CHEMICAL WEAPONS WORKING GROUP
P.O. Box 467 Berea, Kentucky 40403
(606) 986-7565 (606) 986-2695 (f)
www.cwwg.org
for more information contact: Karyn Jones: 541-567-6581
Bob Palzer: 541-482-2492
Stu Sugarman: 503-234-2694
Richard Condit: 202-955-6968 x 4
Craig Williams: 606-986-7565
for immediate release: Monday, November 22, 1999
CITIZENS GROUPS PRESENT ARGUMENTS FOR REVOKING CHEMICAL WEAPONS
INCINERATOR PERMIT: RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
SEPTEMBER 15TH WORKER EXPOSURE INCIDENT
At the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) meeting in Portland on Friday, citizens
groups presented oral comments in an effort to have the permit allowing the Army and
Raytheon Demilitarization Corp. to construct and operate a chemical weapons incinerator
revoked.
The comment period is part of an ongoing challenge by the Hermiston group G.A.S.P., the
Oregon Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club and twenty two individual plaintiffs from Eastern
Oregon, to stop the planned incineration of the 3,717 tons of deadly chemical agents stored at
the Umatilla Chemical Depot and to implement safer non smokestack technologies for disposal.
Before comments were made concerning a variety of permit issues, citizens sharply criticized the
Army and Raytheon for their mishandling of the September 15, 1999 chemical incident which
sent over 30 workers at the construction site to the hospital.
Karyn Jones, G.A.S.P. board member and Hermiston resident, pointed out that while the Army
touts safety as being their number one priority they were completely unprepared for the
September incident. Furthermore, after years of public relations trying to convince the
community that they have the highest capability to detect and deal with toxic chemicals, the
Army, after more than two months, has still not been able to identify what sickened the
workers.
Jones asid, " Its these same people who can't identify this material that want us to believe they
can safely burn chemical weapons while protecting our community - - I don't think so." Jones
asked, "How is it possible that these 'experts' can't identify a chemical inside a building on a
construction site? It smells like a cover up!"
Jones also pointed out that those in charge of the chemical weapons disposal project, the
Army's Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization (PMCD) site manager and Raytheon's
project manager, violated their own procedures by not immediately notifying the Depot
Commander. According to the Memorandum of Understanding between PMCD and the
Department of the Army, PMCD is required to notify the Commander immediately so he can
implement appropriate response measures. These include: ensuring workers get proper medical
treatment; ensuring no one exposes others to any hazardous material; ensuring clothes that
may have been contaminated are bagged; and notifying post emergency personnel.
"Instead," said Jones, "PMCD and Raytheon tried to manage the situation themselves. It was
handled so badly that health care providers were exposed at the local hospital while trying to
treat those who had fallen ill. It was bungled to the point where sick workers were driving
themselves to the hospital." The citizens groups believe PMCD and Raytheon broke their own
procedures in an attempt to cover-up the incident or at least minimize the public relations
fallout from having to notify people outside their own circle.
"All PMCD has ever prioritized is their schedule and their image," said Jones. "We've seen this
repeatedly at the Utah plant where they continue to deny workers are routinely exposed and
agent has been released into the environment despite evidence to the contrary. They'll do almost
anything to keep up their appearance of competence. Why else would they disregard their own
procedures?"
Comments were also provided to the EQC surrounding more than 400 pages of new evidence
submitted to Oregon Circuit Court in December 1998. At that time Judge Marcus ruled that
since it had not been considered by the EQC first, he would require them to review it before
taking any action. Among the issues raised then and at Friday's meeting, were: the
incompleteness of the original permit application; evidence there will be agent contaminated
residual waste; new information from the Army and the National Research Council concerning
higher toxicity of the agents than previously thought; the recently approved and recently
demonstrated alternative technologies now available; and, the inadequacies of the public
process being afforded citizens to make their case before the EQC.
Dr. Bob Palzer, Chair of the Sierra Club's national Air Committee spoke passionately to the EQC
about the alternative technologies that are currently being deployed and others that have
recently been demonstrated as effective. Dr. Palzer said, " I think it is equally relevant to point
out just where this alternative treatment process is now being used for HD (Mustard Agents).
This alternative technology is being used at the Edgewood portion of the Aberdeen Proving
Grounds less than an hour drive from Washington, DC. The President, Congress, and the
pentagon are in fairly close proximity."
Dr. Palzer noted that 63% of the agents stored at Umatilla is identical to that stored at the
Aberdeen, MD facility. "I cannot understand why the citizens of Hermiston, Irrigon, and others
living in close proximity to the Umatilla site should not be able to share the benefits of this
much safer and proven technology. Not only can you make this happen; you must make this
happen," he said.
Richard Condit, one of the lawyers for the citizens, ended the comments with a series of
pointed questions aimed at the process the EQC is using to consider the request for revocation.
Under Oregon law, the EQC determines if those challenging the permit are granted a "contested
case". Such a forum, if granted, allows petitioners to subpoena documents, call in experts and
swear in witness. To date, repeated requests to the EQC by the citizens groups for such an
opportunity have been denied.
"You have all the power," said Condit. "You ask us to prove that the issues we bring before you
are as we claim, but you refuse to give us the tools we need to do so. We can't gather
documents, swear in witnesses or bring forth experts. You have ignored the principles of due
process arbitrarily, and we are powerless to change it. It is blatantly unfair to put the burden of
proof on us and refuse to grant us a legitimate process within which to do just that."
Written comments surrounding issues commented on at the meeting and the others contained
in the December 1998 filing are due by December 17th.
-30-
 CWWG Home Page |
Contact us: |