LATEST NEWS
Saturday, August
21, 2004
Judges tackle
GASP case
By AMYJO BROWN
of the East Oregonian
ajbrown@eastoregonian.com
SALEM — Judges in the
State’s Court of Appeals seemed confounded Friday as they prepared to hear
oral arguments in a lawsuit filed by GASP, a group hoping to derail incineration
of chemical weapons stored at the Umatilla Chemical Depot.
The court extending the allotted time for arguments and gave the
attorneys 10 days to file additional briefs in support of their positions.
“We want all the help we can get in this case,” Presiding Judge Walt
Edmonds said.
The incineration process is scheduled to begin next week.
The lawsuit against the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission seeks
to revoke the permit the EQC issued in 1997 authorizing the Army to use incineration
to destroy the more than 7.4 million pounds of nerve and blister agent it
has stored in a variety of munitions at the depot. The EQC gave its final
approval on the incineration operations Aug 13.
The case is the first of three GASP has filed. It was originally
decided in the state’s favor in 1999 by a Multnomah County Circuit Court
judge without a trial, a key reason for its appeal that same year. Although
arguments were finally heard Friday in the appellate court, a decision by
the panel of three judges could be months away, said attorneys for both the
defense and plaintiffs.
Before the case was argued, Edmonds asked the GASP attorneys to consider
consolidating their lawsuits. All three contain similar arguments for the
dangers of incineration, present similar evidence and intend to halt the
Army’s operations. He was concerned, he said, that all of the cases, in the
footsteps of GASP I, would eventually appear before the court.
“I don’t want to waste the resources of my staff and panel,” he said.
GASP attorney Richard Condit, however, argued that there were significant
differences in the cases, and he requested that Friday’s arguments continue
as scheduled. The judges agreed, but peppered both GASP and the attorneys
representing the state, the U.S. Army and the Washington Demilitarization
Company, the contractor operating the incineration facility, with questions.
If the judges decide in GASP’s favor, the case will be remanded back
to the Multnomah County Circuit Court for a full trial. That would give GASP
a chance to present evidence and call witnesses to explain why it believes
the EQC erred in choosing incineration for the weapons over neutralization,
a process that would destroy the weapons using water instead of fire.
Although the Army has already constructed the incinerators that would
burn the weapons, at a final expected cost of about $2.4 billion, and although
it has already received necessary approvals from the state’s environmental
regulators, still GASP hopes to stop the process, said Condit.
He and his clients believe incineration is an unsafe process, putting
special needs populations at risk of increased air emissions and workers
at the plant at risk of accidents — all claims the Army and its contractor
have said are unfounded.
Condit cited a recent delay in the Army’s schedule for startup of
incineration and said, “They’re not ready to start, and we’re going to try
to prevent them from starting.”
Karyn Jones, founder of GASP, said she hears concerns about safety
issues from workers at the depot, and also hears worries from many residents
living near the depot.
“I think there is a dispute over what the community’s opinion is
about incineration,” she said, adding that she is aware of the perception
that most people in the area nearest the depot seem to support incineration.
Condit said that the information about incineration is complex, and
that may be part of the reason more people in the local communities aren’t
worried about the Army’s plan to incinerate the weapons.
“The Army has a propaganda machine and they pump out misinformation.
I don’t blame (the residents),” he said. “It’s hard to keep up with the details.
These issues have been made much more complicated.”