[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND PREPAREDNESS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
AUGUST 16, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-117
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-491 WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
Carolina ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
BOB BARR, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas
LEE TERRY, Nebraska THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California ------
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho (Independent)
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
David A. Kass, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
Carla J. Martin, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology
STEPHEN HORN, California, Chairman
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois JIM TURNER, Texas
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GREG WALDEN, Oregon MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
DOUG OSE, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. Russell George, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Randy Kaplan, Counsel
Grant Newman, Clerk
Trey Henderson, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on August 16, 1999.................................. 1
Statement of:
Bacon, James L., Program Manager for Chemical
Demilitarization, Department of the Army................... 67
de Courcy, David, Region 10 Director, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.......................................... 74
Doherty, Dennis, Umatilla County Commissioner................ 28
Lee, Myra T., Director, Oregon Emergency Management.......... 83
McCann, Thomas, mayor, city of Stanfield..................... 15
Minthorn, Armand, board of trustees, Confederated Tribes
Umatilla................................................... 36
Obermiller, Fred, Department of Agriculture and Resource
Economics, Oregon State University......................... 45
Prociv, Theodore M., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Chemical Demilitarization, Department of the Army...... 60
Tallman, Terry, Morrow County Commissioner................... 20
Letters, statements, et cetera, submitted for the record by:
Bacon, James L., Program Manager for Chemical
Demilitarization, Department of the Army, prepared
statement of............................................... 71
de Courcy, David, Region 10 Director, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, prepared statement of................... 78
Doherty, Dennis, Umatilla County Commissioner, prepared
statement of............................................... 30
Horn, Hon. Stephen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 4
Lee, Myra T., Director, Oregon Emergency Management, prepared
statement of............................................... 85
McCann, Thomas, mayor, city of Stanfield, prepared statement
of......................................................... 18
Minthorn, Armand, board of trustees, Confederated Tribes
Umatilla, prepared statement of............................ 38
Obermiller, Fred, Department of Agriculture and Resource
Economics, Oregon State University, prepared statement of.. 47
Prociv, Theodore M., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Chemical Demilitarization, Department of the Army,
prepared statement of...................................... 63
Smith, Hon. Gordon H., a Senator in Congress from the State
of Oregon, prepared statement of........................... 13
Tallman, Terry, Morrow County Commissioner, prepared
statement of............................................... 23
Walden, Hon. Greg, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, prepared statement of..................... 8
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND PREPAREDNESS
----------
MONDAY, AUGUST 16, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information,
and Technology,
Committee on Government Reform,
Hermiston, OR.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in the
Hermiston Armory, 900 Southeast Columbia Drive, Hermiston, OR,
Hon. Stephen Horn (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Horn and Walden.
Staff present: J. Russell George, staff director and chief
counsel; Randy Kaplan, counsel; Grant Newman, clerk; Jeff
Eager, legislative assistant to Representative Walden; and Trey
Henderson, minority professional staff member.
Mr. Horn. A quorum being present, this hearing of the House
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and
Technology will come to order.
And I'd like to first welcome and thank Congressman Greg
Walden who has been a valued member of this committee. When I
am done with my opening statement, he will preside as chairman
today. He's shown up at all of our sessions. He asks first rate
questions.
Mr. Minthorn. We can't hear.
Mr. Horn. OK. That's what I asked when we started. Can you
hear us in the back row? If you can't, put your hands up.
OK. You are independent Oregonians, so I figure you are not
bashful. So just put your hands up. Mr. Walden has been a great
addition to this committee.
This is an investigatory committee of the House of
Representatives. We hold more hearings than any committee in
the House, because we have jurisdiction over the whole
executive branch.
And I am going to go through my opening statement, and then
Mr. Walden will preside the rest of the day, since he knows all
of you and he knows how the committee works.
And I want to thank also at this point the Oregon National
Guard for lending us the use of this wonderful facility. I must
say, I have been, as an Army Reserve member, I've been into a
lot of Reserve and National Guard facilities. I've never seen
one as beautiful as this. So whoever did it, you ought to keep
that architect in the Federal Government, because some of our
facilities are ugly and awful. This is not. So, thank you.
Mr. Horn. The United States possesses more than 31,000 tons
of obsolete chemical weapons. This stockpile of weapons is
stored at eight sites in the Continental United States and at
an additional site on the Johnston Atoll in the Pacific Ocean.
I have landed there a number of times. It's about maybe 10
of these Armories. It's a pretty short runway.
And the stockpile consists of nerve and blister agents
stored in rockets, bombs and bulk storage containers.
In an effort to eliminate these weapons, the U.S. Congress
passed a law requiring the Department of Defense to develop and
implement a plan to destroy its chemical weapons and agents.
This law directs the Department of Defense to destroy the U.S.
stockpile of lethal chemical weapons while providing maximum
protection to the environment, the public, and the personnel
involved in disposing of the munitions.
In 1997 the Senate ratified the chemical weapons
convention, an International treaty banning the development,
production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons, commits
member nations to dispose of their chemical weapons stockpile
by April 29, 2007.
To comply with the mandates of the law and meet the 2007
deadline, the Department of the Army established the Chemical
Stockpile Disposal Program. This program is designed to remove
the threat posed to nearby communities by continued storage of
chemical weapons. The Army projects the program cost will be
approximately $15 billion through the 2007 deadline. Thus far
approximately $8 billion has been appropriated for the program.
Because of the dangers associated with the chemical
weapons, both to humans and to the environment, the program has
been controversial and has experienced delays, cost increases,
and management weaknesses.
At today's hearing we will discuss the management of the
Chemical Weapons Disposal Program at the Umatilla Chemical
Depot, located a few short miles from where we are today. The
Army faces a number of challenges as it begins the process of
disposing of the more than 3,700 tons of chemical agents at the
Umatilla Depot.
Given the stakes involved in such an endeavor, the Army
must ensure that the nearby communities are prepared for any
emergency resulting from an accidental leakage of chemical
agents. To ensure the safety of local communities, the Army
established the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness
Program. The Army shares the management of this program with
the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA].
In recent years, there has been concern over the management
and implementation of the Emergency Preparedness Program. The
General Accounting Office, which is the audit arm both
financially and programmatically for the Congress, it's part of
the legislative branch, and the General Accounting Office,
otherwise referred to as GAO, is our watch dog, and they
reported in June 1997 that communities located near the storage
sites lacked items critical to responding to a chemical
emergency. The General Accounting Office attributed some of the
programs' problems to management weaknesses, including
disagreement between the Army and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency over their respective roles and
responsibilities.
Local communities, including communities surrounding the
Umatilla Depot, expressed concern that money allocated for
emergency services and equipment was never received. Today we
will ask what has been done by the Army, what has been done by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and what has been done
by the Oregon Emergency Management agency to ensure the safety
of the local communities.
Another challenge faced by the Army is ensuring that the
disposal program is completed on time. Two sites, the Johnston
Atoll in the Pacific and the chemical disposal facility in
Tooele, UT, have begun incineration of their chemical weapons.
However, as of March of this year, only 4,259 tons, or 13\1/2\
percent of the total stockpile, have been destroyed. It is
imperative that these chemical weapons are disposed of in a
safe, efficient and timely manner. The longer the weapons sit
in storage, the more unstable and dangerous they become.
Construction of the disposal facility at Umatilla site has
begun. The Army estimates that disposal operations will begin
in 2002, and will be complete by 2006. Today we will ask
whether this timetable can be met.
Another issue of concern is the disposal program's impact
on the local economy. The construction of the incinerator is
bringing new jobs to the area. At the same time, however, it is
placing increasing demands on government services and the
public infrastructure. The disposal facility is scheduled to
close down for good once the project is complete. Today we will
ask what can be done to assist nearby communities avoid the
potential negative impact of this temporary government project.
May I say, I come from a city where everything has been
closed down by the U.S. Navy. It was once the headquarters of
the Pacific fleet, and had the most productive economic Naval
shipyard in the history of the United States. Didn't matter.
Closed them all. So I know what you're going through as a
possible situation here in terms of unemployment.
At perhaps a cost of $15 billion, the chemical stockpile
disposal project is one of the largest Defense Department
programs. Successful completion of this program, in a safe and
timely manner, is dependent on proper management. There must
also be close cooperation and coordination between the
interested partners, including the various Federal, State and
local government entities, as well as the local communities.
We have here with us today two distinguished panels of
witnesses who will address many of the issues surrounding this
project. Panel one includes representatives from the
surrounding communities. Panel two consists of representatives
from the Federal Government, Army Federal Emergency Management
Agency, representatives of the State of Oregon.
And so once again I want to thank Representative Walden and
his staff for helping us organize this meeting on such short
notice and I now yield to the gentleman from Oregon to preside
over and chair this meeting.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen Horn follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.002
Mr. Walden. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Horn, I greatly appreciate your willingness to respond
to my request to hold this subcommittee hearing here in
Hermiston to take a look at these important issues you've
outlined and ones that are certainly shared by the community
here. I also want to thank everyone who has turned out today
for this hearing. I know how busy it is this time of year
especially, but I think it shows the interest level surrounding
this issue of storage and incineration of chemical weapons at
the Umatilla Chemical Depot.
Before I start, I'd like to give special thanks again to
Chairman Horn who has come a great deal out of his way during a
busy time to bring his unrivaled reputation and expertise in
Federal oversight to our corner of Oregon.
I would also like to thank General Burgin and Colonel
Caldwell of the Oregon National Guard for providing us with
this room and being so helpful in setting it up for this
hearing, and certainly Rick Tunstead as well, who is over here,
who has helped make everything possible, and my friend and
former colleague, Chuck Norris, who is here today, who has been
very helpful as well, and for whom this room is named. Chuck of
course used to be the Colonel at the Depot.
You've heard already about what is stored out at the Depot,
and you know the issues there. One of the primary purposes of
this hearing is to oversee how the Federal Government's working
with the State of Oregon and local officials to prepare the
residents of the surrounding area in case of an accidental
chemical release.
In the past several years residents have raised concerns
about the Federal Government's use of funds that were
appropriated by Congress to fund emergency preparedness around
the Umatilla and other chemical weapons storage sites. So I
look forward to hearing from local witnesses about the status
of the emergency preparedness in this area. The Federal and
State witnesses on the second panel can then inform us of their
efforts to ensure that local communities are safe from chemical
disaster.
Also this morning we will focus on the issue of how the
Umatilla project, especially the increased activities
surrounding the construction and operation of the incinerator,
is impacting the local economy and government services.
Community officials have indicated in the past that roads,
schools and other services may be overused and strained to the
limit for a short period of time and sort of boom/bust economy
as the incinerator workers flood the area. Because the Federal
Government does not pay taxes on the land it owns, the
increased use of public services will not be balanced by an
increase in local property tax payments. Then, when the
facility is closed in 2006, communities may be left maintaining
extra capacity in their services, leaving the local property
taxpayers with the bill. This issue of economic impact is one
that requires cooperation among the local, State, and Federal
officials to ensure that all are aware of the problems faced by
local citizens and that a plan can be developed to address
these problems.
This morning we will hear from an economist who has done
research into the issue of the economic impacts surrounding the
Depot as well as local and Federal officials who will express
their views on impact aid. I hope that this process will forge
a greater understanding of the options available to communities
as they try to cope with the substantial economic changes they
are undergoing as a result of playing host to a chemical
weapons disposal facility.
A third issue that will be addressed is the fact that the
House of Representatives has passed an appropriations bill that
would cut some $388 million out of the Army's Chemical
Demilitarization Program. Because I'm concerned about what
effects this cut might have for the Umatilla facility, I sent a
letter to members of the Appropriations Committee, asking them
to fund the program at a level that allows for the timely
disposal of chemical weapons that become more and more unstable
the longer they are stored. I hope to hear from the Army about
what the proposed cuts to the program would mean for Umatilla
in terms of increased risk of disaster as well as employment
and possible changes to economic impact.
I look forward to a full airing of the information and
views surrounding the Umatilla facility. I firmly believe that
with Chairman Horn's help, we can do some very effective
oversight this morning to bring all interested parties together
to focus on the challenges that remain to ensure the chemical
weapons disposal process is carried out safely, timely, and
with a sensitivity to the needs of the citizens of the
communities that surround Umatilla County.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.006
Mr. Walden. At this time I would like to ask unanimous
consent of the committee to insert in the record comments from
Senator Gordon Smith. He has submitted written testimony for
our concern, and without objection, I would ask that that be
inserted in the record. So ordered.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Gordon H. Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.008
Mr. Walden. Now, then if I could have the witnesses stand,
it is the policy of the Government Reform and Oversight
Committee to swear in all witnesses who testify, and if you
have staff people with you who you think you may call, they
should stand at this time, as well, and take an oath for the
committee. If you would raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Walden. Thank you. I would also like to suggest that we
do have your full written statements, and so if you are willing
to summarize your remarks in the 5 minutes or so allotted for
each one, then we will have more time for the Q and A. And we
have asked questions of each panel, and we will ask all members
of the panel to offer their completed remarks.
We will also be circulating note cards into the audience
from the committee's staff for any audience members who want to
submit a question to be asked, as well. I must point out that
in most congressional hearings that is not something that's
offered up. So I commend the chairman for his willingness to
open it up to the public to submit questions from the audience
that we will then pose to the committee members. And just so
everyone knows, the timeline, I believe we are supposed to be
wrapped up by 11:30 so that you can get back in time to catch a
flight back to your district.
So, with that, I will get the list here. Where is the
witness list? And we will start with the mayor of the city of
Stanfield, the Honorable Tom McCann. Good morning and welcome.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS McCANN, MAYOR, CITY OF STANFIELD
Mr. McCann. Good morning. Chairman Horn, Mr. Walden,
members of the subcommittee.
My name is Thomas J. McCann. And I am honored to represent
the mayors of the city of Boardman, Irrigon, Echo, Hermiston,
Stanfield, and Umatilla. We appreciate your coming here to
facilitate these proceedings and to listen to our concerns.
The cities of western Umatilla County and north Morrow
County are primarily concerned with the safety our residents in
the event of an incident at the Umatilla Chemical Depot that
would cause the release of toxic agents. While FEMA and the
State of Oregon has received large funding amounts and are
probably ready to handle an emergency from a management and
oversight standpoint, it is the local communities, in
conjunction with our respective counties, that will be the
first line of defense for area citizens. Even the local
Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program has most of
the resources in place, from a command and control perspective,
to function at their level in the event a release at UCD. What
is lacking in all of this is direct funding to the cities of
Stanfield, Echo, Hermiston, Umatilla, Irrigon, and Boardman.
There are a number of areas of ongoing concern that I would
like to discuss with you today.
First and foremost is the lack of capacity in these small
rural communities to deal with the enormity of the issues we
are faced with due to the disposal project at UCD. Without any
help from the Federal Government in the form of impact aid, our
small towns have or are preparing to build the infrastructure
needed to service the increase in population that is a direct
result of the construction and operation of the disposal
facility. These commitments from the local communities include
new water systems, waste water systems, road improvements, and
new school facilities. The total fiscal impact on these six
communities for capital and operating cost is estimated to be
at $30.7 million. These costs are directly attributable to UCD.
The cost to local taxpayers for these improvements will go on
long after the Depot has closed down and those residents
associated with this project have left, typically for a total
of 20 to 30 years. This means that the remaining residents will
bear this burden for the Federal Government for many years
after this facility has ceased operations.
In a setting where local governments and citizens are
already taxed beyond what is fair, we still have a large number
of safety concerns that need to be addressed before
incineration operations can begin. It is important to all of us
that this project not be delayed any longer than necessary, as
there are 105,000 rockets alone stored at UCD that get more
unstable with each day. No one can quantitatively determine how
long it will be before these reach a point of total
instability. But before we can feel comfortable about beginning
incineration at UCD, there are a number of safety-related
issues that must be addressed.
The most critical of these safety issues is our lack of
adequate police and fire personnel to respond in the event of
an emergency. FEMA, the State of Oregon, and CSEPP have tried
to place responsibility on the local governments to perform a
number of needed actions, without supplying the necessary
funding, training and equipment. A primary example is the
expectation that local police will provide security for the
school buildings that are over-pressurized, aid in the orderly
evacuation of residents where required, and man local traffic
control points. There are approximately 103 full-time and
reserve officers in our area. Due to vacations, sick leave,
training out of the area, we could expect a maximum of 30
officers to be on duty at one time to cover the six cities and
two county areas that would be affected. It is unreasonable to
assume that these officers could provide the needed security at
their school sites, aid in evacuation, and man several traffic
control points. In addition, the chemical protection suits that
are proposed have proven to be woefully inadequate in local
field trials. These same types of problems confront the local
fire districts that depend primarily or in some cases solely on
volunteers. How can these small departments be expected to
respond to the chemical emergency, aid in the evacuation of
homebound residents, and handle all other calls that are sure
to surface in the face of a major disaster? To compound this
problem is the issue of civil disobedience that often follows
in the footsteps of any large emergencies. Who will be left to
protect the lives and property in our towns if they are all off
performing other duties? There are possible solutions to many
of our concerns, but due to time constraints I will not go into
detail. I could provide this information on request.
We, the communities most at risk feel the Federal
Government, through FEMA, the State of Oregon and the local
CSEPP need to look at where their budget dollars have been
spent to date, and why more attention has not been focused on
the local jurisdictions that will be the first responders in
the event of a disaster at the Depot. The large emergency
infrastructure that has been developed will be great for
information dissemination and strategic command, but little to
nothing has been spent on the local agencies that will be
expected to face the reality of a chemical emergency directly.
Without proper manpower levels, training, equipment and
environmentally safe local command centers, how will FEMA, the
State and CSEPP deal with an emergency of this magnitude? Thank
you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McCann follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.010
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mayor. Let's go down to Mr. Terry
Tallman, who is a Morrow County commissioner. Good morning and
welcome.
STATEMENT OF TERRY TALLMAN, MORROW COUNTY COMMISSIONER
Mr. Tallman. Good morning. I want to thank you very much
for coming to the town of Hermiston letting us speak our
concerns. I have with me staff from Morrow County, Casey Beard,
our emergency director, Emergency Management director, Tamara
Mabbott, our planning director, and Bill Myers, an attorney for
special projects for Morrow County. My name is Terry Tallman. I
am the Morrow County judge, a member of Morrow County Court.
I want to thank you for taking the time to hear our
concerns and for coming out to Eastern Oregon, a very distinct
and unique part of the great Northwest. Today I'm here to
express concerns and ask for your help as the communities of
Morrow and Umatilla County deal with the impact the Umatilla
Chemical Depot incinerator project has on this region.
There are many contentious issues associated with the
depot, the chemical stockpile program, the Emergency
Preparedness Program, and alternative technologies. I will
focus my comments today on the socioeconomic and fiscal impacts
the program has on our communities.
Many of the things that I'm saying here probably will be
somewhat redundant. I hope you will not be offended by my
reiterating some of your comments.
Since the early 1960's the U.S. Army has stockpiled some 12
percent of the Nation's most deadly chemical weapons at the
Umatilla Chemical Depot, which does lie within the borders of
both Umatilla and Morrow Counties. Of those weapons, 70
percent, including nerve agents and blister agents as you have
mentioned, are in Morrow County. Literally the back yard of the
most populated region of our county.
What has the attitude of our residents been toward these
chemical weapons being placed at the Depot? One might expect to
hear complaints and outcries about the chemical weapons, but
history has proven to the contrary. They are extremely
patriotic and dutiful in their role as hosts. Local residents
have been remarkably supportive of the Depot, tolerance of the
presence of deadly chemical weapons and trusting of the Army,
even though many people work just across a wire fence from the
Depot. Our communities have been exemplary or their tolerance
and hospitality. And I am proud to represent those citizens of
Morrow County today.
Residents of Morrow and Umatilla Counties were never asked
permission to store these weapons, and never protested or even
questioned the Army's actions. The Army never informed local
communities of a danger from these chemical weapons, and the
majority of citizens were not even aware of any potential harm.
Storage was characterized as a relatively safe situation, safe
enough in fact, that communities were told that there wasn't
any need to acquire emergency or safety equipment.
As the need for these weapons changed and we came into the
international chemical weapons treaty and an order was signed
by Congress ordering the Army to eliminate those chemical
weapons, we supported that treaty and the attendant disposal
program. Our communities have actively participated in the
CSEPP program and are preparing our communities for any
potential accident at the Depot. It was through our
participation in this federally mandated CSEPP program that we
began to notice how our communities were impacted. Elected and
appointed officials began to see dramatically increased
personnel hours dedicated to the program. Police and fire
departments as has been mentioned particularly had drastically
increased equipment and staffing needs with many of these needs
being met completely by volunteer forces. While CSEPP slowly
began to fund most of these Emergency Preparedness Program
costs, we also began to recognize other costs that were not
reimbursed.
One of the most insidious costs is the form of population
growth and the bust and boom impact it has on an economy, as
Congressman Walden mentions. The short-term increase in workers
on the project is actually a cost rather than a fiscal asset to
our county. Being transient, construction workers tend to rent
rather than own. But all of the workers do send their children
to our schools and our roads and use our infrastructure. Most
of the longer term and higher level management employees for
this project actually live in the tri-county Washington area,
where they are participating as more permanent residents in
that local economy.
In Morrow County we have seen very little benefit of that
growth. We have minimal industrial or commercial sectors that
could benefit from direct, indirect or induced spending. We
have found numerous studies which corroborate the experience of
a negative impact to local governments and economies. These
studies show the negative impact to be compounded in rural
economies.
The impact of this incinerator project is accentuated by
the fact that the Army pays no property taxes, no corporate
taxes, and no local income taxes. The State and Federal
Governments on the other hand do receive revenues from income
taxes. And in addition to these foregone tax revenues the Army
and its contractors were exempt from local land use permits,
which is the typical forum for levying and collecting impact
funds or other mitigation moneys.
We have worked diligently over the past several years, my
predecessors in this county have worked diligently to develop a
solution to this problem of local taxpayers underwriting a
Federal project. To put it bluntly, our experience with the
Army has been frustrating at best. The Army has delayed and
sometimes misinformed.
And I know these are strong words to use against the Army,
but a few examples illustrate my point by saying, that one Army
official told my predecessor and some staff, there is a way for
you to get money, but I can't tell you how. In 1997, a
Congressman, a national Congressman, proposed legislation that
would address the problem and set aside impact money for
affected communities, but withdrew the legislation after
meeting with Army officials who convinced him to drop the
legislation because we are working on that problem.
At our request, the 1997 Oregon legislature unanimously
approved a law that allowed counties to charge a fee for
storage and handling of the wastes. The Army refused to comply
with the law, citing Federal sovereignty, which is ironic,
since a similar law was honored in Tooele County, UT. In
essence, the Army claims to be exempt from all of the
traditional tools for taxing growth, to underwriting community
services and infrastructure, such as roads, sewers, water
systems and schools.
One other item I would like to mention. Our primary concern
is with the negative socioeconomic impacts of the
demilitarization project, but we do want to express grave
concerns with the CSEPP funding process. Federal officials have
imposed a process called a life cycle cost estimate, which
dramatically underfunds preparedness activities. This life
cycle cost estimate process is flawed. The counties have never
agreed to these estimates, but now they are being imposed upon
them. Nor has these estimates been revised to reflect current
needs and realities and prior years have been seriously
underfunded. If allowed to stay, projected budget limits will
prevent the achievement and maintenance necessary to allow
adequate emergency preparedness at the county level for
demilitarization facility.
In concluding, I would like to ask for your help in
compelling the Army and other Federal agencies to provide
appropriate compensation for the costs and impacts our citizens
have tolerated. Incineration of chemical weapons is not a local
problem, it is a national problem. Morrow County taxpayers are
not looking for a windfall. We don't see the Army as the golden
goose who lays the golden egg. We simply want to bear our fair
share, but we only want to bear the fair share of the cost. We
believe Federal action confers Federal responsibility and
Federal impact requires Federal compensation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tallman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.015
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Judge. Let's go now to Umatilla
County commissioner, Mr. Dennis Doherty. Good morning and
welcome.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS DOHERTY, UMATILLA COUNTY COMMISSIONER
Mr. Doherty. Mr. Chairman, good morning. My name is Dennis
Doherty. I live in Hermiston, inside the Depot IRZ. That's the
``immediate response zone.'' I am one of three Umatilla County
Commissioners. Chairman Emile Holeman and Commissioner Bill
Hansell are the others. I speak my own thoughts today. They
were completed just last night, so my colleagues have not
previewed them.
There are four component parts of the chemical
demilitarization program: Continued safe storage, emergency
preparedness, destruction of the chemical agents, and program
support, which necessarily includes impact aid to the local
communities.
When the Army was given the chemical demil mission in 1986,
Congress added explicit direction that the program provide for
maximum protection of the environment, the public and the Depot
workers.
CSEPP was established by the Army in 1988. The stated
purpose was to help the communities near the stockpile enhance
their existing emergency management and response capabilities.
To this day, 13 years later, we don't have a reliable
comprehensive warning system. The first responders cannot go
into a risk area. Insofar as I know, the Army does not have a
plan for the 1,300 to 1,500 workers now onsite other than to
evacuate them, which then makes them our responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, managment from the county, the State capitol,
FEMA Region 10 in Seattle and FEMA Headquarters in Washington,
DC, may or may not help if we ever do have a real accident. But
one thing is for sure. Those people, in their safe havens many
miles away, won't be able to do any on-the-ground response
during the emergency. That will be left to our small towns,
schools, rural fire protection districts and the people who are
in harm's way.
It's a sad but true fact that a CSEPP program which
promised to enhance local emergency management response
capability has delivered so little and taken so long to do even
that.
Maybe you've heard this homily: If you go on doing things
the way you've always done them, you will go on getting the
results you have always gotten.
Our citizens deserve better than they've gotten. We don't
want hype, we need Congress to require Army and FEMA to simply
deliver maximum protection as they were told to do in 1986. If
they can't, then give the money to the local communities to do
their own enhancement.
Regarding impact aid, please remember that we've been down
this path before. When the Depot was constructed in 1941 and
1942, workers needed homes. They hauled ammo boxes off and
built houses out of them. They hauled pallets off for building
materials. They built where and what they could afford. They
dozed out homesites and roads in the sand. We didn't have the
time or the resources to build nice planned towns. We still, to
this day, have miles of unimproved streets, both inside and
outside of town. You don't build communities in the 21st
century cheaply. To a large degree, that's because of State and
Federal requirements. Improved streets cost $150 to $200 per
running foot. Water systems, waste water systems and schools
cost millions.
We know. Umatilla, a city that had only a $95 million tax
base at the time, bonded itself for well over $15 million
recently for these infrastructure improvements. Hermiston
voters recently approved a $40 million bond for school
upgrades. We have concerns that these community debt
obligations may overwhelm us if we then experience a bust
economy when the Depot jobs disappear, as they will by 2007.
Mr. Chairman, I will conclude with these statements for the
record, directed at the impact aid issue. It's the Army's nerve
gas and the Army's incinerator. Raytheon is the Army's
contractor and the Raytheon workers are doing the Army's
disposal job. The Army could be housing these workers and
picking up the tab directly. They're not. We're doing that for
them. The Army needs to pay its share of our bills for this.
That means impact aid, either from money already appropriated
or from new appropriations. There won't be a healthy and vital
chemical demil program until Congress has cured that problem.
Denial of the responsibility to pay impact aid is not
defensible. The status quo is not acceptable. Doing nothing is
not an option. The impact bills are due. This incinerator is
the Army's baby. It's time for the Army to face up to its
responsibilities and pay support.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your presence with us today is an
honor. We appreciate the opportunity this hearing presents for
us.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doherty follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.021
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Commissioner. Let's go now
to Mr. Armand Minthorn, who is a member of the Board of
Trustees of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla. Good
morning, welcome.
STATEMENT OF ARMAND MINTHORN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, CONFEDERATED
TRIBES UMATILLA
Mr. Minthorn. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. And members of
the committee.
Mr. Walden. You may want to make sure that microphone is a
little closer and turned on. Thank you.
Mr. Minthorn. My name is Armand Minthorn. I am a member of
the Board of Trustees of the governing body of the Confederated
Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation.
Thank you for the opportunity to identify some of our
concerns regarding the proposal to incinerate over 3,700 tons
of mustard and nerve agents, all weapons of mass destruction.
I'd like to first welcome you to the homeland of the three
Columbia Basin plateau Tribes that comprise the CTUIR,
including the Cayuse, Walla Walla, and Umatilla. The three
Tribes signed the treaty of 1855 with the U.S. Government that
outlined a territory of approximately 6.4 million acres of
ceded land where treaty reserve rights are retained, including
fishing, hunting, gathering of plants and pasturing livestock.
These rights extend throughout today's Northeast Oregon and
Southeast Washington state. In addition, the treaty of 1855
established the Umatilla Indian Reservation 8 miles east of
Pendleton where our thriving economy is now recognized as the
largest in Umatilla and Morrow Counties.
The CTUIR issued a letter to Governor Kitzhaber in February
1996 requesting that he deny the Army's permit request until
certain conditions are met, and those conditions are outlined
in your handout. I would like to continue to express concerns
and technical concerns the tribe has, and they are as follows:
No. 1, Emergency Preparedness and transportation. No. 2,
environmental and health monitoring. No. 3, carbon filter. No.
4, dunnage incinerator. And last, impact aid.
Emergency preparedness. The tribe continually presses at
the national and local level on a variety of emergency response
concerns, including preparedness under the Chemical Stockpile
Emergency Preparedness Program. Although there is progress, it
is not at the pace acceptable to the tribe. Initially the tribe
was not consulted on emergency response issues because, some
thought, the diminished Reservation boundary is outside the 50
kilometer emergency planning zone, a myth now reversed.
The CTUIR Fire Department is recognized as an essential
component for regional emergency preparedness activities, at
the Depot and at other facilities such as Hanford.
The Tribes' issues regarding communications and
notification are slowly progressing. For instance, other
entities and fire departments are further along in the
development of their communication plans. The reason why is
because CSEPP has not sufficiently followed through with their
pledge to upgrade the communication systems of the Tribal Fire
Department. We shouldn't have to coordinate with counties but
should be dealt with directly for resources and/or services.
Environmental and health monitoring. The Tribes' treaty
reserved rights and culture are based on the use of natural and
cultural resources throughout the ceded lands and at usual and
accustomed sites. As an example, the Tribes re-established
salmon runs after 70 years of extinction in the Umatilla River.
The State required the Army, through the permit process, to
develop a comprehensive monitoring program. The program is set
to sample air, soil, water, flora and fauna in the three zones
located in Oregon and Washington States.
While the State and tribe have cooperated in developing the
comprehensive monitoring program for the environment, there is
no human health monitoring. In terms of human health monitoring
the agents as an example organophosphates are neurological
disrupters, their original design. The Depot also in the middle
of some of the richest farm land in the area and low-level
exposure through food stuff or workplace occupations over an
extended period of time should be investigated to ensure our
communities that no risk is confirmed. This should include both
resident and economic customers of our products. Therefore,
human monitoring should be instituted immediately.
The CTUIR feels that it is essential that mitigation be a
factor to address threats to our treaty resources. One of the
main attempts of the comprehensive monitoring program is to
establish baseline environmental monitoring before, during and
after incineration, and in the event there is a deviation from
that baseline, there should be mitigation. Without human health
monitoring, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to
identify mitigation measures and remediation actions.
Carbon filter. As a permit condition, the State of Oregon
Environmental Quality Commission required carbon filters for
the incinerators. The filters changed the efficiency of the
operation of the incinerator and because of lack of operation
at JACADS or Utah, there is no experience or operational
readiness that the Army can use to demonstrate the
effectiveness of carbon filters.
Dunnage incinerator. The Army and the State should submit
for Tribal review a storage plan for waste that was scheduled
for the dunnage incinerator. This plan should include volume
types and length of stay for these wastes as well as potential
receptor facilities. In addition and in concert with the CTUIR
the Army should coordinate any transportation plans because of
the majority of the waste it is projected will be transported
across the most dangerous route in Oregon, the Blue Mountains,
and the Umatilla Indian Reservation. Any proposed permit
modification is a serious concern.
Finally, impact aid. The CTUIR supports the efforts of the
counties and cities in their request for impact aid.
And in conclusion, these areas that have been cited as
concerns with the Tribes, this will only continue the
transportation, the emergency preparedness, environmental and
health monitoring. I thank you for your time today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Minthorn follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.028
Mr. Walden. Thank you for your testimony. Appreciate it.
Now for our final witness on this panel, I'd like to turn
to Dr. Fred Obermiller of the Department of Agriculture and
Resource Economics from Oregon State University. Dr.
Obermiller, good morning, thank you for coming.
STATEMENT OF FRED OBERMILLER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND
RESOURCE ECONOMICS, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
Mr. Obermiller. Thank you for inviting me, it's a pleasure
to be here, Congressman, Congressman Horn. Thank you for the
opportunity.
A little while ago John Snyder said, Dr. Obermiller, what
are you doing here? You are normally talking to us about public
lands issues.
But I have another area of expertise, and that is regional
economic impact analysis, and have done a study recently
dealing with the structure of the Morrow County economy.
Because of that, the county planning director and
commissioners in Morrow County asked if I would help them take
a look at the local economic impacts of this incineration
project a year ago, which we've done, and there's not really
enough time to talk about it in-depth this morning, and I won't
try to do that, and I won't try to repeat what were I thought
eloquent comments that the mayors and commissioners made
earlier.
What I will have to say deals largely with Morrow County.
But I want you to know this, that in an absolute sense, the
largest community level impacts are going to be felt in
northwestern Umatilla County. In a relative sense, given the
very small size of the communities and tax base, the relatively
largest impacts are going to be felt in Morrow County, northern
Morrow County.
I would say that in generic terms you're probably looking
at a 12 to 15 percent population increase with attendant
increase in demand on an already inadequate community
infrastructure over the duration of the project.
A couple of things about the Morrow County economy may
explain why the relative impact is going to be as large as it
is going to be, is already being in Morrow County. Morrow
County, which is the 27th incorporated county in Oregon, split
off from Umatilla County in 1885. It was a farming and ranching
county. And all the infrastructure that developed in Morrow
County, small as it is, centered around those two dominant
industries.
So then when the Federal Government came in with a series
of major projects, like the Army Depot, the Navy Bombing Range,
McNary Dam complex, there was not an infrastructure in Morrow
County to support it. And so consequently you had short-term
population increase, increase in demand for services, but there
wasn't much of a secondary effect.
Now, when we did this Morrow County study, we came up with,
among other things, multipliers. County level multipliers
normally are in the range of about two to three, meaning that
for every $1 spent in the county, you will get an additional $1
or $2 in re-spending.
That's not the way it is here. From that study I pulled out
what some of the multipliers are in Morrow County. And I'll
just quickly summarize them. The household income, say, wages
being spent, multiplier is 1.57 from this study. So for every
$1, you get another 57 cents, not another $1 to $2. And it gets
worse. Construction. 1.28. Automotive sales and services, 1.30.
One of the major non-Federal developments in northern
Morrow County has been the advent of those big center pivot
systems, since the mid 1970's. There is no infrastructure to
support it. The multiplier for the center pivot irrigation
systems is 1.29. An additional 29 cents for every $1 that's
spent.
So the point is that Morrow County is an economic wind
funnel. It's a colony almost of Umatilla County, which is in an
economic sense what it started out being, and to a very large
extent what it still is.
So, for those reasons, when you get an additional 500 to
600 people, including kids, living in Irrigon and Boardman
primarily as a consequence of this project, there really is no
boom. We call it a boom and bust. It's just basically a bust
and bust. There's a short term increased demand for community
services, and somehow or another the services have been
provided. When the incinerator project is over and the workers
leave, the locals are left bearing the costs.
Here's a quick number for you. If the Army Depot had not
been built and that land had remained on private property
rolls, the amount of property taxes collected over time would
have been about $3 million, which gives you an example of
foregone local revenue as a consequence of the Federal project.
I know my time is up. I want to make a couple of comments
quickly. I think that there are both statutory and also
negotiated precedents for mitigation in the current case. We
have the Payments In Lieu Of Taxes Act, 31 U.S.C. 6901. We've
got 42 U.S.C. 3374, which deals with the acquisition of
property at or near military bases, which have been ordered to
be closed. We have a parallel statute which says that the
Department of Defense will pay fair market value for private
grazing permits taken for war or national defense purposes. And
of course we have the Tooele settlement.
So, to me it's a moot point as to whether or not mitigation
is feasible. I think it is feasible. It's just a matter of
negotiating what's fair. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Obermiller follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.032
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Dr. Obermiller. Now we will move
into the question phase. The staff will be circulating some
cards out into the audience. If you have a question you'd like
the panel to ask. Yes, Mayor.
Mr. Hardenrider. Mr. Walden, could I----
Mr. Walden. If you are going to, you have to be sworn.
Mr. Hardenrider. I was sworn in.
Mr. Walden. Then you need to come up to the microphone.
Mr. Hardenrider. I am Mayor Frank Harkenrider. I will just
take a few minutes of your time.
Welcome to Hermiston. The watermelon capital of the world.
A couple of things. What really concerns me more, all these
people are right. You have 105,000 M-55 rockets located at the
Umatilla Army Depot. The National Research Council was
appointed either by Congress or the President of the United
States. The best scientists in the world. They have told us for
the last 14 years they are the most dangerous. Please do not
cut the budget at $380 million out here. Let's get rid of those
rockets. If you delay and cut this budget, that delays the
incineration of the rockets.
Remember, the risk of storage is greater than the risk of
incineration. And it's on your shoulders, if one of those takes
off and explodes, it's going to be terrible for this whole
community and the surrounding areas.
And I thank you for coming to Hermiston. Don't forget those
rockets. Thank you very much.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mayor. I want to start with some
questions for our two county commissioners on the panel, and
others if they want to weigh in, in terms of the financial
impact of the Depot on your counties so far.
Have you quantified what that is? What have you spent so
far?
Mr. Doherty. Mr. Chairman, let me address that first.
Umatilla County has done a two part study quantifying impacts.
One of the things that you have to understand about the
incinerator is the timing.
The incinerator came just at the same time that the Wal-
Mart distribution center, the railroad expansion and the State
prison in Umatilla came. So we have a compression of the impact
because of the advent of not one but four major projects in the
area.
And so what we did was we formed a group in West County
called the Hermiston-Umatilla-Echo-Stanfield Study Group. The
cities and county together put up approximately $65,000, and
they did a quantification impact study of the impact of all
four together.
Then in the second phase we put up approximately another
$25,000 to do a study of just the impacts that could be
extrapolated from the Depot itself. And from that study we
identified the impacts on infrastructure and general government
services. And from that study we then quantified our impact aid
request at $30 million. That's what we have been requesting and
what we continue to request.
Our neighbor to the west, Morrow County, has approached it
a little bit differently, and it amounts to the same thing, and
we support their request, which is $20 million.
I defer now to Commissioner Tallman, I should say Judge
Tallman, because in Morrow County they have a county judge.
Mr. Walden. Judge.
Mr. Tallman. Yes. With some of the study that Dr.
Obermiller has mentioned, that number is approximately $20
million, probably just a little bit less than that, but
approximately $20 million.
We do not have the dollars to spend on the studies that
Umatilla County did, and we did it more with an in-house type
of study, and some with the help then of OSU, and we came up
with that figure of roughly $20 million.
Mr. Horn. If I might, I'd be curious on the projects you
mentioned. Has that provided jobs for the people in the
counties affected? And if so, do you have a labor shortage
here, or an unemployment situation?
Mr. Doherty. We do have severe work force limitations in
the area. We don't have the kind of history where going into
these four projects we had a highly skilled work force
available.
Let me just speak to the prison. The prison project was
announced just a matter of months before the announcement was
made that the incinerator project would go ahead.
When the prison project came in and in the city of
Umatilla, you're talking about a community of 3500 people with
a total tax base of $95 million. Then comes the State prison,
which has a budget of $150 million, way more than the entire
value of the town, bringing with it construction and operating
workers in the range of 600 to 800. And each of them bring
families. I shouldn't say each of them bring families. But the
ones that are settling there bring families, children who have
to go to school, et cetera.
Now, the work force that's supplying those jobs is going to
draw not just from Umatilla, but it's going to draw from the
other communities, it's going to draw from the Tri-Cities up in
Washington, possibly Walla Walla, other parts of Umatilla
County.
Mr. Horn. Well, to what extent was there an attempt made by
the State? What attempt was made to train and provide
apprentice jobs and so forth to people in the area so that
during the construction phase they would have some employment?
Mr. Doherty. Congressman Horn, I don't think there was
time, once this thing was on us, to really do that kind of
training, because it was announced in January 1997, it was
under construction just months after it. It's on a fast track
just like the incinerator is.
The State is doing some things. And in fairness to the
State of Oregon on that project, I would like to also emphasize
that the State is contributing in other ways to help mitigate
the impacts. They're doing some road work. They're doing some
other things in the community of Umatilla. In our case, with
the incinerator, there isn't anything being done to my
knowledge to mitigate that part of the total impacts that is
attributable to just the incinerator.
Mr. Horn. Yeah. When that panel comes, we certainly want
them to explain. Do they have programs such as that? Because
that's just common across the country in terms of base closure,
to, one, talk about options of other bases, and, two, to give
personnel development that would enable people to hold jobs.
And let me move from that to the impact aid. I assume we're
talking about the law, Public Laws 874 and 815 on aid to
schools.
Now, has that money come here as a result of the Army's
presence here?
Mr. Doherty. To my knowledge, it has not. Commissioner
Tallman, do you know anything about that?
Mr. Tallman. No.
Mr. Horn. No impact aid. OK.
Mr. Tallman. I would just like to say in terms of our
unemployment figures, the State average for the State of Oregon
I think I just heard the other day on the radio is about 5.5,
5.6, something like that. The figure for Morrow County is 9.3.
So, even though we do have some spillover in some jobs from
some of these other sites, our unemployment rates are still
very, very high in Morrow County.
Mr. Horn. I see we don't have your public health people
here. Are there surveys within the impacted area here which
show either forms of cancer out of proportion to other areas or
what do we know on public health factors and the possible
situation when we don't know what's either loose or how well
it's contained.
We'll ask the second panel that. But what do we know about
it from you as the public officials side?
Mr. Tallman. From what I've heard, the ongoing search for
that kind of information does impact us because of Hanford. And
that is a question, you know, that has been very contentious,
ongoing, and there have been studies that have been released
and there are famous downwinder studies, and they say there is
absolutely no problem.
I have no documented evidence to indicate one way or the
other, you know, what we really know in our county. It has
always been our contention that we believe that there is more
of a problem than has been stated by these studies that come
out of these agencies like this.
Mr. Horn. Now, has the State Department of Public Health
ever done a study here? That's their responsibility for the
State.
Mr. Tallman. Not that I'm aware of are.
Mr. Doherty. Congressman, let me expand a little bit on
that. I, like Judge Tallman, don't think that such a study has
been done.
But the concern here is not any impact that we may have had
up to now. I think the chemicals have been pretty well stored.
The Commanders out at the depot, the civilian employees who are
working out there, I think they've done a good job.
We're not so much concerned about the storage issue as we
are about once the incineration gets underway, and this
chemical is being burned, it's going to be emitted into the
air. And from that point forward, from that point forward there
might be some things that would concern my friend, Mr.
Minthorn, for instance. And that maybe should be monitored very
closely.
But at the time being, no, we're not looking backward and
seeing a problem that I know of.
I would like to also caution the subcommittee in this
sense. Let's not fall into the trap that I think a lot of
people have fallen into. Boom, the incineration project comes.
Boom, jobs come. Boom, workers come. This is a boom. This
produces money that's in circulation.
These short-term economic benefits people think are just
great, we ought to be satisfied to just have them.
We're trying to look beyond that. We're trying to look at
the cost to government, which is associated with that, the cost
to the taxpayers themselves when they go on servicing that
long-term debt that's incurred. Those factors are very
important to us. And I think they would be to you because of
your experience with the closure of the Naval base. They do
impact us. I know that you're aware of that.
Mr. Tallman. I would just like to add, I do know that our
Emergency Management Director, Casey Beard, has asked, I have
been at meetings where he has asked and made a statement that
it would be good if we could do some health studies to
establish these baseline numbers that I think that Armand was
talking about. But of course those studies do take money, and
I'm sure that the Oregon Health Division would be very
interested in helping us with that. But I know over the past
several years that their budget has always been one of the
first to be cut in the State of Oregon. So they just do not
have the money or the manpower to conduct that kind of study.
But it has been asked, but nothing has ever been done about it.
Mr. Horn. One of the members of the audience has said, and
it's a good question, have the communities received any aid
from the so-called BRAC closure, which is the Base Realignment
and Closure Act, and any programs. We sort of fished for it in
various points.
Mr. Tallman. I would allow my planner to, county planner,
to discuss that with you. This is Tamara Mabbott.
Ms. Mabbott. Thank you, Senator Horn, for asking that
question, and since you are a host to a large community in
Lakewood, I thought this might ring home for you.
Actually the communities have not received impact aid so to
speak from the BRAC, Base Realignment and Closure Program.
For the past 8 years approximately there has been something
called the local reuse authority appointed by Congress made up
of the two counties and two members from the Confederated
Tribes. So we are studying the reuse of the facility. And we've
spent a very frustrating 2 years most recently trying to figure
out ways to generate revenue from interim leasing.
So the Army has said, we will allow you to generate some
revenue off of those properties, very limited number of
acreages, that are outside what they call the 1 percent
lethality zone, which means everything that's within the 1
percent lethality zone is doomed if there is any accident out
there.
To date we have not generated any revenues. We had
submitted a grant application through the BRAC program to
receive funds to study impact aid. And the BRAC program, as you
probably are well aware, is structured to address job loss, not
job and economic growth. So we are in sort of a catch-22
situation. So with regard to impact aid, it has not been
beneficial.
Mr. Horn. Well, I think you're absolutely correct. And one
of my problems with the Department of Defense over my 6 years
in Congress, especially going through these base closures in
our area, is that they keep the environmental money, and if the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army when he testifies can
straighten us out if we are wrong on this.
And, frankly, it is the slowest agency in Washington, DC,
as far as I'm concerned, and how you prod them into doing
something, I'll never know. It's very bureaucratic and very
slow.
We're still sitting around waiting for the U.S. Navy to
convey surplus property when we gave it to them for $1 during
the second world war. And it's just unbelievable. I regard them
as the most laggard, even behind the Department of Defense.
But I'd appreciate it very much if the Deputy Assistant
Secretary could educate us on what that situation is. We give
them the money out of the Armed Forces authorization and
appropriations. Talk about trickle down. It has dropped down,
you know, a few here and a few there. But definitely there
ought to not only be Defense involvement, there ought to be HUD
involvement in terms of housing and other things.
The administration ought to get a focus on this where they
would have, and HUD has been very supportive with economic
development. Department of Justice and the President's cops
program. That has its ups and downs, but you should apply for
it, because it certainly happened to our agriculturally
oriented counties in California. And I think in a way I feel
like this is where I grew up in California, just looking at the
farming and the trees and small populations.
But they can pull that together at the national level, and
they should, and we'll try to help them.
Mr. Tallman. Thank you.
Mr. Horn. We have another one, Mr. Chairman, I don't quite
understand part of it, so maybe the Colonel can tell us. It's
the recent radio ads assure residents that the children will be
safe in over-pressurized schools. What about those communities
whose schools are not over-pressurized? Does that also imply
that those of us who are not in over-pressurized buildings are
not safe? Will the Army fund the cost of over-pressurization in
school buildings or safety shelters? And we probably ought to
ask that of the Army when they come up. But maybe somebody here
has a perception on this.
Mr. Doherty. We have a couple of resource persons present
who can address that.
Mr. Horn. Why don't you identify yourself and position.
Mr. Beard. I am Casey Beard, the emergency management
director for Morrow County. And the question is one that raises
a great deal of concern to us in the Emergency Management
community here locally.
Recently we believe we've had some breakthroughs in dealing
with our State and Federal counterparts to address this very
concern. Some years ago we made a decision based on several
studies and application of common sense and local perspective
that many of the schools that were closest to the Depot just
did not have time to allow for a safe evacuation.
So we became the Nation's leader in a project called over-
pressurization, so that all of the schools essentially that are
within 5 to 7 miles have been over-pressurized.
Mr. Horn. Could you explain that for me? Pardon my
ignorance. What do you mean by over-pressurization?
Mr. Beard. Basically, we have a series of filters that are
located outside the school, and the potentially contaminated
air is pumped through those filters and all of the nerve or
mustard agent is removed through the filtering process. The
clean air is then pumped into the enclosed part of the facility
at an air pressure that's higher than the ambient air pressure
outside.
So since some of these are older buildings that they are
retrofitting, there are always going to be some leaks and
cracks. Because the air pressure with the purified air is
higher inside, if there is leakage, it is from inside out. Also
if you have an emergency, a window were broken or a door was
accidentally opened, the pressure is sufficient so that it
would accommodate those accidental penetrations of the over-
pressurized facility.
The concern is that we made that decision because of time.
But if you were further away, you had the luxury of more time,
but if you don't have the transportation assets, buses, and
more importantly, the people to drive those buses, you would
squander that opportunity that you have because you're further
away.
And some schools, particularly Stanfield and Echo, have
recently received buses so that they have enough on hand and
the staff trained that are immediately at the facility to get
the children in, drive them away.
The most contentious remaining issue is the town of
Boardman which is located west of the area. And we believe we
have reached a resolution through an innovative way, the
schools, the local communities, Mid-Columbia Bus, are working
together to lease purchase some buses at a reduced cost for the
life of the program, and that's included in our Federal budget
supplies for the year 2000, and if we are successful in
achieving that funding, we believe that we will have addressed
this particular issue.
And it's one of those things that we're glad that it's
happening now but it's taken us a very long time to get it
resolved. And it's very important to us because if you can
prove to the people in the community you can keep their
children safe, then they will be far more willing to
participate and do the things that we ask them to protect
themselves.
Mr. Horn. Well, that's an excellent point. I'm glad that
question was asked. Thank you.
Mr. Tallman. Mr. Chairman, I think there is some concern,
maybe someone who does want to talk about this, there is some
concern that there might be some places in the town of Umatilla
that haven't been over-pressurized yet. I know that they are
working on that, and all of that, and some of that may have
been submitted late. But I think that may have been, if that
person is from Umatilla, I would suspect that's what that
question is asking, questioner is asking about. So there is
still some work to be done on the over-pressurization.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Chairman, this one, I don't know if it is
necessarily directed at the panel, perhaps as much for us to
consider, especially since we also serve on the committee that
has oversight over the sensus. It is from the mayor of Irrigon,
which says, Irrigon is a bedroom community which in the past
has relied on grants heavily with the census in 2000. This
growth as a result of the Umatilla Army chemical disposal will
greatly impact us not only because of the population increase
but also the higher income level caused by the wages paid at
the Depot.
So, in other words, they are going to have this influx of
higher paid people that would not normally be here, they will
get counted, counted as if they are a higher wage, therefore
they won't qualify for some of the traditional funding they
will get for their economic status, and that will have a tail
of 5 to 7 years. And I don't know if there is a way to address
that or not within the census process.
Mr. Horn. That's a temporary use of people. But it isn't a
long-term solution to the unemployment.
Mr. Walden. And in fact works against them in the long-
term, because it sets the standard for their income level for
the community, because they happen to be here right in that
turnaround time.
There's another question from an audience member, perhaps
not to the panel, what economic impact, if any, would changing
from incineration to another disposal technology have on the
local economies? Does anyone want to address that on this
panel? Dr. Obermiller.
Mr. Obermiller. Well, the issue would be, if you shifted to
another technology, what would be the employee work force
profile and associated wages.
Other than that, if there was some sort of buy locally, if
at all possible, directive that was associated with the change
in technology, that could make a difference.
Mr. Tallman. It has always been our position that we
support getting it burned with this incinerator. That has been
our position.
We realize that there is other technology out there and
there are people that have those questions that that's the best
way to do it.
We haven't been presented with any information yet that we
know of that indicates that that's really true.
The main thing, just like the mayor of Hermiston has
already said, let's get them burned. That's what we're most
concerned about. And we'd like to get that done. And that's the
way that we're pushing. But we don't want to do it at the cost
of safety.
Mr. Horn. Let me ask you a couple of points. Are community
sewer systems used by the Army Depot, and when you think of
infrastructure, is there a problem there in terms of waste
going through those sewer systems?
Mr. Tallman. No, sir.
Mr. Horn. So it isn't a problem?
Mr. McCann. Mr. Chairman, I think I can address that from
the community level.
What our concerns are, are not so much with any of this
material coming from the Depot into our public utility systems.
It's the increased population into our communities as a result
of the procedures at the Depot. Nothing directly from the Depot
would come into our community utility systems.
Mr. Horn. In other words, it's just the normal
infrastructure needed when a town expands.
Mr. McCann. Yes, sir.
Mr. Horn. There's usually fire agreements between fire
departments in cities, counties, State in an area. Now, I
noticed coming in, they obviously correctly have their own fire
units there. But I would think there would be a need to call
upon surrounding ones if you had a major problem.
And I guess I would ask the question, do the fire people
that are not in the Army Depot area but are in your cities,
counties, State, do they know and have the procedures and the
training if something really happened there to be up to speed
on it?
Mr. McCann. It's a slow process, and we're not there yet.
Chief Stearns might have something to say about that.
Mr. Walden. Chief, if you could come and take a microphone,
so everyone could hear you. And we will under our rules need to
swear you in, as well.
Mr. Stearns. I already did that.
Mr. Walden. So you are taken care of.
Mr. Stearns. We do have multiple aid contracts throughout
the Umatilla Morrow County, and that includes Umatilla Chemical
Depot as a player on that.
And, yes, in times of emergency, be it chemical event or
the routine fire out there, we are called upon to interact with
them. Training and preparation is an ongoing issue with us.
We are all primarily volunteer organizations in this area.
I have the luxury of having the largest fire department in the
area and a few paid staff. We are still a combination of paid
and volunteer. The other departments around are primarily
volunteer organizations.
The training has been slow in coming, but I think we're
headed there, we're getting it. The equipment to equip our
personnel to be able to deal with an event in the community is
coming. We're not there yet, but there's a light at the end of
that tunnel as well.
Mr. Horn. Well, have there been exercises of the Army and
the county and the city at the same time?
Mr. Stearns. There have been exercises. We have been
limited in what we have been able to do in those exercises,
because of the limitations on training and equipment. The
volunteer organizations here have a fairly large turnover in
personnel, so training is going to be an ongoing issue. We have
fire departments to run and emergency ambulance services to
provide. Trying to squeeze the Depot training in on top of that
is a challenge to us. We have personnel limitations.
And of course we have an impact as all others do with the
increased people in the area, the demand from out there, and no
tax revenue coming to us to support those services. So it is
certainly a challenge.
Mr. Horn. I have a card where someone in the audience has
talked about the status of first response units.
We've talked about the fire department. You've mentioned
the ambulances. Is there anything else where training is
needed, part of a plan where you have all of those interacting
with each other?
Mr. Stearns. Yes, there is.
Mr. Horn. Including the police, obviously.
Mr. Stearns. Including the police. There are traffic
control points. And there is also decontamination of the
public. We have decon units that we're intended to man at
central points located, so in the case of emergency we can
provide decon.
All of those things require personnel to staff them. We
provide hazardous materials response services, fire response,
ambulance response, and decon. We do all of those with the same
core group of people. We can do one of those missions pretty
well. We don't have the personnel to staff all of those in time
of emergency.
Mr. Horn. Thank you very much, Chief.
Mr. Walden. I will followup on that with Mr. Minthorn as
well.
Could you describe what the Tribes have in terms of
equipment and personnel to be able to assist in this effort and
what needs you might have?
Mr. Minthorn. The Tribes, and I would share the frustration
with the other counties, originally the Tribes were not even
included in emergency management. We weren't even considered.
But that is beginning to change, very slowly, and I would share
the other counties' concerns with the slowness.
But the Tribes are now beginning to network with local
emergency managers. It's beginning to happen. The equipment, as
far as what the Tribes have in their capabilities are now being
strengthened to network with local responders, but I would
again cite the frustration that is still there because of the
progress and how slow the progress is.
Mr. Horn. On that point, if I might, Mr. Chairman, to just
go down the row, one of our basic questions of this panel was,
does each of you feel that your communities are sufficiently
equipped to handle a chemical emergency.
And, Mr. Minthorn, I think you'd say no to that answer.
Would you?
Mr. Minthorn. Yes.
Mr. Walden. And then Mr. Doherty?
Mr. Doherty. Mr. Chairman, I would say no, and I want to
add this observation. I don't know if it came through in Jim
Stearns' testimony, but in this area, our rural fire protection
districts are our first responders. They're the pick, axe and
shovel people on the ground. They have HAZ-MAT
responsibilities, ambulance responsibilities, a lot more than
just fighting fires. And they don't have any direct resources
that I know of from CSEPP.
I have suggested in my written statement that CSEPP should
fund a position in every one of those six fire departments.
That's Hermiston, Umatilla, Echo, Irrigon, and Boardman, so
that the limitations that Jim Stearns was talking about will be
mitigated to some extent.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Tallman, Mr. McCann.
Mr. Tallman. Yes. Presently I'd have to say no. We know
that improvements are being made, but presently we would not be
able to respond 100 percent as we would really like at that
maximum protection as the mission statement says.
Mr. Walden. Mr. McCann.
Mr. McCann. As far as the communities are involved, I would
have to also say no.
Mr. Horn. Well, I'm going to assume, but I don't want to
put words in your mouth, have the local emergency response
teams been issued all the necessary equipment, given the
training needed to handle a chemical emergency?
Mr. McCann. I would have to defer that question again to
Chief Stearns. Is he still here?
Mr. Stearns. And the answer is no, simply.
Mr. Horn. OK. Thank you, Chief.
Any other comments? I think you're feeling that way
certainly.
Mr. Minthorn. Yes. Just as a final comment, Mr. Chairman, I
know that the Tribes, we do have an agreement with the
Department of Defense we entered into in 1996, and it is a
first. I understand that there are no other Tribes that have an
agreement such as ours.
We continue, Mr. Chairman, to cite in many forms and in
many manners the Tribes' sovereignty, but in particular the
sovereignty that we have is because of the resources, our
traditional resources. My lifestyle is dependent on those
resources. Right now I consider my resources at risk.
Therefore, my lifestyle is at risk.
I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to fully consider what you have
heard here today. I have a life way that has sustained my
ancestors for over 10,000 years. We are continuing to practice
and maintain our cultural way of life, even though there is a
Federal Government, even though there are Federal laws, there
still needs to be an effort and an acknowledgement of my way of
life through the treaty of 1855 and my lifestyle.
I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to fully consider what you've
heard today.
Mr. Horn. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
Any other questions we have from the floor? If not.
Mr. Walden. We will move on to the next panel. I'd like to
thank this panel for your presentations. They have been most
insightful and helpful in our process here. We will call up the
next panel of witnesses, then, if you will take your seats. And
if I could ask each member of the panel and any staff you have
to make comments stand and take the oath, as well. If you will
raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Walden. Thank you. Please be seated. We will lead off
on panel two with Dr. Theodore Prociv, who is the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Chemical Demilitarization,
Department of the Army.
Good morning. Welcome. Thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF THEODORE M. PROCIV, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE ARMY FOR CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Mr. Prociv. Good morning. Thank you. And thank you for the
invitation. We are pleased to be here to discuss this very
important program.
What I'm going to do is read a very short oral statement
but submit a longer statement for the record.
Mr. Walden. That will be fine.
Mr. Prociv. Thank you. Thank you again for the opportunity
to speak with you about the U.S. Chemical Demilitarization
Program and its role in the communities of Umatilla and
Hermiston.
I am grateful for your interest and continued support of
this very important national program. Our overall mission is to
safely destroy the U.S. inventory of chemical agents and
munitions and related non-stockpile while providing enhanced
emergency preparedness and response capabilities to the
communities where the stockpiles are maintained and will be
destroyed.
Mr. Bacon, the Program Manager for Chemical
Demilitarization, will provide you a detailed overview of the
program, and Mr. de Courcy from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency [FEMA] will provide you with an overview of
the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program.
I want to use my time here to give you sort of an overview
and a view of the vision where we're going with this program.
The Chemical Demilitarization Program was really begun to
remove a threat caused by continued storage of these chemical
weapons. The youngest of these weapons is about 40 years old.
They were never meant to be stored that long and it is
imperative that we get on with removing these.
In addition, the program also inspires a worldwide
commitment to the elimination of a complete class of weapons of
mass destruction.
So we're an integral part of a chemical weapons convention
and a much more global program that will help the world rid
ourselves entirely of the chemical weapons. They originally
consisted of over 31,000 tons of chemical weapons at military
depots in eight states and Johnston Island in the Pacific. The
non-stockpiled part of this, and we use that term non-
stockpiled, is basically the material that was not declared
under the treaty, which consists of remnant munitions that have
been dug up from training rounds, old equipment, training kits,
even some of the facilities that we used to manufacture the
chemical agents in. So that's also a sizable part of the
program. This material is potentially at 99 suspect sites in 38
States. So it's a very large program.
In Umatilla the chemical weapons stockpile consists of
3,717 tons of chemical agent, which is about 12 percent of the
U.S. stockpile.
It's important to eliminate these weapons because the
stockpile serves no useful defense purpose, but poses real and
now unnecessary risk of accidental release of hazardous
material. The U.S. military has determined that chemical
weapons are no longer a part of our tactical strategy, have no
real effect on giving us an advantage at the battlefield, and
therefore it's time for us to get rid of these weapons.
The chemical demilitarization program is not a traditional
Army mission. The Army traditionally doesn't build chemical
plants, but the Army has been given this job to be executive
agent which we will do it to the best of our ability while we
take care of the No. 1 issue, which is safety and maximum
protection to the public.
The communities, States, the environmental corporations are
all stakeholders and play a very significant part in this
program. All stakeholders share the same mission of safe
destruction. They somehow differ as to the best course of
achieving this, and we heard some of this in prior testimony.
However, the goal of the program continues to be integration of
every approach that we feel is safe in destroying the
stockpile. Again, striving for maximum protection.
Members of the community surrounding the Umatilla Army
Depot have long supported the chem demil program. Their
involvement has been critical, and we thank them for that.
As we said earlier, these weapons were not put here to
defend Oregon nor Umatilla. They were put here to defend the
Nation, and the Nation owes them a debt of gratitude for taking
care of that. The program's mission, objectives, and timelines
are clearly established by U.S. law and international treaty,
mandating the destruction of the entire stockpile by 2007.
Absent a change in the law, we believe we can finish this
program on time.
In summary, the chem demil program is moving forward with a
renewed focus and momentum. The studies and scrutiny of the
past couple of years have provided a necessary examination of
our focus. Our work toward implementing change in reaching our
objectives is fueling that momentum. The momentum is very
important to us in light of the treaty, in light of the timing
that we have to achieve at this point.
The issue of impact funding has come up numerous times
here. We've been working very hard over the last few years
trying to determine what the position on impact funding is. To
date we have been unable to find any legal authority for us to
provide impact funding. We have gone through general counsel,
we have gone through the various legal offices, the Office of
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army. And at this
point there is no legal basis for the Department to pay under,
and the Office of General Counsel continues to work with any
community that wants to work with them.
I do have one page that I can either read or put into the
record later during Q and A that talks about the position, the
general counsel's position on impact funding and on the Tooele
situation which was mentioned.
Mr. Walden. I think it's fine if you want to submit them
for the record, and perhaps give us copies, as well.
Mr. Prociv. All right.
Mr. Horn. Do have copies with you?
Mr. Prociv. Yes. We can manufacture a few more if you need.
Therefore, the continued commitment, full support of this
program will allow us to complete our mission of destroying the
U.S. chemical weapons and munitions and related material while
ensuring the safety and protection of the communities
surrounding the stockpile, the demilitarization work force and
the environment.
I also want to thank you for your support for restoring our
budget and keeping it up to the levels that we can achieve our
goals. Thank you very much.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Doctor, and without objection, your
comments and your full testimony and the white paper you
referenced will be entered into the official record of the
subcommittee.
Mr. Prociv. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Prociv follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.036
Mr. Walden. Mr. Bacon.
STATEMENT OF JAMES L. BACON, PROGRAM MANAGER FOR CHEMICAL
DEMILITARIZATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Mr. Bacon. Chairman Horn, Mr. Walden----
Mr. Walden. You may want to get that, if it is possible, a
little closer to your mouth. You have to work these rather
closely. When we are done, you can do radio.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you. Chairman Horn, Mr. Walden, chairman
of the committee, good morning. I am pleased to be here this
morning in the great State of Oregon to represent the Chemical
Demilitarization Program. I want also to thank the citizens of
Oregon and Morrow County and Umatilla County and the
surrounding areas for their longstanding support to the Army
and particularly to the Umatilla Chemical Depot.
In my role as program manager, I am directly responsible
for the execution of the destruction of this Nation's chemical
weapons stockpile, as well as the non-stockpile material that
Mr. Prociv mentioned.
To accomplish this mission, I oversee three separate
programs; the chemical stockpile disposal program, the 31,000
tons, to include alternative technology sites in Maryland and
Indiana; the non-stockpile project that Dr. Prociv referred to;
and also support the Russian Federation in their destruction of
their chemical weapon stockpile called the Cooperative Threat
Reduction Program, and there we are in the process of building
a pilot facility to assist the Russians. All of these are under
my purview.
As Dr. Prociv noted, this program is not new. We have had
these projects in place for a number of years and they have
positioned the United States as the world leader in chemical
warfare material destruction. In fact, we have surpassed the
first destruction milestone established by the chemical weapons
convention, and are working to stay on track to meet or exceed
the next two milestones of 20 percent and 45 percent complete,
established for the years 2002 and 2004 respectively.
Dr. Prociv also mentioned that the business of disposing of
this Nation's chemical weapons stockpile has received
significant, and unfortunately sometimes not always favorable
attention, but that our successes have been also overshadowed
at times. But this morning I'd like to shed some light on some
of those successes in the status of the program.
First, we are getting the job done and doing it safely and
doing it well. By operating the two facilities at Johnston
Island in the Pacific and Tooele, UT, over the last 3 years,
these two programs have reduced the weapons by over 4,000 tons.
And our rate of disposal is going to increase dramatically
within the next 3 to 4 years, as we bring on the facilities
currently under construction here in Umatilla, in Alabama and
in Arkansas; and also bringing on pilot facilities with the
alternative technologies in Indiana and Maryland. That is 90
percent of our stockpile destruction well underway.
And while we're working on these five additional sites,
we're working on a plan of action to close the Johnston Atoll
facility. And that is a significant milestone, provides the
pioneering efforts for not only the Johnston Atoll facility but
all the followon facilities, including here at Umatilla. This
facility provides us an excellent opportunity to create a model
for closure--the first time it's ever been done. And we will
apply that to the followon facilities. In achieving these
disposal results that I mentioned, we have not sacrificed
either the health of the environment or the safety of our
workers and the public. The Johnston Atoll chemical agent
disposal facility coexists with the national wildlife refuge on
Johnston Atoll, and we are partnering there with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to assure the protection of the Atoll's
unique wildlife and natural environment.
At the Tooele chemical agent disposal facility, which is
our first facility in the Continental United States, we are
celebrating our third anniversary of safe operations, and a
significant milestone of 50 percent of the nerve agent GB, or
sarin, that is stored there has been destroyed. To reach such
milestones, we have had to take this program from an initial
research and development phase to actual operations and
maintenance. A process that, I would admit, has been extremely
complex in scope.
To establish the mature program that we have today, we
engage in a constant assessment of our approach, continually
seeking out the best practices necessary to accomplish the
mission safely, cost effectively, and within the timeframes set
by the international treaty. We perform this assessment at both
technical and programmatic levels.
Through our lessons learned program we have been able to
capture and share the technical history and the problems that
we've uncovered. This enables the programs that we're
installing today to build on these past successes. Streamlining
the environmental processes has resulted in successful and
timely permit issue resolution in the States where we have
chemical weapons stored and will be building disposal plants.
Through an independent assessment of our program's cost and
scheduled risk, we were able to identify areas where proactive
changes were needed and in fact which we have now instituted
and are paying significant dividends. We are continuing to
review our ongoing management practices, look at ways to
implement best business practices within our current management
and budget framework.
And through all of these ongoing evaluations, we are
developing approaches that will meet our future challenges and
enable us to overcome the obstacles of the past. One challenge
in particular has been the need to communicate effectively and
meaningfully with our stakeholders, particularly those citizens
living in the communities surrounding our stockpile locations.
Our efforts to identify and address community concerns are an
integral part of the PMCD's missions.
Key actions to date include opening and operating outreach
offices in each of the stockpile communities, upgrading our
publicly accessible website, and planning and conducting
comprehensive surveys. This survey will provide us not only
with the information on how we're doing with public
involvement, but also with information on the path we need to
take as we move forward. I cannot stress enough how important
it has been to the program to have the people on the ground in
each of the site communities speaking with, listening to, and
receiving feedback about our mission of safe and effective
destruction of the stockpile that is stored here and elsewhere.
In the process of communicating with our stakeholders, we
have looked closely at how we are doing, particularly in terms
of cost and schedule, and most importantly, in those
nonnegotiable areas of safety and protection of the
environment. It is important, though, to understand that the
life cycle cost figures are not just for research and
development, or acquisition, or operations and maintenance. Our
budget needs to cover everything from community health studies,
cost of partnering with organizations such as FEMA for CSEPP,
to cooperative agreements with the States.
And because of these many funding commitments, I'm
especially concerned about the impacts that budget cuts may
impose. For example, recent budget analysis by my resource
management office personnel have shown that the proposed budget
cuts will adversely affect all of our demil program sites,
including the one here in Oregon.
Our analysis clearly indicates a significant budget
reduction in fiscal year 2000 could create delays in the
disposal of our stockpiles as well as the non-stockpile
material; and result in the breach of the Chemical Weapons
Convention date of April 2007; but more importantly it could
increase the cumulative risk to the public from the continued
storage of these weapons; and significantly increase the
program life cycle cost estimate by more than $400 million.
For the program manager, the overall driver for
establishing our disposal schedule, is the reduction of the
cumulative risk to the public from an extended storage of the
stockpile. A secondary driver is meeting the chemical weapons
convention deadline. My goal is to reduce this risk at all
sites; striving to meet the treaty deadline will also allow us
to accomplish that goal.
The particular demands of our safety culture dictate we
approach disposal with extreme care. As Dr. Prociv mentioned,
this is a 15 year old program and many of those 15 years have
been spent testing and evaluating safe disposal technologies
and processes. When we factor in the work of our colleagues
that are safely operating the chemical agent munitions disposal
system, at the Deseret Chemical Depot in Utah for 20 years, it
is clear our approach to chemical weapons elimination has been
delivered with safety always the priority.
As a citizen and a resident living near one of the nine
stockpile locations, I would not want our program's history to
look any different. I'm committed to a future that is built on
our record of making sure we have it right before we move
forward. And this approach has served us well. We're now
positioned to accelerate the disposal schedule in the coming
years, based on this history of demonstration.
As program manager, I feel confident about our capability
to operate multiple facilities simultaneously, built on the
solid and safe foundation that we are standing on here today.
I want to thank you for this opportunity to highlight these
successes. I would like to reiterate my personal commitment and
that of our fine work force to continue operating in a fiscally
responsible
manner, to use the best proven technologies, to eliminate the
risk posed to our communities, while being protective of public
health and the environment. My staff and I stand ready to
provide you with any additional information you desire.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bacon follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.039
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Bacon.
Let's hear now from Mr. David de Courcy, Federal Emergency
Management Agency. Good morning and welcome.
STATEMENT OF DAVID de COURCY, REGION 10 DIRECTOR, FEDERAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Mr. de Courcy. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee, I am the Regional Director for Region 10 of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Region 10 for your
information covers Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss some of the key elements of the CSEPP program relating
to the safety of communities around the Umatilla Chemical
Depot.
FEMA has provided the committee with a written statement by
Russell Salter, Director of Chemical and Radiological
Preparedness Division discussing the CSEPP program from a
national perceptive.
My intent here is to give you a brief overview of where we
are today in Oregon, and to highlight the significant progress
that has recently been made through the combined efforts of all
of the governmental entities involved in the program; FEMA, the
Army, the State of Oregon, Umatilla and Morrow Counties, and
the local jurisdictions.
One preliminary comment. We are all aware that this has
been and remains a challenging program. It involves all of the
different levels of government that exist in our democratic
system; Federal, State, and local. It involves different
organizations within each of those governmental units. All of
these entities have different cultures, different ways of doing
business, and in some cases, different ideas about how best to
implement this program. But there is one constant for all of
us: To protect the public.
And so, despite occasional differences of opinion and even
some quite public controversies, the collective commitment to
that goal by everyone involved in the CSEPP program has made
the communities around the Umatilla Depot much safer than they
were before, not only from a chemical weapons accident, but
from a hazardous materials event on the roads or rails or from
a natural disaster such as a flood or fire.
We aren't done with the job yet, but let me in my brief
appearance today inventory some of the things that have been
accomplished through the CSEPP program.
Emergency operation centers. Both Umatilla and Morrow
Counties have, or soon will have, first class emergency
operations centers. The Umatilla County CSEPP staff has
recently moved into a new state-of-the-art facility in
Pendleton, built in conjunction with the county's Justice
Center. Morrow County is in the final stages of a renovation
project that will be completed in October. In the meantime, its
EOC remains fully operational.
Sirens. The State has installed and tested 35 outdoor
sirens in the two counties, as well as 7 more on the Depot
itself. All are working and are tested once a month. Because of
population growth, FEMA is funding six additional sirens.
Highway reader boards. These are designed to help direct
traffic if an evacuation is necessary. Nine reader boards have
been installed. One is not working because of vandalism and is
being moved to a safer and better location.
Tone alert radios [TARs]. These special radios are
currently being lab and field tested, and about 17,000 of them
will be distributed in every home and business near the Depot.
They allow emergency managers to alert people of a problem, and
can transmit voice instructions regarding appropriate
protective action. We expect delivery of the radios late this
year or early in 2000, with distribution to the public being
complete by next May.
I would note that we are aware that some elements of the
communications infrastructure that supports the tone alert
radios are not yet working properly. The counties are working
with the system contractor to correct those problems.
Alert notification. The Depot is now able to notify all
State and county emergency operations centers of a chemical
event via a dedicated telephone conference bridge. In addition,
a computer-based emergency management information system is
able to simultaneously notify all emergency operation centers
of an incident, reveal the level of alert and graphically show
the direction of a chemical plume.
Over-pressurization. This allows people to shelter-in-
place. As was discussed earlier, it provides an airtight
enclosure, which keeps contaminated air outside using
weatherization techniques and air pumps; 11 schools in Umatilla
and Morrow Counties have working systems which presently
protect 5,500 children and teachers. An additional system is
being built into the new high school in Umatilla. Food
supplies, blankets, sleeping pads, and items for special needs
children have been distributed to Morrow County, and Umatilla's
will be distributed next month as school begins.
Good Shepherd Hospital over-pressurization. This project is
going to bid this month and should be completed by the fall of
2000. It had been delayed for some time by some design issues
but those issues have now been resolved.
Good Samaritan Nursing Home over-pressurization. The design
has been approved for this project and a contractor has been
selected, construction should begin later this month.
Hermiston Safety Center. It is also in the design phase for
over-pressurization and should be completed next year.
Transportation. As was discussed previously during an
earlier panel, some schools have chosen to evacuate because of
their distance from the Depot rather than to do over-
pressurization. A bus has been provided to the city of Echo to
evacuate school children. And we are working with the
superintendent of schools in Boardman, Bruce Anderson, to
provide transportation for the Boardman children as well. I
received a letter from Mr. Anderson on Friday which I think was
a very promising proposal, and I am confident we will be able
to resolve this issue in the near future.
Shelter-in-place kits. Each household in the areas closest
to the Depot will receive a shelter-in-place kit which will
allow residents to prepare an airtight safe room in their
homes. Morrow County has already distributed about half of its
needed kits.
Umatilla County is currently assembling the 13,000 kits for
its residents and plans to distribute them by mail in October.
Responder protection. Several projects designed to protect
first responders in responding to a chemical incident have been
a significant part of recent CSEPP efforts in Oregon.
Monitoring equipment. This allows response personnel to
detect the presence of chemical agents. Under a pilot project
developed jointly by FEMA, the Army, the State, the counties,
and the local jurisdictions, 20 improved chemical agent
monitors, or ICAMs, were provided by the Army in March. The
Depot is providing training to the first responders on ICAM
use.
Personal protective equipment. 300 Level C protective
units, overgarments, boots and masks have been provided to be
used by first responders. Training and fit testing for this
equipment is well underway.
Decontamination trailers, also referenced briefly in
earlier testimony. Four trailers are in-place in the counties.
These will be deployed to specific sites to decontaminate
persons suspected to be contaminated. Each units have showers,
water supplies and other specialized equipment. Each trailer
has its own tow vehicle as well. Three of these tow vehicles
have been delivered. One is being fitted with special
equipment.
Public information and education. Public outreach is a
critical aspect of emergency preparedness generally. This is
especially so in the CSEPP program. We are engaged in a very
active public education effort involving FEMA, the Army, the
State, including Office of Emergency Management, the State
Department of Health and the State Department of Environmental
Quality, and the counties. These efforts focus on communicating
with the public about what to do in the event of an emergency.
A very aggressive plan is now under consideration that would
use commercial advertising to increase public awareness and to
approve citizens' ability to protect themselves.
In closing, I want to emphasize that we are moving forward
with a collaborative approach to the management of the CSEPP
program in Oregon. In March, we implemented what we called our
Unified Management Team, which consists of representatives of
FEMA, the Army, the State and each county. This team meets
weekly to identify issues, resolve problems and monitor
progress. It brings together key players on a regular basis,
has clarified responsibilities, and has helped ensure that
issues are addressed in a timely fashion. It also brings
closure to nagging issues that in the past sometimes took on
undue significance.
In addition to the weekly team meetings, we also have a
thorough briefing every 4 to 6 weeks for a broad array of local
officials where progress is reported and issues are discussed
in an open forum. Local attendees include the county
commissioners, mayors, first responders, and Tribal
representation.
This entire unified management team process has greatly
improved communication among everyone involved in the program,
has helped avoid misunderstandings and potential controversies,
and ultimately, has greatly enhanced the pace of progress in
protecting the public. Clearly, it has been instrumental in
bringing to
closure many of the items that I have discussed today. I am
confident that it will continue to provide a strong foundation
as we move forward with the CSEPP program here in Oregon.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. de Courcy follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.044
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much. Let's go now to our final
witness in this panel, Myra Lee, who is the director of Oregon
Emergency Management Division.
STATEMENT OF MYRA T. LEE, DIRECTOR, OREGON EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Congressman Walden. Thank you,
Congressman Horn.
My name is Myra Thompson Lee. I am the director of the
Oregon Emergency Management. I had submitted information for
the record and will try to summarize briefly without repeating
a lot of everything we have already heard. I keep marking
things out here as we go on.
Oregon has been involved in the CSEPP program from the
beginning. In 1989 we received the first amount of funding that
was available. It was $100,000. A full 10 years have passed
since that time, and we have seen great strides in preparedness
capability of both Morrow and Umatilla Counties and the State
of Oregon. We have the most advanced alert notification system
in the State in this region. It includes the system of high
power sirens to alert citizens and agricultural workers who are
outside, highway reader boards to help direct traffic in an
emergency, and soon under the counties oversight it will
include individual tone alert radios for every inhabited
building in the immediate response zone.
You have already heard about the over-pressurization and
the supplies for the schools, and about the buses. In regard to
training, by October 85 percent of the first responders,
medical staff and other emergency workers will be trained in
chemical response. The training is slow and part of that is
simply because of the schedules. We have to meet the schedules
of first responders to be able to get the training to them in a
way and at a time that meets their work requirements.
Operational needs have been developed through
multijurisdictional planning and reflected in the budget
requests that are submitted to FEMA and the Army, and policy
issues are addressed by joint meetings of the group that
Director de Courcy described, which includes the local
officials, Tribal, State and Federal executive management
representatives. Still we do have a long way to go. But at this
critical time we are seeing reduced funding for some very
important projects. One of our concerns has been and continues
to be the funding strategy developed by the Defense Department
called life cycle cost estimates [LCCE]. The intent was to
project CSEPP program and equipment cost to the year 2004 and
to hold spending to an agreed upon level. However, the cost
figures were reduced by the Army, the cost figures submitted by
the counties and the State, were reduced by the Army to meet
the demand to cut costs by the Defense Acquisition Board of the
DOD.
Hence, the LCCE since its inception has not adequately
provided for or been adjusted to account for medical costs, the
normal year to year growth of the program at the State and
local levels, nor the costs of the certification process that
must demonstrate we have met the prescribed level of emergency
preparedness outlined in the final operating permit.
For instance, we have repeatedly requested to have the
medical preparedness component included in the LCCE. This has
not been done. The result has been that the medical
preparedness costs have supplanted other activities that also
needed to be done.
Training is another area. Training needs are especially
difficult. Many people must take work or family time to train.
Many of them are volunteers, and there are no funds to cover
the additional costs of public safety infrastructure in the
counties. Issues related to the LCCE have delayed progress and
budget cuts would simply make this worse. We request that the
LCCE be addressed--readdressed, and that it be allowed to
reflect actual needs at every level. The facility permit issued
by the State of Oregon requires that community emergency
preparedness be adequate prior to the start of facility
operations. The Governor's signature is required on this
document to ensure that an adequate level of emergency
preparedness exists.
The communities must be able to provide warning to citizens
and an adequate response to a chemical emergency. Protective
measures for our citizens and emergency workers must be
adequate and medical services and equipment must be available.
There are many other safeguards that must be established before
the State will certify community readiness.
That is what the certification process is all about. The
importance of this certification process to the counties and
the State cannot be overemphasized. It not only assures an
adequate level of emergency preparedness but it is a good faith
effort to achieve what is needed with respect to the safety of
our citizens and the protection of our environment.
In closing, let me say that we do appreciate you being
here. There are many things that you need to consider in this
process. But the bottom line in CSEPP is always and has been
the protection of the public, that is my goal. My staff live
here. I come from a rural community. And I understand the
issues that this type of a situation represent, and from that
local perspective. Thank you very much for your time, and I'll
be glad to answer any questions.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Ms. Lee. We appreciate it.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lee follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4491.054
Mr. Walden. We will go right into questions now.
Mr. Prociv, I have a question regarding the funding issue.
My understanding is for fiscal year 1999 the appropriation for
chemical weapons was $780 million for the Army. The recommended
committee level out of the House was $781, which is $388
million below what the President's budget requested, which is
designed to deal with the ramp-up in costs.
But I want to read from the committee report and have you
maybe address the concern that they raised when they made this
reduction.
They say the committee remains concerned over the extremely
slow obligation expenditure rates for the chemical munitions
destruction program. Recently the committee has learned that
its concerns are valid through an internal DOD comptroller
memorandum. The committee has learned the chemical agents
munitions program uses unique and questionable budget execution
actions. Not only are these large unexpended and unobligated
balances of prior year funds, but the budget request is $388
million higher than last year's appropriated amount.
Since not only the committee but also the Office of
Secretary of Defense comptroller staff cannot determine the
validity of the program's prior obligations, the committee
recommended that the program be held at last year's level.
I understand you may have some information to respond to
what the committee was faced with when they made their
decision.
Mr. Prociv. I will be pleased to respond to that. The memo
that they referred to was a preliminary memo that was sent from
a budget analyst to the comptroller. The issue was not slow
obligation rates but slow disbursement rates.
And this was a concern, because our program is very much
different than most other DOD programs. There were a number of
concerns stressed in that.
Subsequently, the comptroller established another committee
to take a look at the low obligation rates, and there is a
report, which we will be happy to provide you with that report.
The report basically takes each of the allegations and finds
them to be essentially not correct. In deeper detail, it
exonerated us from those accusations.
Also, as a result, the GAO came and did a short preliminary
study and they also came to the same conclusions that the
process was in fact correct and there was no mismanagement of
the budget.
The reason this budget is very different than most defense
budgets, the difference between obligation and disbursement
rates are a little bit larger than normal, is that this program
is driven by permits. We, because of the way we budget money
and manage it, have to essentially obligate the dollars and
then wait for a permit.
Very often we wait a little longer than we had anticipated.
So most of the concerns on disbursements were based around that
kind of an obligation rate.
The two studies that have been done essentially exonerated
us and point to good management practice.
Mr. Walden. And at this point I would like to have those
entered in the record of the committee hearing process, if you
have them.
Mr. Prociv. I would be pleased to.
Mr. Walden. Without objection, Mr. Chairman, we will do
that. Let me go on to ask you another question.
The letter you mentioned, or the white paper you mentioned
about impact aid from your general counsel's office, which we
put in the record, what's the date that that report was
created?
Mr. Prociv. The letter that they gave me is dated March 26,
1999.
Mr. Walden. So March 1999.
Mr. Prociv. That's correct. The information paper on Tooele
is June 1, 1999. These are the two that I will submit.
Mr. Walden. Have you shared, obviously you've heard how
important this impact aid issue is to me and to members of this
community. Have you shared those letters with the community
leaders yet?
Mr. Prociv. No, we did not. We have had the general counsel
come to some of the communities and explain the position,
explain the Tooele settlement. We have been very active in
keeping the communities informed of what our position is. So we
have done that wherever we have been invited to.
Mr. Walden. If possible, I would recommend you share that,
those documents, with the community leaders here. I think that
could be very helpful.
Let me ask you this, too. From what I hear you say, you
don't feel like there's a statutory authority to provide the
impact aid.
Does the administration intend to pursue that authority, or
support that authority if somebody else pursues it
legislatively? Can you speak to that issue?
Mr. Prociv. It's an issue of both authority and budget. The
issue of the legislative authority basically is that we have a
budget that has been appropriated for certain series of actions
we have to achieve, and the impact aid is not one of those
actions, and if so, we would need some relief in that case.
Of course, these are not insignificant sums of money, when
you start to add up the other communities that have also
approached us. Facing the kind of cuts that we are facing, we
don't even have the kind of money that we can start to put out,
even if we had the legislative authority.
So at this point it would have to be both the authority and
some form of appropriation.
Mr. Walden. I understand that. I guess, you know, limited
authority and budget caps, and all of that as well. But I guess
the point is, we're asking the local taxpayers to absorb the
hit, as well, and they are not getting compensation.
So I guess, I didn't hear you say, can you speak in terms
of whether you would support that authority? I mean, we have to
have the authorization before we can do it apparently.
Mr. Prociv. This is a congressional program. We will do
what we need to do to get this program going. If Congress wants
us to do this, we certainly will do this.
Mr. Walden. Let me go--I have a question I guess for Mr. de
Courcy. You mentioned that there are 300 decontamination suits,
I believe? That may not be the right term. Hazardous suits. How
many volunteers and professional personnel? I mean, how many
people are out there that would be involved if there were a
leak today?
Mr. de Courcy. In terms of first response personnel?
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. de Courcy. I am sorry. I don't have that figure.
Mr. Walden. Does somebody have that? Is it Mr. Stearns?
Mr. Horn. We need you to speak louder.
Mr. de Courcy. Perhaps Mr. Stearns would know.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Stearns, can you tell us how many first
responders there are in the area?
Mr. Stearns. I can't tell you exactly, but there would be
approximately 50.
Mr. Walden. About 50 first responders. OK.
Mr. Stearns. I must qualify that. That's on the fire and
medical side. Police is another issue. I don't know how many
would be there.
Mr. Walden. How many would need to be in these suits, I
guess is the point I am getting at.
Mr. Stearns. I can't speak for police. I don't know what
their numbers are going to be. That is certainly going to be an
impact. From the fire and ambulance, 50 would be my guess.
Mr. Walden. I guess the point I'm trying to get at, is 300
suits adequate, and over what duration? Are these suits one
time use and then you have to destroy them?
Mr. de Courcy. I think I would respond by saying, this
issue to my understanding has been worked at the local, State
and Federal level, in a joint effort, and I can't address the
specific operational details because I typically don't get
involved at that level.
As I said, this was worked in a collaborative fashion, and
I guess I would have to make the assumption it was based on
input that was received from the State and local officials, and
if we have it wrong, we would be glad to revisit it.
Mr. Walden. I wasn't necessarily saying it was wrong. I was
just curious to see, is 300 adequate? I mean, if you have 500
people responding? We are trying to sort those kinds of things
out.
Mr. de Courcy. As I say, there was significant local
involvement in the background to achieving that capability.
Mr. Walden. All right. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, do you want
to----
Mr. Horn. Yes. Let me raise a few questions panel one has
discussed that I would like your response to.
In Judge Terry Tallman's testimony, he says the following.
``In 1996 one Army official told us, quote, there is a way for
you to get money, but I can't tell you how, unquote.'' Any
thoughts on that? Are we playing jeopardy, or what?
Mr. Prociv. No. I'm somewhat distressed that an Army
official would make that kind of a statement. We have gone
through--I don't know who that official was or may have been.
We have gone through great lengths with our Office of General
Counsel, and we cannot find that means, we do not have the
statutory authority. That has been told to us numerous times.
Mr. Horn. I'm reminded, you're not the only agency where
something like that happens. I'm reminded that about 15, 10 or
15 years ago one of the most distinguished professors of cancer
research in America at UCLA, University of California Los
Angeles, wanted to do research on breast cancer, and the NIH
told him, well, we can't give you a grant because you've never
had a grant from us.
And that reminded me that maybe that Army official was over
at NIH at that time.
But the result of that was my good friend Jack Murtha, the
ranking Democrat on Defense Appropriations, poured a few
hundred million dollars into the Pentagon budgets to deal with
breast cancer there and prostate cancer later. So some good
came out of that idiotic statement made by NIH at the time.
Let me note here, it says Judge Tallman, at our request the
1997 Oregon Legislature unanimously approved a law that allows
counties to charge a fee for storage and handling of the waste.
The Army refused to comply with the law, citing Federal
sovereignty, which is ironic since a similar law was honored in
Tooele County, UT. In essence, the Army claims to be exempt
from all of the traditional tools for taxing growth to
underwrite community services and infrastructure such as roads,
sewers, water systems and schools.
How come Utah gets a good deal and Eastern Oregon doesn't?
Mr. Prociv. I am going to have to read some segments from
this white paper because I am not an attorney and they
constantly accuse me----
Mr. Horn. The first part of the statement is a great credit
to you.
Mr. Prociv. Thank you. One of the statements made here is
that State statutes generally do not constitute a statutory
basis for the Army to make payments to the State of Oregon. The
Federal system of government is immune from paying State taxes
and fees.
The Federal Government has explicitly waived its
sovereignty in only a few limited cases. One of those cases is
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and that's with
regards to a narrow range of hazardous waste fees, and that's
section 42 U.S. Code 6961, if you want it for the record.
The Utah situation, the bottom line in Utah, that in 1996
Tooele County agreed not to seek taxes nor mitigation fees
against the Army and its contractor operating the local Tooele
chemical agent disposal facility in return for a lump sum
payment. There was a $400,000 lump sum payment, and some later
payments of $970.37 per ton. I don't----
Mr. Horn. Were they preparing to sue the Army?
Mr. Prociv. Yes. The Army originally, when the Tooele
County proposed the fee and the tax, the Army originally
opposed the payment of any fee and tax. The Army was ready to
litigate on the grounds that the taxes are illegally levied
against the U.S. Government rather than the contractor, and the
fee was not clearly tied to Utah's hazardous waste program nor
did the facility fall within the physical zone where the
payment was required.
The Army relented because the fee was already being paid by
three hazardous waste facilities in the adjacent counties. The
tax subsequently was assessed against the contractor and there
was substantial risk that a court would have ruled the tax
legal.
So in turn the financial terms reached were more favorable
to the Army than the burden that would have been imposed by
taxes and fees proposed by the county.
The county sought to recover $3.3 million per year in taxes
beginning in 1994 and had assessed a $6.6 million annual fee in
1993. By settling in this manner the Army was convinced that
because there were existing ordinances in three adjacent
counties that were for incinerators and they were paying fees,
if the Army went into litigation, they would lose.
So this kind of a settlement was based on the intent to
litigate.
Mr. Horn. Well, I know you can't do it, but would you
advise those in Eastern Oregon to file a suit against the Army
so they can get $400,000?
Mr. Prociv. I don't think advisory is in my job
description. I apologize, sir.
Mr. Horn. As I said, I don't think you can answer that.
Mr. Prociv. The only thing I might add to that is that
under RCRA, it does require that there are preexisting statutes
already in existence, and it does not allow you to set them up
just to go after government----
Mr. Horn. Why don't you explain what RCRA is.
Mr. Prociv. Resource Conservation Recovery Act.
Mr. Horn. And you did cite that earlier.
Mr. Prociv. That's right.
Mr. Horn. And is that how Utah was able to get it?
Mr. Prociv. That is the only place where the government has
waived sovereign immunity, is under the Resource Conservation
Recovery Conservation Act, where they will actually pay
applicable fees, as long as they are not discriminatory, and
they are applied equally to all industries.
Mr. Horn. It seems they have been very discriminatory,
since Utah has the money and Oregon doesn't.
Mr. Prociv. The way the lawyers have described it to me is
that the Utah situation was very much different because of the
existing rules, local county ordinances, because they were
companies that were being already taxed that way. And so
because of that presence, they were willing then to go into
negotiations with the Tooele County community. That's the limit
of my knowledge as to why this was done.
Mr. Horn. So you're saying that Utah had already taxed the
various contractors?
Mr. Prociv. That's correct, sir.
Mr. Horn. And you're saying Oregon did not tax those?
Mr. Prociv. We know of no other community that has these
kind of ordinances, where we have chemical plants.
Mr. Horn. Maybe some of the Oregon officials can educate
me. Do we have that on the books in Oregon? If not, they can at
the next meeting put it on the books. But who's the
knowledgeable one here? Why don't you introduce yourself for
the record again and position so our faithful reporter will
have it.
Mr. Walden. And use a microphone, too.
Mr. Myers. Do you want to swear me in?
Mr. Horn. You stood up, didn't you?
Mr. Myers. No.
Mr. Horn. We will give you a fast swear in.
Mr. Myers. I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth, so help me God.
Mr. Walden. You're in. He's a lawyer, too.
Mr. Myers. Mr. Chairman, I am Bill Myers, I am an attorney
with Holland & Hart, and I am providing some counsel to Morrow
County.
The county itself has an ordinance in place that's been in
place for some time regarding hazardous waste management.
The State of Oregon has passed a statute which is currently
on the books allowing for the assessment of fees for the
storage and handling and impact created by the situation we
have here. So the statutes and the county ordinances are on the
books.
Mr. Horn. So you see no difference between the evidence at
the time of the filing of Utah versus Oregon that could do
that, then, just as well?
Mr. Myers. No principled difference.
Mr. Horn. Is that the Holland that was Spencer Holland of
Florida?
Mr. Myers. No. That's the Holland of Denver.
Mr. Horn. OK. Because he was a wonderful old gentleman. I
won't tell my jokes on Holland, then. Let me move, if I might,
then, to the general environmental programs of the Department
of Defense. Because there's no question when you close this
facility here, and it's already been decided that it's going to
be closed, that they are going to have tremendous environmental
things, if they want to bring industry in, if they ever want to
clean it up so they can put a school on that side of town.
Defense has that money. And they're supposed to give it to
the sort of aggrieved city in which that property exists. Which
is either city and county or both, and it certainly is in the
State of Oregon.
So, what can you tell us on what the Department of Defense
to whom we give bills, and they've got hundreds of millions in
their environmental accounts, has the Army ever gone to them
and said, hey, folks, we do this in other places, and said,
where's the money?
Mr. Prociv. Congressman, I would hope you would let me take
this for the record. This is a little bit outside my authority
area. I am responsible for the chemical demil program. And the
environmental issues and the BRAC issues and such are handled
by people that I don't deal with very often.
Mr. Horn. Well, do the BRAC people in the Department of
Defense ever speak to the Army? Do they ever say, hey, you
know, what can we do to help? We're from the government, et
cetera?
Mr. Prociv. I think I had better take that for the record,
too.
Mr. Horn. No. It just seems to me that----
Mr. Prociv. We have had discussions with our BRAC people on
all of these sites. And basically BRAC, when a site is declared
a BRAC site, their activities get engaged.
At this point we're not engaged with them for these sites.
Mr. Horn. Well, I was pleased to note there's a task force
here that involves State, county, city, Federal officials. Is
that correct? I thought your testimony was very good and
precise on those points, of what FEMA has done.
Mr. de Courcy. Yes.
Mr. Horn. That doesn't mean they can't do more, but it was
a good list, an excellent list of what's been done. We need on
the Washington side and in the military in particular, to get
the defense and environmental both in relation to what Army,
Navy, Air Force, Marines, they all have base closures they're
doing, and see if the Washington end, if we can get the Federal
agencies together.
Mr. Prociv. Yes, sir. I'll get that for you.
Mr. Horn. I think my colleague, the acting chairman, will
have a few words on that subject.
Mr. Walden. I appreciate your comments, Mr. Chairman, and I
think you're right on target. And I found it interesting that
the BRAC applies for job loss but not the sort of boom and bust
problem by a job creation. Perhaps we need to change the BRAC.
Doctor, the administration often takes positions on
proposed legislation called ZAP. Specifically, do you know if
the Department of Army would support impact aid in the
development of a ZAP?
Mr. Prociv. We have had some discussions about this. And of
course it comes down to what the conditions would be under that
kind of a ZAP.
As I mentioned earlier, we get our authority from Congress,
and if Congress wants to do something, we can do that.
One of the biggest concerns in the Army, this being an Army
budget, any growth, overruns, any additions, could affect the
modernization budget. It could affect the readiness budget.
So there is a lot of concern about how we would respond to
a question like that. If in fact this came to us with a
directive, fully funded, with legal authority, we would follow
the directive.
Mr. Walden. I guess my point is--Well, let me make two
comments on your comment. One, we passed emergency supplemental
to deal with some of the pay and benefit issues during the
Kosava crisis that far exceeded the cost of Kosava to help with
readiness.
Two, the overall budget is a $17 billion increase this
year.
And so, I mean, I think we're stepping up to the plate on
readiness. And I share your commitment toward that.
But there does seem to be this added responsibility we need
to address.
I'm trying to figure out if the Army, if we move forward
with legislation, the easiest way to kill it is a statement of
position that says, no, we don't want to go there because we
are afraid of this or that.
I'm trying to find out if you can speak to that, I don't
know.
Mr. Prociv. I know it sounds like I'm waffling, but from
the discussions I have had with my superiors it really depends
on the conditions. If in fact we had the authority and the
dollars and there was no risk to the Army's readiness or
modernization budget, I think we would follow those directives
very gladly.
Mr. Walden. I would like to work with you in that area, or
your superiors, whoever it needs to be.
Mr. Prociv. I would be happy to.
Mr. Walden. Thank you.
Mr. Horn. Do we have, does the Army have a list of the
number of accidents that have occurred within the Depot in
terms of its own employees? Have we had situations where they
have accidentally had to have medical----
Mr. Prociv. Let me pass that to Mr. Bacon who is involved
on the day-to-day operations.
Mr. Bacon. Sir, yes, the Depot has a very active and in-
depth safety program providing assistance to the employees in a
number of ways, and I would best believe that Colonel Woloszyn,
the Depot Commander, in fact I should say new Depot Commander,
is here and should address this. Tom, are you here?
Mr. Woloszyn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Walden. Come on up.
Mr. Bacon. I would like to have him speak to that.
Mr. Walden. I will swear you in as well, how is that?
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Walden. Thank you.
Mr. Horn. And could you give us your last name and rank and
position for the record.
Mr. Woloszyn. Yes. Lieutenant Colonel Thomas F. Woloszyn. I
am Depot Commander currently, after 1 month. And we do have
records of some of the problems we have had, nothing major. No
major hospitalization in the past. Nothing certainly during my
watch.
Mr. Horn. Has there ever been a situation where something
has escaped out of the facility itself into the community?
Mr. Woloszyn. No, not in the past history. When I was
talking about accidents, maybe a handling accident in the past.
I've heard those, only from an anecdotal perspective.
Mr. Horn. Well, what was the anecdote?
Mr. Woloszyn. I mean, not the anecdote, but from a
historical, stories you hear.
Mr. Horn. The question is, is it apocryphal or isn't it?
Did it ever leak out?
Mr. Woloszyn. Oh. No. It has never leaked out of the Depot
boundaries, that is certain. What I was speaking to is possibly
a worker receiving a low or a small dose.
Mr. Walden. Could you just, in a short form, tell us the
status of these 105,000 rockets? Are the leaks predominantly
over some fuel issues?
Mr. Woloszyn. The issue of stability is a fuel issue,
because they are a packaged round. You have the explosive, the
ignitor and the propellant together with the weapon itself.
Now, as far as the rounds themselves, we monitor them
regularly. Certain lots we monitor on a daily continuous basis.
Others weekly, and some rounds, being like the containerized
rounds, quarterly.
Mr. Horn. That's all I have on that. Go ahead. These are
some from the audience.
Mr. Prociv. May I just add one thing, Mr. Walden. One of my
staff just handed me an article from the Congressional Record.
Some people may be aware of this but I thought I would enter
this into the record.
Senator Smith from Oregon has in fact tried to get some
legislation to help us out. We worked very closely with him.
In the Congressional Record he's asking to engage in
colloquy with the Honorable chairman, ranking member of the
Senate Armed Services on this very subject. In the text it
says, ``Finally, I mentioned my concerns to the Secretary of
Defense. He expressed his willingness to work with us.''
But I think there is action going on, you see that the
Department is willing to engage in discussions on this, that
we're not just a blank wall at this point. And I think this
will result in some kind of resolution.
Mr. Horn. So you're saying the Army will be supportive.
Mr. Prociv. If the Secretary supported it, absolutely, and
that's what this states.
Mr. Walden. OK. We have some questions from the audience.
Has the CSEPP program considered and factored in the actual
operational problems experienced at the Army's Utah facility in
its assessment of the emergency preparedness needs for Oregon?
Mr. Prociv. Would you like to, Mr. de Courcy?
Mr. de Courcy. Would you read the question again?
Mr. Walden. Has the CSEPP program considered and factored
in the actual operational problems being experienced at the
Army's Utah facility in its assessment of Emergency
Preparedness needs for Oregon?
Mr. de Courcy. I would prefer to respond to that on the
record, because I am not familiar with the answer to that
question.
Mr. Prociv. Let me add to that. I know your committee is
often concerned about this. We have an exceptionally good
working relationship with FEMA. That's not always the case when
Federal agencies get together. But in this case it works very,
very well. We attend meetings that are at a minimum quarterly,
sometimes more often, where all of the regional people, the
State representatives get together, and they discuss these
problems, discuss lessons learned from one site to another,
they trade information, and they try to integrate their
programs as best as possible.
So FEMA has taken the initiative. We have attended those
meetings and I believe it's working very well.
Mr. de Courcy. Congressman, I am not clear what the record
was in terms of those issues, but I can tell you that there is
a very elaborate certification process that will be undertaken
with respect to the preparedness component of this.
I am not sure. But to the extent that Utah has experienced
in its preparedness issues the certification process could take
that into consideration as we move forward.
Mr. Walden. I think there must be some operational problems
that have occurred in Utah. The question is, have those been
factored in, if they were to occur here, in your planning
process.
Mr. de Courcy. And I don't know the answer to that.
Mr. Walden. A followup, has the CSEPP program considered
recent efforts--excuse me, recent reports that the chemical
agents are more toxic than originally thought in its assessment
of emergency preparedness needs for Oregon and they are
referencing a NRC report on toxicity in 1997-1998.
Mr. Prociv. Just a short answer. That report had addressed
battlefield conditions. The report specifically argued for
duration of soldiers in battlefield condition. We have taken a
look at that data and we don't believe it will affect our
operations at all.
Mr. de Courcy. Also, Congressman, Tom Johnson from the
Oregon Health Department might be able to respond to that from
the State of Oregon.
Mr. Walden. Would you please be sworn.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Walden. And your name and title for the record.
Mr. Johnson. I am Tom Johnson, assistant administrator for
the Oregon Health Division, and this is an interesting
question, the toxicity.
There is a recent study out that draws into question the
prevailing data that we have been working on with regard to the
toxicity of the agent. We have at present our toxicologist
working on that. We have a study group coming together to bring
together the best information available within the country.
FEMA is participating in that, as well as information that
really the Army is providing. They are very cooperative in
that. We appreciate that.
The answer at this point is we do not know. However, if we
get the information that the best information--minds available
in the country, that indicates that there does need to be a
reassessment of the impact, the area, the population that would
be then affected by a greater toxicity, we will take that into
account.
Here in this area, if the local community is aware of that,
and particularly the emergency managers, because what needs to
be factored into is the risks associated with the evacuation of
people within the impact of the greater toxicity. And there
needs to be a balance between the risks associated with
evacuation, with the risks associated with staying there.
We're aware of this issue. We're working on it with the
Army. And if the numbers indicate that we do need to re-
evaluate our numbers for our response capability, we will do
that.
Mr. Walden. Thank you. We're quickly approaching the
timeline, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if you had--this is a
question from the audience.
In the October 10, 1998 East Oregonian they stated in an
article, ``Deadly gases have come close to escaping smoke
stacks during the incineration process.'' The document showed
that Tooele was shut down 72 times in a 19 month period between
August 1996 to March 1998. Mostly due to stack alarms in which
the Army admits or won't tell if they have no idea of chemical
agent was released in the atmosphere or not. Tim Thomas
reported that on March 30, 1998 stack monitors recorded levels
more than 500 times the allowable concentration.
How can you continue to maintain the incineration is safe?
Mr. Prociv. I will have to ask Mr. Bacon to address that,
too.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Bacon.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you, sir. We are confident that we haven't
had any agent released to the environment. We do check every
alarm that does occur within the plant. We trace those very
seriously because we are concerned of protecting public health
and the environment.
We always err on the side of safety and there are times
that we do cease operations until we determine the validity of
the various alarms that cover both the work areas for worker
health as well as the various stack alarms, and there are many
layers of safety in that process where we are sure that we do
not release agent to the environment.
Mr. Walden. So you're saying no agent has been released
through these stacks?
Mr. Bacon. I am saying that, sir.
Mr. Horn. Let me ask the gentleman from the Department of
Health, if I might, does Oregon's Department of Health maintain
statistics on the degree of cancer in various counties and when
you do a survey such as this one on the impact, have they ever
looked at the impact of those that might be working at the
facility over a 10, 20 year period, and that they have certain
diseases, I'll say, for want of a better word, cancer in
particular, out of proportion to the surrounding people, and
have they ever done that type of statistical analysis?
Mr. Johnson. Again, Tom Johnson, Oregon Health Division. We
do maintain records and data on the occurrence of cancers. At
this point there is nothing that stands out for either Umatilla
or Morrow County. We have not done a detailed study with regard
to the workers on the facility. Those many times are transient
and military people which we don't keep track of.
Our concern is not so much, again, with the past history,
but it's what might happen in the future. Generally, our
attitude about that is that while those studies may be very
useful in terms of providing baseline, our much larger concern
is the risk that the population may be exposed to from the
result of an incident, an accident. Our overall priorities are
that we would much rather see the resources put into preparing
the community to respond in the event of an incident, an
accident, than looking at perhaps some studies that may track
the human health burden of organophosphates.
We think that the probability of a problem from release
during the incineration process is much less than the
probability of a risk that would be associated with an
incident.
Mr. Horn. Yeah. I often have felt that Departments of
Health ought to take advantage of, say, the Master of Public
Health degree holders or M.S. In health education and just put
them to work on some of these analyses that often departments
don't have either the resources or whatever to go into depth.
But it just seems to me this would be a very interesting study.
Mr. Johnson. That certainly would be the case, and we would
love to do that. Many of our epidemiologists would think that
this would be a Jim Dandy study. Simply as was indicated
earlier, we do not have the funds to do that, and our larger
concern is preparedness in the event of an incident.
Mr. Horn. That's all I have.
Mr. Chairman, if I might, I want to read into the record
the staff that were involved in this hearing, which is our
usual tradition.
J. Russell George, the staff director and chief counsel,
sitting over there, second from the end. Randy Kaplan on my
left, your right, is the counsel for this particular hearing.
Bonnie Heald, director of communications, was with us for a
number of these hearings, but is not at this one. Grant Newman,
our faithful clerk, is here. Jeff Eager, the legislative
assistant to Representative Walden, is here, and this is him at
the table. Martha Cagle, legislative assistant to Senator
Gordon Smith, who is with us. Don't be shy. Stand up.
Politicians always stand up. And we're glad to have your help
and the Senator does a fine job. Trey Henderson, professional
staff for the minority. Is Trey here? Well, welcome to Oregon.
Oregon National Guard, we appreciate for helping set up for the
hearing, the use of the facility. It's just been excellent
support. And Rick Tunstead, the Army operations technician. And
we vote to raise your pay I think almost every year, so we just
wanted him to know, Rick, let us out of here when we're done.
We're for you. And Lieutenant Colonel Sonny Newson. And then
our faithful court reporter, William Bridges, is with us. And
the Armory personnel, of course, has been immensely helpful,
Colonel Caldwell, Lieutenant Colonel Lyman, Lieutenant Colonel
Stewart, and then I mentioned Sonny Newson and Rick Tumstead,
if you would stand up, we would like to thank you for your
hospitality. And with that, I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Chairman, thank you for conducting this
hearing here in Hermiston. I would also recognize I know we had
a representative of the Governor's staff here, right here, and
then as you already know, Senator Smith's staff, and Senator
Wyden's staff I believe is represented as well. Pete, are you
here? There is Pete right there.
And so we appreciate all of your involvement as we work
together to try to resolve some of these local issues, Mr.
Chairman, which we have highlighted now for this committee and
for the Congress, and hopefully have got some answers.
Mr. Horn. We are going to recess this to the Seattle
hearing.
Mr. Walden. We are going to recess this to the Seattle
hearing, I am being told. But the record would remain open for
additional comments if members of the public want to submit for
the record.
Mr. Horn. Two weeks at least, if you could get it to us.
Mr. Walden. For 2 weeks. So if you have information that
you want the committee to consider, the record will remain open
for the next 2 weeks. And meanwhile the subcommittee will be
recessed, under the call of the Chair in Seattle, I understand.
Mr. Horn. Right.
Mr. Walden. Thank you everyone for coming out.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
-