From: | CPEO Moderator <cpeo@cpeo.org> |
Date: | 28 Jul 2003 16:02:24 -0000 |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | [CPEO-MEF] Request for answers about lab expansion |
The following editorial can be viewed online at: http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2003/07/25/build/safety/bitterroot-lab.php?nnn=2 ___________________________________ Montana BILLINGS GAZETTE GUEST EDITORIAL: Request for answers about lab expansion By Star Jameson July 25, 2003 I am a property owner and taxpayer in Hamilton. And I vote. In that light, I would like to express my concern over the draft environmental impact statement that was produced regarding the expansion of Rocky Mountain Lab. I read the draft. It was very vague in a number of ways. For example: 1. The draft EIS cited water provided by the city of Hamilton as being adequate. However we recently had a fire in a large building downtown, and by the next day there was a question if the city water supply would be drawn too low by the water used for the fire. 2. The EIS states that local hospital facilities are adequate to meet needs should a critical situation at the lab develop. Certainly if the reference is to one or two personnel being infected it can meet the need, but if the lab is considered a target for terrorism, the four-room emergency department with three staff members on duty cannot handle larger emergencies. In fact, when that recent fire occurred they phoned to have Bitterroot Clinic opened to handle injuries because they did not have enough room. 3. There are a number of property owners who will leave, as stated during the two recent focus group meetings, and it is questionable if tourism would deteriorate if the expansion took place. This issue was not adequately addressed in the draft EIS; in fact it assumed the presence of the expanded lab would enhance tourism. I thing this is questionable. 4. How bio-terrorist materials will be transported into the valley is not adequately addressed in the EIS either. They cannot be jetted in, without a one-hour vehicle transport on one of the most dangerous highways in the Northwest, which will be under major construction for several more years. 5. Air attack is not adequately addressed. We do not have (nor does popular opinion support) circulating air surveillance from Malmstrom Air Force Base. Two horrible eventualities could occur in the case of air attack (as in September 11): air contamination of a community securely contained by mountains, and unsolvable transportation challenges to escape the valley, or to bring in necessary emergency services. And I do wonder, in light of the “trailers” in Iraq that are reputedly factories for bioterrorist materials, how can we be assured there is no manufacture of toxic materials taking place? I respectfully request substantive answers to the above concerns, rather than dismissive phrases, in the form of a in-depth EIS, instead of a pseudo one. And I request the residents of the county be “allowed” to vote on this issue, after the new EIS is produced. Surely if we are “allowed” to vote on a planning process we must vote on the presence of military research and development in the center of our valley. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
Prev by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Navy ready to transfer last base land Next by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Bill could block nuke dump | |
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Navy ready to transfer last base land Next by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Bill could block nuke dump |