For several years, GAP has been involved in challenging the U.S. Army and the State of Oregon over the burning of mercury-laden mustard agent. GAP fears that burning, which is clearly not the “best-available option” that Oregon state law dictates, will have far-reaching and long-lasting significant detrimental effects on the surrounding population and environment – including possible contamination of local plant life and water used to make food product.
Background
GAP has been involved in this case since 2007, acting on behalf of a slew of local Oregon public interest groups including G.A.S.P., the Oregon Wildlife Federation, and the Sierra Club, as well as several local residents residing around the Umatilla Chemical Depot (UCD), located near Hermiston in the Northeast part of the state, along the Columbia River.
The issue at hand is the UCD’s method of mustard agent destruction – incineration. UCD is a site dedicated to storing and destroying chemical agents that the U.S. has been manufacturing for decades. Over 2,000 ton containers of mustard agent are stored at UCD – making up more than 60 percent of the chemical agent stockpile. Our country is obligated, by international treaty, to destroy these excess munitions as quickly as possible (there have been delays).
Several years ago, it was announced that portions of the mustard agent ton containers were contaminated with dangerously high quantities of mercury – both the Army and Oregon recognize this. It is unclear what caused this to happen. But what is clear is that the mercury would not be fully captured by the filter systems currently in place during the incineration process at the Umatilla facility.
Best Available Technology
Oregon law is unique to the nation, in demanding that the method of chemical agent disposal be the “best available technology” for doing so. Alternative technologies to incineration and secondary waste disposal that release significantly less contaminant have been developed for and will be used at the Army’s Blue Grass (Kentucky) and Pueblo (Colorado) facilities.
In recent years, the Aberdeen Proving Ground facility in Maryland destroyed 1,800 tons of mustard agent by a chemical “neutralization” method, which greatly reduces the emission of hazardous chemicals into the environment. Leaders of that facility proclaimed great success in the implementation of that program.
Other Army sites in different states reportedly are exploring alternative methods of chemical destruction as well. It is believed that site officials or contractors in Alabama and Utah have sought out information regarding a “controlled detonation” process – which destroys agent by detonating high powered explosives near it inside a reinforced facility. The results of this are also little, if any, emission/contaminant escape into the environment.
GAP’s Role
Throughout the course of GAP fighting this serious threat to human health, we have discovered or revealed several pieces of information. Some of these, and our actions, include:
- The lawsuits filed by GAP named both the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), which have some oversight of UCD. In 2008, the EQC voted to approve a DEQ report, a “post-trial burn risk assessment,” which specifically illustrated that there are significant cancer and other health risks to humans posed by the proposed incineration that exceed Oregon risk standards.
- The DEQ’s failure (in the report cited above) to address the risks and benefits of each alternative option.
- The report further analyzed severe risk to wildlife and the environment. For example, the hazard estimate for numerous wildlife – including Blue Heron, Mallard Duck, Raccoon, Owl, Spotted Sandpiper, Mourning Dove, and Western Meadowlark – exceed risk standards. This release of mercury would also take place next to the Columbia River – the home for many species of fish that are caught and eaten or processed for food items.
- The EQC’s announcement in 2008 of a nonpublic teleconference/meeting concerning the chemical agent waste issues at UCD. This meeting, which GAP raised media awareness of, did not allow for concerned citizens to listen to or attend. Furthermore, journalists would only be allowed to attend the meeting “for background purposes only.”
