Advertising

The Seattle Times Company

NWjobs | NWautos | NWhomes | NWsource | Free Classifieds | seattletimes.com

Politics & Government


Our network sites seattletimes.com | Advanced

Originally published Wednesday, August 19, 2009 at 9:54 AM

Comments (0)     E-mail E-mail article      Print Print      Share Share

Judge tosses chemical weapons incineration suit

The Army on Wednesday won a court challenge to its plan to incinerate chemical weapons at storage sites around the country over objections from a watchdog group that says the practice releases toxic pollution.

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON —

The Army on Wednesday won a court challenge to its plan to incinerate chemical weapons at storage sites around the country over objections from a watchdog group that says the practice releases toxic pollution.

A federal judge threw out the suit aimed at stopping the plan to destroy the stockpiles dating back as far as World War II, required under an international treaty, the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention. More than half the United States' aging cache of 31,500 tons of nerve agents and mustard gas has been destroyed so far, with a 2017 congressional deadline for completion.

The Army conducted several environmental impact studies comparing different methods of destruction and concluded that incineration was the most safe and effective when explosive munitions are involved.

A watchdog organization called the Chemical Weapons Working Group, based in Berea, Ky., sued in 2003, arguing there are new alternative technologies for destruction. They say the Army's environmental impact studies are outdated and failed to assess the impact of weapons, such as mustard agents, containing mercury.

The group asked that new studies be required, but U.S. District Judge Richard Eaton ruled Wednesday the group did not prove that "alternatives to incineration are readily available and capable of destroying the quantity and type of chemical warfare agents and munitions at the challenged sites."

Chemical Weapons Working Group Director Craig Williams said the organization is assessing whether to appeal the ruling, which he said was based on outdated information after six years of litigation.

"There's no question in our mind that there are alternatives out there that are less emissive of toxic pollution and that those options should be considered for all the communities," he said.

The four storage sites at issue in the suit were in Pine Bluff, Ark., Tooele, Utah, Umatilla, Ore., and Anniston, Ala. - all of which contain chemical agents in 1 ton steel containers as well as rockets, artillery shells and other explosive munitions. At those sites, incinerators heat the agents and their containers at thousands of degrees, then run the exhaust through pollution-removing filters and afterburners.

U.S. stockpiles of chemical agents are also destroyed in Aberdeen, Md., Richmond, Ky., Newport, Ind., and Pueblo, Colo., but those sites use alternative destruction techniques so are not covered by the lawsuit.

Copyright © The Seattle Times Company

More Politics headlines...

E-mail E-mail article      Print Print      Share Share

Comments
No comments have been posted to this article.

advertising


Get home delivery today!

More Politics

Others states' fights bring focus to Daniels

NEW - 07:13 AM
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley is writing memoir

Bill would make jail mug shots available

Immigration, license bill voted down in state Senate

Rival Texas bills require sonograms before abortions

Advertising

Video

Marketplace

Advertising