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

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