[R]UTLAND — A group of Vermonters continued to battle the scheduled deployment of next-generation fighter jets to the Vermont Air National Guard base in federal court Monday.
Thousands have told the U.S. Air Force during a public comment period in 2013 that basing the U.S. Air Force’s F-35 fighter jets at Burlington International Airport in South Burlington would create noise problems in the state’s most densely populated area.
The comments were part of a dispute that arose when the Pentagon announced it wanted to house 18 of the fighters with the Vermont Air National Guard beginning in 2020 as part of its nationwide program to deploy more than 2,500 jets. The Pentagon already bases F-16 fighter jets in Burlington, but the new jets are substantially different.
James Dumont, an environmental lawyer from Bristol, is representing hundreds more Vermonters in Zbitnoff v. James, challenging the Air Force’s attempts. Dumont filed the original complaint in U.S. District Court in June 2014, outlining nine concerns related to the environment and public health.
The litigants allege that the Air Force violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, including not doing enough to mitigate noise from takeoff and landing, not addressing socioeconomic impacts of the project and conflicts with local laws, and causing harm to historic properties.
Dumont brought the case on behalf of seven landowners and the Stop the F-35 Coalition, which represents hundreds of people, against Deborah Lee James in her official capacity as secretary of the U.S. Air Force. The federal case is still in its early stages, and Dumont expects to file briefs in the next few months. The case is separate from the case that made its way to the Vermont Supreme Court earlier this year.
Monday in U.S. District Court in Rutland in front of Judge Geoffrey Crawford, Dumont focused on the “stealth coating” that is essentially painted over the outside to make the F-35 undetectable by enemy radar. He said the contents of that stealth coating would be toxic in a crash, and therefore a threat to public health, according to an expert his clients hired.
“The toxicity of the stealth coating is extreme,” Dumont said in an interview, referencing an affidavit from Pierre Sprey, an engineer, saying that there’s also a relative likelihood that should an F-35 crash it would cause neighbors within 10 miles of the airport to evacuate.
The hearing was part of the early court process. Dumont is trying to have Sprey’s comments entered into the legal record as part of the case. Dumont said the Air Force failed to address his public health concerns at the hearing.
Sprey’s comments say that the stealth coating on aircrafts “becomes fuel for aircraft fires upon crashing” and that the Air Force has submitted poor information to the court. Based on records from similar, but older, aircrafts, he said the health effects from the stealth coating are “severe and, in some cases, life-threatening.”
The Air Force’s lawyer, David Gehlert, argued Monday that, once the fighter jets are deployed, first responders would have access to a secure internal website available from the Air Force to learn about how to address any emergency situation that arises. Gehlert called the information “controlled but unclassified.”
Sprey’s testimony says the Air Force’s arguments “miss the point” because the F-35s are very heavily coated in toxic material.
“There is an important difference between being prepared and equipped to cope with a few hundred pounds of burning composites versus thousands of pounds,” he wrote.
“Low-observable or stealth materials, whether in the form of coating or rigid panels, applied over ordinary composite structures add additional toxic risks,” Sprey wrote. “Due to alleged security classification, there are no published [documents] of the specific toxins.”
Dumont said most bases across the country poised to receive the F-35 are in rural areas. Vermont is the first place in military history where the government has sought to put stealth-coated military planes in a heavily populated area, he said.
“Burlington is the only site that’s heavily populated, and it’s the only one where people submitted opposition [during public comment periods],” Dumont said.
Gehlert declined to comment outside of the court proceeding. He said during the hearing that “thousands submitted comments” making noise complaints.
Gehlert argued that the F-16s already produce noise in the Burlington area.