ELR Citation: ELR 20191
No(s). 03-645 (D.D.C. Aug 19, 2009)

A district court rejected claims that the U.S. Army violated NEPA by failing to provide a supplemental analysis reflecting new alternative destruction technologies that could be used in lieu of on-site incineration at four chemical weapon incineration facilities. For the four challenged sites, the Army selected on-site incineration as the "preferred alternative" based on the conclusion that there were no readily available alternatives to destroy the chemical weapons stockpile at these sites and that incineration was a safe and effective method. In 1996 and 2003, the Army reviewed and reevaluated its decision to use incineration at the four challenged sites, again concluding that on-site incineration was its preferred method of destruction and that new information did not require supplementation of the EISs. Citizen groups filed suit under NEPA, but the court rejected their claims. The groups failed to demonstrate that alternatives capable of destroying the quantity and type of chemical warfare agents and munitions at the sites are readily available or that alternative technology would create environmental impacts significantly different from the impacts associated with incineration. In addition, the Army's subsequent reviews were thorough, and the Army took a hard look at new information and provided a reasoned explanation as to why the information was insignificant. Nor was the Army's decision not to prepare a supplemental EIS arbitrary or capricious under the APA.