WSU Toxic Waste incinerator

["Timothy Lohrmann" <lohr0426@novell.uidaho.edu>]

IMPRESSIONS ON THE JUNE 24, '98 HEARING ON THE PROPOSED WSU TOXIC 
WASTE INCINERATOR:   The meeting brought out a vocal crowd, first of 
all. The turnout was impressive, especially considering the fact that 
most of the WSU and Uof I populations are out of town. 
The Washington State Dept. of Ecology answered questions and then 
heard testimony from a number of local citizens.
---- The testimony given was unanimously critical of both the 
proposal and the licensing process itself. 
----Testimony varied from basic philosophical opposition to 
specific assertions from Waste Disposal activists and a WSU 
Environmental Science Professor.
----One of the many safety concerns brought up was what would happen 
if a major unallowable emission event occured. The answer seemed to 
be "too bad." The monitors might detect the event, but too late. The 
contaminants would be in the air before the incinerator could 
be shut down. A big OOOOPS, Sorry! from WSU wouldn't be very helpful 
to the health of the citizens of the Palouse at that point. 
----After the testimony was completed the Department of Ecology 
agreed to repeated requests for an extension in the time period in 
which written public comment will be allowed on the proposal. Written 
Comment should be sent to:                                            
                                             Gerald Schreibner  
                                             Dept. of Ecology    
                                             4601 N. Monroe          
                                             Spokane, WA 99205-129    
                         OR: FAX to (509) 456-5010 
The comments should be sent as soon as possible, but they must be 
postmarked by July 1st, I believe.-----One of the central contentions 
of the opponents was that the process of applying for this 
incinerator permit was not designed to maximize public input. Two 
members of the Whitman Co. Solid Waste Advisory Group testified that 
they had never been contacted or alerted to portions of the process. 
They further countered Dept. of Ecology assertions of "public 
friendly" procedure by highlighting the fact that public 
announcements concerning the process were printed during spring break 
when much of the pop. is absent from the Palouse. (I personally found 
that the stated role of the hearing process and the Dept. of Ecology 
as "an arbiter between the proponent of the polluting facility and 
the public interested in a healthy environment" was called into 
question. The fact that the hearing was held just after the end of 
the Spring academic semester when major portions of the public 
interested in a healthy enviroment are in Seattle, Boise and elswhere 
is but one reason that many attending the hearing agreed that the 
process, for whatever reason, is not functioning correctly.)
This post is running a bit long. I'm sure there'll be more to come.
A Daily-News reporter attended last night's hearing. Let's hope he 
does his job.      Tim Lohrmann