Shoddy treatment of tribes comes back to bite CSEPP

Hermiston Herald Opinion
August 27, 2002
Reporter's Notebook
Frank Lockwood (F. Ellsworth Lockwood)

Several recent news articles have focused on the Confederated Tribes' relationship with the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP). I was present at the meeting when the CSEPP Governing Board was formed in August 2000, and gave the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation a shoddy welcome. Now the tribes want their own emergency center. No one should be surprised.

When Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Dale Klein met with local government officials on Aug. 13, Umatilla County Commissioner Dennis Doherty again expressed his dismay with the tribes: This time he feared that the tribes might be seeking more influence with CSEPP than in the past. "Undue influence," in fact.

But if, indeed, the tribes want their own program, Doherty can thank himself, at least in part, for that. The tribes got a cold welcome at best when the CSEPP Governing Board was formed, with Doherty as its chairman. Doherty and many others in the CSEPP community are correct if they say that the tribes should not require an emergency operations center, when their property lies only 10 miles beyond the one in Pendleton. They should not. Which is not to say, "they do not."

The CSEPP community, unanimously, if I recall correctly, denied to the tribes a full participation in the emergency planning during the very first month that CSEPP reorganized under Doherty's direction. What did the commissioner fear from the tribes? That their vote might sway the commission's direction? Not likely, in view of the strong consensus they normally reached when any issue came to a vote, and additionally, in view of the tribes' culture of always seeking to build consensus.

One of the arguments against including the tribes was that the tribes would make the board too large to come to deliberate. Yet the delibrations were short, with, it seemed to me, most of the meeting time going to reports from people who were not on the board.

There was also what I thought a rather weak argument, that including the tribes would encourage other entities to want representation.

So far as the large size of the board goes, the fact that it had at least seven members would have prevented any one member from being able to cancel any decision. But that was never an issue at any time I attended a meeting.

The votes were always unanimous or near unanimous.

So the decision to deny the tribes a vote was not made in order to keep the tribes from "making trouble" in terms of it coming down to a vote. Neither was it to silence the tribes' voice, since the tribes were allowed to sit at the table and even enter the discussion, they were only not allowed to vote.

And the fact that CSEPP allowed the tribes to voice their opinions while seated at the table shows that having the tribes there was not expected to make deliberations longer and more drawn out.

I don't pretend to know what the board members were thinking when they made that decision, can't claim to know how they felt. But I know how it felt to me: A put down. A keeping in place. Ifelt deflated. If it felt that way to me, I can only wonder what the impact was to the tribal representatives. The tribal representatives were very calm and meek about it. If I remember correctly, Minthorn told me it made him feel "sad."

In perhaps the most ludicrous reasoning of all, the board argued, "The CTUIR represents itself s a sovereign, parallel to the federal government, which is not a voting member." Imagine those on the board saying "Oh, but we are not Americans, we are from Umatilla County, or Morrow county, or from the fire department," and so-on.

The neighboring state has its role. As long ago as 1999, Benton County, Wash., received $1.5 million for preparedness efforts around Plymouth and Patterson. And what about other countries. If Pendleton were 10 miles from Canada, rather than 10 miles from the tribes, would the Canadian government then have nothing to say about our CSEPP project either, no role? As a matter of fact, international teams inspect our depot at least once a year as agreed to by international treaty.

Yet, the board reasoned with the (presumably rhetorical) question, "What does the CTUIR see as its role in doing the CSEPP mission?" Well, the tribes may soon have the opportunity to answer that question among themselves. As the governing board said, they are a sovereign body, what they do about their CSEPP program money, if they get any, is none of our business. But maybe will they consider letting someone from the county sit in on their discussions? Without any vote, of course.

Frank Lockwood is a reporter for The Hermiston Herald.

http://www.cwwg.org/hh08.27.02c.html

Army: Waste to be treated on site

 Hermiston Herald
August 20, 2002
Army: Waste to be treated on site
By Frank Lockwood (F. Ellsworth Lockwood, now of Eltopia, Washington)
Staff writer


HERMISTON - The Department of Environmental Quality will seek permit modifications "dovetailing" with the Army's reassurances that a liquid hazardous waste, called brine, will be treated on site at the depot - not shipped to Washington or elsewhere, a DEQ spokesman says. Critics have long worried that the incineration of chemical weapons at Umatilla would create amounts of liquid waste too great or too toxic to be processed using BRA, or the Brine Reduction Area systems, and that Umatilla, like Tooele, Utah, would abandon plans for using BRA technology, in favor of shipping the material to hazardous waste sites, leaving a legacy of
contamination.

But plans to operate the Brine Reduction Area have not changed for Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility, regardless of what may be done at other chemical agent disposal sites around the country, Umatilla Chemical Disposal Facility Project Manager Don Barclay said at Thursday evening's meeting of the Citizens Advisory Commission.

"Each site is an individual site with individual needs," said depot Mary Binder.

Mid-August news articles had suggested the Army might renege on its plan for handling waste water on site at Umatilla, instead trucking it off site, perhaps through Tri-Cities en route to Kent, Wash. Presently, UMCDF is temporarily sending brine to Kent, during surrogate testing, because the BRA is not yet up and running.

As early as May, environmental groups said they feared that the transportation of liquid wastes would not stop with the end of surrogate burn trials at the depot, and that the Brine Reduction Area technology would be left idle.

Joseph Keating, on behalf of the group, GASP, testified during a July 26 hearing before the Environmental Quality Commission, saying, "We agree with the Umatilla Tribes' concern about the Army plan to eliminate the Brine Reduction Area."

The Brine Reduction Area was built to process liquid wastes generated by incineration at UMCDF. The BRA reduces wastes to a salt-like substance.

According to GASP, the Army has known about BRA "problems" since testing and operations at Johnston Atoll and Tooele, Utah incinerators. If the Army did discontinue use of the the BRA, it would be the second major part of the Umatilla incinerator to be abandoned, the first being the dunnage incinerators.

Dunnage incinerators were originally planned for disposing of such things as wooden pallets, but the Army later reported a plan to modify other incinerators to handle that waste. Army spokesmen say they found better ways to treat the dunnage. Detractors claim the "DUN" was simply "inoperable."


Be that as it may, Wayne Thomas, DEQ program administrator, said Thursday that his agency will seek a permit modification to make it clear that the liquid brine waste is to be treated on site, not shipped away, and PMCD's site project manager Don Barclay said the Army had already hired the crews to operate the facility.

Confusion may have arisen because of BRA decisions at other chemical weapons disposal sites, Barclay said, but those decisions do not change the plan for UMCDF.

Concerns increased when Barclay could not "absolutely promise" that no liquid brine would ever be shipped off site at UMCDF once surrogate burns were complete and real agent incineration had begun.

Unforeseen events could eventually dictate off-site disposal, Barclay admitted, but that is neither the plan nor the intent. If the incinerators generate more waste than can be stored and treated at the depot, however, under the present permits the incinerator operators might, indeed, be able to seek another alternative. In Tooele, the Army made the decision to ship brine water off site, because using the BRA system was considered ineffective and costly.

Binder said that some wastewater has been processed at Johnston Atoll, however and that this is not new technology, a claim that critics dispute. The Umatilla facility does have double the storage capability of Johnston Atoll - four 40,000-gallon tanks to JA's two, and three BRA driers compared with JA's two.

"Based on all that we know, we believe that we will be able to" process on site all of the waste water brine that UMCDF generates, by using the BRA facility, Binder said. 


http://www.cwwg.org/hh08.20.02a.html

Obama ... early supporter of

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/franklockwood/ChGy

Army replaces key demilitarization personnel

 Hermiston Herald
Jan. 24, 2003:
By Frank Lockwood (F. Ellsworth Lockwood)
Staff writer

In a national shakeup of chemical demilitarization, several top Army officials, some of whom visited Hermiston last year, are being replaced, and agencies are being combined.

Amidst the changes, anti-incineration groups, now disillusioned with last year's leadership, have disclaimed Assistant Secretary of the Army Mario Fiori, welcoming the Army's decision earlier this month to remove oversight of chemical demilitarization from Fiori.

Resistance to a Umatilla-style CSEPP program was a factor: Intercepted e-mail revealed that Fiori had planned to force such a program into effect as part of the federal agenda for Alabama, but his plan backfired.

Only a year ago, oversight of chemical demilitarization was moved to the Army's Environmental Office, which was under Fiori. Incineration opponents had hoped at the time that they would make progress in their anti-incineration agenda with Fiori in charge. The Army had charged Fiori with the mission of building strong, collaborative partnerships with appropriate Federal agencies, State and local regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders.

"Our objective is to streamline management of the Chemical Demilitarization Program by eliminating ... layers of oversight, clarifying responsibility, and improving accountability," the 2001 orders read. And Chemical Weapons Working Group welcomed Fiori in pubic announcements as he took over programs. Now, however, unhappy over what they view as too-little public input, too-secret information, the CWWG have changed their opinion.

"We thought putting de-mil in the Army Environmental Office made sense at the time," said Craig Williams, director of the Chemical Weapons Working Group, "but we didn't count on a management style based on covert operations and the total exclusion of public participation."

Williams sided with Alabama officials after, in October, news came out of the Army's plan to "challenge" Anniston, Alabama emergency planners to join in a series of monthly, emergency training sessions. Via e-mail, Army officials had discussed ways to implement a Umatilla-style CSEPP readiness
program.

Since then, a major leadership shakedown has occurred. On Jan. 15, the secretary of the Army ordered the chemical weapons disposal program moved out from under Fiori and the Army's Environmental Office, back under back under Acquisitions, Logistics and Technology where it had been a year earlier.

Representing another break from the past, the Office of Acquisitions, Logistics and Technology will manage both storage and disposal. In the past those were handled by separate entities. Both will soon be under Assistant Secretary Claude Bolton, Jr., and Army Materiel Command Gen. Paul Kern, a four-star general.

E-mail War Shakes up Program
In a much publicized E-mail War or, as a Birmingham News opinion called it, the "perverse public relations war," e-mail messages revealed wide a difference of opinions between federal emergency managers and elected Alabama officials concerning how they should approach emergency training.

The rift widened as the e-mail became public, revealing what appeared to many to be a plan to embarrass the Anniston, Ala., CSEPP community into monthly emergency drills whether they wanted them or not.

The e-mail war, reported by newspapers including Birmingham News, Anniston Star, and Tri-City Herald, was, ostensibly, an attempt to document the Army's efforts to help the Anniston community prepare for an accident at the incinerator. E-mail circulated by CWWG cited Lawrence Skelly, a special assistant with the Pentagon, as having written, "This (CSEPP) model has worked exceptionally well at the Umatilla site and we believe it will work in Anniston too."

But critics described it instead as a plot to discredit recalcitrant local officials, and Calhoun County officials objected to spending time and money on the training exercises when they had not received necessary equipment such as protective suits.

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., wrote Army Secretary White calling the plan, "a perverse and irresponsible attempt to deflect attention away from the Army's failures." The Anniston Star called the federal move an "Army ambush" and a "scheme" whereby the Army could "launch into a frontal public relations assault."

Bolton in Charge of "One Roof"
In a Jan. 15 memorandum, Secretary of the Army Thomas White directed Assistant Secretary Claude Bolton, Jr. to take over the Chemical Demilitarization Program and, along with the Army Materiel Command's General Kern, to establish an agency to "execute chemical demilitarization plant construction, operation, and closure, as well as chemical weapons storage."

As Williams remarked, "This will put the stockpile storage and disposal responsibilities under one roof." In the past, the Soldier and Biological Chemical Command has been in charge of storage, with the Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization over the destruction of chemical weapons. Personnel changes, both national and local, had been anticipated for some time. Nationally, Jim Dires has replaced Lawrence Skelly, who was the target of criticism over the E-mail War.

In the past, CSEPP Governing board members have expressed a concern that future Army administrators might not remember promises and assurances made by the old guard they replace. In May last year, Denzel Fisher, a high-up from the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, and the one who negotiated for Umatilla's original FEMA money in 1988, visited the Oregon CSEPP Governing Board and told them, "The Army is responsible for the demilitarization program and always will be." He said, "Emergency preparedness will always have the Army's support, "regardless of who is calling the shots."

UMCD officials do not expect the change at the top to bring about any major, immediate changes in the day to day operations a UMCD, according to Mary Binder, the UMCD public information person.

Locally, Lt. Col. Fred Pellisier will rotate out of the command in July, but that is a routine command change, unrelated to larger events.

http://www.cwwg.org/hh01.24.03.html

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

Top demilitarization officials visit Hermiston

Hermiston Herald
June 26, 2001
By Frank Lockwood (F. Ellsworth Lockwood)
Staff writer

HERMISTON - Top Army demilitarization officials met with local citizens and leaders at the PMCD Army Outreach Office Wednesday morning to give an update and answer questions on chemical weapons demilitarization.

Army representatives included: James Bacon, the nation's program manager for chemical demilitarization; Henry "Hank" Dubin, acting deputy assistant secretary of the Army; and Christopher Lesniak, program manager for chemical stockpile disposal. The Army officials had come to review the demilitarization project at Umatilla Chemical Depot and to meet with National Research Council representatives who held a quarterly meeting here last week.

Bacon said he felt good about the progress here, Lesniak praised the Oregon DEQ as a "tough task master" ("But that's okay. I'm glad they are."), and Dubin promised to work within state environmental laws and to observe all state safety standards. Dubin assumed his present position in 1999. He holds a number of degrees including a Ph.D. in Chemical Physics. His technical background is too long to include in this article, but includes teaching Symbolic Logic, developing experimental and mathematical simulation methods for evaluating small arms and fragmenting munition effects, and testing and evaluating target acquisition systems. He has served as chief of Intelligence and and Electronic Warfare Branch of the Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity, and as technical director for Operational Test and Evaluation Command. Internationally, Dubin led the US Joint War-games for bilateral studies with Germany on mine combat and was a leader in a ten-nation NATO anti-artillery study.

To the communities near chemical demilitarization sites, the Army is required to provide maximum protection. Dubin defined maximum protection as "striving for no impact." "Maximum protection means we do the best we can do," he said. On the other hand, the Army standards are much higher than other countries and, "If we leave that stuff out there, that's not maximum protection," he said. "The standard that has been stated for countries is no more than one out of a one-hundred-thousand chance that someone would die, in a year, from being around the chemical destruction process. "In our country we have a much higher standard, and ... with the numbers that we are working to, it is less than one out of a million chance that someone would be affected by it health wise."

Mayor Linda Fox of Irrigon asked how they could protect a farmer out in the field on a tractor. "We are struggling with that as well," Dubin said, "but (maximum protection) doesn't mean you aren't going to take any chances." The Army's "very structured process" will eliminate things in the project that do not work, he said, but destroying the rockets is a first priority. "The strategy is to get rid of the munitions and agents that are the most dangerous first," he said. "We have got to take care of the rockets first. That's part of the national strategy. We really want to maximize public safety and minimize risk to health and the environment."

Before the meeting, Chuck Norris, a former depot commander and former state representative, reminisced with Lesniak about the days when the depot's monitoring system consisted of placing rabbits in the storage units. If the rabbits died, gas was presumed present. "Maybe we should go back to that system," Norris quipped. A strong supporter of incineration, Norris asked, "How many laws can the state throw in the way (of incineration)?" How long before the federal government stands up to the state, he asked. "Do you have the jurisdiction and, if so, when will the federal government exercise it?" he asked.

Dubin answered, "We have the authority but we are not willing to exercise it." Instead, he said, the Army officials have enjoyed the cooperation and support of communities and want to continue working with them. The Army is not going to try to "bulldoze over" the state, he added.

According to Bacon, the PMCD has three chemical demilitarization goals:

1. Protect public health and safeguard the environment
2. Eliminate the chemical weapons stored here rapidly and safely
3. Fulfill a larger, national goal to eliminate all chemical weapons and our ability to produce them

Utah has already destroyed 5,100 tons of chemical weapons, he said. "That's more than are stored here," he noted. Furthermore, Bacon said he had seen no indications in Congress of a change in attitudes toward funding for chemical demilitarization. Though spending a million dollars a year always requires justification, the Army will have "plenty of opportunity" to prove the necessity, he said. Barring unforeseen events, Bacon told the Hermiston Herald, incineration will take four years, once started.

That, in spite of testimony to the contrary, when Craig Williams testified before a senate appropriations subcommittee, predicting that the Army would run years behind schedule. On the contrary, lessons learned at Johnston Atoll and in Tooele, Utah, would help achieve the goal, Bacon said. "We don't expect to leave any chemical weapons behind," Bacon said.

Wearing Hermiston's signature lapel pin, which depicts a slice of watermelon, Bacon noted that he enjoyed coming to Hermiston but hoped next time it could be during watermelon season.


http://www.cwwg.org/hh06.26.01.html

CSEPP ... new tones

http://www.csepp.net/pressreleases/03Releases/jan28'03-CSEPPtochangesound.html