IN TEXAS
Nerve Agent Waste Previously Rejected by Ohio and New Jersey Now Going to Texas, while Indiana Residents Say "Do It Right--Treat it On-Site"
The
latest target in the Army's five-year effort to ship millions of
gallons of nerve agent VX by-product from Newport, Indiana is an
incinerator operated by Veolia Environmental Services in the
predominantly African-American community Port Arthur, Texas.
Previous attempts to dispose of this material, commonly called VX hydrolysate (VXH) and derived from neutralization of the nerve agent, were abandoned in Ohio and New Jersey after environmentalists, politicians, fishermen and townspeople objected to receiving/treating the hazardous material. Communities along the transportation corridor through Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey also rose up in opposition to the material being shipped through their regions. In 2005, then New Jersey Governor Richard Codey, even forbade it from traveling on the New Jersey Turnpike.
"This is like the garbage barge (Mobro) that was hauled up and down the East Coast looking for a home in 1987," said Craig Williams, Director of the Chemical Weapons Working Group. "The big difference in this case is that this 'garbage' is waste from the most lethal chemical weapons material in the world and folks in Indiana wish to keep and treat the VXH right in their own community," he said.
Sara Morgan, a local schoolteacher and a leader of CAIN (Citizens Against Incineration at Newport), said, "We oppose shipment of VXH to any commercial facility. We had agreement between the community, the state regulators and the federal government to treat the material here and that is the responsible thing to do, not dump it in somebody else's neighborhood."
Port Arthur resident and director of Community In-Power Development Association (CIDA) Hilton Kelley said, "Southeast Texas should not be the dumping ground for waste that no one else is willing to take. This is a classic case of Environmental Injustice and we plan to fight it." There are numerous organizations currently considering legal actions to stop the Army's planned shipments.
Port Arthur has been the targeted reception site for military waste before, but in at least one such effort--the shipment of napalm--the government was stopped.
In June 1998, the Navy was close to letting subcontracts for disposal of napalm in Port Arthur, but concerns raised by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission and the Governor of Texas, that the Navy had not done an adequate job of notifying the public of their intention, thwarted the plans.
"There has been no public notice of the Army's plans to ship this VXH to Port Arthur that we or our Texas allies are aware of," said Williams. "And such lack of citizen engagement on this issue is in direct conflict with Congressional intent and guidance."
Williams cites the 2007 Defense Authorization Act Conference Report, which states, "When selecting a site for the treatment or disposal of neutralized chemical agent at a location remote from the location where the agent is stored, the Secretary of Defense should propose a credible process that seeks to gain the support of affected communities."
"Clearly the military has thumbed its nose at Congress by keeping their actions secret from local residents in Texas, Indiana and all along the shipment route," said Williams.
Each attempt to ship this material has touched more states than before. The first attempt in 2002 involved only Ohio and Indiana. When that failed, the second attempt included five states: Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey. This latest shipment effort will involve eight states along the transportation corridor: Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas.
Morgan said, "I can't understand why the Army insists on shipping the VXH when the original plan to treat it on-site would cause no problem with citizens here or anywhere else. Obviously their argument that it will save time and money, which they first used five years ago, is ludicrous - they've spent more time and money trying to ship this stuff than it would have cost to implement the original plan. Why don't they just do it right and treat it on-site?"
Previous attempts to dispose of this material, commonly called VX hydrolysate (VXH) and derived from neutralization of the nerve agent, were abandoned in Ohio and New Jersey after environmentalists, politicians, fishermen and townspeople objected to receiving/treating the hazardous material. Communities along the transportation corridor through Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey also rose up in opposition to the material being shipped through their regions. In 2005, then New Jersey Governor Richard Codey, even forbade it from traveling on the New Jersey Turnpike.
"This is like the garbage barge (Mobro) that was hauled up and down the East Coast looking for a home in 1987," said Craig Williams, Director of the Chemical Weapons Working Group. "The big difference in this case is that this 'garbage' is waste from the most lethal chemical weapons material in the world and folks in Indiana wish to keep and treat the VXH right in their own community," he said.
Sara Morgan, a local schoolteacher and a leader of CAIN (Citizens Against Incineration at Newport), said, "We oppose shipment of VXH to any commercial facility. We had agreement between the community, the state regulators and the federal government to treat the material here and that is the responsible thing to do, not dump it in somebody else's neighborhood."
Port Arthur resident and director of Community In-Power Development Association (CIDA) Hilton Kelley said, "Southeast Texas should not be the dumping ground for waste that no one else is willing to take. This is a classic case of Environmental Injustice and we plan to fight it." There are numerous organizations currently considering legal actions to stop the Army's planned shipments.
Port Arthur has been the targeted reception site for military waste before, but in at least one such effort--the shipment of napalm--the government was stopped.
In June 1998, the Navy was close to letting subcontracts for disposal of napalm in Port Arthur, but concerns raised by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission and the Governor of Texas, that the Navy had not done an adequate job of notifying the public of their intention, thwarted the plans.
"There has been no public notice of the Army's plans to ship this VXH to Port Arthur that we or our Texas allies are aware of," said Williams. "And such lack of citizen engagement on this issue is in direct conflict with Congressional intent and guidance."
Williams cites the 2007 Defense Authorization Act Conference Report, which states, "When selecting a site for the treatment or disposal of neutralized chemical agent at a location remote from the location where the agent is stored, the Secretary of Defense should propose a credible process that seeks to gain the support of affected communities."
"Clearly the military has thumbed its nose at Congress by keeping their actions secret from local residents in Texas, Indiana and all along the shipment route," said Williams.
Each attempt to ship this material has touched more states than before. The first attempt in 2002 involved only Ohio and Indiana. When that failed, the second attempt included five states: Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey. This latest shipment effort will involve eight states along the transportation corridor: Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas.
Morgan said, "I can't understand why the Army insists on shipping the VXH when the original plan to treat it on-site would cause no problem with citizens here or anywhere else. Obviously their argument that it will save time and money, which they first used five years ago, is ludicrous - they've spent more time and money trying to ship this stuff than it would have cost to implement the original plan. Why don't they just do it right and treat it on-site?"
--30--
|
Contact us:
|
