In Oregon citizens argue
to revoke
incinerator permit; raise serious
questions about worker exposure incident
(Excerpted from the May 2000 issue of CWWG's newsletter "Common Sense")
At the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission
(EQC) meeting in Portland November 1999, 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.
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, board member of G.A.S.P., a grassroots activist group
in Oregon, 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 said, " It's the 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!"
The Army and Raytheon handled the situation 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. Citizens
groups believe the Army and Raytheon broke their own procedures
in an attempt to cover-up the incident or at least minimize the
public image fallout from having to notify people outside their
own circle.
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."
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 close
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. 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."
 CWWG Home Page |
Contact us: |