Showing posts with label chemical agent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chemical agent. Show all posts
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Neutralization draws skepticism
Hermiston Herald
April 2, 2002
By Frank Lockwood (F. Ellsworth Lockwood)
Staff writer
HERMISTON - The Army can speed up the destruction of chemical agent and perhaps save money by using neutralization on the mustard agent at the Umatilla Chemical Depot, an assistant secretary of the Army says. However, he said, "If the community doesn't want to do it, that's fine."
Mario Fiori, assistant secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment, spoke at the PMCD Outreach Office last Tuesday about accelerating chemical weapons destruction. "I'd like decrease the time that it would take to get rid of (the nerve agent) by about four to five years," he said.
To speed incineration, the Army could go to three shifts, and employ "reconfiguration," and change procedures at the incinerator in order to process weapons faster.
"I find this a little confusing," said Morrow County Judge Terry Tallman, "when we have been told that incineration is state of the art and the best way to take care of this."
"I'm a believer in incineration," Fiori responded. "Neutralization is fairly straight forward."
Hermiston community leaders, encouraged by the Army, have repeatedly spoken for incineration but against neutralization for this site. Fiori anticipated reluctance to accept the changes. "I have read ... 'We are on this path, let's stay on it, don't deviate.' Well, we can do that if that's really what the community wants. It won't get rid of that (agent) five years earlier though."
Umatilla County Commissioner Dennis Doherty questioned the turn around. "Speedy neutralization wasn't recommended six years ago, particularly by the Army," Doherty said, and "What has changed that makes it of interest now?"
The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks added motivation for speeding weapons destruction, Fiori said, but, otherwise, "Nothing has changed. I am just interested in speeding up the process." On the other hand, the Army could save several years by modifying incineration procedures, employing alternate technologies, including neutralization of mustard, and by addressing unspecified "regulation issues."
Incineration opponents have been alert for any indication Fiori would seek a "Consent Decree," which amounts to a waiver of past permit decisions. DEQ's Wayne Thomas said Friday that the state is not considering a Consent Decree.
And neutralization would not delay or slow incineration, Fiori said. "I want to accelerate the throughput of that very safe incinerator. I want to make sure that we are operating the most efficiently that's possible. I want to investigate all presumptions in the way we work. I challenge the contractor to come up with a whole bunch of ways to accelerate, if he could, and I think it could easily save five years." Fiori said.
Neutralization is touted as a safer, faster way to destroy 2,635 tons of mustard stored in Umatilla, which makes up about 64 percent of all the chemical agent stockpile at the depot.
Comfortable With Incineration
"It has taken 11 or 12 years to get our people who are here somewhat comfortable with the incineration process," said Umatilla Mayor George Hash. "Now you want us to tell them differently."
Hash and others questioned adding alternative technologies to the budget when cash is short for present safety programs. "Present radio system can't keep contact with uptown and downtown Umatilla," Hash said. "If we throw in anything new that (citizens) even perceive as delaying the startup, we are going to have some unhappy people here," Hash said. "Don't do anything that's going to delay the startup of this incineration process."
Fiori, however, said his goal was to speed up incineration, not to slow it down.
Impacts Questioned
Morrow County Judge Terry Tallman suggested that running two plants at once would aggravate a boom-bust cost to his community. He inquired as to whether adding another facility - and the impacts on the communities it would bring - would make federal impact aid any more likely.
"That's a valid issue, but I don't think you will get impact aid," Fiori said.
Tallman had concerns about the environmental impact, and about waste management. "The depot is in a critical groundwater area," he said, "and what we have been told about this technology is that it demands tremendous amounts of water. One of the things we do not want to see is people's private wells and the city's' wells be impacted because of this greater demand for water."
A release from Chemical Weapons Working group, however, challenged that notion, saying that neutralization might use less water than incineration.
Tallman asked about the disposal of contaminated water which would be generated by neutralization. "We don't have the facilities in Oregon to handle it - the infrastructure," he said.
"The waste that comes from neutralization is fairly benign," Fiori noted. "You will drown in it before you are poisoned by it." But Tallman responded that he was concerned about the "sheer volume," not the toxicity of the neutralization waste.
Other Interests
Increasing incinerator operations to three shifts, seven days per week, would increase the need for on-duty CSEPP personnel, but money is not budgeted for that, county commissioners said. Army spokesmen replied that they needed round-the-clock response capabilities anyway, and that moving munitions would only occur during daylight hours, under specific weather conditions.
Morrow County Commissioner John Wenholz suggested that funding for safety should be tied to any changes that would impact emergency preparedness. "You say ... for the safety of the United States it is important that we move this program ahead," Wenholz said. "I am saying, that for the safety of the citizens that live in this area, we need whatever funding it takes to provide for their safety."
"If you need more resources, I can't imagine not doing it," Fiori told those present.
Goals the Same
Citizens Advisory Commission Chairman Bob Flournoy voiced a recurring theme when he said, "If we do bring in new technology, we are not going to (want to) slow anything down. Because that's what everyone's interested in. Getting rid of this stuff."
"Yes sir," Fiori said. "We certainly agree with the goals that you just said. And (incineration and neutralization) would be simultaneous operations, if it ever happens. I am not slowing down incineration."
Frank Lockwood may be reached at 567-6457 or by e-mail at
flockwood@hermistonherald.com.
http://www.cwwg.org/hh04.02.02.html
Court compels Army to turn over documents
By Frank (F. Ellsworth) Lockwood
Published in Hermiston Herald
August 13, 2002
(Also posted at www.cwwg.org)
HERMISTON - The United States District Court has ordered the Army to turn over documents pertaining to the workers injured by mysterious fumes at Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility (UMCDF) on Sept. 15, 1999.
No one from chemical demilitarization has been able to give a definitive answer as to what sickened workers in the building known as the MDB, causing some 30 of them to seek medical attention at nearby hospitals.
In February, the victims of the Sept. 15, 1999 incident filed what is called a "Motion to Compel." A motion to compel is a pleading which asks the court to tell someone, in this case the Army, to produce certain materials. The motion was filed because the Army refused to produce 58 requested documents, instead claiming a "deliberative process privilege." The order compelling discovery of 58 documents was signed by U.S. Court District Judge Dennis Hubel on April 3.
Past courts have refused to apply the shield when government misconduct or bad faith is at issue. The ill workers' case involves "the Army's credibility and the public's need to rely on accurate government fact finding and reporting," the plaintiffs' memorandum says. Disclosure of the documents would assist in restoring the public's faith in the management of the chemical weapons stockpiled at Umatilla, memorandum claimed.
On the other hand, if the documents prove that the contractor, Raytheon, now called Washington Demilitarization, knew that the air monitoring tests inside the Munitions Demilitarization Building detected chemical agents, then Raytheon's failure to notify, properly treat and decontaminate the injured employees could be "evidence of negligence or worse."
Workers hope the documents will reveal which defendants knew that Raytheon refused the Army Depot clinic's help, and who was responsible for that refusal. They also contend that air monitoring was conducted in the wrong rooms in the MDB, and the documents may show which, if any, defendants knew that. Also sought was information which would reveal which defendants knew why the RTAP monitoring units, stationed minutes away from the MDB, delayed for over three hours before beginning air monitoring at the site of the accident.
Depot officials, as well as depot workers privately, have told The Hermiston Herald that the Army did not treat the incident as if it were a nerve gas incident because it was impossible, they say, that nerve gas could have been involved.
The plaintiffs' memorandum claimed that, though the United States and the contractor, Raytheon, published separate investigation reports, the investigations were interrelated in a complex way.
The implication was that the reports by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the depot, the Program Manager for Chemical Stockpile Demilitarization, and Raytheon Demilitarization depended upon each others' information, instead of drawing their own conclusions independently.
"These entities were reviewing and providing editorial comments on each other's draft reports, and were complexly linked together in the incident investigation," investigators for the workers reported.
Also involved in depot safety was Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). SAIC regularly conducted safety reviews at the UMCDF construction site and reported the results to the Army, but e-mail from Loren Sharp, plant manager for Raytheon at the time, is expected to indicate that Sharp influenced SAIC investigator Leslie Hutchinson to make unspecified change his report.
Hutchinson alone, among investigators, discussed prior similar exposure incidents the week of Sept. 15, 1999 though the Army and SAIC are thought to have been "well aware" of the similar, smaller, incidents occurring around the time of the big incident.
Plaintiffs have alleged that the investigation was fraudulent. Each of the compelled 58 documents relates in some manner to the investigation of the incident. "These documents are the best evidence to prove or disprove this allegation," argued James McCandlish, attorney for the plaintiffs. McCandlish also wanted to access any personal copies of the investigators' reports, which could have handwritten notes that shed more light on the incident.
"The liability of the construction company defendants and SAIC will, in large part, be determined by what information each of them were aware of (fraud), or should have been aware of (negligence)," the plaintiffs' memorandum states, and the Army has an interest in shielding these contractors from liability, because they have indemnified Raytheon and SAIC is an agent of the Army, not an independent contractor for liability purposes.
Attorneys for the workers will try to prove that the Army hid the results from the public when gas was detected, that the Army misrepresented the results, thus clearing chemical agent as a cause, and that the Army falsely asserted the equipment was not sufficiently sensitive to rely on the admitted detections, but later spent several million dollars to stop the leaks where by agent had a clear path to the environment.
The suit also alleges the Army made false claims about wind direction during the incident. The Army records the wind speed and direction every 15 minutes at several stations located around the UMCD, but the actual records were not included in the reports, the memorandum states. The Army at first claimed the wind was blowing the wrong direction to have blown any agent in the direction of the MDB, but wind reports, later obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, indicated otherwise.
"The wind records do not exonerate chemical agent as a cause of the incident," the memorandum claims.
The Army issued a public press release at 2:30 p.m. on the day of the incident, stating that chemical agent was not the cause of the incident, although air monitoring for chemical agent inside the MDB did not begin until 3:10 p.m., and the results were not available until 3:45. (The incident had occurred about 11 a.m.)
Workers say they were assured the igloos were "air tight" and that chemicals could not escape. Later, the DEQ contended that vents and drains presented an open path to the environment, and required them to be modified.
Plaintiffs and their families say they continue to suffer the after effects of the September incident: damaged lungs, reactive airway disease, skin rashes and lethargy and more.
Meanwhile, attorneys amended the complaint for the third time, on June 17. Among other things, the amended complaint attempts to plea fraud claims with greater specificity and to reflect facts that had been learned by discovery up to that time. A fourth amended complaint is expected in the future.
The full discovery is expected to either confirm some concerns, or dispel them as "merely suspicions."
Frank Lockwood may be reached at 567-6457 or by e-mail at flockwood@hermistonherald.com
Published in Hermiston Herald
August 13, 2002
(Also posted at www.cwwg.org)
HERMISTON - The United States District Court has ordered the Army to turn over documents pertaining to the workers injured by mysterious fumes at Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility (UMCDF) on Sept. 15, 1999.
No one from chemical demilitarization has been able to give a definitive answer as to what sickened workers in the building known as the MDB, causing some 30 of them to seek medical attention at nearby hospitals.
In February, the victims of the Sept. 15, 1999 incident filed what is called a "Motion to Compel." A motion to compel is a pleading which asks the court to tell someone, in this case the Army, to produce certain materials. The motion was filed because the Army refused to produce 58 requested documents, instead claiming a "deliberative process privilege." The order compelling discovery of 58 documents was signed by U.S. Court District Judge Dennis Hubel on April 3.
Past courts have refused to apply the shield when government misconduct or bad faith is at issue. The ill workers' case involves "the Army's credibility and the public's need to rely on accurate government fact finding and reporting," the plaintiffs' memorandum says. Disclosure of the documents would assist in restoring the public's faith in the management of the chemical weapons stockpiled at Umatilla, memorandum claimed.
On the other hand, if the documents prove that the contractor, Raytheon, now called Washington Demilitarization, knew that the air monitoring tests inside the Munitions Demilitarization Building detected chemical agents, then Raytheon's failure to notify, properly treat and decontaminate the injured employees could be "evidence of negligence or worse."
Workers hope the documents will reveal which defendants knew that Raytheon refused the Army Depot clinic's help, and who was responsible for that refusal. They also contend that air monitoring was conducted in the wrong rooms in the MDB, and the documents may show which, if any, defendants knew that. Also sought was information which would reveal which defendants knew why the RTAP monitoring units, stationed minutes away from the MDB, delayed for over three hours before beginning air monitoring at the site of the accident.
Depot officials, as well as depot workers privately, have told The Hermiston Herald that the Army did not treat the incident as if it were a nerve gas incident because it was impossible, they say, that nerve gas could have been involved.
The plaintiffs' memorandum claimed that, though the United States and the contractor, Raytheon, published separate investigation reports, the investigations were interrelated in a complex way.
The implication was that the reports by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the depot, the Program Manager for Chemical Stockpile Demilitarization, and Raytheon Demilitarization depended upon each others' information, instead of drawing their own conclusions independently.
"These entities were reviewing and providing editorial comments on each other's draft reports, and were complexly linked together in the incident investigation," investigators for the workers reported.
Also involved in depot safety was Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). SAIC regularly conducted safety reviews at the UMCDF construction site and reported the results to the Army, but e-mail from Loren Sharp, plant manager for Raytheon at the time, is expected to indicate that Sharp influenced SAIC investigator Leslie Hutchinson to make unspecified change his report.
Hutchinson alone, among investigators, discussed prior similar exposure incidents the week of Sept. 15, 1999 though the Army and SAIC are thought to have been "well aware" of the similar, smaller, incidents occurring around the time of the big incident.
Plaintiffs have alleged that the investigation was fraudulent. Each of the compelled 58 documents relates in some manner to the investigation of the incident. "These documents are the best evidence to prove or disprove this allegation," argued James McCandlish, attorney for the plaintiffs. McCandlish also wanted to access any personal copies of the investigators' reports, which could have handwritten notes that shed more light on the incident.
"The liability of the construction company defendants and SAIC will, in large part, be determined by what information each of them were aware of (fraud), or should have been aware of (negligence)," the plaintiffs' memorandum states, and the Army has an interest in shielding these contractors from liability, because they have indemnified Raytheon and SAIC is an agent of the Army, not an independent contractor for liability purposes.
Attorneys for the workers will try to prove that the Army hid the results from the public when gas was detected, that the Army misrepresented the results, thus clearing chemical agent as a cause, and that the Army falsely asserted the equipment was not sufficiently sensitive to rely on the admitted detections, but later spent several million dollars to stop the leaks where by agent had a clear path to the environment.
The suit also alleges the Army made false claims about wind direction during the incident. The Army records the wind speed and direction every 15 minutes at several stations located around the UMCD, but the actual records were not included in the reports, the memorandum states. The Army at first claimed the wind was blowing the wrong direction to have blown any agent in the direction of the MDB, but wind reports, later obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, indicated otherwise.
"The wind records do not exonerate chemical agent as a cause of the incident," the memorandum claims.
The Army issued a public press release at 2:30 p.m. on the day of the incident, stating that chemical agent was not the cause of the incident, although air monitoring for chemical agent inside the MDB did not begin until 3:10 p.m., and the results were not available until 3:45. (The incident had occurred about 11 a.m.)
Workers say they were assured the igloos were "air tight" and that chemicals could not escape. Later, the DEQ contended that vents and drains presented an open path to the environment, and required them to be modified.
Plaintiffs and their families say they continue to suffer the after effects of the September incident: damaged lungs, reactive airway disease, skin rashes and lethargy and more.
Meanwhile, attorneys amended the complaint for the third time, on June 17. Among other things, the amended complaint attempts to plea fraud claims with greater specificity and to reflect facts that had been learned by discovery up to that time. A fourth amended complaint is expected in the future.
The full discovery is expected to either confirm some concerns, or dispel them as "merely suspicions."
Frank Lockwood may be reached at 567-6457 or by e-mail at flockwood@hermistonherald.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)