Deseret News
Tuesday, July 29, 2003

Did air monitor falsify data?; U.S. says he compromised safety at chemical facility

By Joe Bauman
Deseret Morning News

David James Yarbrough, former supervisor of an air-monitoring unit at a facility researching destruction of chemical munitions, falsified data and compromised safety, a prosecutor charged Monday.

But a defense lawyer insisted Yarbrough's records were not falsified but simply his own figures concerning tests of air-monitoring equipment.

Yarbrough was supervisor in charge of air monitors at the Army's Chemical Agent Munitions Demilitarization System (CAMDS), located at Deseret Chemical Depot near Stockton, Tooele County.

CAMDS is separate from the Army's $1 billion incinerator, also located at the depot. The incinerator is where arms containing chemical agent are being destroyed. CAMDS is a research and development plant working on technology to destroy such munitions.

After he was indicted late last year, Yarbrough, a Stockton resident, told the Deseret Morning News he is innocent and that more of the story was yet to come out. He is charged with eight counts, each carrying a possible term of up to five years in prison upon conviction.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Y. Hirata said the case involves baseline tests of air-monitoring equipment at the CAMDS chemical test facility and at its filter facility. The tests were carried out in June and July 2002, checking to see if air monitor equipment could detect agent to a certain level of accuracy, he said. If monitors fail the test they are adjusted until they pass.

Eventually, monitors' scores are tallied in a report that either passes or fails the devices, he said. Passing means a piece of equipment will detect agent vapor in the air, warning workers in case of a mishap.

Hirata noted that people at the plant are required to carry around gas masks and injection needles in case of such an accident.

Equipment failed the baseline test, but Yarbrough presented false worksheets that seemed to show monitoring equipment passed, he said. Yarbrough directed an employee to use the information in writing a report on the tests, Hirata added.

"The defendant cheated the system at the expense of safety," the prosecutor said in his opening arguments. That created "a false sense of safety and protection," he said.

Automatic printouts from monitors should have recorded what was happening, according to Hirata. But the vast majority of printouts from the time of the baseline tests "turned up missing."

Defense lawyer Earl Xaiz insisted, "Mr. Yarbrough . . . did not make any false statements."
Instead, he provided his personal worksheets. Sometimes the data showed the monitors working worse than the government claims, Xaiz said, indicating Yarbrough was not attempting to make bad monitors pass.

"The government has it wrong," Xaiz said. "Absolutely wrong."

Three different types of baseline tests were involved, according to him. The government cited requirements for a different test, he said.

"The rules and procedures for a rectification baseline are different than ones for a continuous baseline," he said.

Yarbrough himself worked in that area of the plant, the defense lawyer noted.

"Why would be endanger his own safety?" he asked.

After the tests were finished, Yarbrough had five monitors replaced or rebuilt, Xaiz said.
The government's first witness, Col. Peter Charles Cooper, commander of Deseret Chemical Depot, said the base has 315 soldiers, around 500 civilians working for the Army and more
than 850 contract employees.

A year ago last January, Cooper took over responsibility for CAMDS, which had been run by the Army's Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization, he said. It is now part of Deseret Chemical Depot.

"We work with chemical warfare agents - nerve agents and blister agents," including GB (sarin), VX and mustard agent, Cooper said.

Workers inside an area fenced off because of chemical arms receive 4 percent more pay, he said. Those who must go into toxic areas get an 8 percent "differential" and wear protective gear, Cooper added.

If a monitor detects agent in the air because of some mishap, lights flash and an alarm sounds "very similar to a smoke alarm," he said.

Asked if it is important that the monitors work properly, he replied, "Yes, sir, it's very important. This is the main line of defense to protect our workers."

The trial is expected to take three days.