Lawsuit seeks to halt incineration

This story was published Wed, Mar 12, 2003

By Les Blumenthal
Herald Washington, D.C., bureau

WASHINGTON -- A coalition of 19 environmental, civil rights and veterans groups filed a lawsuit Tuesday in federal court to block the incineration of deadly chemical weapons stored at the Umatilla Chemical Depot and three other sites.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., alleges the Army violated federal environmental laws by not fully exploring alternatives to burning the chemical weapons and by not fully examining the health and environmental effects of incinerating the weapons.

The Army is currently testing the incinerator at Umatilla, using so-called surrogate agents that are similar to the chemical weapons but not as dangerous. The current schedule calls for testing the incinerator with actual chemical weapons by the end of the year.

More than 3,700 tons of aging chemical munitions are stored at the depot 30 miles from the Tri-Cities. The total cost of destroying all the weapons at Umatilla has been estimated at $2.4 billion.

"The incineration of these chemical warfare agents will result in the uncontrolled release of many tons of hazardous air pollutants, including harmful quantities of chemical warfare agents, dioxins, polychlorintated biphenyls (PCBs), lead, mercury, arsenic and other dangerous substances," the lawsuit says.

While the Army and the Defense Department have decided to use "nonincineration processes" to destroy chemical weapons currently stored at depots in Colorado, Indiana, Kentucky and Maryland, it has refused to consider such alternatives in Umatilla and at depots in Alabama, Arkansas and Utah, the lawsuit said.

The alternatives, including neutralizing the weapons, would result in "significantly lower" emissions of hazardous pollutants, the lawsuit alleges.

"Consequently, the likelihood of harm to human health or the environment is greatly reduced," the lawsuit contends.

The lawsuit says the groups involved have unsuccessfully sought to convince the Army to abandon its "long-standing" commitment to incineration and adopt safer alternatives.

"While the public interest is served by the responsible destruction of chemical weapons in a manner that complies with applicable laws that protect public health and environment, the public interest is not served by the defendants reckless push to destroy the chemical weapons stockpile in such a dangerous manner," the lawsuit says.

Army officials declined to comment on the lawsuit.

"It's Army policy not to comment on litigation," said Greg Mahall, a national spokesman for the Army's chemical weapons destruction program in Aberdeen, Md.

Mahall said the Army had already safely destroyed 25 percent of the national chemical weapons stockpile using incinerators at Johnston Island in the South Pacific and in Tooele, Utah.

"We tend to disagree with their lawsuit," he said.

Army officials have previously said they preferred high-temperature incineration because it not only destroys the chemical weapons, but also secondary waste such as the munitions propellants and the safety gear personnel use when handling the weapons.

Among those joining in the lawsuit were the Washington Public Interest Research Group (WashPIRG); a Hermiston anti-incinerator group called GASP; the Oregon chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility; Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation; the Calhoun, Ala., County chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; and local groups in Kentucky, Georgia and Arkansas.

"We want the Army to consider all of the alternatives and pick the best choice to protect public health and the environment," said Ivy Sager-Rosenthal, a WashPIRG spokeswoman in Seattle. "With safer technologies available, the Army shouldn't continue to stumble down the path of incineration."

Another lawsuit, filed by GASP, challenging the Army's permit to burn the chemical weapons at Umatilla is currently being heard in a state court in Portland.

"I think (the lawsuits) compliment each other by pointing out the same flaws," said Karyn Jones, director of the anti-incinerator group.

Jones and 22 other Hermiston-area plaintiffs are suing Oregon to revoke the permits the state issued to the Army in February 1977. The trial started in November, then was continued because of scheduling issues. Testimony resumed Monday and is to last through March 27. Then the case will be delayed again until August when it's expected to finish.

"We've certainly seen a technology shift at Umatilla and that's why we support this national action," Jones said. "But our focus is to prevail in Portland."

The federal lawsuit filed Tuesday specifically asks the court to block the start of incineration operations at Umatilla and depots in Alabama and Arkansas and to halt continuing operations at the Utah depot.

The lawsuit said the Army's 1982 decision to use incinerators to dispose of chemical weapons was based on the "then common, but erroneous assumption" that it was a "well-defined, mature technology" and no feasible alternatives existed.

At the time, little was known about the performance, safety and impacts of incineration, the lawsuit says.

"This data gap has been substantially filled with scientific information showing the defects and dangers of incineration as well as the availability of safer more environmentally protective disposal approaches," the lawsuit says.

Among the alternatives to incineration are chemical neutralization, gas-phase chemical reduction, electrochemical silver processing and super critical water oxidation, the lawsuit says.

"This is not an exhaustive list of alternatives that the defendants have failed to explore and evaluate," the lawsuit says. "In fact, the defendants have failed to explore and evaluate any reasonable alternative technologies for the incinerators planned for the Alabama, Arkansas or Oregon sites."

 

Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.