Hermiston Herald
June 4, 2002

Depositions begin in UMCDF permitting case

By Frank Lockwood
Staff writer

HERMISTON - Lawyers have begun questioning DEQ officials under oath, in
depositions concerning the permitting of the Umatilla Chemical Agent
Disposal Facility.

In April, Oregon courts ruled that parties in a lawsuit to halt incineration
had the right to depose witnesses and to create a record before the court.
That process has begun. Oregon DEQ personnel were among the first to be
questioned.

Attorneys Richard Condit and Stewart Sugarman were in town last week
representing G.A.S.P, the Sierra Club, and others who say UMCDF should never
have been permitted. The depositions began May 29, starting with DEQ
specialist Sue Oliver and DEQ Administrator Wayne Thomas. From the opposing
side, the Army and Washington also questioned witnesses, including Karyn
Jones of G.A.S.P.

On Monday, former DEQ Administrator Brett McKnight and Oregon Wildlife's Joe
Keating were to be disposed in Oregon, while attorney Richard Condit was to
travel to Virginia to question Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment
personnel on June 7.

The court had set June 17 as the deadline for depositions to be completed,
but Condit said he expects both parties to request extensions. However, he
expected depositions to be complete by the end of June.

As a result of the depositions, G.A.S.P. members reported, it was learned
that the Army had been granted a contested case hearing in a disagreement
with the DEQ over secondary waste. According to Condit, that disagreement
concerned how the determination would be made that secondary waste was
"agent free," thus clean enough to send off site.

G.A.S.P. members were chagrined that the Army had been granted the contested
case hearing so easily, since G.A.S.P. had requested a similar type hearing
with regard to the initial permitting of the plant, while the DEQ had denied
G.A.S.P.'s request over a period of several years.

According to DEQ Administrator Wayne Thomas, however, law required a
contested case for the Army's request. On the other hand, law does not
provide for a contested case at the request of someone who objects to the
issuance of a permit. Thomas wrote, "This is not something I just decided,
but I followed the requirements of the law."

A G.A.S.P. attorney had called the contested case decision "a slap in the
face." G.A.S.P. attorney Richard Condit said his clients wanted to "fill
the gaps," in the information the public had been provided, and they want to
know to what extent the state of Oregon is working to protect the public.

Among other things sought through the depositions, G.A.S.P. members are
looking for any evidence that the Army overstated the risk to the public
from storage of chemicals, in order to promote incineration. The Army once
had plans to "reconfigure" the stockpile, which would have turned the depot
into a bulk storage facility, G.A.S.P. reports. The Army opted for
incineration instead. A group including G.A.S.P., Sierra Club and others,
has made several attempts to block incineration plans at the Umatilla site.

They have pointed to several neutralization processes as potentially safer,
cleaner, and less costly.

G.A.S.P. claims the state and the Army should have given those alternative
technologies more attention early on, following "best available technology"
policies. The Army's position has been that there will always be new
technologies on the horizon, and that at some point one has to select the
best option and move ahead. That is what the Army has done.

Frank Lockwood may be reached at 567-6457 or by e-mail at
flockwood@hermistonherald.com.