Two Featured Articles: Citizens Take Army to Court & Heavy Metal Harvest

Citizen Groups Take the State and the Army to Court
Starting October 23, 2002 Oregon citizens and organizations are presenting a legal challenge to the decision by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to grant the Army a permit to incinerate chemical weapons at Umatilla. The citizen plaintiffs won the right to bring their case before a Circuit Court Judge when the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the DEQ denied citizens due process in hearings, that the public's ability to present evidence and examine witnesses had been prohibited, and that the public's complaints should be heard in a ?trial-like? setting.

The plaintiffs base their case on the State?s ?failure to . . . do an adequate assessment of the impacts of the incinerator and thereby failing to set permit conditions necessary to protect public health and the environment.? Plaintiffs in the suit include GASP, the Oregon Sierra Club, the Oregon Wildlife Federation and several residents living near the incinerator.

Two Oregon Toxics Alliance Board Members are playing crucial roles in the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs. J. R. Wilkinson is providing the research to the plaintiffs' legal team. Board President Mary O'Brien is supplying expert testimony on alternatives to incineration to demonstrate that there are proven disposal methods that are less costly and safer for the surrounding populations and Oregon's unique Columbia River environment.

Groups that have joined in coalition to support their efforts and move towards safe disposal of the Oregon chemical weapons stockpile are: Oregon Toxics Alliance, Washington Toxics Coalition, OSPIRG, WAPIRG, Oregon Environmental Council, and the Chemical Weapons Working Group.

The lawsuit, if successful, will guarantee the right of Oregonians to have full public disclosure about the risks, costs, benefits, and alternatives to incineration.

For further information about this issue visit OTA's Chemical Weapons Incineration page.

Heavy Metal Harvest
BY NICK BUDNICK
Willamette Weekly published 10/30/02
nbudnick@wweek.com

With the massive food fight over Measure 27 and the safety of genetically engineered foods, Oregonians may have missed an equally heated discussion going on behind the scenes--not over the labeling of Frankenfoods, but over the use of common fertilizers.

The issue first came up in 1997 when Seattle Times investigative reporter Duff Wilson revealed that companies stuck with hazardous waste were recycling it into fertilizer, endangering crops, animals and people.

Since then, Washington, California and Texas have adopted limits on the amounts of heavy metals in fertilizer. The 2001 Oregon Legislature ordered the state Department of Agriculture to come up with its own rules limiting heavy metals in all fertilizer sold in Oregon, which runs at least 700,000 tons a year.

Janet Fults, who developed ODA's proposed rules, says they are a step forward. Previously, she says, there were no regulations at all on heavy metals such as cadmium, which has been linked to pulmonary disease, and lead, which can impair the growth of children and even cause brain damage.

Environmentalists monitoring the process have argued that the regulations, which are based on a fertilizer industry "risk assessment" study, are too lax (see "Rogue of the Week," WW, Sept. 26. 2002). But WW has learned that state and federal authorities have noted weaknesses in the proposal as well.

Emails obtained by WW show that the U.S. EPA's top fertilizer expert, David Fagan--who's previously been accused by Washington state environmentalists of being in bed with the industry--has blasted Oregon's approach. In a June 25 email, he noted that risk assessments, which are based on mathematical assumptions, are easily manipulated by the fertilizer industry. Fagan warned that risk-based standards such as Oregon's "will essentially mean no regulation of the industry at all."

His concern was echoed by Miles Kuntz, a fertilizer expert with the Washington Department of Ecology. Washington, like California, has set limits that are much more stringent than those of Oregon. Asked about the study ODA used, Kuntz told WW, "They looked at part of the picture, but in our view they didn't look at the whole picture."

Interviews, as well as comments and correspondence obtained by WW, show a number of weaknesses in Oregon's rules and in the industry risk assessment on which they are based:

*Oregon's rules are calibrated to protect farmers. But according to the state of Washington, home gardeners, who apply fertilizer more heavily, can be exposed to twice as much heavy metals as farmers. The model used by Oregon ignores that risk.

*According to a letter written in 2000 by the heads of the Washington departments of Health, Ecology and Agriculture, the risk assessment Oregon used appears to have significantly underestimated the risks posed by cadmium and arsenic.

*ODA is required by law to set rules that protect not only humans, but the environment. Its proposals, however, ignore potential dangers to rivers, streams, fish, animals and underground water supplies. In March

and April, Gary Calaba, hazardous waste expert for the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, urged ODA to consider risks to the environment, noting the mysterious fish deformities that have turned up in a section of the Willamette River. The segment, known as the Newberg Pool, receives heavy doses of agricultural runoff.

*According to the EPA, the largest exposure humans have to toxins in fertilizer is indirect, through the fish, meat and milk we consume. The study used by ODA ignores that risk.

Fults, however, is confident the rules would protect human health. She told WW there is not enough data on which to base regulations regarding the ecological harm from heavy metals. Emails show that Fults felt constrained by the January deadline. "The department is not looking to develop our 'own' numbers at this point," wrote Fults, responding to questions from the DEQ. "There is no time or research to rely on." Her correspondence also indicated a concern that restrictions could raise fertilizer prices.

The proposed rules are expected to become final by the end of the year. Gov. John Kitzhaber has the power to step in, but his aide, Chris Dearth, says the governor is satisfied that the ODA is on the right track.

That means environmentalists' hopes for revisions rest with state Public Health Officer Grant Higginson, whose staffers have expressed "concerns" that the rules are too lax, according to an Oct. 24 email.

Higginson planned to meet with his staff early this week to discuss those concerns before taking a position on ODA's rules.

Originally published Wednesday, October 30, 2002