for more information: Stu Sugarman,
Esq. 503-234-2694
Richard Condit, Esq. 202-829-2444
Dr. Bob Palzer: 541-482-2492
Karyn Jones 541-567-6581
for immediate release Wednesday, August
4, 2004
INCINERATION OPPONENTS SEEK:
INPUT TO WHISTLEBLOWER PERMIT CHANGES; ADDITIONAL "FINDINGS" BY ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMISSION; AND NO BURN UNTIL
AFTER OREGON APPEALS COURT RULING
In a letter sent to the Oregon Department
of Justice last night, citizens groups fighting the start up of the Army's
chemical weapons incinerator in Umatilla requested agreement from the Oregon
Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) on three matters, prior to approval
to begin burning:
- that the EQC classify the permit modification
on increased whistleblower protection, ordered by Judge Michael H. Marcus
last week, as a Class III modification. A Class III modification provides
for public (including worker) input;
- that the EQC make "findings" on a number of
issues identified in Marcus' ruling as "compelling," before giving approval
to begin burning; and
- that the EQC withhold approval of operations
until 10 days after the Oregon Court of Appeals rules on the merits in a
suit separate from the one recently ruled on by Judge Marcus..
Richard Condit, lead attorney for
the Petitioners, said, "What Petitioners have proposed is the ultimate test of
the integrity of the EQC and the state's regulatory system. Ignoring the
growing body of evidence developed by the Petitioners or the need to protect
whistleblowers would be a gross abdication of the state's obligation to protect
public health and the environment. Finally, the EQC must look behind
the curtain and recognize that much of the Army's incineration program is
smoke and mirrors."
The letter to the Department of Justice requests
a "comprehensive permit modification that is designed to alter the failed
safety culture at the Army's chemical warfare agent incineration facilities."
Petitioner Karyn Jones noted, "The State and Army have already announced
final burn plans for the incinerators without carefully considering Judge
Marcus' instructions. The workers at the depot are our first line of defense
and should be given every protection to come forward with concerns and
information without fear of retaliation. Judge Marcus' ruling reflects
the seriousness of this situation. Yet, the Oregon EQC has initially designated
the modification as Class I which allows for no public participation
instead of a Class III which allows for worker and public involvement."
The letter also reads in part that Judge Marcus found much of Petitioners' evidence on several important issues
'compelling." (Opinion and Order p. 25.) For example, according to Marcus:
- Petitioners' challenge regarding dioxin is
well supported in the record and "alarming." And the evidence demonstrates
that the Army "estimates a far smaller quantity of dioxin,
PCBs, and hazardous waste emissions from alternative neutralization facilities,
and less water consumption, than with incineration."(Opinion and Order p. 27)
- Petitioners "produced evidence supporting
the inference that ACAMS and DAAMS do not reliably detect agent." (Opinion and Order p. 31)
Concerning these and several other issues, Marcus
noted the significance of the information presented and lamented the fact
that the state regulators had not assessed and made findings concerning
this evidence.
The EQC is scheduled to meet on 13 August
to decide on whether to allow the incinerator to begin agent operartions.
The Oregon Court of Appeals is not scheduled to hear arguments until 20 August,
with a decision to be rendered only thereafter. The citizens' letter
requests that the incinerator not be allowed to begin operations until after
that ruling is made.
Dr. Bob Palzer of the Sierra Club concludes, "Our primary interest has
always been protection of the health and safety of the public and the workers.
The Army and its contractors have historically stifled communication about
safety issues by workers with threats of job loss. Our concern is that
this pattern will continue despite Marcus' order. We don't want these workers
to continue to be 'canaries in the coal mine' nor lose their rights to speak
out without threat of retaliation."
- - 30 - -
A copy of the letter is available from the
CWWG office upon request.
