For Immediate Release: April 15, 1997
Three Oregon citizens groups have filed a legal motion seeking to revoke the permit for the U.S
Army's Umatilla chemical weapons incinerator that was issued on February 12th by the Oregon
Environmental Quality Commission (EQC). The Oregon Sierra Club, GASP and the Oregon
Wildlife Federation are seeking reconsideration of the facility's hazardous waste treatment
permit, air discharge permit, human health and ecological risk assessments and best available
technology findings. They also requested full public participation in the EQC deliberations on the
reconsideration motion.
One of the issues raised is the Army's assurance to the EQC of the addition of Carbon Filters as
part of the Umatilla Chemical Disposal Facility's (UCDF) Pollution Abatement System (PAS).
According to the petition, "In January, 1997, the Army made it clear that it did not intend to
use carbon filters as part of the PAS on any of the planned incinerators," citing April 1996 and
January 1997 Army reports to Congress. The petition calls the Army's assurance to the EQC,
"a thinly veiled attempt to maintain momentum in the permit process rather than an honest
statement of intent."
The petition also raises the facts that the permit includes systems, such as the Brine Reduction
Area and the Dunnage Furnace, that have little or no operational history because of technical
problems. The wastes that Army claims will be treated by these systems may not be, thereby
"altering the make-up of the proposed facility, changing the waste disposal activities and
altering the risk analysis."
The petition also vigorously attacks the Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments (HHRA)
as "seriously flawed, with significant data gaps," that do not provide "any assurance that the
Commission can make a decision consistent with Oregon law and fully protective of public health
and the environment." Specifically, the petition states that:
* "The Army has failed to fully characterize the hazardous wastes that will be incinerated at
UCDF."; and that the HHRA,
* " failed to consider important sources and routes of exposure such as consumption of breast
milk, eggs, poultry, pork and wild game, including fish.";
* " failed to consider sensitive sub-populations, such as developing fetuses, infants or the
elderly";
* " failed to consider impacts from other facilities, including Hanford, and does not assess
current levels of contamination (i.e. background).";
* "failed to consider the impacts posed by non-lethal levels of nerve agents as revealed in
medical problems experienced by Gulf War Veterans.";
* "failed to consider disruption of the endocrine system in its evaluation of health effects.";
* " does not acknowledge the operational experience at TOCDF ( the Utah incinerator) which
indicates that "lessons learned' are not applied and operation procedures are disregarded or
violated.";
* "cannot rely on the ACAMS (nerve agent alarms) to timely and accurately detect release of
agents.";
*"failed to evaluate the non-cancer health effects from expected exposures to dioxin and dioxin-
like compounds.";
* "The Commission failed to consider Solvated Electron Chemistry, and other approaches, in its
'Best Available Technology' analysis.";
* "The Commission's findings concerning the Army's compliance history are inadequate.";
* "UCDF emissions will violate the Federal Clean Water Act and State Requirements," and
* "The UCDF incinerator will cause air pollution in violation of Oregon's Air Quality Law."
According to Stewart Sugarman, the petitioner's Portland lawyer, "Permitting this facility
falls way short of protecting the citizens of Oregon. We need to ensure that we and future
generations are protected from the poisons this incinerator will produce." Sugarman pointed
out that the petition requests a hearing on the issues in front of the EQC. "I hope they provide us
the opportunity to present our position, and perhaps we can avoid any further legal challenges,"
he said.
Hermiston resident and GASP Board member, Karyn Jones said, "The issue remains the same: Is
incineration a safe and protective method to dispose of the most lethal chemicals on the planet?
We don't believe it is." Jones continued, "We want to dispose of these munitions, we've endorsed
ratification of the Chemical Weapons Treaty and have fully supported the non-incineration
technologies that have been selected for the Maryland and Indiana stockpiles, but burning
chemical weapons in our community is not an acceptable method of destruction!"
The EQC has 60 days to consider the petition for reconsideration. If the agency does not respond
in that time, the motion is considered denied, and the petitioners can then bring court action to
stop construction of the facility.
A complete copy of the Petition for Reconsideration is available from the CWWG office.
 CWWG Home Page |
Contact us: |