Hermiston Herald
Nov. 22, 2002

Judge in depot lawsuit looks for fun in alternative methods

By Frank Lockwood

He "thoroughly enjoys" alternative technologies but is comfortable with baseline incineration, the site program manager at Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility says.

Judge Michael Marcus called Don Barclay "one of the most important" witnesses in the trial to decide whether the UMCDF permit should be revoked.

Since opening day in late October, it has been a serious contest with the DEQ, the Army and Washington Demilitarization defending the permits for Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility. Yet, attorneys, witnesses, and the judge at times have bantered playfully during the trial.

"Your honor, can I finish before everyone laughs?"

"No, because we've already laughed," the judge said.

"People misunderstood where I was going!" the lawyer protested.

"It happens to me all the time," the judge rejoined.

Then, there was the time, on Nov. 1, when the witness was explaining such terms as biodegradation, hydrolysis reaction, and neutralization. "We biodegrade, if you will, the food we eat. And we give off, when we exhale, carbon dioxide and water. Of course those are considered to be environmentally acceptable products, so biodegradation has become fairly popular for treatment of hazardous waste."

The judge questioned this, however. "You're not taking the position all biodegradation products are socially acceptable, are you?"

"Not now, no. On a case-by-case basis."

And then there was the classic definition of of energetics: "Energetics are things that go boom."

At one point the judge reportedly said, "There are too many lawyers in the room."

Is it time for a break?
On Nov. 15 the witness had good reason when he asked, "Is it time for a break ... or?"

The witness was Don Barclay, Umatilla site program manager. Major Timothy Cody, U.S. Department of Justice, had asked him, "Which technology would you prefer using to destroy the chemical stockpile at Umatilla?"

The question is central to the suit. Petitioners say the Army committed to the wrong, baseline, technology from the start, later refused to change their course. As it turns out, Barclay helped pioneer some types of alternative technologies.

"Does it matter to you, Mr. Barclay, whether you destroy chemical agent either through the incineration process or some other process?"

"It doesn't matter to me," Barclay said.

"It's all kind of fun?" the judge suggested.

There was some dickering over whether Barclay should be allowed to give expert testimony comparing technologies as Barclay had not been tendered as an expert witness in that field. However, the judge wanted to know what Barclay thought, citing Barclay's "hands on" experience with chemical agent - both baseline incineration and alternatives. The parties agreed Barclay could testify as a lay witness.

For two years Barclay had been a program manager for Chemical Agent Munition Disposal System (CAMDS), about 12 miles south of Tooele, Utah, where the Army develops and tests new technology for demilitarization and disposal of toxic chemical munitions. It's also the site where the Army develops technical data for use in design and construction, and processes the non-serviceable chemical munitions.

In the late 1990s, Barclay was involved in cryo fracture, the neutralization of the agent VX with water, an energetic rotary neutralizer which was a hot caustic bath that neutralized such things as rocket motor pieces, a VX Sodium hydroxide neutralization reactor system, and other alternative technologies.

Barclay encountered problems with alternative technologies during the 1990s, but said he thought those problems had been solved. Among them were:

• Lack of needed ancillary technology
  
• Lack of time to develop analytical methods to prove that the agent could be destroyed
  
• Lack of training facilities for alternatives
  
• Monitoring problems

Barclay said that he thought those problems were solved, but other problems had remained, especially in VX and GB bio-reactors: exhausts that interfered with the air monitoring system. Workers would end up having to go in with protective equipment where they had not projected the need for that.

At one point in the testimony, Barclay was asked, "Does it matter to you, Mr. Barclay, whether you destroy chemical agent either through incineration process or some other process?"

Barclay's answer may surprise some readers, since the DEQ and EQC, Army, and Washington Demilitarization were there to defend incineration. "It doesn't matter to me," Barclay said. "I enjoyed my time at CAMDS. I enjoyed the ability to test new ideas and new methodologies. So to me the emphasis is on destroying the stockpile."

But Barclay also said, "I come from a system that has been built over the last 20 years based on incineration and baseline. I'm comfortable with that. I see all of the ancillary systems built for that. I have experience in that. There's a history in that. There's maturity in that, although we are still learning, proving it and learning lessons. It's something I'm comfortable with overall."

Still, Judge Michael Marcus prodded, "It would be fun to try some of the new stuff wouldn't it?"

"I thoroughly enjoy it," Barclay agreed.

The judge then observed,"From my view, this witness is one of the most important because he has hands-on experience." He added, "It's nice to have somebody who can actually change a tire."