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

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

Panel doesn't want incineration held up

Hermiston Herald

06/19/01

By Frank (F. Ellsworth) Lockwood
Staff writer

HERMISTON -- The Governor's Executive Review panel Tuesday discussed redefining or eliminating tough "showstopper" standards, rather than risking the delay of incineration of chemical weapons at Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility.

Showstoppers are issues that the ERP says absolutely must be resolved before incineration can begin. Most showstoppers have been resolved, but two remain: monitoring, and tactical radio communications.

The Governor's Executive Review Panel met at the National Guard Armory where they reviewed the "Second Interim Report on the Status of Protection for Communities Surrounding the Umatilla Chemical Depot (UMCD)." In a May 8 CSEPP exercise designed to evaluate emergency preparedness, the surrounding communities had passed seven performance measures but failed another eight. Five of the failures were due to the lack of monitoring equipment. The measures failed by default. Others were caused by "minor" issues, panel members said.

The two "key components" of having an adequate emergency program were showstoppers and performance measures. Now some panel members are questioning both of those. Performance measures were a tough, "all or nothing" evaluation. If one evaluator raised an issue at one location, the measure was assessed as failing at the entire exercise.

An "all or nothing, pass/fail scheme" might be inappropriate to use for deciding what is an "adequate program," the panel concluded. "Showstoppers" were questioned as well. According to earlier ERP agreements, emergency preparedness showstoppers, if not resolved, would hold up incineration of chemical weapons.

Umatilla County Commissioner Dennis Doherty suggested a more flexible standard at Tuesday's meeting, but not all agreed. Doherty is the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Governing Board's president.

Panel History
The Hazardous Waste Storage and Treatment Permit for the Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility states that the governor of Oregon must decide that an adequate emergency response program is in place before incineration of chemical weapons can begin.

Gov. John Kitzhaber appointed the 20 representatives to the Executive Review Panel in May 2000 to advise him when an adequate emergency preparedness program is in place and fully operational at UMCD. The panel reported in December that progress was being made.

To track emergency preparedness progress, the panel created a "Master List of Deficiencies." They also rated some elements of readiness as "critical." However, items can be on the critical list without becoming showstoppers. Incineration might go ahead even with unresolved items on the critical list. Not so with showstoppers. The panel had agreed that showstoppers, were essential elements and, if not resolved, would nix a good report.

Most showstoppers have been resolved, but the two remaining unresolved showstoppers were: 1) a tactical radio systems and 2) chemical agent monitoring. Radio tactical communications is in early stages of negotiation for contracting. And monitoring is not in place. Although some equipment purchases have been approved, the agent monitoring concept and equipment have yet to be put in place. Because it provides early warning of agent, monitoring is considered a necessary component of decontamination, evacuation assistance, and reentry into restricted areas.

The review panel goal was to be able to tell the governor in November that emergency preparedness is adequate, but members now worry the showstopper standards will upset their timetable.

Showstoppers Disputed
As the emergency preparedness target date draws nearer, the panel is asking, "Who came up with that list of showstoppers in the first place?" They discussed whether a showstopper really must stop the show, with Doherty suggesting they forget about using the word or the concept of "showstoppers," altogether.

Doherty argued instead for a continuum of desirable readiness indicators, which would allow them to make a positive report to the governor, even if not all showstoppers are resolved. Others questioned whether they could redefine the term, showstopper.

But Wanda Munn, from the state of Washington, said the term "showstoppers" means just that. You stop everything if those issues are not resolved. If items are not really showstoppers, they should be removed from the showstopper list, she said.

DEQ's Wayne Thomas suggested taking a vote on whether or not to have showstoppers, but Armand Minthorn, representing the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, cautioned against that. The panel decided to continue the discussion at the Aug. 23 meeting.

Target Date Doubted
Panel member Robert Flournoy said the panel would not be able to make a positive recommendation in November, based on the standards the panel had developed. A volley of exchanges over the issue took place between Flournoy and the moderator Wayne Thomas of the DEQ.

Thomas: Is there a possibility that we can be ready in November?
Flournoy: No. There are certain elements that are not going to be ready.
Thomas: Do we know that right now?
Flournoy: Do we know what?
Thomas: Do we know that we are not going to be ready in November.
Flournoy: From everything that I have been told absolutely we will not be ready.
Thomas: Is there a possibility that we could be ready in November?
Flournoy: Not when you take into consideration all of the elements ... (unintelligible) there are certain elements, no, we will not be ready. And I
think the governor should know. The community should have to know.
Thomas then told Flournoy, "We are facing it optimistically."
"I will be optimistic then," Flournoy said.

Munn, looking at a calendar, expressed doubts similar to Flournoy's. "I am a little concerned," she noted, about the "enormous achievements" that needed to be accomplished in order to give the governor a positive report in November.

Doherty compared the desired new tactical radio system to a new Cadillac. If the old system works, he said, it can serve for a while if necessary, rather than hold up incineration, just as the old Chevrolet gets one to and from work while waiting for the Cadillac to be delivered.

A recent $500,000 upgrade was done on the existing communications system, and Doherty says that system is adequate until a better one, using a 450 megahertz design, can be put in place. Doherty says CSEPP has its list of priorities on which they are working, so does the Army. When the Army is ready to burn, he says, he hopes the Executive Review Panel will agree that preparation is adequate. The real danger is from continued storage, not from incineration, Doherty said.

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

Hospital gets help recycling fluorescent lights

By Frank (F. Ellsworth) Lockwood

Published in The Hermiston Herald, January 23, 2003

Hermiston--  A special grant is now aimed at easing the pain of recycling- for hospitals.  The grant will help Good Shepherd Medical Center deal with used Fluorescent light tubes, which contain mercury.

In the past two years, while treating over 100,000 annual aches, pains, and health concerns, Good Shepherd reportedly handled about 14 tons of paper- enough to cause a real headache for any business other than a stouthearted recycler.

But paper is just one waste stream for Good Shepherd Health Care system, Plastic is another.  And the hospital and other aware businesses realize that burned- out- fluorescent light tubes can prepare a risk to the environment.  Gone are the days when the tubes could be just dumped into the landfill, now businesses are supposed to dispose of them properly.

“If it comes in the front door, it’s got to go out the back door sooner or later,” the hospital’s Environmental Services Manager, Ken Gummer said.  He was speaking of the tons of supplies, food, wrappers and other items that must be disposed of each year. Gummer’s job is to see that the waste is handled in a way that protects the environment and the public.

Inoperable fluorescent tubes can create a hazard because they still contain toxic metals, including cadmium and mercury.  Gummer said, Mercury is considered a serious health hazard and according to the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), health care facilities are the fourth – largest source of mercury in the environment.  Mercury, which is highly toxic to the human central nervous system, kidneys and liver, is commonly used in blood pressure monitoring devices, thermometers, batteries and fluorescent light bulbs.

Good Shepherd will receive a share of a grant that helps health providers to recycle mercury-containing fluorescent lamps.  Grant recipients contribute matching money, staff time or services.  The City of Milwaukie, working in partnership with the Portland-based Oregon Center for Environmental Health, was awarded $20,238 to help the Center develop fluorescent lamp recycling program at Legacy Health System in Portland, Asante Health System in Medford, and Good Shepherd Health System In Hermiston.

Gummer said he had not yet been told the amount that Good Shepherd would receive, but the money will help pay transportation costs to ship used fluorescent bulbs to a proper disposal sight.  According to a DEQ press release, The grant is an incentive for hospitals to participate in a statewide recycling program.  At least 50,000 mercury-containing fluorescent lamps will be diverted from the solid waste stream from 10 to 15 hospitals in the first year, with additional hospitals taking part in the future.  The Oregon Center for Environmental Health-part of the Oregon health Care Without Harm campaign- will monitor recycling efforts at each participating hospital, will train staff and will help set up the program.

Good Shepherd has already been training for better waste management, and has hosted one of three seminars on Health Care Without Harm.  The seminars teach health care representatives how to keep material out of the waste stream, through recycling, and how to reduce toxins to the environment.  Invitations were sent out to hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care institutions.  “We re trying to promote recycling in rural Oregon,” Gummer said.

More information is available on the internet at www.noharm.org, he said, “ Oregon was the first state to ban fever thermometers last year, in early 2002, because of mercury, Gummer said.

Various hospital waste streams are kept separate from each other and, if hazardous, treated accordingly.  For example, biohazards are handled, by contract, through a company and are not part the universal waste stream.  Waste silver, present in film, is extracted by a contractor.  The hospital is looking for a sponsor for a plastics recycling program. And the hospital will dispose of diabetics needles if they bring them in a proper container as described by the law, Gummer said. As to paper waste, the hospital uses Columbia Industries, a not- for-profit company that hires physically and mentally challenged people to recycle paper. “We make a lot of paper,” Gummer said.

Fluorescent tubes, though small in terms of the tons of them used by the hospital, are a potentially harmful waste stream because of the mercury they contain.  Laws that were changed a long time ago are now being enforced, but that is good.  Gummer said, “We don’t want to put nasty things down the drain, or to contaminate the atmosphere.”  Recycling also reduce the landfill bill, he said.  GSH Public Relations Director, Tricia Fenley commented, “Good Shepherd is excited to participate in the trend towards recycling.”