Hermiston Herald
Nov. 8, 2002
Witness says Army knew systems wouldn't work
By Frank Lockwood
Staff writer
A witness in a trial involving the Umatilla Chemical Agent
Disposal
Facility has testified that draft permits included unworkable
major
systems, even though the Army had already abandoned those features
in
Tooele, Utah.
The Army promoted those unsuitable designs as "tried and
proven technology,'
parties to the lawsuit claim.
The lawsuit brought against the Environmental Quality Commission
and the
Department of Environmental Quality had been filed by the groups
G.A.S.P.,
Sierra Club, Oregon Wildlife Federation, and 23 individuals, in
an attempt
to have the UMCDF permits revoked.
Those parties and individuals oppose the burning of chemical
warfare agents
because, they claim, incineration is an unproven technology that
will cause
injury to people and the environment by releasing chemical warfare
agent,
dioxins/furans, arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury and other chemicals.
The
Army had widely published that incineration was the safest and
only proven
method to destroy chemical weapons.
For more than five years the parties to the suit had unsuccessfully
sought a
"contested case" or other trial-like process to allow
them the opportunity
to provide evidence of the alleged failure of the Army's incineration
program and to test the evidence which had been offered in support
of the
Army's hazardous waste incineration permit.
On Oct. 16, 2001, the Oregon Supreme Court case of Norden v.
Water Resources
Department resolved a technical point of law which led the circuit
court to
depart from previous determinations and to rule that the petitioners
did,
indeed, have the right to contest the evidence and make a record
before law.
Among the first to testify in the hearings which began last month
was Gary
Harris, the former head of Environmental Permitting Department
at Tooele
Utah. Harris testified that draft permit plans for UMCDF were
submitted to
the DEQ even though the Army knew those plans would never work
as designed.
Among other assignments in chemical demilitarization, Harris
said, he was
asked to take the permit which was written for Johnston Island,
and change
it so that it represented the facility at Tooele. "The permit
represented
what actually was at Johnston Atoll," he said. "And
then we were required to
completely rewrite it so that it represented the facility that
was being
built at Tooele."
After that assignment, they were to take on the "operational
aspect" of the
permit - how each incinerator would be operated - and trial burn
plans. "I
was there personally on every burn ensuring that all of the requirements
in
the RCRA operational permit were followed," he said, "And
in addition to
that, when things would go wrong it was my responsibility to find
out the
reason why, and, if necessary, modify the permit so that we could
proceed."
For years, he said, he was the prime contact between the facility's
environmental office and the state of Utah DEQ.
Harris said he became involved with the Umatilla facility in
late 1994, when
he was visited by Scientific Applications Incorporated. "It
was explained to
me that anything SAIC said to me was coming directly from the
Army," he
said. At the time, SAIC was involved in writing the draft of the
Umatilla
permit. "A number of the people that were doing that had
worked with me at
Tooele. And I was contacted through SAIC to review the draft permit
twice in
late ninety-four, early ninety-five," he said. "I did
the review twice."
The design was "almost identical" to Tooele's equipment
and method of
operation, he said, and included systems that had been abandoned
in the
Tooele facility. "I noticed in my review of the Umatilla
permit that systems
that did not work at Tooele were being represented to the Oregon
DEQ as in
place and viable and to be used as part of the processing at Umatilla
even
though they had failed at Tooele and we had abandoned them in
place."
Mustard Thaw Abandoned
Abandoned first was a "mustard thaw" system which,
Harris says, he was
directed to remove from the permit. Mustard agent freezes at 42
degrees
Fahrenheit and must be thawed prior to incineration, but the system
for
doing that thawing did not work. "Because they didn't have
a complete answer
when I was at TOCDF, I was told to remove all mustard from the
Tooele
permit," Harris said. "They tore the entire structure
down." There was
nothing new put in its place, Harris said, but when he reviewed
the Umatilla
permit, the mustard thawing facility was still included in the
plan.
Dunnage Goes Next
Next to go was the dunnage incinerator, Harris testified. The
fire was so
hot the wood burned in the elevator. They added water, but that
just made
steam. "After a number of hours at full temperature ... a
majority of the
wood was still left there in residue in the incinerator unburned
because ...
everything that was on the surfaces was charred, but everything
in the
center of the pile was not burned."
"I brought it to the Army's attention that this ... was
actually
misrepresenting the waste stream. And I was directed ... just
to leave it
alone and not to bring the subject up," Harris testified.
As late as 1996,
they were packing the dunnage waste into permitted storage. The
Army kept
the dunnage incinerator in the Umatilla draft permits anyway,
Harris said.
Other Abandoned Systems
Harris named other systems with similar fates. One of them,
the Brine
Reduction area, Harris described as a "very sloppy operation"
where they
were "constantly ending up with hazardous materials on the
floor in and
around the building." In pre-trial burns, they discovered
"fugitive
emissions," or chemicals, toxic waste, released into the
atmosphere outside
of the areas where those emissions were supposed to be.
Yet, the brine reduction area and brine reduction area pollution
system were
included in Umatilla draft permits, he said, even though, in Tooele,
the
Army abandoned the system, instead loading the brine into train
cars and
shipped it to Port Arthur, Texas, to be put down a deep well.
The trial began Oct. 23 and is expected to last until Nov 27,
with parties
to the lawsuit trying to prove that permits for UMCDF should be
revoked