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
Showing posts with label chemical weapons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chemical weapons. Show all posts
Saturday, February 20, 2010
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
Friday, January 29, 2010
2002: FEMA remarks catch Army off guard
Hermiston Herald
May 14, 2002
FEMA remarks catch Army off guard
HERMISTON - The Army is as committed to emergency preparedness as ever, despite reports that FEMA wants out of the chemical stockpile demilitarization business, Army officials said Monday.
Oregon Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program determined Friday that they had passed performance measures. That success coincided with reports that FEMA wanted to cut its ties with CSEPP.
Federal Emergency Management Agency Director Joe Allbaugh reportedly requested that FEMA be relieved of its duties associated with CSEPP, and was quoted as saying "The Army should have the whole program."
Denzel Fisher from the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, attended Monday's Irrigon meeting of the Oregon CSEPP Governing Board, and gave a "history" of FEMA involvement. Friday's news had taken him off guard, he said, but FEMA has tried on two earlier occasions to be relieved of CSEPP responsibilities. The problems were worked out then and likely will be now as well, he said. At any rate, the Army has always been, and remains, committed to state and local government when critical emergency preparedness items were needed, he said.
"You will not find a time when the Army has failed to support the federal emergency program," he said. Instead, he said, "it was the Army's decision to create this program in the first place. I was the one who negotiated for the original money in 1988." In 1997, FEMA had tried to back out of CSEPP. "It has been a rocky road, but we have always been able to work through things, and this is not going to be an exception," he said.
"The Army's responsible for the demilitarization program and always will be," he said. If more money is needed, the Army will make requests to Congress and negotiate aggressively for it, he said. Emergency preparedness will always have the Army's support, "regardless of who is calling the shots," he said.
Board members asked whether they would be able to have input into any reorganization. Army Special Assistant Larry Skelley, who was also present Monday, said "If we have to reorganize, it will be done, I think, with complete and total participation by the state." As a measure of government commitment to preparedness, CSEPP is the only federal program he is aware of that is fully funded, Skelly told The
Hermiston Herald.
Although Fisher and Skelly were outspoken about the Army's commitment to CSEPP, no one at the meeting had information that would shed light on Allbaugh's comments. They did not know the context, or what Allbaugh meant by the statements, Skelly and Fisher said.
In other business, the Governing Board decided to recommend to today's meeting of the Governor's Executive Review Panel that the ERP's report to the governor say that emergency preparedness is adequate to start up the Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility, although they agreed the ERP report should be qualified with a letter explaining that there was unfinished necessary work to be done, including the purchase and implementation of a 450-megahertz radio system.
End
--------------------
Preserved by Chemcical Weapons Working Group, thank you CWWG (http://www.cwwg.org/hh05.14.02.html)
May 14, 2002
FEMA remarks catch Army off guard
HERMISTON - The Army is as committed to emergency preparedness as ever, despite reports that FEMA wants out of the chemical stockpile demilitarization business, Army officials said Monday.
Oregon Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program determined Friday that they had passed performance measures. That success coincided with reports that FEMA wanted to cut its ties with CSEPP.
Federal Emergency Management Agency Director Joe Allbaugh reportedly requested that FEMA be relieved of its duties associated with CSEPP, and was quoted as saying "The Army should have the whole program."
Denzel Fisher from the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, attended Monday's Irrigon meeting of the Oregon CSEPP Governing Board, and gave a "history" of FEMA involvement. Friday's news had taken him off guard, he said, but FEMA has tried on two earlier occasions to be relieved of CSEPP responsibilities. The problems were worked out then and likely will be now as well, he said. At any rate, the Army has always been, and remains, committed to state and local government when critical emergency preparedness items were needed, he said.
"You will not find a time when the Army has failed to support the federal emergency program," he said. Instead, he said, "it was the Army's decision to create this program in the first place. I was the one who negotiated for the original money in 1988." In 1997, FEMA had tried to back out of CSEPP. "It has been a rocky road, but we have always been able to work through things, and this is not going to be an exception," he said.
"The Army's responsible for the demilitarization program and always will be," he said. If more money is needed, the Army will make requests to Congress and negotiate aggressively for it, he said. Emergency preparedness will always have the Army's support, "regardless of who is calling the shots," he said.
Board members asked whether they would be able to have input into any reorganization. Army Special Assistant Larry Skelley, who was also present Monday, said "If we have to reorganize, it will be done, I think, with complete and total participation by the state." As a measure of government commitment to preparedness, CSEPP is the only federal program he is aware of that is fully funded, Skelly told The
Hermiston Herald.
Although Fisher and Skelly were outspoken about the Army's commitment to CSEPP, no one at the meeting had information that would shed light on Allbaugh's comments. They did not know the context, or what Allbaugh meant by the statements, Skelly and Fisher said.
In other business, the Governing Board decided to recommend to today's meeting of the Governor's Executive Review Panel that the ERP's report to the governor say that emergency preparedness is adequate to start up the Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility, although they agreed the ERP report should be qualified with a letter explaining that there was unfinished necessary work to be done, including the purchase and implementation of a 450-megahertz radio system.
End
--------------------
Preserved by Chemcical Weapons Working Group, thank you CWWG (http://www.cwwg.org/hh05.14.02.html)
2002: Army Concludes Analysis of risk assessment
Hermiston Herald
August 20, 2002
Army concludes analysis of risk assessment
By Frank Lockwood
Staff writer
HERMISTON - The Army has finished a defense of the UMCDF Quantitative Risk Assessment Phase 1. Meanwhile, local emergency managers say they have yet to receive a copy of QRA Phase 2, which the Army says is secret.
The review was done at the request of the state in response to comments by Texas risk analyst Jared Black who had done an unfunded review of the document. It is hard to tell who is right in the matter, but emergency managers say the result is extra safety for residents and the environment. Black had first argued there were weaknesses in the Phase 1 study, when he wrote that:
The Army had hired Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to review some of Black's remarks. Black's initial assessment had reinforced the view that continued storage of the chemical agent presents the greatest risk to the community. Bunch wrote, "I wish to express my thanks to R.Black," and, "The public will gain a better understanding of the risk assessment process and the need to destroy these weapons as soon as possible."
Beneath the diplomatic language lurked basic differences in approach and a lack of communication between the major players. Black, in a July 30 e-mail correspondence with the Hermiston Herald, said SAIC had not consulted with him, and that neither the new nor the old toxicity standards were reliable.
"I've not been contacted by anyone other than (the activists) Craig Williams and Karyn Jones, and that was some time ago," he wrote. "I've reviewed the EPA AEGL reports on VX and the G series nerve agents and find them surprisingly weak."
Following Black's initial review of the Phase 1 QRA, Black investigated further, and ended up with more concerns, this time regarding the Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The new guidelines are eventually expected to provide a common standard for organizations responding to chemical accidents. A technical review group, which includes Oregon and Washington officials, is now reviewing AEGL information.
SAIC's technical response puts off arguments about the AEGLs for later, on the one hand, and defends QRA Phase 1 on the other, citing alleged flaws in Black's study. "It is not possible to determine if Dr. Black's source data or analysis were completed with the same depth and rigor as that used in the UMCDF (Army documents)," the response states. SAIC further criticized some of Black's methods as "simplistic" and "without the degree of rigor" that the Army had used.
Seismic Events: Much of the SAIC report is technical, with terminology such as "ground motion attenuation relationships," and it includes complex mathematical formulas that are given to demonstrate that the Army was right, Black wrong, about seismic events. Other parts of the report seem clear enough for the lay reader: "What is critical is that the public understands that a severe earthquake, though very rare, could strike tomorrow."
Processing Risks risks not explicit in the report were assumed to be the same as those in Tooele, SAIC says. And for many "initiating events" there is no escape of agent to the environment. "Fault trees" are in the appendix. Agent type, release quantity, release duration, release type [spill, explosion, fire, etc.] and relevant consequence estimates for each sequence are include in the3 draft Phase 2 QRA.
Black was traveling at the time the SAIC report came out, but said he will look at the SAIC documents after he returns from his trip, which will be in September. An August 5 letter from Black to William Sanders, US EPA's Office Director, however, indicate Black's position at that time. He wrote, "The people living near the facility are concerned about the safety of the disposal process. ... Their concern is not misplaced."
While the Army's allowable toxicity levels, based on healthy male soldiers, were too high for the general public, Black says that the EPA's figures are biased in the other direction.
"I find the Public Draft reports provide very weak scientific support for the proposed AEGLs; the recommended thresholds are strongly, even unreasonably, biased toward low exposure levels. The result is that the exposure levels used in the Army's Phase 1 QRA are placed in question by equally questionable EPA results, leaving the public with no reliable way to assess their own safety."
And SAIC's analysis said, "Black takes the simplistic approach that any even involving a certain number of munitions results in an immediate and total release of the agent contents of those munitions."
Whether that is true, and regardless who is right, emergency managers say they are glad that, when in doubt, the EPA set lower exposure levels. In cases where there was uncertainty, the EPA simply built in a greater factor of safety, and that means more protection for the public, they say.
Morrow County Emergency Manager Casey Beard, however, told the Hermiston Herald earlier this month that he had yet to see a copy of Army's updated risk analysis, or QRA Phase 2, and that he needs that documentation in order to ensure the safety of the community. Beard said he can qualify for any level of security which the Army might require, but, "I need to see a copy of that information."
End
--------------------------
Appreciation: Article was preserved by iRazoo (http://www.irazoo.com/ViewSite.aspx?q=Hermiston+Herald&Page=1&irp=1&Site=http://www.cwwg.org/hh08.20.02b.html
Thank you iRazoo.
August 20, 2002
Army concludes analysis of risk assessment
By Frank Lockwood
Staff writer
HERMISTON - The Army has finished a defense of the UMCDF Quantitative Risk Assessment Phase 1. Meanwhile, local emergency managers say they have yet to receive a copy of QRA Phase 2, which the Army says is secret.
The review was done at the request of the state in response to comments by Texas risk analyst Jared Black who had done an unfunded review of the document. It is hard to tell who is right in the matter, but emergency managers say the result is extra safety for residents and the environment. Black had first argued there were weaknesses in the Phase 1 study, when he wrote that:
- The Army's seismic (earthquake) risk is overstated
- The fault tree analysis gives no details on the processing risks
- No information is given on the relationship between the quantity of
- chemical agent release and public health risk.
The Army had hired Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to review some of Black's remarks. Black's initial assessment had reinforced the view that continued storage of the chemical agent presents the greatest risk to the community. Bunch wrote, "I wish to express my thanks to R.Black," and, "The public will gain a better understanding of the risk assessment process and the need to destroy these weapons as soon as possible."
Beneath the diplomatic language lurked basic differences in approach and a lack of communication between the major players. Black, in a July 30 e-mail correspondence with the Hermiston Herald, said SAIC had not consulted with him, and that neither the new nor the old toxicity standards were reliable.
"I've not been contacted by anyone other than (the activists) Craig Williams and Karyn Jones, and that was some time ago," he wrote. "I've reviewed the EPA AEGL reports on VX and the G series nerve agents and find them surprisingly weak."
Following Black's initial review of the Phase 1 QRA, Black investigated further, and ended up with more concerns, this time regarding the Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The new guidelines are eventually expected to provide a common standard for organizations responding to chemical accidents. A technical review group, which includes Oregon and Washington officials, is now reviewing AEGL information.
SAIC's technical response puts off arguments about the AEGLs for later, on the one hand, and defends QRA Phase 1 on the other, citing alleged flaws in Black's study. "It is not possible to determine if Dr. Black's source data or analysis were completed with the same depth and rigor as that used in the UMCDF (Army documents)," the response states. SAIC further criticized some of Black's methods as "simplistic" and "without the degree of rigor" that the Army had used.
Seismic Events: Much of the SAIC report is technical, with terminology such as "ground motion attenuation relationships," and it includes complex mathematical formulas that are given to demonstrate that the Army was right, Black wrong, about seismic events. Other parts of the report seem clear enough for the lay reader: "What is critical is that the public understands that a severe earthquake, though very rare, could strike tomorrow."
Processing Risks risks not explicit in the report were assumed to be the same as those in Tooele, SAIC says. And for many "initiating events" there is no escape of agent to the environment. "Fault trees" are in the appendix. Agent type, release quantity, release duration, release type [spill, explosion, fire, etc.] and relevant consequence estimates for each sequence are include in the3 draft Phase 2 QRA.
Black was traveling at the time the SAIC report came out, but said he will look at the SAIC documents after he returns from his trip, which will be in September. An August 5 letter from Black to William Sanders, US EPA's Office Director, however, indicate Black's position at that time. He wrote, "The people living near the facility are concerned about the safety of the disposal process. ... Their concern is not misplaced."
While the Army's allowable toxicity levels, based on healthy male soldiers, were too high for the general public, Black says that the EPA's figures are biased in the other direction.
"I find the Public Draft reports provide very weak scientific support for the proposed AEGLs; the recommended thresholds are strongly, even unreasonably, biased toward low exposure levels. The result is that the exposure levels used in the Army's Phase 1 QRA are placed in question by equally questionable EPA results, leaving the public with no reliable way to assess their own safety."
And SAIC's analysis said, "Black takes the simplistic approach that any even involving a certain number of munitions results in an immediate and total release of the agent contents of those munitions."
Whether that is true, and regardless who is right, emergency managers say they are glad that, when in doubt, the EPA set lower exposure levels. In cases where there was uncertainty, the EPA simply built in a greater factor of safety, and that means more protection for the public, they say.
Morrow County Emergency Manager Casey Beard, however, told the Hermiston Herald earlier this month that he had yet to see a copy of Army's updated risk analysis, or QRA Phase 2, and that he needs that documentation in order to ensure the safety of the community. Beard said he can qualify for any level of security which the Army might require, but, "I need to see a copy of that information."
End
--------------------------
Appreciation: Article was preserved by iRazoo (http://www.irazoo.com/ViewSite.aspx?q=Hermiston+Herald&Page=1&irp=1&Site=http://www.cwwg.org/hh08.20.02b.html
Thank you iRazoo.
2002: Army, review of risk assessments
Hermiston Herald
Sept. 24, 2002
Review of risk assessments may be ready in December
By Frank Lockwood
Staff writer
HERMISTON - A review of the Army's new UMCDF Quantitative Risk Assessment is nearly completed: Panel members say they do not know if the Army will apply all of their recommendations.
The Army's new QRA, which is said to include more details on processing risks than former versions of the QRA, was in process for several years before it was submitted to the panel. The panel has held 12 meetings and 17 teleconferences since October 1999, and their report includes "in-depth review and comments" on the QRA methodology described in preliminary draft QRAs for UMCDF (Umatilla, July 2001) and ANCDF (Anniston, Ala., October 2000).
Speaking to the Citizens Advisory Commission on Thursday, concerning the new report, were Katheryn Higley, an associate professor at Oregon State University, and Shib Seth, a senior technical advisor with the Department of Engergy. Five other members of the panel, not present Thursday, included experts in probablistic risk assessment, process design, mathematical modeling, safety analysis and other fields related to risk assessment. The review was done in connection with Mitretek Systems, a not-for-profit organization that works "exclusively in the public interest."
As part of the study, the panel looked at review analyses performed by the contractor Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). The panel made recommendations concerning QRA methodology, QRA maintenance and update, reduction of risks indentified by the QRA, and use of the QRA in risk management.
When questioned, panel representatives could not tell a local DEQ official what will happen if the Army disagrees with their recommendations. DEQ Administrator Wayne Thomas asked whether the Army was to be required to follow the recommendations, and what would be the process if the Army should happen to disagree with some of those recommendations. Seth and Higley acknowledged those were important questions but said they did not yet know the answers.
The UMCDF QRA is scheduled for completion in December 2002, but panel members and Army sources have said that the new QRA is expected to be a "living document' subject to change as changes are made to the design or operation of the plant.
Following the 911 terrorist attack, so-called "external events," including terrorist acts, have been given new attention.
Sept. 24, 2002
Review of risk assessments may be ready in December
By Frank Lockwood
Staff writer
HERMISTON - A review of the Army's new UMCDF Quantitative Risk Assessment is nearly completed: Panel members say they do not know if the Army will apply all of their recommendations.
The Army's new QRA, which is said to include more details on processing risks than former versions of the QRA, was in process for several years before it was submitted to the panel. The panel has held 12 meetings and 17 teleconferences since October 1999, and their report includes "in-depth review and comments" on the QRA methodology described in preliminary draft QRAs for UMCDF (Umatilla, July 2001) and ANCDF (Anniston, Ala., October 2000).
Speaking to the Citizens Advisory Commission on Thursday, concerning the new report, were Katheryn Higley, an associate professor at Oregon State University, and Shib Seth, a senior technical advisor with the Department of Engergy. Five other members of the panel, not present Thursday, included experts in probablistic risk assessment, process design, mathematical modeling, safety analysis and other fields related to risk assessment. The review was done in connection with Mitretek Systems, a not-for-profit organization that works "exclusively in the public interest."
As part of the study, the panel looked at review analyses performed by the contractor Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). The panel made recommendations concerning QRA methodology, QRA maintenance and update, reduction of risks indentified by the QRA, and use of the QRA in risk management.
When questioned, panel representatives could not tell a local DEQ official what will happen if the Army disagrees with their recommendations. DEQ Administrator Wayne Thomas asked whether the Army was to be required to follow the recommendations, and what would be the process if the Army should happen to disagree with some of those recommendations. Seth and Higley acknowledged those were important questions but said they did not yet know the answers.
The UMCDF QRA is scheduled for completion in December 2002, but panel members and Army sources have said that the new QRA is expected to be a "living document' subject to change as changes are made to the design or operation of the plant.
Following the 911 terrorist attack, so-called "external events," including terrorist acts, have been given new attention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)