Witness testifies about alternative technologies

Hermiston Herald
Nov. 15, 2002
By Frank Lockwood (F. Ellsworth Lockwood)
Staff writer


An Army letter to Oregon's governor indicated the state could have saved four years by using alternative technologies to dispose of bulk mustard agent stored at Umatilla Chemical Depot, according to expert witness Daniel Cassidy.

Cassidy testified in the case brought by groups and individuals seeking to have UMCDF's permits revoked for allegedly covering up information or blocking available information which might have led the Army to select a different technology than incineration to destroy chemical weapons stored at Umatilla.

Bulk mustard makes up approximately 63 percent of the stockpile of chemical weapons stored at the Umatilla Chemical Depot. Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility is permitted to incinerate the bulk agent as well as assembled chemical weapons such as rockets and mines, but G.A.S.P., Sierra Club, Oregon Wildlife Federation, and 23 individuals, have sued the Department of Environmental Quality and the Environmental Quality Commission in an attempt to stop some or all incineration here.

Individuals involved in the suit have indicated that they believe their depositions will show that, in order to push incineration through, the state ignored available evidence of "best available technologies" and kept the public in the dark concerning dangers of incineration, by neither allowing them to cross examine experts under oath nor to formally challenge evidence offered to the DEQ during the permitting process.

Cassidy explained to the court the alternative technologies, including four which made it through the ACWA (Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment) screening process as possible alternatives to the baseline, incineration, process which is planned for Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility.

Asked to describe Exhibit 42, Cassidy called it a proposal from the Army to the governor of Oregon, proposing to destroy the bulk mustard part of the stockpile at Umatilla by using neutralization, with the idea that neutralization would be four years quicker than incineration. Neutralization, Cassidy explained, does not mean, chemically, what some may infer.

Neutralization in chemistry takes place when one combines an acid and a base - they neutralize. The product has a neutral Ph factor, because the acid and base counteract one another. But the hydrolysis of agents, chemically, does not refer to that kind of neutralization. When Army experts speak of neutralizing chemical agent, they may mean instead that they are neutralizing the agent's immediate danger, or reducing the agent's immediate toxicity, often by using water and oxygen to break the compounds down into smaller, individual parts.

Although Cassidy testified for those suing the DEQ and the EQC, during the testimony several hurdles were mentioned for implementation of alternatives, some of which are as follows:

• Permitting, with the state could take as long as two to three years, although some argue it could be done more quickly.
• A NEPA, Environmental Protection Act, process would be required.
• Contracts would have to be let, which would take time.
• A "reactor" decomposition building for mustard would have to be built.
• A facility investigation would have to be done on the land where the facility would be sited.
• A Health Risk Assessment is required.
• Costs, and the length of time to put the system in place, must be considered.
• Reliability, proven track record, and long-term maintenance should be considered.
• There might be another group come along, worried about the risks of the new technologies.
• Additional questions have arisen about one of the alternative technologies, that of EcoLogic at the Blue Grass facility, due to problems in their demonstrations, problems indicated by "spikes" of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.
• New problems are likely to show up during "scale up," when the technology moves from a small, demonstration model, to a full scale project.
• According to National Research Council documents, no evidence shows that hold-test-release provides a higher level of safety than current continuous monitoring methods used by incineration for gaseous streams with low levels of contamination.

Advantages of Alternatives
On the other hand, Cassidy says, the above NRC statement about test-hold-release only holds true "under normal conditions." If something goes wrong in an incinerator, even with monitoring, emissions may escape through the stack.

Cassidy testified of many advantages of alternative technologies, some of which are the following:

•  Although both systems have stacks and vents for emissions, Cassidy said, "There is a big difference between a vent for a boiler ... and a vent for an incinerator ... the question is, what's coming out of those vents and stacks."
• Surprisingly, plans for plants at other sites have indicated that neutralization is likely to use five times less water than incineration.
• With alternative technologies, you can hold, test, and release effluents, whereas, with incineration, emissions may already be out the stack before operators realize something has gone wrong.
• Companies developing alternative technologies were able to analyze problem areas with incineration and ask themselves how they could find solutions in those areas.
• Four alternative technologies were able to meet the same "six nines" criterion as incineration (99.9999 percent destruction of the agent).
• With alternative technologies, dealing with gelled "heels" in mustard is said to be easy, whereas that created problems with incineration.
• The waste stream, the bi-product of neutralization is said to be no more or less toxic than many industrial waste streams.

Cassidy, an environmental engineer and a teacher of graduate classes at Western Michigan University, testified Nov. 1 before the Multnomah Circuit Court of the State of Oregon. The trial may go longer than was expected. Some participants had reported they hoped the trial would be over by Nov. 27, but apparently that may not happen, proponents from both sides in the case now say. After Nov. 27, the hearings will discontinue for a time, but will resume in March, 2003.

Frank Lockwood may be reached at 567-6457 or by e-mail at flockwood@hermistonherald.com.


http://www.cwwg.org/hh11.15.02.html