East Oregonian, October 28, 2002

Anti-incineration lawsuit 'going extremely well'

By CARIE L. CALL of the East Oregonian
ccall@eastoregonian.com

HERMISTON - A lawsuit to prevent the U.S. Army from using the incineration process
to destroy chemical weapons stored at the Umatilla Chemical Depot in Umatilla is entering
its second week of trial.

The lawsuit, filed by environmental groups including Hermiston-based GASP, the Sierra
Club, the Oregon Wildlife Federation and 22 additional single petitioners including lead
petitioner Karyn Jones of Hermiston, is seeking to stop the incineration of 3,717 tons of
nerve and mustard gas and other defunct weapons now being stored at the Depot.

The Portland trial began Wednesday and is expected to last four to six weeks. It is the
third legal action over the incineration permit brought by GASP in the past five years. The
judge ruled against the plaintiffs in the first two cases.

Jones testified the first day of the current trial. "I opened the trial," she said. "I think it is
going extremely well for us."

In a surprise move during her testimony, the Army subpoenaed Jones' medical records
and those of her family. Her mother is suffering from cancer and Jones herself has
asthma-like symptoms. Jones is puzzled by the move as she has never claimed her or her
family's health problems were caused by the Depot.

She did say that her asthma symptoms make her "a representative of the sensitive
population of individuals that could be affected by possible emissions from the incinerator
stacks when the Army begins burning chemical agent next year."

The lawsuit was filed in August 1997 against the Oregon Environmental Quality
Commission and the Department of Environmental Quality. It seeks the use of alternative
technologies instead of incineration.

The U.S. Army and Washington Demilitarization Company, the subcontractor responsible
for building and maintaining the four Depot incinerators, are intervenors in the case.

Mari Margil, of the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club in Portland, said the reason for the
lawsuit is to protect both people and the environment.

J.R. Wilkinson, an environmental consultant working for GASP, which is not an acronym
for anything, said the petitioners hope to prevent incineration because they contend it
won't work and won't be safe for the environment or the people living "under the shadow
of the stack," Wilkinson said.

The Army already has incinerated more chemical weapons than are stored at Umatilla in
incinerators in Utah and Johnston Atoll in the Pacific without injury.

Wilkinson contends that alternative technologies being used elsewhere on U.S. depot sites
such as the one in Kentucky, are "safer and cheaper than incineration."

Opponents contend that incineration puts contaminants such as dioxin, arsenic and lead
into the environment, affecting public health and Oregon's air and water quality. The Army
contends that emissions released from the stacks will be 99.9 percent free of contaminants,
and notes that alternative technologies are still being tested and don't work well on all
chemicals, including some stored at Umatilla.

Neutralization, a scientific process that uses water to make the chemical agents inert, is the
petitioner's preference for destroying the stockpile.

"The goal is to safely dispose of the chemical weapons and incineration is an unsafe
method," Wilkinson said. "There is a clear difference between incineration and alternative
technologies. Incineration places communities at higher risk. Carbon filters (on the
emissions stack) are moot if there is a big problem with the burners. It is not proven to
operate risk free."

Opponents to neutralization contend that the process will use too much water in an area
where water is a premium commodity.

Wilkinson said that argument is a "red herring" and is completely misleading.
"Neutralization actually uses less water than incineration," he said.

He said the main reason for the trial is to have an independent judge look over the Army's
decisions and determine if incineration is the best technology available to destroy the
chemical weapons stockpile at Umatilla.

This year, the Army has tested the incinerators by doing voluntary test burns. So far,
Incinerator One has not passed muster and is releasing higher than normal levels of metals
and toxins in the air. The Army is not burning actual agent during the tests, but instead is
using other hazardous wastes, such as dry cleaning solution with added metals such as
thallium.

In light of the incinerator's failure, the Army has suspended tests while officials investigate
the issue and make necessary improvements to the system.

Wayne Thomas, of the DEQ office in Hermiston, has said he believes the Army and its
subcontractors are doing everything possible to rectify the situation.

Test burns could resume in December at the Depot and actual agent burns are scheduled to
take place next year.

As the trial continues, both sides are expected to call expert witnesses to testify on the
merits of incineration. If the Army prevails, incineration is expected to begin next year.
Because of an international peace treaty, the stockpile must be destroyed by 2012.