for immediate release: August 4, 1996

CLOSING ARGUMENTS PRESENTED IN UTAH CHEMICAL WEAPONS INCINERATION HEARING: CITIZEN'S CITE SIGNIFICANT FLAWS IN CHOICE OF TECHNOLOGY AND NUMEROUS INSTANCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS

Salt Lake City, Utah--In the final day of the hearing held in Federal Court, attorneys for the
Chemical Weapons Working Group, Sierra Club and the Vietnam Veterans of America
Foundation, presented their closing arguments in the effort to stop the Army from initiating the
burning of Chemical Weapons in the U.S.

Preceding final arguments, testimony by Dr. W. Gale Biggs, an expert on air modeling from
Denver, Co. confirmed the plaintiff's allegations that a release of nerve agent during
incineration would clearly reach well beyond the Tooele Depot boundary, something earlier
government witness said could not happen. Dr. Biggs stated that the Army's outdated air
modeling data grossly underestimates off-site concentrations of agent and numerous toxic
emissions and that even small doses are likely to cause high exposures to populations in close
proximity to the facility (up to five miles).

Greenlaw attorney, Mick Harrison, representing the citizens groups, began his closing
statement by listing the three claims on which the injunction request is based: Violation of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by the Army; Utah State permit and nuisance law
violations by EG&G, the Army's contractor, and; violations of the Federal Toxic Substances and
Control Act. Within each claim, Harrison gave detailed examples of how the Army and EG&G
have failed to meet the standards required by Law.

Under NEPA, he pointed to the requirement for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
when new information becomes available on a previously made decision. Citing Army failures to
consider new safer technologies, ignoring repeated releases of chemical warfare agents into the
environment and the work place at the prototype facility in the Pacific and other examples,
Harrison proposed that the standards for issuing an injunction had been met. These standards
include, the probability of success in a full trial, the threat of irreparable injury to plaintiffs
and whether that injury outweighs damage to the defendants, and whether the injunction would
be in the public's interest. "All these criteria and more, have been clearly demonstrated to the
Court", said Harrison. "The witnesses brought by the government and their contractor have
shown a pattern of knowing about significant new information in addition to serious health
impacts and their efforts to hide or work around this information to validate a decision to
incinerate made in 1982," he said. "Our experts confirmed this new information and efforts by
the defendants to cover-up critical facts concerning health and environmental risks that
necessitate the relief we seek," he concluded.

This new evidence showed that Dioxin and other emissions cancer and non-cancer risks posed by
incineration, particularly to farmers and infants were not adequately considered. It also showed
new information on the synergistic effects of pollutants in emissions; food chain impact;
chronic exposure risks; risks from agent combustion and degradation by-products, most of
which the Army has underestimated or ignored completely in their Health Assessments.

Along with not adequately addressing these health impacts, the troubled history of the Army's
prototype incinerator, after which Tooele is modeled, and advances made in alternative
technologies in the past fourteen years have not been seriously considered.

Harrison argued that agent releases, fires and explosions that took place at the Johnston Island
(JI) facility are likely to be experienced at Tooele. Quoting a 1992 statement to Congress by
former Army Undersecretary Susan Livingstone in which she said, "it is clear that the contract
[to build the Tooele facility] was awarded prematurely," Harrison pointed out that construction
of the Utah facility was completed well before any results were in from Johnston Island.

During "systemization" just months ago, the Utah facility experienced problems with feed gates
and blast doors, similar to those at JI. Reports concerning safety problems written up by
whistleblower and former Chief Safety Officer Steve Jones have disappeared and it was shown
during the hearing that the accident scenarios used by the Army and EG&G for the Utah plant
ignored relevant information in their analysis. Using best case accident scenarios rather than
worst-case, assuming all operational and engineering controls would preform correctly, in
spite of the experience at JI and disregarding differences in the processing of material at
Tooele, where more than one type of munition will be processed at a time, were some of the
examples cited.

The Army also projects unproven operational capability. experience. The Utah facility is
projected to operate 24 hrs. per day, six days a week, while the Johnston Island the facility
ran inconsistent 8 hour shifts most of the time due to technical problems. " Recurring upsets
and longer operational periods will increase the toxic burden to the population and the
surrounding environment," said Harrison

Contrary to Army presentations and reports concerning the time necessary to bring non-
emission alternative technologies to operational levels, Harrison noted affidavits and
depositions from private sector corporations stating their capability to be substituted for the
incinerators in Utah in 1 1/2 to 2 years, not the 6 1/2 years the Army claims.

Meanwhile, Army officials testified to having more work to do before being ready to incinerate
agent, Congress is moving forward with directives to the Army toward assesing alternatives
and new information has recently emerged challenging the Army's claims of the higher risk of
continuing to store these munitions while alternatives are put in place.

Harrison pointed out that the Army has never done a honest comparison of the risks of
incineration vs. continued storage and moreover has not done a comparative risk assessment of
incineration to alternative technologies. "If such a required analysis were done," said Harrison,
" the results would show adequate time to replace the incinerators and that the alternative
approaches would be less risky, quicker and cheaper."

Federal Judge Tena Campbell is expected to rule on the injunction request sometime within the
next two weeks.

CWWG Home Page

Contact us: Chemical Weapons Working Group Kentucky Environmental Foundation P.O. Box 467 Berea, KY 40403 phone: 859-986-7565 fax: 859-986-2695 For comments about this WWW page contact Lois Kleffman.