ARTICLES BY F. ELLSWORTH LOCKWOOD

Shoddy treatment of tribes comes back to bite CSEPP

2010-02-22T19:00:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The votes were always unanimous or near unanimous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frank Lockwood is a reporter for The Hermiston Herald.

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

Army: Waste to be treated on site

2010-02-20T19:00:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama ... early supporter of

2010-02-20T18:58:00.000-08:00

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

Army replaces key demilitarization personnel

2010-02-20T18:56:00.000-08:00

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.

htt p://www.cwwg.org/hh01.24.03.html

Witness testifies about alternative technologies

2010-02-20T18:55:00.001-08:00

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

2010-02-20T18:55:00.000-08:00

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:

Protect public health and safeguard the environment
Eliminate the chemical weapons stored here rapidly and safely
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

2010-02-20T18:54:00.000-08:00

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

Neutralization draws skepticism

2010-02-20T18:51:00.000-08:00

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.

htt p://www.cwwg.org/hh04.02.02.html

Panel doesn't want incineration held up

2010-02-20T05:06:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-20T04:35:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-20T04:21:00.000-08:00

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.”

2001: Strict control of news from chemical depot ...

2010-01-29T20:48:00.000-08:00

Hermiston Herald - - Dec 4, 2001
Strict control of news from chemical depot nothing new
By Frank Lockwood

Because of official policy, for the most part the public knows only what the Army and it's contractors want known about chemical demilitarization at Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility (UMCDF).

If past news stories about Umatilla Chemical Depot seemed as if they were written by the Army and the Army's contractors, that is because, largely, they probably were. And that may account for the scarcity of personal interviews and genuine on-the-scene reporting.

There has seen a news clampdown since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the East Coast, but information stemming from the depot's demilitarization program had been controlled long before then.

Before Sept. 11, the depot issued frequent press releases regarding activities and events at the depot. Since then, the approach has changed to a policy of "If not asked, do not tell." Public information officers still answer some questions, if asked specific questions, but no longer volunteer information.

But the news from the depot was filtered long before Sept. 11. Construction workers, in order to be hired, were required, first by Raytheon and later by Washington Demilitarization, to sign "no singing" contracts which prevented them from speaking with the media without prior approval from media experts.

Raytheon's document, titled UM-POL-006, effective Sept. 9, 1999, described the conditions and methods by which Raytheon employees could release Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility project information to the general public. The policy also applied to all Raytheon subcontractors.

The protocol officer was required to review and pre-approve all Raytheon and Raytheon subcontractor-generated materials intended for public use. The protocol officer also was to ensure accurate notification and coordination of public information with the Department of the Army before public release.

Information for public release included, but was not limited to, information for public meetings, response to questions regardless of source or method received, and any presentation materials produced for a public audience. In other words, information the media and the public is allowed to have is limited to that which both the contractors and the Army want them to have."The Protocol Officer will pre-approve all final statements provided to the general public," the document states.

Furthermore, Raytheon employees were not to speak their minds in public meetings, and were to give advance notice of their involvement. "Raytheon employees planning participation in public meetings will contact the Protocol Officer at least three working days in advance of a public presentation and provide the Protocol Officer with presentation materials." A similar policy was described in Washington Demilitarization's UM-POL-001. "It is (Washington Demilitarization's) policy not to release information to the media, except through the Protocol Officer, or ... Project Manager," the policy says.

Furthermore, the contractor does not welcome surprise visits by the media. Employees were ordered not to speak, even if spoken to by the media.The following instructions were included in the employee training and
contracts:

Do not give interviews or release information unless directed by the
Protocol Officer.
Direct all media inquiries to the Protocol Officer.
Contact Umatilla Chemical Depot Security and the Protocol Officer immediately if the media arrives unannounced at the UMCDF site.

In addition, the company wanted to coordinate (with the Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization Office's Public Affairs Officer) in advance all information to be released .

While people in the community have been interviewed, their opinions were likely formed through information that had been laundered.

First-hand accounts of day by day activities at Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility were, and will likely continue to be, rare.

According to a local union official, workers have too much to lose by speaking their minds, regardless of what they might want to say

2002: FEMA remarks catch Army off guard

2010-01-29T20:45:00.000-08:00

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)

2002: Army Concludes Analysis of risk assessment

2010-01-29T20:43:00.000-08:00

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'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 Governor's office waited five months, but eventually took Black's comments seriously enough to ask the Army to look into them, and the Army did that. In an August 1 letter from Aberdeen, Maryland, PMCD's Delbert Bunch thanked Governor John Kitzhaber for the "opportunity to address Dr. Jared Black's assessment."

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

2010-01-29T20:26:00.000-08:00

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.

(1998) Depot brings dramatic changes to town

2010-01-29T19:06:00.000-08:00

Depot brings dramatic changes to town By Frank Lockwood, page 6, Vision 2000, The Hermiston Herald, Tuesday, December 1, 1998

In just one year, from 1940 to 1941, Hermiston changed from a desert village of about 800 people into a boom town with 7,000 workers hammering, shoveling and pouring concrete to build the world's largest munitions depot in record time. The Umatilla Ordnance Depot has since been renamed several times and is now the Umatilla Chemical Depot.

The influx of construction workers overwhelmed local businesses and government. At times the local taverns had to shut down when they ran completely out of beer; it was strictly first come, first served.

Notes in Army archives described the town:

"Men who came and got work (had) $100 a week to spend. Their attempts to spend it made this peaceful village overnight into an overgrown carnival working a 24-hour shift. Hastily-erected lunch rooms and hot dog stands, soft drink and beer establishments, a movie, grocery stores, shoeshine stands, and meat markets played to long waiting lines.

"Living spaces became a luxury. Householders rented spare rooms, then rented front lawns and vacant lots for trailer space. The army erected barracks for 1,700 men at the depot but married men and their families still swarmed in. One farmer threw away his plow and turned his 160 acres into sought-after trailer space.
"With families still living in tents or under any shelter available, the state and federal governments stepped in. They provided migratory worker and trailer camps and augmented school facilities – just about the time the end of the job was sighted."

Thus, in 1940, life picked up in Hermiston. On Nov.14, 1940, after Washington D.C. announced Captain Robert C. Williams had been ordered to Hermiston, the Herald reported:

"What is to follow is known only in Washington, D.C.... Many rumors have floated about the streets of Hermiston... but the Herald will not seek to publish any of them."

By Dec.19, 1940, the government announced a huge contract to build the largest munitions depot in the world, right here in Hermiston, for a cost of $9,000,000. To put that in perspective, "Regular Size" cornflakes cost only five cents at the time. A new Sealy mattress sold for $29.50. Patent leather shoes were $2.25 a pair. You could buy a new John Deere tractor, mower, and back-rake for $730.

So $9 million was a lot of money those days. Some estimates were the cost would rise to $12 million. Then to $15 million. A 1990 Army document put the total construction cost at $35 million.
For the wages, the crews worked their tails off, setting world records for that type of work. On Sept.24, 1941, they poured 24 concrete igloos in 24 hours, using 9,000 yards of concrete.

To do this job, workers flocked to Hermiston, overwhelming the merchants and outstripping the area's ability to provide basic services and housing.

In Sept.1941, "Portland Oregon Journal" featured Hermiston as the "hot spot" of the Northwest. Newspapers welcomed workers and hailed their record-setting volumes of concrete poured during igloo construction.
"Workers from all sectors of the country came to drill the depot's deep wells, build its magazines, warehouses and shops, and carry out its 241-mile network of road and railroad tracks," an Army document says.
But by Nov.27, 1941, workers were leaving the town in droves as construction tapered off abruptly.

On Dec. 7, 1941, Japan attacked the Pearl Harbor, crippling the United States Navy Seventh Fleet and drawing the country in to the war. By December the Hermiston had posted guards at the city reservoir as part of the Civilian Defense Program and the depot went into service storing and shipping conventional weapons for use in World War II. According to Army documents, workers went on "round-the-clock -shifts to ship, receive, store and care for the items needed for war."

Because of the draft, whereby able-bodied men were called into military service, workers were scarce. Those who remained worked long, arduous hours. Women were plunged into the work force in unprecedented numbers. They drove heavy-duty trucks, handled ammunition, and built crates alongside men.

The Tragedy Igloos were designed so that, in the event of an explosion, the blast would go up, rather than out, to minimize the destruction. On March 21, 1944, bombs being stored in an ammunition storage igloo exploded, killing six civilian workers.

News reports said the blast was felt as far away as Lewiston, Idaho, and that the concussion traveled in waves, so that windows in a limited area were broken, but then the damage might "skip" several miles, to repeat itself. In some cases doors were blown off the hinges, and in others the casing went too. Seismographs in Spokane reported a "very slight" earth disturbance at the time of the explosion. However, the Army design proved effective in that the blast went upward as intended, and the sandy soil reportedly killed concussion to nearby bunkers. The Bunker housed 2,000 pound, "blockbuster" bombs used in aerial bombing, but contained "only a partial capacity of bombs."

No explanation was given of what actually caused the explosion, although some workers of the time speculated a bomb might have been defective, or may have been dropped "just right." News reports commended civilian workers for being "good soldiers" and for returning to work following the explosion.

Nevertheless, by May, the depot was running advertisements saying, "Help win the war!" Labor was on the decrease, the ad said, and the depot wanted people to sign up for a six-hour shift from 6 p.m. to 12 midnight. "This appeal is made to all able-bodied men in Hermiston," the ad said. The pay incentive was 81 cents per hour.

During the summer of 1945, huge stock of munitions were returned from overseas, and a "sizable amount" was routed to Hermiston for renovation, maintenance, and storage. Unserviceable ammunition was demilitarized and salvage was made of reusable components.

The Army built several new ammunition renovation shops and modified others, but the work "was a monumental task that took years to complete, Army documents say.

Thank you to Center for Columbia River History for preserving this on their web site: http://www.ccrh.org/
It was not until the 1960s that the depot would begin its role in storing toxic chemical munitions.

Chem Demil could lose $Millions (Columbia Basin Media article lifted from CWWG)

2010-01-29T18:43:00.000-08:00

Author's note: Chemical Weapons Working Group (CWWG) preserved this story on their web page at http://www.cwwg.org, on Dec. 19, 2005. Thank you to CWWG

-----------------------------

Story by F. Ellsworth Lockwood

The Pentagon has targeted new "alternative" chemical weapons programs for budget cuts, disappointing anti-incineration groups which view "alt-tech" as cleaner, safer, faster and cheaper than the present technologies.

Anti-incineration groups such as Chemical Weapons Working Group, GASP, Sierra Club and Oregon Wildlife Federation had hailed the new programs in Colorado and Kentucky as proof that the Army had now approved and accepted other methods of destruction besides so-called "baseline incineration" which they believe is dangerous to health and the environment. CWWG indicated the budget changes will eliminate disposal activities at sites important for demonstrating that alternative technologies are indeed viable.

The reports should be credible if the past is any indication: CWWG has at times been even better at projecting such things as cost overrides and scheduling changes than the Army's own press relations department. Pentagon documents showed that for 2006 the Pentagon is planning to allocate only $30 million for both Colorado and Kentucky, although those programs had been estimated to cost at $250 million or more. CWWG says completion of weapons disposal at Colorado and Kentucky would require $2 billion between 2006 and 2011, but that the Pentagon plans to cut funding for these programs down to a little more than $300 million for that time period.

Cuts of that size would likely halt alternative demolition of chemical weapons at storage sites in Richmond, Kentucky and Pueblo, Colorado. The Army apparently had the budget cutting plans before Christmas. Along with local, state and federal elected officials, the CWWG distributed a Pentagon decision document dated 21 December 2004, which referred to the possible delay of the program at both sites due to "external constraints the program must address." The same document is also being circulated in Colorado now. CWWG's Director, Craig Williams, denounced the planned cuts, calling them the Defense Department's “blatant disregard for the safety of tens of thousands of Americans due to extremely poor funding priorities.

The plans, if implemented, have international implications. "This funding approach makes compliance with the 2012 Chemical Weapons Convention deadline impossible, and is an admission by the United States that it is backing off its obligations regarding the Treaty," said Williams. Williams also questioned what he termed an Army “flip-flop” in regard to safety and security of communities living near the Kentucky stockpile. "Communities ... have been told for 20 years that the military will do whatever it takes to get rid of these weapons, because the risks (of continued storage) are so high,” Williams said, “And now that they (the Pentagon) are in a financial crunch we are being told that they have to let the weapons sit."

Williams also said that a 2002 classified report to Congress by the Secretary of the Army indicated Kentucky is considered to be the chemical weapons stockpile site at the highest risk for terrorism after 2007. Already, in 2004,the Pentagon pulled funds for chemical weapons disposal in Pueblo, Colorado, although Congress, fearing that the weapons sites could be terrorist targets, had requested the Army to accelerate the weapons disposal process, CWWG reported.

Pueblo resident and environmental activist Ross Vincent today said, "These funding cuts are a slap in the faces of our elected officials and the citizens of Colorado, who are working together for a safe disposal of these weapons. To the Pentagon we may be a number on a defense budget line item, but this is a real community facing real problems and risks."

Kentucky Senior Senator Mitch McConnell, in a prepared statement read by his representative at a press conference in Kentucky said, "The Department of Defense has an obligation to the citizens of Central Kentucky to dispose of chemical agents at the Blue Grass Army Depot in a safe and expeditious manner, and I will continue to devote my energy to ensuring that it lives up to that obligation."

Other presenters at Wednesday's press conference echoed the Senator's resolve, committing to fight for the funds necessary to move forward and not allow these weapons of mass destruction to languish in their community for another decade.

The cuts come twenty years after Congress ordered the U.S. Army to destroy its stockpile of obsolete chemical weapons, and at a time of concerns about terrorist threats. The Pentagon plans if implemented would cut funds for disposal of more than 3,134 tons of chemical weapons, according to CWWG, and this number represents 15 percent of the U.S. stockpile that remains to be destroyed.
.

About F. Ellsworth Lockwood's Articles

2010-01-29T18:30:00.000-08:00

By F. Ellsworth Lockwood
Eltopia, WA

I have written numerous articles, many of which were published when I was a reporter for The Hermiston Herald, a weekly in Hermiston, Oregon. Many of those articles seem to have been lost, perhaps irretrievably. However, others are still out there on the Internet, and in order to preserve as many as possible I will start searching for those and posting them here as I find them. If I see typo's or editorial errorts, I will attempt to correct those. Otherwise, the articles will be post as they were originally written unless they are specifically referred to as "revised." Unfortunately they are in no particular order. In due time I will try to at least add labels so that one will be able to search topics, but to begin with I am just finding old articles that I have written, and plopping them down. Sorry.

Thank you to anyone who reads this blog, and I welcome your comments.