<DOC>
[108th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:93283.wais]
ARMY CONTRACT MANAGEMENT: COMPLIANCE WITH OUTREACH AND PUBLIC
ACCEPTANCE AGREEMENTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,
EMERGING THREATS AND INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCOTBER 22, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-136
__________
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
______
93-283 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia Maryland
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania Columbia
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas CHRIS BELL, Texas
WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota ------
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
(Independent)
Peter Sirh, Staff Director
Melissa Wojciak, Deputy Staff Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Philip M. Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International
Relations
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut, Chairman
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
DAN BURTON, Indiana DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio TOM LANTOS, California
RON LEWIS, Kentucky BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania Maryland
WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota CHRIS BELL, Texas
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Lawrence J. Halloran, Staff Director and Counsel
Robert A. Briggs, Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 22, 2003................................. 1
Statement of:
Arnold, Derrell.............................................. 127
Bronston, Willa.............................................. 128
Centofanti, Dr. Louis, president and CEO, Perma-Fix,
Incarceration; Michael A. Parker, Acting Director, Chemical
Materials Agency, U.S. Army; and John T. Stewart, Parsons
Infrastructure & Technology Group, Incarceration........... 72
Crutcher, Gwendolyn.......................................... 128
Dell, Philip................................................. 126
Neal, Idotha Bootsie, commissioner, city of Dayton; Angela
Jones, trustee, Jefferson Township; Mary Johnson, private
citizen; Ellis Jacobs, attorney, Legal Aid Society of
Dayton; Dennis Bristow, coordinator, Dayton Regional
Hazardous Materials Team; and James A. Brueggeman,
director, Montgomery County Sanitary Engineering Department 9
Ohui, General................................................ 129
Redfern, Jane Forrest........................................ 125
Rench, Laura................................................. 128
Tiller, Tom.................................................. 127
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Bristow, Dennis, coordinator, Dayton Regional Hazardous
Materials Team, prepared statement of...................... 57
Brueggeman, James A., director, Montgomery County Sanitary
Engineering Department, prepared statement of.............. 61
Centofanti, Dr. Louis, president and CEO, Perma-Fix,
Incarceration, prepared statement of....................... 73
Jacobs, Ellis, attorney, Legal Aid Society of Dayton,
prepared statement of...................................... 28
Johnson, Mary, private citizen, prepared statement of........ 21
Jones, Angela, trustee, Jefferson Township, prepared
statement of............................................... 15
Neal, Idotha Bootsie, commissioner, city of Dayton, prepared
statement of............................................... 11
Parker, Michael A., Acting Director, Chemical Materials
Agency, U.S. Army, prepared statement of................... 97
Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Connecticut:
Letter dated July 24, 2003................................... 121
Prepared statement of........................................ 3
Stewart, John T., Parsons Infrastructure & Technology Group,
Incarceration, prepared statement of....................... 106
Turner, Hon. Michael R., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Ohio, prepared statement of................... 7
ARMY CONTRACT MANAGEMENT: COMPLIANCE WITH OUTREACH AND PUBLIC
ACCEPTANCE AGREEMENTS
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2003
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats
and International Relations,
Committee on Government Reform,
Dayton, OH.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:37 p.m., in
the Fred Smith Auditorium, Sinclair Community College, 444 West
Third Street, Dayton, OH, Hon. Christopher Shays (chairman of
the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Shays and Turner.
Staff present: Lawrence Halloran, staff director and
counsel; Robert A. Briggs, professional staff member/clerk; and
Chris Skaluba, Presidential management intern.
Mr. Shays. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on
National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations
hearing entitled, ``Army Contract Management: Compliance with
Outreach and Public Acceptance Agreements,'' is called to
order.
Let me first thank Congressman Mike Turner for inviting the
subcommittee to Dayton today, and for his thoughtful, diligent
service as our vice chairman. His experience, his insight and
his candor have added invaluably to our oversight. Obviously
when it comes to reforming government, this is no freshman.
We convene here because, as former Mayor Turner will not
stop reminding us, everything and everyone in the world has
some connection to Dayton. [Laughter.]
As the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina know, what happens here
can have international, even global, implications.
The apparently local issue at hand is an Army subcontract
for treatment and release of byproducts from the destruction of
the chemical weapon VX. But what this community has experienced
in the implementation of that contract will have a profound
impact on how the United States conducts the process of meeting
international treaty obligations for the destruction of VX
stockpiles under the Chemical Weapons Convention.
That process, pursued through Army contractors, makes local
disposal of the VX dissolution byproduct, hydrolysate,
specifically contingent upon the establishment and maintenance
of public acceptance. The contract requires detailed, sustained
and successful public outreach to build and maintain that
acceptance, as it should.
The necessary and noble enterprise of ridding the world of
dreaded chemical weapons should not terrorize the localities
involved with the technical jargon and vaguely characterized
environmental risks. Civic understanding and approval are
indispensable elements of this effort. Public confidence should
not be diluted or destroyed with the VX.
But the Army at times has appeared to forget, or regret,
the critical public outreach and acceptance elements of the
agreement. Alternatively attempting to ritualize, minimize or
altogether shift responsibility for civic involvement, the
government and its contractors have succeeded only in
galvanizing public anxiety and opposition to the VX hydrolysate
disposal plan.
If only as a cautionary tale how not to forge a required
popular consensus, testimony today will be of significant value
as the Federal Government, States and localities pursue the
important and challenging public business of chemical
disarmament.
On behalf of our members, all of whom will receive a
complete transcript of today's proceedings, we welcome our
witnesses and guests to this hearing. We look forward to a
frank discussion of this community's experience and the lessons
Dayton holds for the national chemical weapons demilitarization
program.
With that, I gladly give up the chair to the Vice Chair.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Shays follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.002
Mr. Turner [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I greatly appreciate the chairman having this field hearing
and coming to Dayton. He is a leader in the area of national
security and on issues of terrorism. He has pushed for U.S
preparedness and for preparedness at the local level for
responding to terrorist incidences even prior to September
11th. He has led our committee most recently on looking at
issues such as the safety of our nuclear weapons stockpiles,
nuclear power plants and air cargo carriers and has been a
major advocate for increasing the safety in each of those
areas. He has brought the full weight and authority of this
committee on to this issue, and I do want to say that we would
not be here but for his willingness to look at this issue. And
I do believe that we would not be having the same outcome but
for his interest and appreciation for what this community was
attempting to do.
We want to recognize our county commissioners and their
efforts in trying to apply sound science and principles in
their efforts to reject the permit of Perma-Fix. We have County
Commissioner Curran here with us today, along with Vicki Peg
and Don Lucas. They are to be commended for taking a stance on
a regulatory basis and saying not in our community. And, of
course, we have to congratulate Mary Johnson, Willa Bronston,
Ellis Jacobs and Jane Forrest for all of their efforts in
organizing the community. Angela Jones and the township
trustees, what you have done in Jefferson Township in making
certain that this is a regional effort and not just a community
effort has been very important. This is very Dayton of us to
have reached out together and sought a solution that we could
all make certain that we could implement.
The testimony today will give us an opportunity for
everybody to give their input on the community-wide effort,
talk a little about science, talk about intended policies, talk
about--we will be talking a little bit about the international
treaties that impact this process. We will be talking about
processing contracts because that is the issue that really
brings us here. It is important that we are having this
hearing, but what is most important is that at the end of it we
are expecting to hear from Perma-Fix and Parsons and the Army,
the results of your hard work, and the resounding answer that
this contract will be terminated and these materials will not
be coming to our community.
Having said that, I do have a written opening statement
that I would like to read for the record. It says that the
purpose of this hearing is to review the Army contract and
subcontract management in the chemical weapons demilitarization
program. As we all know, the Chemical Weapons Convention
prohibits the development, production, acquisition,
stockpiling, transfer and use of chemical weapons. Under this
Convention, the United States must destroy the chemical weapons
and chemical weapons production facilities it possesses. The
United States currently maintains eight military sites with
stockpiles of chemical weapons awaiting destruction by the 2007
deadline.
The Army's plans for destruction of the Newport site was a
two-step process of neutralization. Both steps were originally
scheduled to be done at the Newport site. However, after the
events of September 11th, chemical weapons stockpiles were
believed to be vulnerable targets for future terrorist attacks.
Accelerating the destruction of the Newport stockpile
became a concern to the Army; thus, the second step of
neutralization to destroy the Newport VX was contracted out.
And last December, Perma-Fix of Dayton was awarded a $9 million
contract to treat and dispose of the hydrolysate shipped from
the Newport site.
Mr. Chairman, no one in this community opposes the
acceleration of the destruction of the chemical weapons. The
problems in our community come from the Army's refusal to
establish public acceptance for the planned transport and
disposal.
Our witnesses here today will testify that at best the Army
has been inconsistent about its stance with regard to the level
of public acceptance necessary. The Army has continually
delayed responding to concerns and requests for information on
the processes from local communities as well as this
subcommittee.
Thirty-six local boards and councils passed resolutions
against the transport of hydrolysate at Montgomery County.
Still Army claimed that it had sufficiently addressed public
acceptance requirements of the contract.
As a resident of this community, I am glad that the
subcontract has been canceled. However, I am deeply concerned
about the Army's unwillingness to recognize the problems
inherent in its approach here in Dayton. Chemical weapons
destruction is a sensitive issue that will require serious
debate in any community that it might affect.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for your efforts in
working with me and allowing this hearing to go forward in our
community. And to our witnesses, I want to thank them for their
efforts in this great outcome for our community.
[Applause.]
[The prepared statement of Hon. Michael R. Turner follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.004
Mr. Turner. On a procedural note, I will ask unanimous
consent that all members of the subcommittee be permitted to
place any opening statement in the record and that the record
remain open for 3 days for that purpose. Without objection, so
ordered.
I ask further unanimous consent that all witnesses be
permitted to include their written statements in the record.
Without objection it is so ordered.
If we would please have all of our witnesses stand on the
first panel, I will swear you in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Turner. Please note for the record that the witnesses
responded in the affirmative.
We have a very distinguished panel of community leaders.
Our first testimony on panel one comes from the Honorable
Idotha Bootsie Neal, Commissioner, city of Dayton.
STATEMENTS OF IDOTHA BOOTSIE NEAL, COMMISSIONER, CITY OF
DAYTON; ANGELA JONES, TRUSTEE, JEFFERSON TOWNSHIP; MARY
JOHNSON, PRIVATE CITIZEN; ELLIS JACOBS, ATTORNEY, LEGAL AID
SOCIETY OF DAYTON; DENNIS BRISTOW, COORDINATOR, DAYTON REGIONAL
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TEAM; AND JAMES A. BRUEGGEMAN, DIRECTOR,
MONTGOMERY COUNTY SANITARY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Ms. Neal. Well thank you very much, Chairman Shays and Vice
Chairman Turner. We really appreciate the subcommittee coming
to Dayton, OH on a very important issue and allowing us to have
as a part of the community record what the position is.
Good afternoon and thank you for allowing me to speak
before you today. In light of the recent decisions that have
been announced regarding the proposed agreement between the
Army and Perma-Fix of Dayton, I want to thank the House
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and
International Relations for proceeding with today's hearing as
a way to officially document the community's position.
From the onset of discussions in March regarding the
proposed agreement between the Army and Perma-Fix, I submit
that the public has voted consistent and rational, fair in
opposition on numerous fronts.
The city of Dayton is on record as of 1 of 33 regional
government agencies or organizations opposed to the proposed
agreement. We believe such concerted and overwhelming
opposition to the agreement is a clear signal of the public's
sentiment. To ignore such evidence would be in direct violation
of the requirement to gain public acceptance before any final
agreement could be consummated.
It is clearly a failure on the part of the key parties
involved to galvanize community support and gain acceptance of
the proposed agreement. In fact, despite attempts to educate
and sway the public into accepting the proposal, the community
used the information that was supplied as a way to clearly and
rationally outline further public health concerns and
justification for its opposition.
The response by the community to oppose the Army's contract
with Perma-Fix should in no way be considered a rash, impulsive
reaction. The volume and scope of information that the public
has effectively presented to help justify its opposition
demonstrates that considerable thought and review went into
reaching its conclusions.
Experts in various fields carefully analyzed the impacts if
the agreement were to take effect. Questions raised by the city
of Dayton and Montgomery County environmental experts indicated
that many issues were unresolved. The city of Dayton's own
staff and environmental advisory board had outlined numerous
unresolved issues even as last week's decision to terminate the
agreement was announced. These included lingering questions
about the reliability of the chemical detection levels as well
as various transportation related concerns.
The research and the analysis conducted by experts led them
to essentially the same conclusion, that safety and operational
issues of both the transportation and the treatment processes
remain very much in doubt, and that the community could be
negatively impacted as a result.
The Montgomery County Commission relied on such expert
feedback to deny the necessary permits required for Perma-Fix
to perform its neutralization process. We commend and support
the county in this very important decision.
In addition, the formation of the grassroot organization
called Citizens for the Responsible Destruction of Chemical
Weapons of the Miami Valley illustrated the degree to which
local residents were concerned about the proposed agreement.
The group helped present good, cogent questions that needed to
be addressed in a forthright manner.
The filing of a lawsuit in Federal court further
highlighted that the public was unmistakably opposed to the
treatment of a toxic nerve agent in the community.
The fact that we are even conducting this hearing today,
given the circumstances that have transpired over the past 10
days, is compelling evidence of the public's strong opposition
to the proposed agreement.
Although we support United States and international efforts
to destroy chemical weapons, this process must be completed in
a manner that protects the public health of the surrounding
community. Clearly, this was not the case at the Perma-Fix
facility.
It is obvious that the contracting parties in this proposal
have not achieved the measure of public acceptance required for
the contract to proceed. We are pleased that this lack of
support played at least some role in the ultimate decision to
terminate plans to move forward. That decision is most
assuredly one that the citizens of Dayton do support.
Thank you again for allowing me to present this testimony
before you today on a very important issue to our community and
our region.
Mr. Turner. Thank you.
Next we have the Honorable Angela Jones, Trustee, Jefferson
Township.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Neal follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.006
Ms. Jones. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. It is a pleasure to be here today to present my
views on steps taken by the Army, Perma-Fix and Montgomery
County with respect to the satisfaction of public acceptance
requirements in Montgomery County's contract with the U.S. Army
and Parsons. In doing so, I want to stress that my comments are
based upon information I am aware of in the capacity as a
Jefferson Township Trustee, a position which I have held for 6
years.
I have been invited to provide remarks regarding the extent
to which I believe public acceptance measures of the contract
in question have been fulfilled. However, it has been difficult
to obtain a meaningful definition of what is meant by a measure
of public acceptance for planned hydrolysate transport and
disposal.
During the mid-summer of 2002, representatives from Perma-
Fix of Dayton met with Jefferson Township officials stating
that they were considering pursuing a contract with the Army to
dispose of VX Hydrolysate. Shortly thereafter, Perma-Fix met
with Montgomery County officials, also advising them that they
were considering pursuing the contract. The Trustees were
advised that Perma-Fix had submitted an application to Parsons
in September 2002, to dispose of VX Hydrolysate.
Soon after, the Jefferson Township administrator and fire
chief met with a review team from Newport, IN; Parsons and the
U.S. Army during their site visit at Perma-Fix of Dayton.
On December 26, 2003 an announcement was made that Perma-
Fix of Dayton had received a limited notice to proceed and was
awarded a subcontract from Parsons. Township officials met with
Perma-Fix officials to discuss the best way to inform Jefferson
Township residents of the award. After the announcement the
townships were contacted--the township trustees were contacted
by the citizens and urged to oppose the project. Perma-Fix then
set up its first open house meeting, which was in January 2003.
Officials from Perma-Fix, Parsons; Newport, IN and the U.S.
Army were present with displays of showing the proposed
process, general information packets and to answer questions
from the Jefferson Township Community.
After the first open house, it was clear to me that there
were a lot of unanswered questions about the proposed project,
the disposal process and how it would impact the health and
safety of the township residents.
Perma-Fix decided to hold a meeting in March 2003 to
establish a citizen advisory panel. This meeting ended with the
same unanswered questions. The citizen advisory panel was held
to get citizens involved; however, the citizens did not wish to
participate as a part of this panel. Rather, citizens came to
the meeting asking pointed questions and to air their
opposition to this process. This was clearly not public
acceptance.
Subsequently the Board of Trustees, in response to the
concerns of the citizens and the inability of the Army, Parsons
and Perma-Fix to adequately provide answers to specific health
and safety questions, issued the following position statement
on April 1, 2002: ``It is the position of Jefferson Township
Trustees that the movement of VX Hydrolysate from Newport,
Indiana to Parsons located in Jefferson Township, Montgomery
County, Ohio is unacceptable. After receiving numerous calls
from citizens and listening to their concerns at our monthly
meetings and attending public information forums regarding the
issues, we believe that there were several unanswered questions
regarding the safety of the proposed project. This being the
case, Jefferson Township Trustees unanimously oppose Perma-
Fix's efforts to process the VX hydrolysate in Jefferson
Township.''
The Montgomery County Commissioners passed a resolution on
June 10, 2003 opposing the transportation and treatment of VX
hydrolysate at Perma-Fix of Dayton's facility in Jefferson
Township. The Montgomery County Commissioners also contracted
with Dr. Bruce Rittmann from Northwestern University as an
expert consultant to undertake an independent study of Perma-
Fix's proposed treatment methods and their entire process. Dr.
Rittmann concluded that he did not fully understand the impact
of Perma-Fix's demonstration studies.
In conclusion, I would like to state for the record there
can be no public acceptance when the same consultant recommends
that Perma-Fix should upgrade its existing process equipment
and address current problems before committing to process VX
hydrolysate. There can be no public acceptance when the process
of treating VX hydrolysate while being on--while based on
apparently scientifically sound steps has not been proven
effective on a larger scale.
There can be no public acceptance when the General
Accounting Office issued a report in September 2003 criticizing
the U.S. Army and the Department of Defense and their weapons--
excuse me. I am sorry. U.S. Army and Department of Defense for
their management of the entire chemical weapons destruction
program.
This concludes my prepared statement. Thank you for the
opportunity for appearing before the committee.
Mr. Turner. Thank you very much.
Next we will hear from Mary Johnson, who as a citizen of
Jefferson Township has been one of the leaders of the
opposition and is a member of Citizens for the Responsible
Destruction of Chemical Weapons of the Miami Valley.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jones follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.010
Ms. Johnson. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. I
am Mary Johnson, a citizen of Jefferson Township and a member
of the Citizens for the Responsible Destruction of Chemical
Weapons of the Miami Valley. I am a retired registered nurse
and certified nurse practitioner. I have been requested to
speak on my experience with public acceptance.
For public acceptance to occur residents must be informed.
On January 23, 2003 an open-house meeting concerning a VX
hydrolysate destruction plan was held in Jefferson Township by
Perma-Fix after it had already received its contract from the
Army. No great effort was seen to notify residents of the
impending open-house meeting. My friend Willa Bronston
contacted me. At the open-house meeting held during the day and
ending at 6 p.m. there was small group sharing only. Folders of
information were distributed, representatives of the Army,
Parsons and Perma-Fix reassured us that nothing harmful
remained in VX hydrolysate.
Later Ms. Bronston and I discovered--I paraphrase--under
certain conditions VX byproducts can revert to the VX agent.
Plus the following: VX is so toxic that it takes only 6 to 10
milligrams to kill in 15 minutes. Four basic methods are used
to destroy VX--incineration, supercritical water oxidation,
neutralization and biodegradation. All four of the basic
methods are experimental and have major problems. None of the
four methods had long-term studies to demonstrate safety
standards. VX is an organophosphate that can interrupt fetal
development producing birth defects, cause nervous system
illnesses such as memory loss, Alzheimers, hyperactivity,
attention deficit, multiple sclerosis and breathing problems,
among others.
We took this information from the trustees of Jefferson
Township to the county commissioners to political
representatives. Hugh McGuire invited us to his group meeting
with Laura Rench, Michelle Cooper and later Jane Forrest
Redfern. We joined and we named ourselves Citizens for the
Responsible Destruction of Chemical Weapons of the Miami
Valley.
Because the contract between the Army, Parsons and Perma-
Fix called for community acceptance, we focused on gaining
resolutions from neighboring communities, agencies and social
groups in opposing the plan. We obtained legal counsel, Mr.
Ellis Jacobs of Legal Aid Society of Dayton. We went everywhere
to discuss this issue, because it affected everyone in our
midst.
Our questions were not answered concerning criteria for
company selection. Only a few first responders along the truck
route were oriented. There was no response to city of Dayton
Water Department manager, Donna Winchester's critical questions
until long past her deadline. No answers were given on April
10, 2003 at the accountability meeting attended by greater than
200 individuals. As early as March 14, 2003, our attorney, Mr.
Jacobs, filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the
Army seeking information about the process used for choosing
Perma-Fix, scientific information to process VX hydrolysate and
information about VX hydrolysate. To date, no information has
been received as a result of that request.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and Regional Air
Pollution Control Agency told us there were no rules nor
permits to prevent VX hydrolysate from coming to our community.
Numerous nuisance violations have already been assessed against
Perma-Fix. The fumes emitted from Perma-Fix makes one's head
reel with disorientation and dizziness, provoking nausea and
sometimes vomiting.
Further, representatives of the Army, Parsons and Perma-Fix
said the VX hydrolysate plan could not be carried out in
Indiana because, ``the expense was too high, the standards were
too stringent and the oversight too great.'' After sharing this
information with all jurisdictions and agencies encountered, 37
neighboring municipalities and agencies passed resolutions
opposing this plan. Dr. Bruce Rittmann, the expert selected by
Montgomery County Commission confirmed our assessment that this
project had too many unanswered questions and too many risks to
be performed in a residential area.
In conclusion, we support the government's effort to
destroy these weapons of mass destruction, but not in a
residential area or where children will be placed at risk. We
recommend that the local, State, Federal Governments and
agencies collaborate with citizens, scientific experts and the
military to resolve this issue.
I thank you all for inviting me to speak.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
[Applause.]
Mr. Turner. The Chair has reminded me that this being a
public hearing it would be inappropriate for us to have
applause.
Mr. Shays. Put the blame on me. [Laughter.]
That is very necessary, frankly.
Mr. Turner. I appreciate that reminder.
Next we will have Ellis Jacobs of the Legal Aid Society.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.014
Mr. Jacobs. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for bringing
the subcommittee hearing here today. It may surprise you to
know this, but we do not get a lot of this kind of attention
from Washington, and we certainly do appreciate it. Congressman
Turner, you answered the call. The community expressed their
concerns to you and you were there and pursued this issue. I
thank you and I know the entire community thanks you.
Let me first--it has been my honor to represent the
community organization that has taken an interest in this
issue. Let me first say that everybody in this community thinks
it is an important task to destroy the VX nerve agent that is
stored at the Newport Chemical Weapons Depot. We think that it
should be destroyed as quickly as possible, but it was never
necessary to ship the VX hydrolysate offsite in order to pursue
the accelerated neutralization schedule. And you can see that
by the fact that it will not be shipped today is not going to
delay the destruction of the VX at Newport by 1 day, by 1
minute. The Army always had available to them the option of
destroying the VX as quickly as they were able and then storing
the VX hydrolysate onsite until they were prepared to take that
second step. Hopefully that is what the Army will do now. And
as soon as they are ready to proceed with the destruction of
the VX they will be able to do that. No delay is necessary and
no delay is warranted.
And I should note that the VX that has been stored was
created at the Newport Chemical Weapons Depot in the 1960's. It
has been stored safely there for 40 years. At that site is a
skilled work force that knows how to handle this substance, who
is experienced in handling the substance. And the Army's
original plan that Congressman Turner alluded to was a good
plan. They need to go back to Plan A.
When this community first heard about the attempt to bring
it here, the VX hydrolysate, we said to ourselves, is it a good
idea to take VX hydrolysate, 900,000 gallons of it, load it
into tanker trucks, drive it down narrow, rural roads across
busy interstate highways, up West Third Street in the middle of
our community and treat it, using an experimental process at a
facility, Perma-Fix, that has a very problematic environmental
record, in the middle of a densely populated neighborhood.
Well, the answer to us was obvious. People around me and
the people I met said it is a no-brainer. I think the question
that is worth asking is because we know the Army certainly has
many good brains at its disposal, how was such a decision made,
and were there opportunities to avoid making such an
inappropriate decision that were not taken.
And I would submit that there were at least three legal
safeguards that had the Army followed them, they would never
have made this inappropriate decision. And I will briefly go
through each of them.
The National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA], requires the
Army and all Federal agencies, when they are undertaking major
Federal actions that can impact the environmental, to do
environmental impact statements. And in fact, the Army
recognized that destroying VX nerve agent and destroying the VX
hydrolysate is such a major action and so the Army did an
environmental impact statement for Indiana. And I hold up a
copy of it. As you can see, it is a substantial document--I
resisted the temptation to put it into the record--a
substantial document wherein they looked at everything that you
should look at for just such a project. They looked at the
nature of the topography, they looked at who lives nearby, they
looked at what the emergency response capabilities were of the
people that live nearby.
What happened? Did they ever do such an environmental
impact statement or update or supplement when they changed the
plan and decided to bring the second half of this to Dayton?
They did not. Clearly the law required them to do so, but this
was a legal safeguard that they ignored as they moved forward
with this idea.
Another legal safeguard can be found right in the text of
the law that mandates that they destroy these chemical weapons.
It first appeared in the 1986 Department of Defense
Authorization Act, Section 1412. And this act clearly reflects
the concern of the Congress at the time that this sort of
activity be handled in the most environmentally sensitive way.
How does it reflect it? Very specifically. It says that in
destroying these chemical weapons, you have to do it with
maximum protection of the environment and in facilities
designed solely for destroying chemical weapons. That's what
you said, that is what Congress told the Army to do back in
1986. The Army ignored that. Clearly Perma-Fix is not a
facility designed solely for destroying chemical weapons.
Unfortunately, there was one court case where a private group,
a citizens group, tried to enforce that law. The court never
reached the merits of that contention, but they said that there
was no implied private right of action. In other words, the
Federal Government can enforce the law, but private citizens
could not. Unfortunate because clearly the congressional intent
was we want you to build facilities and do it somewhere where
people are not around. They ignored that.
And then finally, the final safeguard that I want to talk
about today is the contract that has been referred to several
times already here today. I brought a copy of it, I am afraid
all of my documents have grown beards over time, but here it
is. It again is a substantial document. And while destroying
chemical weapons is a lot like brain surgery, interpreting a
contract is not. Two simple things--you look at the specific
language and you look at the context. The specific language,
and I think it is remarkable language and very good language,
talks about honoring public acceptance, getting and keeping
public acceptance.
And then the context within which that appears is a
contract that requires the company to inform the community
about what they are doing. And in fact, pays them handsomely to
do that. Clearly the intent of this contract was that the
company would seek public acceptance and in the absence of it,
it would not go forward.
Again, this community resoundingly rejected this thing and
despite this contract, the Army had a difficulty turning
around, as they should have.
Three opportunities, three legal safeguards that the Army
ignored. It is unfortunate. It brings us back to the question
of why. Why was such an inappropriate decision made. I do not
know and it is certainly a worthwhile question for the Army.
Clearly Congress, NEPA and the act requiring the destruction of
these chemicals wanted it to be done in the method most
protective of the environment. Clearly the contract was
designed to ensure that the community where this was going to
be done would be accepting of it. But that was not done.
I think the Army has a lot of questions to answer about why
they choose to proceed as they did in this particular
circumstance.
Thank you so much for bringing your committee hearing here.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Jacobs.
Next we will hear the testimony of Dennis J. Bristow,
coordinator, Dayton Regional Hazardous Materials Response Team.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jacobs follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.041
Mr. Bristow. Thank you, Mr. Turner. I am sorry I caused a
little bit of disruption. I had to leave, we had an incident
going in town.
In my testimony I will reference Perma-Fix quite a bit
because the majority of my dealings were with officials from
Perma-Fix. But I believe that they were answering questions and
maybe their lack of information that was provided to us was
because of what they were being told by Parsons and the U.S.
Army. So I just wanted to make that clear before I start.
My first knowledge of the proposed neutralization/disposal
of VX hydrolysate at Perma-Fix came from a local 11 o'clock
newscast. the next day I received calls from various agencies
in the Dayton area inquiring if I had further information about
this news story.
I waited a few days and after not being contacted by Perma-
Fix, I went to the Perma-Fix facility and inquired about the
news story. I was escorted into the plant and was introduced to
a group of individuals said to be working on the project. I
stated my concerns that none of the surrounding fire chiefs or
myself had been contacted about the proposed disposal project.
I was informed that the news media had caused problems for the
project. The plans were to inform interested parties prior to
the news media airing this type of story.
I expressed the need for Regional Haz-Mat to be involved
with the project because of our providing emergency response to
all Montgomery County Fire Departments and my position of
emergency coordinator for the local emergency planning
committee. I was advised that someone from the facility would
be in touch.
A few days later, I received a call from I believe Tom
Trebonik. The gentleman advised me he was heading up the
project for Perma-Fix. During this conversation, I emphasized
my concern about providing proper training and equipment to the
fire departments and our haz-mat team. This material would be
different from other types of materials we have dealt with. It
would first be identified as a chemical warfare agent even if
treated prior to transport to Dayton. I offered to help in any
way with providing information and training to any and all
first responders in Montgomery County. I informed Mr. Trebonik
that I would like to attend sessions or meetings they may have
with local first responders, and I was assured that I would be
kept informed of meetings.
A few weeks later, I was invited to attend a meeting at the
plant that included representatives from the Ohio EPA, Ohio
Highway Patrol and also the Highway Patrol's Haz-Mat
Enforcement Agency, along with Montgomery County Health and
Sanitary Departments. A picture was being painted by Perma-Fix
representatives that was intended to make us believe that
nothing could go wrong and there was no need for much concern.
My position is to be the devil's advocate at this type of
meeting and ask the tough questions. I did ask questions about
the physical characteristics of the material, the plan for
catastrophic releases of the material and the impact on the
surrounding area if a release would take place. I inquired
about the impact on the aquatic life if a catastrophic release
would occur into a waterway during transport. My greatest
concern was not the immediate impact on the environment, but
long term devastation to our waterways and natural resources in
general. I then asked questions about the impact on the
neighborhood surrounding the Perma-Fix facility, both from
routine processing and in the event of an unplanned release.
After asking these questions, I sensed reluctance on the
part of Perma-Fix to include me in planned meetings with local
fire departments. On numerous occasions, I received inquiries
from representatives from the Jefferson Township and Trotwood
Fire Departments asking if I would be attending training
sessions and tours at the Perma-Fix facility. Even though I had
asked Mr. Trebonik to include Dayton Regional Haz-Mat in these
sessions, we were not informed directly by Perma-Fix. It was
only because of our excellent relationship with the fire
departments involved that they contacted me and informed me of
these meetings.
I, along with other members of the regional team, attended
these sessions and attempted to point out some of the critical
points and the experimental basis of the disposal process. The
information that was constantly being given to first responders
was the VX hydrolysate is no different than a one quart can or
bottle of Drano drain cleaner. This is not an accurate
description of VX hydrolysate.
In March of this year, I was asked to serve on the Perma-
Fix Citizen Advisory Committee. While serving on this
committee, I continued to ask the questions I had been asking
since the original meeting at their facility. In my opinion,
issues and answers to not only my questions but also those of
others were often avoided, and sometimes smoke screens thrown
up to dodge these questions. Occasionally questions would arise
inquiring about the operation of the Perma-Fix facility, and no
one at the meeting would have information. This occurred with
Mr. Trebonik and the facility manager, Mr. McEldowney, present.
These questions were general in nature, and one would presume
those in attendance from Perma-Fix would have been able to
provide these answers.
It was clear to me that Perma-Fix did not intend to share
information with us. It is also quite clear that the public
will not accept the disposal of VX hydrolysate, as the disposal
would be occurring within a few hundred feet of people's homes.
Through all these meetings and conversations with Perma-Fix
officials, I was treated with respect, and they were always
courteous.
Respectfully submitted, Dennis J. Bristow.
Mr. Turner. Thank you.
Mr. Brueggeman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bristow follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.043
Mr. Brueggeman. I am here representing Montgomery County
Board of Commissioners.
The county had to address two different questions. The
first issue involved public acceptance based on the public
health and welfare of our citizens and environment. The second
involved the discharge of the treated waste into sewers to be
treated at our Western Regional Treatment Plant. Many of the
same questions asked about the health and welfare of our
citizens were asked concerning the potential impact of this
waste on our wastewater treatment process and the surface
waters.
When we were first notified that Perma-Fix would possibly
treat the VX hydrolysate, the Commissioners and the Sanitary
Engineering Department staff raised the same questions asked by
the public. The Army and Perma-Fix assured us that public
acceptance was a major determining factor in the final decision
to extend Perma-Fix's contract from the lab testing to full
scale operations.
In June, the County Commissioners passed a resolution
opposing the transporting and treatment of hydrolysate at the
Perma-Fix facility located in Jefferson Township. This
resolution was based on the Commissioners' concern over the
safety of their citizens and the quality of the environment and
the many unanswered questions. They also were concerned because
impact of the treatment of the hydrolysate on Jefferson
Township and on other Montgomery County communities was
uncertain. Yet it appeared as if the Army, Parsons and Perma-
Fix intended to continue pursuing the transportation and
treatment of the VX hydrolysate.
We knew very little concerning the impact the treatment of
this waste product would have on the health and welfare of the
local community, on the county owned wastewater treatment plant
and ultimately on the surface water environment of the great
Miami River. In order to better understand these potential
impacts, we hired an outside consultant, Dr. Bruce E. Rittmann,
to conduct a scientific review of the treatment process
proposed by Perma-Fix. Dr. Rittmann is a professor at
Northwestern University Illinois and has an extensive
background in the treatment of hazardous waste and biological
treatment of organic waste.
Perma-Fix's proposed pretreatment process involves two
phases, an oxidation phase and a biological degradation phase.
The first phase of the treatment is an oxidation process. This
process removes thialamine, one of the three Schedule II
compounds. Removing thialamine eliminates the most odorous
compound and eliminates any possibility of reconstructing the
VX nerve agent once the pH is reduced. Lowering the pH also
reduces the caustic problem.
Based on this, the recommendation was made that the first
oxidation treatment process should be completed at the facility
in Newport, IN, regardless of where any additional treatment is
conducted.
The second phase of the treatment is a biological treatment
of the aqueous portion. According to the Army, ``During
biological treatment, bacterial would digest the more complex
compounds in hydrolysate to form simpler compounds such as
carbon dioxide and water.'' EMPA and MPA are the two remaining
Schedule II compounds that are referred to by the Army.
According to Dr. Rittmann's evaluation, this did not occur.
Very little reduction, if any, occurred during the biological
treatment process in the laboratory. In order to reach the
concentration levels, Perma-Fix mixed the compound with other
waste, reducing the concentration by dilution. Dr. Rittmann's
report indicated two of the Schedule II compounds, EMPA and
MPA, were partially reduced in the aqueous component during the
oxidation step, but were merely diluted during the
biodegradation phase. This dilution enabled Perma-Fix to claim
they met the biodegradation standard and the discharge levels
required by contract.
The Army contends it is committed to safely destroying the
VX agents stockpiled in Newport, which I do not question. They
also contend all the major organic constituents of hydrolysate
have been proven in a treatability study to be successfully
removed or destroyed in the treatment criteria. Theoretically,
biological degradation of the organic compounds is possible.
The Army has inferred in a letter to one of our citizens dated
July 31, 2003 that Perma-Fix and the Army will not discharge
untreated chemicals or hydrolysate into the sewers or rivers.
They indicated during biological treatment, bacteria will
digest the more complex compounds in hydrolysate to form
simpler compounds such as carbon dioxide and water. These
statements are misleading in that EMPA and MPA would be
discharged.
There are no studies indicating these compounds would be
completely removed in the county's wastewater treatment plant.
There are no studies to indicate what these compounds would do
once released into our rivers. This is a major question that
has been asked and never answered. The dilution of the two
compounds and the lack of an environmental toxicity test are
the main reason Perma-Fix was denied the privilege of
discharging the waste into our system.
In addition, the Army has not provided all of the
information requested by the county. The county prosecuting
attorney requested on July 25, 2003 certain documents pertinent
to the proposal by the Army to transport and treat the VX
hydrolysate in Montgomery County. By letter dated August 13,
2003, the Army advised the county to resubmit the request for
these documents. This was done on September 15 by letter and
electronic fax. To date, nothing has been received.
There is a lack of public acceptance, which on the surface
appeared, until recently, to be ignored by the Army. The Army
has not provided answers to questions asked by the officials
and citizens.
I would thank you for allowing us to present our views
concerning this issue before your committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brueggeman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.045
Mr. Turner. Thank you all for your testimony. At this
point, we will go to questions from the committee and we will
begin with a 10-minute round of questions and begin with our
chairman.
Mr. Shays. First, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for
pointing out the need to have this hearing. And I would say to
the panelists, thank you for your very concise statements and
to the point statements. I have conducted 16 years of hearings
and the presentations by this panel was really quite
outstanding.
I also want to say for the audience as well. This is a
congressional hearing, it is not a community meeting. We keep a
transcript and we want to respect the comments of all the
witnesses, both the first and second panel, and this committee
is determined that both panels know this process is a fair one,
one designed to get information and not designed to, you know,
move public pressure one way or the other. So that is the basis
for the hearings.
The basis here is frankly from my standpoint as chairman of
the subcommittee that we need to understand this process. The
experience in Dayton is important for you; for the committee,
it is important for us to know how it impacts all communities
in the country, how do we achieve the objective we want. All of
us, and the panelists have said this, we know we have chemical
weapons. Why we ever made them in the first place, you know is
obviously open to question, but we did as a country and as a
world community agree that chemical weapons needed to
stipulation. We had a convention that agreed that they would be
and that we would then go through the process of destroying
these horrific weapons of mass destructions. And we want these
weapons to be destroyed, the chemical weapons. But we wanted to
follow a process that is fair and safe and so on.
I am going to ask some questions that will be a little
redundant to some because some made the point in their
statement, but I would like to get it all together in the form
of keeping all the panelists responding to each kind of issue.
I would like to know--we will go with you, Ms. Neal, and
right down, when did you learn that Perma-Fix was going to be
involved in this process?
Ms. Neal. We were informed by a citizens group or residents
from Jefferson Township. They officially came to our City
Commission meeting, making us aware of the fact that a contract
had been let and that there was going to possibly be movement
of this chemical. We were not informed officially through
letter that this process was going to take place by Perma-Fix
or any other party.
Mr. Shays. By Perma-Fix.
Ms. Neal. We were not. It was clearly by volunteers and
residents of the community who first made us aware of this.
Mr. Shays. Ms. Jones, how were you notified, again? When
did you first learn?
Ms. Jones. I am trying to see if I can find----
Mr. Shays. I will come back to you. Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. I found out on January 23, my friend Willa
Bronston, called me and said did you know there is an important
meeting taking place tonight. No, I did not. It was late in the
afternoon, I was chilling. And so here I had to jump into some
clothes, prepare and get out of there, and I did not know
anything about it. I did not know what VX was.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. Mr. Jacobs.
Mr. Jacobs. I learned I believe in February from Mary and
other people involved in the group.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Bristow.
Mr. Bristow. I really do not have a date, it was a local
news station, WHIO, ran a story on the 11 o'clock news and it
said ``Deadly Chemical Agent to be disposed of in Montgomery
County.''
Mr. Shays. Explain to me your responsibility. It says
Dayton Regional Hazardous Materials Team.
Mr. Bristow. We are a hazardous materials team that
actually serves the 41 fire departments in Montgomery and
Greene County. We are made up of about 150 members, those 150
members come from the 40 different fire departments in the two
counties. The municipalities, all 40 jurisdictions in the two
counties, pay a per capita fee to Dayton Regional Haz-Mat and
then we actually respond to the hazardous materials incidents
and do the mitigation, stopping, plugging the leak, that type
of thing.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Brueggeman.
Mr. Brueggeman. Yes, sir. We learned early on in December.
Perma-Fix, along with officials from the Township, met with our
staff to inform them of what they were considering. At that
meeting, I also recommended that they talk to the County
Administrator, they set up a meeting I believe, the following
week. I am not sure on the dates, but it was early in December.
Mr. Shays. And you learned from whom again?
Mr. Brueggeman. Perma-Fix and the Township officials, I am
not sure if there was a Township trustee there, but there was
an official from the Township.
Mr. Shays. Again going back, what steps--excuse me, Ms.
Jones.
Ms, Jones. Jefferson Township Trustees became aware of it
the latter part of June-July 2002.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. What steps did each of you take--and
maybe it does not involve some of you as much. Mr. Jacobs, you
basically became involved, attorney Jacobs, by residents and
organizations that engaged your services.
Mr. Jacobs. That is correct.
Mr. Shays. OK.
But I would like to know what steps did you take to solicit
information about the specifics of what was happening?
Ms. Neal. After having the presentation made before the
City Commission, we directed our city manager who then directed
our staff who is responsible for environmental issues to
followup and have some initial concerns and feedback and a
report. And we also had our environmental advisory board to
look into the issue and make some recommendations as to what
the position of the city of Dayton should be.
Mr. Shays. Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. I am sorry, would you repeat the question?
Mr. Shays. Yes, I would like to know what steps did you
take to get information.
Ms. Johnson. Oh, we did a thorough research, we researched
everything. And our main force was the National Research
Council publication that had--the first article that I read
about it was ``Super Critical Water Oxidation'' and it was a
report on the method, the problems, the process. And there were
major problems that occurred in Corpus Christi, Texas. And they
were trying to scale up the method of super critical water
oxidation and the salts that precipitated out destroyed the
reactor.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Bristow.
Mr. Bristow. I went directly to Perma-Fix after the story
on the 11 o'clock news. I waited a couple of days and had
different fire chiefs calling me asking me if I had been
informed.
Also part of my position is the emergency coordinator for
the local emergency planning committee, which is part of the
State emergency response committee. And we have always had a
good working relationship, Dayton Regional Haz-Mat has always
had a working relationship with Perma-Fix. They provide lab
facilities for unknown materials. So I felt comfortable with
just walking in the front door and asking and they were very
honest and open at that time with what they were doing, and
explained to me that the process of informing the public really
was circumvented by the news story that occurred the night
before or a couple of days before.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Mr. Brueggeman. We had asked Perma-Fix for some of the
information, as much literature as they had on it. They gave us
literature, they gave us literature on some of the other
processes and identification of the VX agent and its components
and the hydrolysate.
In addition to that, we got on the Internet and pulled off
as much literature as we could. Many of the documents were
similar to what was given to us by the public later on. Ms.
Johnson and her group had done a good job of research also,
which reinforced many of the things that we had.
We then, because of the unanswered questions in our mind
and the limited knowledge, started to look for an expert who
could better help us identify what this was going to do.
Mr. Shays. Could you for the record explain the
significance of Schedule II compounds?
Mr. Brueggeman. It is my understanding--I am not an expert
in this area, but it is my understanding that when you break
down the hydrolysate or when you form VX agent, you have three
basic, what they consider, Schedule II compounds that are
necessary to form the VX agent. When they hydrolycize the VX
nerve agent, it breaks down into these Schedule II compounds
and there are some other side compounds that are broken down.
It is my understanding that if they lower the pH, there is
a possibility, under certain conditions, that it will
reconstitute and reform VX nerve agent. So you have to have all
three of the Schedule II compounds available to do that, so if
one is missing, it cannot be reconstituted.
Mr. Shays. OK. Let me just ask each of you what kind of
cooperation you felt you got from the Army, if you contacted
the Army and from Perma-Fix. I do not need a lot of detail, but
what kind of cooperation you received from each as you
inquired, if you did inquire from either.
Ms. Neal. Our staff inquired and I understand they provided
limited information.
Mr. Shays. From the Army?
Ms. Neal. Yes.
Mr. Shays. And from Perma-Fix?
Ms. Neal. Yes.
Mr. Shays. OK.
Ms. Jones. The Township Trustees and administration had
spoken with Perma-Fix on several occasions and one was
indicated in the outline that we had asked that they would have
more public involvement. I attended many of Perma-Fix and
Parsons and the U.S. Army forums and at one particular meeting
which was early on in March, I think it was March 18, it was
right before they----
Mr. Shays. I need you to sit forward----
Ms. Jones. I am sorry.
Mr. Shays. We want to make sure the transcriber is getting
this.
Ms. Jones. It was right before them considering the
citizens advisory panel.
Mr. Shays. Let me just ask, I do not need too much detail
right now. What I want to just know in general is how you would
rate the cooperation of both the Army and Perma-Fix in terms of
your outreach to get information. I would want to know if you
had information outstanding from the Army or Perma-Fix. I am
going to actually start over again since I asked the question a
little differently, with your permission. I am beyond my 10
minutes here.
Ms. Neal, how would you decide the cooperation of the
Army--your staff and so on--and Perma-Fix? Was it satisfactory
or less than satisfactory?
Ms. Neal. Less than satisfactory.
Mr. Shays. From both the Army and Perma-Fix?
Ms. Neal. According to the information I received, yes.
Mr. Shays. And do you still have requests outstanding?
Ms. Neal. My understanding is there are still unresolved
issues and unanswered questions.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. Information that you have requested,
you have not received.
Ms. Neal. Correct.
Mr. Shays. Is that the same experience you have had, Ms.
Jones?
Ms. Jones. Unsatisfactory.
Mr. Shays. Both the Army and----
Ms. Jones. Perma-Fix, yes.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. Ms. Johnson. You are not speaking in
the capacity of a government official, you are speaking as a
community activist?
Ms. Johnson. That is correct.
Mr. Shays. OK.
Ms. Johnson. Yes, it is unsatisfactory and I stated in my
statement March 14 was filed a Freedom of Information Act
request with the Army and we never received any response to
this day.
Mr. Shays. Let me be clear. Mr. Jacobs, do you work in
conjunction with Ms. Johnson or----
Mr. Jacobs. I do. I represent the group whose name is too
long to say that Mary is part of.
Mr. Shays. OK, thank you. So maybe, Mr. Jacobs, you could
provide a little more detail on this issue.
Mr. Jacobs. On March 14, I sent a Freedom of Information
Act letter to the Army asking for what I thought was relatively
routine information about the decisionmaking process, how did
they decide to send it here, a copy of the contract, a copy of
standards, all the stuff that you would expect that you would
want to see. And while there was some correspondence back and
forth, to this date, I have not gotten the first document from
the Army as a result of that request.
Mr. Shays. OK. Let me just say for the record, any request
that the Commission has made to the Army or to any other one
involved in this process, whatever the decision is on whether
or not to move forward in Dayton, we still will want that
information, because this is an effort to understand the
process and the process is important for us to understand. So
we will keep working to understand that and we will try to
assist you in getting information that you need to kind of
close the record here.
Mr. Jacobs. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Bristow.
Mr. Bristow. Initially, there was great cooperation I think
and our presence was welcomed and once they learned that we
would not accept the canned answers we were getting and wanted
more specific answers, the cooperation waned quite a bit.
Mr. Shays. Both with the Army and Perma-Fix or just with--
was your contact with both or just with Perma-Fix?
Mr. Bristow. Actually the contact was with Perma-Fix and it
is just my opinion, you know, that the responses I was getting
from Perma-Fix were just what the Army wanted them to release.
Mr. Shays. Fair enough. Whether that is in reality true,
the fact that is your perception is important to have on the
record.
Mr. Bristow. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Mr. Brueggeman. Our cooperation with Perma-Fix or Perma-
Fix's cooperation with us was very good. When we would ask for
information, they would give it to us if they had it available.
As the process went on, it appeared as if they were also asking
permission to release the information to us and sometimes that
was slow. But I think their intent to cooperate with us and our
expert was great. The cooperation with the Army, as I
indicated, we had asked for information and it was not
provided. And it appears as if the Army's comments on the side
were not very cooperative.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. Let me ask a question just out of my
ignorance in not knowing your government. Is the Jefferson
Township part of your county department? In other words, do you
do work for Jefferson, is there a connection there?
Mr. Brueggeman. No, the county is the broader organization
which is very different than municipalities in jurisdiction.
The Township is a separate entity.
Mr. Shays. But it is----
Mr. Brueggeman. It is within Montgomery County, yes.
Mr. Shays. But they depend on you to do the Engineering
Department----
Mr. Brueggeman. No, the reason why we are involved with
Jefferson Township is that we have a regional wastewater
treatment plant and the waste from Jefferson Township in that
area would come into our treatment plant.
Mr. Shays. I see.
Mr. Brueggeman. So that is why we would be involved.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. Thank you very much for your
responses and thank you for your generosity in letting me go
beyond my 10 minutes.
Mr. Turner. Any time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Jacobs, I want to talk to you for a moment about the
environmental impact study that you were talking about. You
were describing an environmental impact study that had been
performed pretty extensively for Newport, IN, and that there
was not, correspondingly, an environmental impact study for
Dayton. And as you know, one of the issues that we ran up
against when we were looking at the issue of public acceptance
is that at one point an Army response that public acceptance,
when it was clear it was not coming, would be redefined to be
regulatory compliance.
You were raising the environmental impact study issue is
part of a regulatory compliance process. What I would ask you,
for those who might not know, what types of issues might be
different from Newport, IN and Dayton, OH that would have to be
taken into consideration if an environmental impact study was
done for this particular process.
Mr. Jacobs. Sure. First let me say that the law, the NEPA
law that requires you to do an environmental impact study is
primarily a procedural law. So procedurally the Army would have
been required to get with all of the political leaders in our
area to meet and have detailed meetings with all of our
environmental regulators and to gather information from all of
them. If they had done that, then some of the things that they
would have learned that are clearly different in our context
than in the Indiana context, they would have learned that this
facility is smack dab in the middle of a densely populated
neighborhood where 3,000 people live in Drexel, hundreds of
thousands of people live within several miles of this facility.
In Indiana, it is in a relatively isolated rural area. The
Newport chemical facility itself is 10 square miles. It is 2.6
miles from the closest population concentration which is
Newport where 578 people live. So clearly the danger to a
population is significantly different.
They would have learned that the economic and racial makeup
of the two communities is vastly different. Newport reported in
the last census that there were no African-Americans that lived
there. This community is 35 percent African-American. Newport
reports 9 percent poverty rate; this community reports a 33
percent poverty rate. So clearly very disparate communities.
They would have found out that a stone's throw away from
the Perma-Fix facility is the Calumet School, a school for
people with multiple disabilities. The day I went by the
Calumet School, I saw students there leaving, being put on a
school bus, all of them were in wheel chairs. How would that
school be evacuated if there was a problem there? The Calumet
School exists a stone's throw away from Perma-Fix. I doubt
there is anything equivalent or certainly nothing equivalent
that was identified in the EIS in Newport.
Here the first responder would be the Jefferson Township
volunteer department backed up by Mr. Bristow's folks. There,
they have highly skilled haz-mat people onsite who know exactly
what to do. They are just right down the hall presumably from
where they would be doing this work.
So the differences just go on and on and I tried to detail
them in my testimony. But had they followed through on this
process, they would have discovered all of this stuff about our
community and the contrast between this community and the
community where the material has been stored and was supposed
to have been treated could not be--the differences could not be
more dramatic.
Mr. Turner. In following up on the chairman's question
concerning public outreach, I want to first read a few sections
of the contract which I think are important, and I want to
focus to some extent on the Army's participation.
If you look at the contract itself, there is a statement of
work section and then in the section labeled 3, it goes on to
label it as a work description. And it breaks down into waste
transport, waste treatment disposal and then there is public
outreach support, which Mr. Jacobs indicated that in the
contract itself, there is a separate line item for compensation
for that specific activity of the public outreach support. It
is pretty exhaustive. The three paragraphs that I want to read
is subparagraph (b) first. It says: ``The contractor and
government shall retain primary responsibility for outreach.''
The next subparagraph in (e), it says ``Subcontractor
outreach plans shall include an early initial subcontract
activity involving public and government notifications and
public sessions intended to establish a measure of public
acceptance for planned hydrolysate transport and disposal
work.''
Now if you look at this section where it says ``The
subcontract outreach plans shall'' and then what it is intended
to do and that is to achieve public acceptance, it is not open
to question as to whether or not that needs to be done as a
condition for this to move forward.
It goes on to say ``Completion of subcontract work may be
contingent upon the establishment and maintenance of public
acceptance throughout the subcontract period of performance.''
The next provision is saying with the word ``may'' be
contingent concerns the public acceptance being maintained
throughout the period. But the initial paragraph in (e) talks
about public acceptance having to have been achieved prior to
going forward.
And then if you go on to management support, 3.5 and
subparagraph (c), it says that ``The subcontractor's program
manager shall immediately notify the contractor's subcontract
administrator of any conditions potentially detrimental to said
contract work.'' And then it lists them, it lists them
separately. It says ``public outreach acceptance issues, safety
incidences, operational problems, regulatory issues.'' Each one
are given equal weight and each one are broken out separately.
If you go to the end of the contract at paragraph 6,
performance, it says this statement, ``Initial public outreach
activities to confirm public acceptance will commence
immediately with notice to proceed.''
So all of the provisions of the contract relate to an
effort of public outreach and information. Second then, a
confirmation that public acceptance has occurred and even
making it a contingent provision for this to begin, and a
possible contingency for it to continue throughout the process.
In focusing back on the paragraph that says that the
subcontractor and the government shall retain primary
responsibility for outreach, I would like to focus on the
Army's outreach efforts. To the extent that you are aware or
have participated, I would like to know about events or
meetings that you participated in where the Army was present
and what their statements were with respect to public outreach
and with respect to public acceptance.
We will start with Ms. Neal.
Ms. Neal. As an elected official in the largest
municipality contiguous to Jefferson Township, there was no
official discussion with the elected officials from the Army.
Mr. Turner. Ms. Jones.
Ms. Jones. There were several and I attended all of those.
There was not a lot of dialog between the Army, Parsons or
Perma-Fix. As I had stated in my statement here, I think that
there was one initial one where they spoke generally to
different aspects of the whole process, but the majority of the
meeting ended up where the citizens who came to the meeting at
that point, they didn't want it. So they would come to the
meetings and the meetings would then turn into input from the
citizens of why they opposed it and ask questions, the same
questions that they would ask at every meeting. So there was
not a lot of information coming from them other than the
community trying to get them to answer specific questions
regarding health and safety.
So if you ask me was there a lot of dialog regarding that,
no, because the questions were not answered.
Mr. Turner. Ms. Johnson, contact with the Army with respect
to public acceptance.
Ms. Johnson. Please.
Mr. Turner. Ms. Johnson, the question is with respect to
public acceptance and direct contact with the Army.
Ms. Johnson. Whenever we asked questions, we never got
responses. They knew that we did not want it and they ignored
us. They did not return documents that stated why they were
coming or whatever questions that we asked about how they went
about making their decision.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Jacobs.
Mr. Jacobs. I attended mostly meetings that were organized
by the community, but the Army would be invited to make a
presentation and the thing I recall most was the Army's
insistence that the material is just like Drano. And after--
citizens can pull down the MSDS sheet, the material safety data
sheet on this, and read for themselves that 30 to 50 percent of
VX hydrolysate are these complex Schedule II compounds that are
not just like Drano, and are in fact rather dangerous. And to
have the Army continue that mantra undermined all of their
credibility and made it very hard for people to believe what
they had to say about it.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Bristow.
Mr. Bristow. I would just have to re-emphasize what's been
said up to this point. It appeared that if we were willing to
accept a PowerPoint presentation that they gave and the flavor
of that presentation would be how this material is safe and it
will not harm you. It was always a quart of Drano. Although it
was a 4,000 gallon tanker coming down the road, we were to
relate it as a quart of Drano and not only would I ask
questions but other people on the citizens advisory panel asked
questions, people from the audience asked questions and it was
always the same answer continuously, this material is not
dangerous, this material is no more than a quart of Drano. And
after the third or fourth time, people did some research and
they knew that was not true.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Brueggeman.
Mr. Brueggeman. My first contact with the Army was at a
public meeting at Jefferson High School. The thing that
surprised me as Parsons and Perma-Fix seemed to be prepared for
the meeting, the Army's comments seemed as if they were unaware
of the public outcry that was occurring and they were
misreading the intent of what people were asking them. It
seemed like they took a different approach than I would have
expected anyone to take concerning that this was a public
meeting and the people had already voiced a lot of serious
concerns. It did not look like they were prepared for it.
Mr. Turner. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank all
of you for testifying, and personally as a member of this
community, I want to thank you for all of your efforts.
Mr. Shays. If the Chair would yield. I just want to tell
you, Mr. Jacobs, we do have--the committee does have a copy of
the environmental impact statement as well as the subcontract,
and we thank you for not requesting that it be inserted into
the record, but it will be part of the record.
Thank you.
Mr. Jacobs. Thank you very much.
Mr. Shays. I would also like to thank all of our witnesses,
you did an excellent job.
Mr. Turner. Thank you so much.
We will then be going to our next panel, who will be
joining us and I will introduce them when they come to the
table.
On the second panel is Dr. Louis Centofanti, president and
CEO of Perma-Fix; Mr. Michael A. Parker, Acting Director,
Chemical Materials Agency of the U.S. Army and also testimony
of John T. Stewart of Parsons, Inc. We will be hearing their
responses both to the testimony that they have heard and also
hearing their testimony.
Gentlemen, we appreciate each of you coming here today and
being able to provide your testimony to our committee. We will
begin by providing you with the oath that your testimony will
be the truth to the committee. If during your testimony or
during the question period there is anyone that you believe
that you will be relying on for additional information, it
would be appropriate for them to stand also at this time and to
be sworn in. So if you would please stand, or anyone else that
you would like to have testifying before the committee.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Turner. Please note for the record that the witnesses
have responded in the affirmative. We will begin this panel
with Dr. Louis Centofanti, president and CEO of Perma-Fix.
STATEMENTS OF DR. LOUIS CENTOFANTI, PRESIDENT AND CEO, PERMA-
FIX, INCARCERATION; MICHAEL A. PARKER, ACTING DIRECTOR,
CHEMICAL MATERIALS AGENCY, U.S. ARMY; AND JOHN T. STEWART,
PARSONS INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INCARCERATION
Dr. Centofanti. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to
speak. One, I have submitted a statement which includes quite a
bit of technical information, and I think for the committee,
the most important is probably lessons learned. At the end, we
have tried to summarize seven major points as we look at this
project. If anyone else ever tries it, hopefully they will look
at that and answer some of those questions and issues raised. I
think, you know, the community was very diligent, worked hard
and consistent in opposing this project, and I think raised a
variety of issues that--many are addressed in our seven points
in terms of things that need to be done in the future.
As an old college professor, I guess in retrospect this
will be a great example of a case study, if anybody ever wants
to look at it, on how to--what should be done or should not be
done. You know, probably from our point of view, besides the
seven points as you really look at them, there is one very--one
critical one that affected us the most dramatically. For this
project, we really saw ourselves making two promises. One, our
contact with the Army and Parsons to carry out this activity.
The second was a promise to our community, being a good
neighbor and a good citizen. I think early on they spoke very
loudly and consistently that they did not want this project.
Our problem was that, as we looked at it, we were in a box.
We do a lot of work for the Federal Government under contract
and a default on this contract would have been a fairly serious
event for the whole company. At the same time, we were
listening to our neighbors opposition in the community. So if
we went ahead with the project, we basically threatened the
facility; and if we backed out, we would be in default under
the contract. I think that is addressed in one of those issues
that in the future it is a very serious--ourselves being put
into that sort of situation. We were in a no-win situation.
Like I say, a lot of the issues that were raised by the
citizen groups--are in our comments. The information, our role
as a contractor--a subcontractor, and yet at the same time the
Army's desire to respond to Congress and get in the middle of
the project when theoretically we should have been the out-
front people. So as we look at this, it was a--well, just an
unfortunate situation. It is finished. My comments are there. I
will be happy to more address any questions later as they come
up in terms of the points at the end, if there is such.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Parker.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Centofanti follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.067
Mr. Parker. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. With the Chair's permission, I would like to submit
the full statement for the record and just do a quick summary,
if that would be permissible.
Mr. Turner. That will be fine.
Mr. Parker. I am Michael Parker, the Director of the
Chemical Material Agency responsible for safe storage and
disposal of our Nation's chemical weapons.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Chairman, if he could talk just a little
louder. I am not sure, are you hearing in the back?
Voices. No.
Mr. Parker. All right, I am Michael Parker, Director of the
U.S. Army Chemical Material Agency responsible for the safe and
environmentally compliant storage and disposal of the Nation's
chemical weapons. Of paramount value to the Chemical Material
Agency is the safety of our work force and the American public.
While we have stored, and continue to store, chemical weapons
safely for over 50 years, the ultimate risk reduction is the
ultimate disposal of these weapons. No weapons, no risk.
I am happy to report that over 26 percent of the 31,000
tons of chemical--of the U.S. chemical stockpile, 83,000 tons
of chemical agent to date have been safely disposed of. We have
three plants in operation, on line every day, reducing the risk
to the American public. We will have three additional plants on
line within the year to include the Newport facility, which is
what brings us here today. The Newport and Aberdeen sites were
significantly accelerated after the unfortunate events of
September 11th. This was done as a risk reduction measure
primarily to the communities where these munitions are stored.
The concept was to significantly streamline the neutralization
process and dispose of the neutralized material, the
hydrolysate, at large scale, fully permitted commercial
facilities treating similar wastes. This approach facilitated
the maximum acceleration of the disposal at these two sites.
The Aberdeen site, as I mentioned earlier, is on line and
employing this concept quite successfully, the use of a
commercial TSDF, treatment storage and disposal facility, for
the treatment of the hydrolysate at the Aberdeen site.
Technical concerns were raised here in the Dayton area.
This coupled with the decision by the Montgomery County Water
Commission relating to Perma-Fix's operating permit has
resulted in the decision by the Parsons Co. to terminate the
contract. We are in the process of pursuing alternate options
for the treatment of the Newport hydrolysate. We are actively
working on these options and will have an alternate course of
action in place by the end of the month of November. We are
still committed to rapidly neutralizing the VX stocks at
Newport and are looking at implementing mitigating measures to
try to maintain as rapid a schedule at Newport as we possibly
can.
In summary, the chemical weapons storage and disposal
program has demonstrated over a very long timeline a strong
safety and environmental compliance record. We will continue
this demonstration throughout the course of the program,
safeguarding our work
force and the American public until the last drop of material
is disposed of.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Stewart. Mr. Stewart is with Parsons.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Parker follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.074
Mr. Stewart. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I
am John Stewart and I work for Parsons Infrastructure &
Technology Group, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Parsons.
Parsons has the prime contract with the U.S. Army to
design, construct, operate and close the chemical agent
neutralization facility located at the Newport Chemical Depot
in Indiana. I am Parsons' project manager for the Newport
Chemical Agent Disposal Facility and I am responsible for all
aspects of Parsons' work at Newport. The Newport project will
neutralize the VX nerve agent and transport the neutralized
material, hydrolysate, to an offsite commercial waste treatment
facility. That was our plan. The hydrolysate is very similar to
many other standard industrial waste products that are
commercially treated day-to-day. Off-site disposal of the
hydrolysate more rapidly eliminates the VX risk to the public.
The acquisition of an offsite commercial treatment, storage
and disposal facility involved a rigorous, comprehensive,
nationwide competitive selection process. Driven by the events
of September 2001 and a desire to accelerate the destruction of
VX, we performed an industry survey that identified over 100
treatment, storage and disposal facilities. We subsequently
issued a subcontractor qualification survey and received 45
expressions of interest in May 2002. During June 2002, we
performed site audits and compliance history reviews at the 11
facilities that indicated interest and which we initially
evaluated as qualified and permitted to treat waste with
characteristics similar to hydrolysate. In July 2002, we issued
a request for proposal to the 11 firms. The request for
proposal evaluation criteria included technology, expertise,
transportation plans, regulatory compliance, safety, history,
capacity, risk as it relates to stability, environmental,
public outreach, technical capability and cost. In October
2002, we received four proposals. One of these proposers
subsequently withdrew their proposal.
In December 2002, Parsons informed the Army of their
selection of a hazardous waste treatment facility for the
disposal of hydrolysate. The selected facility was Perma-Fix in
Dayton, OH, a fully permitted disposal facility for this type
of waste. The language used by Parsons in our subcontract with
Perma-Fix required the subcontractor to perform public and
government notification and public outreach sessions to
``establish a measure of public acceptance,'' and stated that
``completion of subcontract work may be contingent upon the
establishment and maintenance of public acceptance throughout
the subcontract period of performance.''
This statement was separated from the other deliverable
requirements because it was a guiding principle for the Public
Outreach Program rather than a contract deliverable. The gauge
Parsons used to evaluate public acceptance was two fold. First,
the establishment of an active public outreach program and
second, compliance with Federal, State and local requirements.
It was never Parsons intent to establish a requirement to
obtain, retain or achieve public acceptance by every citizen,
but to establish a measure of community understanding that
Perma-Fix could safely and effectively treat the hydrolysate
generated at the Newport Chemical facility. It is also
important to understand that in its request for proposals,
Parsons neither used public acceptance as a selection criterion
for the applying firms, nor required public acceptance as a
contact deliverable.
On October 13, 2003 Parsons directed Perma-Fix to stop work
on the subcontract related to treatment of hydrolysate produced
during neutralization of the chemical agent VX at Newport. With
this action, Perma-Fix's Dayton, OH site is eliminated as an
alternative for the disposal of the Newport hydrolysate. This
decision was reached after the Montgomery County Commissioners'
meeting on October 7, 2003, where it become evident that
constraints related to Perma-Fix's operational permit with
Montgomery County would preclude the use of the Perma-Fix
facility in Dayton, OH. Parsons, as part of the Newport project
team, is working closely with the U.S. Army to evaluate options
for the hydrolysate treatment.
Of primary importance is the safety of the worker and of
the public, closely followed by protection of the environment.
Schedule and costs will always be considered, but we will not
allow schedule or costs to jeopardize safety or the
environment. We will communicate our plans for a path forward
as soon as we have identified one, which should be in the
November 2003 timeframe.
That is the end of my statement, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stewart follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.078
Mr. Turner. I will go through a series of questions for
members of the committee, and I will start. I think the most
important question for everyone in this community is the
current status of this contract and the elimination of the
Perma-Fix site as a possible site for these materials. Mr.
Stewart.
Mr. Stewart. As I stated, it is a Parsons' subcontract. I
did sign the letter that stopped all work for Perma-Fix on
this, and we are in the process of negotiating the termination
with Perma-Fix. It does eliminate Perma-Fix of Dayton as an
option for hydrolysate treatment.
Mr. Turner. OK. And that is the distinction in the
materials we have. We currently have a copy of Parsons' letter
of October 14th that is a direction to stop work. And we heard
Mr. Parker's testimony representing the Army, that the process
of going from stop work to termination is current. Is that
accurate that this contract will be terminated and not just a
stop-work order?
Mr. Stewart. Yes, sir.
Mr. Turner. OK. And you are agreeing to the termination and
that indicates----
Mr. Stewart. Perma-Fix and I have a meeting of the minds on
the termination of this project for them.
Mr. Turner. You have indicated that you will be looking at
other alternatives. You are not looking at any alternative that
includes this site, is that correct?
Mr. Stewart. That is true.
Dr. Centofanti. We are not challenging their decision.
Mr. Turner. Pardon?
Dr. Centofanti. We are not challenging their decision.
Mr. Turner. OK. What I want to hear from you is that--you
know, obviously you are currently in the process of where you
have a stop-work order, but you do not have termination. You
are concurring and agreeing to termination of the contract with
Parsons.
Dr. Centofanti. Absolutely, yes.
Mr. Turner. When you are in that position, it will be my
understanding that you will be under no contractual obligation
to accept any of these types of materials at your site, is that
correct?
Dr. Centofanti. Correct.
Mr. Turner. Do you have any intention to ever again enter
into an agreement to accept these materials at this site?
Dr. Centofanti. No, absolutely.
Mr. Turner. Are you participating in discussions of
alternatives in the disposal of these materials with the Army
and with Parsons?
Dr. Centofanti. Not at this time. This contract to only use
Dayton was the only contact we had with the Army and the--and
Parsons.
Mr. Turner. If they should engage you in those discussions,
the Army and Parsons, for the purposes of discussing with you
technology or proprietary information or knowledge that you
have, it is my understanding from your testimony that any of
those options or alternatives that you would propose would not
include the Daytonsite.
Dr. Centofanti. They would not include Dayton.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Parker, my understanding from your
testimony is that this contract is moving toward termination.
The Army is consenting to that, is that correct?
Mr. Parker. That is correct.
Mr. Turner. And in that termination then the facility of
Perma-Fix that is in the Dayton area would not be considered as
a viable alternative?
Mr. Parker. That is correct.
Mr. Turner. You had also mentioned that you are looking at
other alternatives, and so I take that to mean in your
testimony that the alternatives that you are looking at do not
include a facility in the Dayton area?
Mr. Parker. That is correct.
Mr. Turner. I have some other questions that relate to--let
me ask this one before I pass it off to the chairman. With
respect to Parsons, I take it that you are consenting fully--
you have indicated that the action of the Montgomery County
Commissioners is evident as a constraint to your moving forward
with the contract. I take it that since you as parties are
moving forward with the termination of this agreement, that you
will not be moving forward with any litigation with Montgomery
County or any other jurisdiction to try to obtain permits in
any judicial process?
Mr. Stewart. We have--public acceptance was a gauge. We
were waiting for the technical, independent evaluation from
Montgomery County. When we saw how everything happened on
October 7th and everything, no, we are not moving forward with
any sort of litigation, any sort of further consideration in
the Dayton area.
Mr. Turner. Dr. Centofanti, with respect to Perma-Fix?
Dr. Centofanti. We are finished with this project in
Dayton, period. There is nothing moving forward in terms of
anything with the county or----
Mr. Turner. So you are accepting the ruling of the county
then? You do not intend to pursue any----
Dr. Centofanti. We do not intend to challenge it. I would
have said that earlier, we would not challenge the county if
they said no.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Parker.
Mr. Parker. The Army is following the lead of our prime
contractor, Parsons. We have no intent of pursuing any matter
here locally.
Mr. Turner. OK. I have other questions with respect to the
public acceptance process, but I will turn to the chairman at
this point.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. As we said in the beginning, one
issue is the issue as it relates to Dayton and surrounding
communities. I think that is fairly clear where we are at. Mr.
Parker, I would like you to have the opportunity to describe
the challenge that you have in disposing of chemical weapons. I
want to say to all of you here, we know you have a very
important task, and we know that you have a requirement by
Congress, by the President, by treaty obligations that are
international treaties, to dispose of these chemicals. So we
have a deadline that frankly I wonder if we will be able to
meet. I do not think the Russians, for instance, will be able
to meet it. So just tell me what the challenge is overall. Give
me and this committee a sense of the task at hand. I would like
you to speak a little louder if you could.
Mr. Parker. If I could. I am sorry, I am in the process of
taking a cold here and I am----
Mr. Shays. I am sorry.
Mr. Parker. As you--you have been following this, Mr.
Shays, I know you have been in Russia to see their program in
regard to the overall activity--your committee looking at the
cooperative threat reduction program and the effectiveness,
etc. So you have a basis of the international challenges.
The U.S. challenges are one that these materials are highly
toxic, they are dangerous, they were intended to be lethal. In
many regards, the way the munitions are configured for a
military use, mated up with high explosives and fuses, take the
challenge that would be associated with the chemical agents
themselves, which are significant, and brings many other
confounding challenges. The mechanical processes in order to
separate these various components make these facilities very
large. The need for total containment in the event that one of
the munitions would detonate during the disassembly process
requires very large, very robust structures which are quite a
challenge to construct. All of the maintenance activities have
to be done in a suitable level of protection, which is form of
total encapsulation, which makes the maintenance operations
extremely difficult and challenging. The primary treatment
technology that we have chosen for most of the assembled
chemical weapons, an incineration-based technology, has been
highly controversial, raising the concerns with many members of
the affected communities around these storage sites.
Mr. Shays. Let me ask you, is that part controversial with
the scientists or with the general public? Let me paraphrase by
saying when I was in Russia, at one site, which literally had
millions of shells of chemical weapons stacked in sheds that
reminded me of summer camp facilities. They were stacked like
wine bottles--and which, you know, I will say again
parenthetically, a lot of concern that someone could just
simply insert something in and take out the shell and the
Russians would never know. When I was there, they were saying
we incinerate, but the Russians were not comfortable with that
and they want to go through this dilution process. So tell me,
is this a debate on incineration among scientists or between
scientists and the general public?
Mr. Parker. Well, I think if one would accept the National
Research Council as a solid scientific body, they have endorsed
incineration as an effective and safe means to dispose of
chemical weapons. The concerns are raised by members of the
community, and it is beyond a narrow slice of environmental
activists, it is a general concern about the potential release
out of an incinerator of incomplete products of combustion
during normal operations and in the event of an accident the
release of chemical warfare material.
Mr. Shays. So it is more based on, if you did the process
properly and you truly incinerated, there is not a disagreement
with the environmental community. The environmental community
raises its concern that probably some would be released without
incineration or there could be some other experience during
that process that could be catastrophic?
Mr. Parker. I think more on the environmental activists'
side who were fundamentally opposed to incineration as a
hazardous waste treatment technology in a universal context,
that the health standards by which these processes are judged
are inadequate.
Mr. Shays. Is it cheaper and faster to incinerate than to
go through this other process? How should I describe the
process?
Mr. Parker. Well, chemical neutralization.
Mr. Shays. Chemical neutralization. Is that a longer
process and more costly?
Mr. Parker. We, at the direction of Congress, just recently
looked at the Bluegrass, Kentucky and the Pueblo, Colorado
sites comparing incineration with neutralization, and it was--
in a cost and schedule context, it is a wash. It is a break
even.
Mr. Shays. We have eight storage sites, is that correct?
Mr. Parker. Yes, sir, in the United States.
Mr. Shays. And how many in other places? None of this is
classified, correct?
Mr. Parker. That is correct. We had a facility on Johnson
Island which was a storage and a disposal site. That site has
completed its disposal activities and will be formally closed
out here on November 5th, completely demolishing the demil
facility. So that will be a complete closure.
Mr. Shays. Now, are we in the process of doing two types,
the chemical neutralization and incineration right now to
destroy chemical weapons or are we doing both?
Mr. Parker. Yes, sir, four sites are chemical
neutralization based and four sites are incineration based.
Mr. Shays. I misunderstood then. In the beginning you said
we had three sites and then we were adding three. What were
those three sites?
Mr. Parker. The three sites that are active are the
Deserete Chemical----
Mr. Shays. I do not need to know what they are. I just need
to know how I can--I get four and four is eight and then three
and three is six. I must be mixing apples and oranges.
Mr. Parker. The other two sites are the Pueblo, CO and
Bluegrass sites, which are just under contract in the design
phase.
Mr. Shays. OK. So we have three active, three soon to be
completed and----
Mr. Parker. Soon to be active.
Mr. Shays [continuing]. And two in the design stage?
Mr. Parker. Correct.
Mr. Shays. OK. And the process of neutralization it is a
two-step process?
Mr. Parker. Yes.
Mr. Shays. So the second phase, or final phase of
neutralization will be off those four sites? They would not be
self contained within those four sites? In other words, you
will not do both the first part and the second part in the same
site?
Mr. Parker. It varies site by site. The Aberdeen site, as I
said earlier, is right now actively neutralizing, doing the
primary treatment onsite. The secondary treatment is done at
DuPont's Deep Water, New Jersey facility in a bio treater. It
is our intent to seek out a--it is one of the options for the
Newport site to seek out another commercial facility that is
more suited, as well as pursue other backup options in Newport.
Pueblo will use neutralization followed by bio treatment
onsite. The final decisions have not been made with Bluegrass,
but it will be onsite neutralization followed by super critical
water oxidization most likely onsite.
Mr. Shays. Dr. Centofanti----
Dr. Centofanti. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shays [continuing]. Thank you very much, Mr. Parker.
One, I appreciate the spirit in which you gave your opening
testimony. I did sense a point that I do want to clarify. The
sense of feeling an obligation to the Army, but also
participating. Your company did--let me first understand. You
represent all of Perma-Fix? You are the CEO of the entire----
Dr. Centofanti. Yes, of the whole company.
Mr. Shays. And you have many sites around the country?
Dr. Centofanti. We have nine treatment facilities. Six are
hazardous, three are nuclear.
Mr. Shays. Three are what?
Dr. Centofanti. Nuclear waste. We are treating nuclear.
Mr. Shays. Oh, I did not know that. OK, so six hazardous.
Have you been involved in the--when you say hazardous
chemicals, not necessarily weaponized chemicals?
Dr. Centofanti. No, no weapons.
Mr. Shays. So was this the first introduction you were
proceeding in the chemical weapons side?
Dr. Centofanti. Yes.
Mr. Shays. I am anticipating that part of your--you were
thinking you were part of a process of dealing with--I do not
want to put words in your mouth, but I am just trying to wonder
if I am correct or not. When you were looking at the second
phase, were you looking more at the second phase as no longer
being a chemical weapon because it was----
Dr. Centofanti. No, we did see it as a chemical weapon
byproduct.
Mr. Shays. OK.
Dr. Centofanti. And when we initially looked at it, we had
a technology we thought was ideal for treating that material.
Mr. Shays. OK.
Dr. Centofanti. And so that is why we did pursue it.
Mr. Shays. Well without getting in a big debate, do you
still think it is ideal or do you have some questions about it?
Dr. Centofanti. No. I think the realities here--again, it
is--you heard many times the Drano issue, and it is very
interesting, because technically when people like at it they
describe it that way, even the consultant for the county did.
But in reality it does come from VX and it carries the
perceived--there is a perceived reality and a technical reality
here. And the perceived reality--as you know being a political
leader--is reality to the public. So it goes back to the
question of incineration.
Mr. Shays. I think I understood your answer, but I am not
quite sure.
Dr. Centofanti. OK.
Mr. Shays. But let me just understand, though. From Mr.
Stewart's testimony--by the way, Mr. Stewart, thank you for
being here, because it gives us a more complete picture of this
process. The last thing I want to do as a Member of Congress is
require that we destroy chemical weapons and then in the next
process tell you you cannot do it. So it is going to get me to
this next point of talking about the process. I do want to
clarify one point. What I think, Dr. Centofanti, I heard from
Mr. Stewart was though that you did proactively seek a
contract, is that accurate?
Dr. Centofanti. Yes, we did at the beginning.
Mr. Shays. And so from the standpoint of Parsons and the
Army, you were involved in this process. Once you started this
process, you felt an obligation to pursue it when I sense you
had some second thoughts, is that correct?
Dr. Centofanti. When the--yes, as public opposition built.
Mr. Shays. You felt as that as a contractor with the
military and the government, you were out there and you needed
to pursue it and you had other contracts and other
relationships?
Dr. Centofanti. And we were also driven by the that we had
a process that we thought was very unique and did work and
would be very valuable to the Army.
Mr. Shays. I hear you. But from the standpoint of Parsons,
you sought them out and they gave your contract due diligence,
and they said yes, you should do it.
Dr. Centofanti. Yes.
Mr. Shays. From their standpoint the ball was in your
court, correct?
Dr. Centofanti. Yes.
Mr. Shays. Let me ask you this last point. Is this process
of getting community acceptance something that is new to you? I
would think given that this is chemical hazardous material,
that you should have a pretty good idea of how you do that. I
mean your statement is on record that you guys did not do a
very good job of that. I mean that is on the record, and I
would concur. So we do not need to, you know, beat it to a pulp
here. Just explain to me, given that you are successful and an
important company in this process, why did it break down? Did
you think the system was so good that you did not have to do
the same kind of outreach? Explain it to me.
Dr. Centofanti. I think in looking back, you could sit here
and try to judge would it have ever worked under any
circumstance and that is always hard to do.
Mr. Shays. That is true.
Dr. Centofanti. When the citizens asked for information,
many times we were not able to give the information to them in
a timely manner, the information, for whatever reason, and that
right away bred, you know, a----
Mr. Shays. A suspicion.
Dr. Centofanti [continuing]. A suspicion, right. We were
going through a review process ourselves, so we were also in a
catch 22. They wanted the information upfront. We were doing a
review, which was our whole treatability study, and collecting
much of the information that was needed. So we were in a
process that was not good from a public outreach point of view.
They wanted all of the information from our treatability study
and how it was going to work and get the results when we were
just doing it to demonstrate it to the Army and Parsons in
collecting all the information on the final process. To the
process was a modification of an existing process--two existing
processes. So we were very confident it would work. But we had
to put it all together and then demonstrate it to the Army to
show that it did work, so we were in a tough position in terms
of the public outreach.
Mr. Shays. Let me conclude. I have some other questions I
could ask, but my time is ended.
I would like to say, Mr. Parker, we received a letter from
Brigadier General Guy C. Swann, who said information that the
committees requested would no longer be necessary, since the
contract was terminated. I would hope you would convey to the
General that--and we will as well, that the information is
still requested and still is needed, because we do want to
understand this process. I do think this has been a learning
experience that is an important one. I will say--and I mean no
disrespect--I have not felt that the Army was as forthcoming as
I would like to see, particularly to Congress.
I was trying to get into my first panel, you know, you were
cooperating with, I think, the people you thought had the
direct involvement, a little less with some government
officials, and with the public even less. But I would kind of
put Congress first on this list. We do need this information
and we will, you know, expect it and so on.
Mr. Parker. I will take that back to General Swann and Mr.
Bolton and get the material--see that the material gets to you.
With regard to the Army's response to the community, we--I
certainly believe--and I was a little bit surprised, I have to
admit, that the--some of this may have fallen through the
cracks. In some cases, I do know, as Lou has indicated, some of
the questions had to do with responding to how Perma-Fix's
process would work. When the questions were asked, Perma-Fix
had yet to complete the work. We only recently got that
information, along with Dr. Rittmann's report. We will close
out with the community those outstanding issues. We have tried
to be responsive to the community. We sent out over 900
responses to individual citizens answering questions that were
asked. So I believe we have attempted from an Army perspective
to be responsive.
Mr. Shays. I wish you had not have said that, because I
know you have had a lot of responses. The communication between
our committee and the Army was less than satisfactory. I do not
want to even get into kind of documenting it, because I think
it is pretty obvious. We can have a slight disagreement, but I
want to say to you from my standpoint it was not, and in terms
of the interaction with the community it was not good. You may
have had surrogates that you expected to do a better job, and
that is a fair comment, but ultimately, as they say, you know,
we know where the ultimate responsibility lies.
Mr. Parker. I will accept the criticism and I will take it
back to the Army leadership and make sure it is understood.
Mr. Shays. But we will totally and completely pursue
getting this information.
Mr. Parker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Parker, one of the things in your written
testimony and that you have testified orally to is of
particular concern to me. During my request for information on
this matter, I have routinely been told by the Army that Perma-
Fix's contract is not with the Army and therefore the terms of
that contract are not within the Army's purview or authority,
and you said here, because the Army is not a party to the
contract between Parsons and Perma-Fix, we will direct any
questions regarding the terms of that contract relating to
public acceptance to Parsons. You go on to say that FAR
regulations are incorporated into the contract. Now my
understanding of government contracting--and I want you to
correct me if I am wrong--is that when you award a contract to
Parson, that Parsons has no ability to enter into a contract
with Perma-Fix unless the full text of that contract is
submitted to you for approval.
Mr. Parker. Let me defer that to Brad Pierce who is the
contacting officer for the primary contract between the Army
and Parsons.
Mr. Shays. We need to make sure you have a card for the
transcriber.
Mr. Turner. And he was sworn in.
Mr. Pierce. I will do that as soon as this question is
over.
Generally in government contracting----
Mr. Turner. Would you identify yourself.
Mr. Pierce. Oh, I am sorry. My name is Brad Pierce. I am
Chief of the Camp Demil Contracting from the Army Field Support
Command. So I have responsibility for all the systems contracts
for chemical demilitarization.
In response to your question, in government contracting,
yes, our relationship is with the prime contractor, and it
depends on the contract about how far that goes to our review
and approval of their subcontracts. Clearly all the terms and
conditions that we put in the contract from the Federal
Acquisition Regulations have a flow-down provision to them,
that we expect to go down to the systems contracts. We review
the contractor's purchasing system to ensure that they have
those processes in place, that their people are trained to
ensure that they are complying with those requirements. If a
contractor has a purchasing system that is approved, then we
allow them to subcontract without prior government review of
their subcontracts. We will just go in on--typically on an
annual basis and audit what they have done to ensure that they
are complying with the terms and conditions of the contract.
Parsons does have an approved purchasing system.
Notwithstanding, when contracts get over a certain dollar
threshold--and each contract defines that differently--we have
the right to prove or to consent to their subcontracts. They
provide us a package of their subcontract terms, conditions and
negotiations, we review it to ensure that they have complied
with competition, small business, the terms and conditions of
our contract and then give them the consent to go forward and
subcontract. But that relationship at that point in time is
between the prime contractor and the subcontractor. You know,
the terminology we use is privity of contract. There is no
privity of contract between us the government and the
subcontractor. We constantly remind our work force that nobody
in the Federal Government has the right to direct a
subcontractor. We just do not have the authority.
Mr. Turner. In this particular instance we are dealing with
the destruction of weapon systems.
Mr. Pierce. Yes, sir.
Mr. Turner. Did the Army approve the contract between
Parsons and Perma-Fix?
Mr. Pierce. Yes, we did.
Mr. Turner. And did that include approving the text of that
contract?
Mr. Pierce. What we approved--what we do in real--it is a
matter of terminology. We gave the consent for them to
subcontract, but as part of that process--as a matter of fact,
it was somewhat unusual in a lot of contracts--the Army did
provide a lot of oversight and even participated in some of the
review of the proposers to their subcontract requests for
proposal.
Mr. Turner. So is that a yes?
Mr. Pierce. Yes.
Mr. Turner. OK. That is an important point to me, because
in every meeting that I had with the Army, I would get, well
this is between Parsons and Perma-Fix, and it is not between
Parsons and Perma-Fix. It is between the community and the
Army, because the Army is the government, and when the
government is coming into a community and saying we are going
to do something, but we are not really obligated to you as a
community, it is very disconcerting to people who here
specifically believe that the government is by and for us, not
by and for a contract between Perma-Fix and Parsons. So I
wanted to make that point that you approved the text of the
contract. So the sentence saying that you are not a party to
the contract and therefore the language of the contract is just
between Perma-Fix and Parsons really is not very accurate I
believe because it does not tell the whole story. The whole
story is, you reviewed the contract, you approved its terms;
therefore, you would have approved a public acceptance
component.
Mr. Parker, in your position as the Acting Director of
Chemical Materials Agency, would communications from Parsons
concerning their belief that a portion or a provision of the
contract might not be able to be performed or that the contract
itself might be in jeopardy, would those communications come to
you?
Mr. Parker. Ultimately yes. There are--as Mr. Pierce
outlined, there are personnel at the Newport site who are
directly involved, as well as a project manager assigned to
this project, Col. Jesse Barber, and that information would
flow up through either the site or the project manager, Col.
Barber, to me.
Mr. Turner. The reason why I asked this question, I
wondered if the Army received any communications from Parsons
or Perma-Fix that indicated that they believed the public
acceptance was not going to be achieved and that the contract
may need to be terminated?
Mr. Parker. Well certainly it was very obvious and we were
well aware--I was well aware of the contentious nature with the
community, and there was a lot of discussion about how we were
going to address that. The approach was to await the technical
outcome of Perma-Fix's treatment studies, and then the feedback
from the independent technical consultant--the water board's
technical consultant, Dr. Rittmann, to make a judgment of
whether or not there was a technical basis to go forward with
the contract. As it turns out, the technical issues raised,
plus the issue of whether or not--or the decision, I guess,
that the water board was not going to issue a permit made the
whole issue of public acceptance somewhat moot because we were
not going to go forward with a contract because it was
unexecutable independent of public acceptance.
Mr. Turner. I am going to ask the question again because I
was not quite certain of your answer. It sounded to me that
there were discussions that occurred between the Army, Parsons
and Perma-Fix with respect to the perceived lack of public
acceptance by this community on the part of Perma-Fix and
Parsons, and that concern was given to the Army as a possible
issue that would impact both Parsons and Perma-Fix's ability to
perform. Is that correct?
Mr. Parker. I would shape it slightly different. The Army
was aware, I was aware, I think the Army leadership was aware
of the highly contentious nature, the feedback from members of
the community, the local elected officials, as was cited
earlier, 33 or 38 jurisdictions that had issued some form of
proclamation or other vehicle, were raising their concerns and
negative position toward Perma-Fix processing this material.
That was all known and it was an area of concern and a lot of
discussion.
Mr. Turner. And the Army was still prepared to proceed even
with the resounding roar that you just described?
Mr. Parker. We would have taken--had the technical outcome
from Perma-Fix's efforts been validated by the independent
reviewer--or independent review by Dr. Rittmann and the water
board would have come forward with a positive position on
allowing that material to be treated, I think we would have
went out to the community--or requested Perma-Fix to go out to
the community, along with Parsons, and we would have
participated and made an attempt to convince the community that
their issues could be addressed. This was a safe and
environmentally acceptable manner. If the communities would
have come back at that point with a negative, then we would
have had another decision point on whether or not to proceed.
Mr. Turner. Next, I would like to introduce Larry Halloran
who is our legal counsel for the committee, who also has a few
questions.
Mr. Halloran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just--two things
really. Mr. Parker, you described the process underway--the
chemical demilitarization process underway where the second
phase goes to a plant--the DuPont plant in New Jersey, is that
right, or Pennsylvania?
Mr. Parker. New Jersey, yes.
Mr. Halloran. New Jersey. Was there a public acceptance
provision in that subcontract?
Mr. Parker. No, I do not believe there was. Brad, can you
clarify? I should have asked you to start with.
Mr. Pierce. Yeah. I have reviewed that subcontract and
there was some language in there about public outreach. It did
not have the same language about a public--you know,
maintenance of public acceptability, though.
Mr. Halloran. To your knowledge, is the same language in
this contract in effect any place else?
Mr. Pierce. No.
Mr. Halloran. OK. Another matter--and this might be best
addressed to Dr. Centofanti. In the briefing we received,
hydrolysate was described as an industrial waste similar to
many things found in the industrial waste stream and is unique
only because of where it is generated, because it comes from
scary VX. Do you agree with that characterization, Dr.
Centofanti?
Dr. Centofanti. When we started this project we had several
conditions. One, of course, that they could guarantee--
demonstrate to us that there was no VX in it. So I think our
biggest concern in the early stages was the demonstration of
the lack of VX. If you do look at it chemically, and I think
from a very technical point of view--this raises many issues
with the community in terms of trying to describe it as some
simple chemical material. You heard it with the citizen groups.
I think it actually works against anybody trying to do that,
because no matter what it is, it--where it came from, it
carries just a real stigma, a public stigma. There is a little
misunderstanding on the Schedule II compounds. They are really
just the components. But all of that just fits together to add
a level of concern and distrust about the materials. So the----
Mr. Halloran. In your other work, what is the closest thing
to this that you handle?
Dr. Centofanti. I do not even want to mention because Mary
will jump on me over here. It was initially----
Mr. Halloran. Not here, any place. In any industrial waste,
what could I look up in a chemical manual?
Dr. Centofanti. Dr. Rittmann himself described it in a
meeting and he was sort of booed down when he said, well this
is like Drano.
Mr. Halloran. Yes.
Dr. Centofanti. And technically, if you really look at it,
it is hazardous because it has sodium hydroxide in it which is
Drano. That is technically correct. But again, I think that
is--materials like this cannot even be looked at like that
because of where it came from and the concern does it have VX,
does it have other byproducts and that they are that way?
Mr. Halloran. Thank you very much.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Chairman, do you have additional questions?
Mr. Shays. Yes. One, I would like to put in the record, a
letter we received from R.L. Brownlee, Acting Secretary of the
Army, on July 30th in conjunction with the letter that we
received, dated--I guess it was today. We were given today. And
this letter said in July--when we--it is stamped July 30th. It
said we would receive important information in 45 days. So we
will just insert both of those.
And just to ask you, Mr. Stewart, and maybe Mr. Parker, the
term ``a measure of public acceptance,'' is that a term that is
put in your contract by the Army that you then transferred to
your subcontractor?
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.081
Mr. Stewart. No, sir.
Mr. Shays. Pardon me?
Mr. Stewart. No, sir.
Mr. Shays. No. So tell me, is that just a term that you use
when you interact with all your subcontractors? Is it just like
company policy that you want public acceptance and so therefore
you would expect it when you--first off, do you have your own
operations?
Mr. Stewart. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shays. Why was that term put in there?
Mr. Stewart. It is not a standard term that we use in our
subcontracts. This is the only subcontract that Parsons has
that has the term public acceptance in it.
Mr. Shays. Was that at the request of the government?
Mr. Stewart. I would not say it was at the request of the
Army. It was a lot of discussions. As it was outlined earlier,
it was a very collaborative, integrative team putting together
this acquisition. It was suggested that, you know, we needed an
active public outreach program. It was suggested that one
measure--to make sure that we had an active outreach program to
get the facts out, to address concerns was to put some sort of
measure of public acceptance. At that time it seemed very
prudent and we put it in our subcontract.
Mr. Shays. At that time it was prudent and it still is
prudent, but I mean it is a lot of wiggle room in a measure of
public acceptance. And you may have seen this term used by the
community in ways that you did not expect. But I do think it
was a wise thing. I do think you should expect that your
subcontractor will reach out to the community to get
acceptance. I am just curious as to what motivated that.
Mr. Chairman, I want to, if I could, thank our witnesses,
and say that those of you working for the government, we
appreciate your service to our government. And to those, Mr.
Parker, who work with you, we know you have a very difficult
task and we know that there are lots of pressure to deal with
this very serious issue as quickly as we can and we appreciate
that. I would like to think there will be better communication
between your office and the Army and our committee, and I think
that is going to happen. And to say that--you know, one thing,
all of us in this room, we are all part of one family. Dayton
has clearly demonstrated that it can work in a very mature and
intelligent way, and I would think the people of Dayton would
be very proud of how you interacted with each other and
ultimately how you interacted with the government as well. You
know, we all keep learning. I cannot tell you the mistakes that
our committee makes and I make as a Congressman, and gratefully
some of them are not so public. But we have a lot to be proud
of in our country. I appreciate the tone of the witnesses and
their cooperation at this hearing, both in the first panel and
the second. And I would also say the cooperation of the
audience as well. Thank you.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
again for the opportunity to have this hearing. And for each of
the members of the second panel, we always ask, and the
Chairman always makes certain that if anyone who participates
in the panel has anything else that they want to add or they
have thought since an answer or something they want to clarify,
that they would have that opportunity. Do any of you at this
point wish to embellish your comments?
Mr. Parker. Congressman Turner, I would like to just leave
one point that--so it is not potentially misunderstood. The
term was used that we terminated, or Parsons has terminated the
contract, and, you know, as you pointed out, ultimately the
Army is responsible. So the Army and Parsons have terminated
the contract with Perma-Fix. Rather than leave a potentially
negative note on that, I would like to note for the record that
Perma-Fix did perform under the terms of the contract, through
the treatment study, they did exactly what they were contracted
to do. They did it well. The outcome of that effort, which is
why we did it, because we did not know the outcome, led to a
conclusion that the follow-on activity, the ultimate disposal
of the hydrolysate was simply not going to work out in this
setting. But Perma-Fix performed well under the terms of the
contract, and any implication that there was a negative toward
Perma-Fix in that regard is misunderstood.
Mr. Turner. Very good clarification, Mr. Parker. Thank you
for making that.
Anyone else?
[No response.]
Mr. Turner. If not, our chairman has generously offered
that we would end this hearing at 3 o'clock and that during the
next 10 minutes or so, what we would do is, we would ask for
the panel to remain and that if anyone present who did not get
to testify, and who is a member of the audience, would like to
make a comment, it would be included in the record. Not a
question for our panel, but a comment that would be included in
the record, and if it can be done in a quick manner so that
anyone who has an interest in doing that would have an
opportunity to. We would take this 10 minutes then to include
those comments in the record.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Chairman, what will be important is, whoever
chooses to, we will make sure that the transcriber will have
their full name and address. So we will like you to state it
for the record. It would be helpful, if I could, Mr. Chairman,
to just know how many right now want to and then we know how we
space out the time. So we have one other individual there and
so on. How many people? If you would stand then we would know.
Why do not one or two come on this side.
Bob, are you going to get their full name and address and
so on?
Mr. Briggs. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shays. I have until five after three.
Mr. Turner. OK. And this will not be considered testimony,
but additional comments for the record?
Mr. Shays. It is testimony, but not under oath.
Mr. Turner. Testimony but not under oath.
STATEMENT OF JANE FORREST REDFERN
Ms. Redfern. I am Jane Forrest Redfern and I am
environmental projects director for Ohio Citizen Action. I have
worked in this community for 17 years and I have never seen a
company or organization be so bad at public outreach. The
citizens of Jefferson Township spent very little money in
educating themselves, educating the public, public officials,
regulatory agencies, and this community now knows how to spell
and say VX hydrolysate. I mean it is not a fear of VX nerve
agent. There are very toxic byproducts, Schedule II compounds,
in what they were going to bring here. As someone said, it was
a dilution, it was not a permanent treatment for VX hydrolysate
as Dr. Rittmann's report.
You know, it is just incredible to me that a group of folks
could educate the community and let them know--you know, over
and over, the Army, Mr. Flynn respectfully, came to our
accountability session. We got more by getting citizens
together and getting all of the officials lined up--we got more
out to the public at that meeting than the Army or Perma-Fix
did in the last year. I mean it was just incredible at the lack
of organization and outreach and respect for the citizens of
this community, or any community, about what their--what they
could actually understand and absorb and make decisions for
themselves.
I guess I want to make a few points and then I will end up.
One is that I hope the Army and Congress and Parsons takes Dr.
Rittmann's report very seriously. There are some major concerns
about the bio remediation. It looked like dilution to me, and
that is not a solution for pollution. I think that is a thing
that Parsons needs to consider, you know.
And then last, I guess, I want to just commend all of the
public officials, Congressman Turner, this committee, because
this is a factor of chemical safety. I have worked with
communities throughout the country and throughout this region
and there are facilities that threatens our safety every day in
this neighborhood.
Mr. Turner. Jane, we are going to have to move on.
Ms. Redfern. And we hope that you will consider not only
looking at these more closely but facilities that pose a
chemical threat right now today.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Chairman, may I take the gavel back?
Mr. Turner. You have it. [Laughter.]
Mr. Shays. Let me just explain. I am getting on an airplane
and I would like to be able to conduct the hearing and be able
to conclude it and not miss my flight. I love Dayton, but I
want to go home. [Laughter.]
So we will just come to the next person. I am sorry you
have to come up front. I am going to be pretty strict about the
time. It is going to be a minute to a minute and a half. If you
would state your name and your point.
Mr. Dell. Do I hold this?
Mr. Shays. No, you can just talk nice and loud, straight
forward.
Mr. Dell. All right, I will be brief.
STATEMENT OF PHILIP DELL
Mr. Shays. Your name.
Mr. Dell. My name is Philip Dell and I am a resident of
Jefferson Township. I just primarily wanted to make one point.
I will add that I am very grateful to you. I think you guys
have done a wonderful job.
But I just wanted to make one point that I did not hear
anywhere else. Three miles from Perma-Fix is the Veterans
Administration Hospital and Medical Center which serves
thousands of veterans on a daily basis. I did not hear that
mentioned anywhere in the facts, so I just wanted to put that
in the record.
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much.
Next. Is the mic working? Hold on 1 second. We are going to
get you a mic. Come on up here. There it is. It is working. It
is working, sir. Your name and address. Your name, where you
live and your position.
STATEMENT OF DERRELL ARNOLD
Mr. Arnold. Yes, my name is Derrell Arnold and I live in
Dayton, OH. I am an environmentalist.
Mr. Shays. Let me just make one more point. I am sorry to
interrupt you. I need them to write their address. I do not
want you to Bob.
Mr. Arnold. Yes, sir. One thing I would like to bring up
is, the Army has ultimate cradle-to-grave responsibility
regardless of who they sub the contract out to. The Army is
still responsible for their product. Even if it goes into a
landfill it is still theirs. If it leaches out from the
Superfund perspective it goes right back to the Army. They are
the ones that are to pay for the cleanup.
In addition, as far as this community awareness thing, I
just want to read this to you real quick. This is SARA, Title
III, which was enacted in 1986. The Emergency Planning and
Community Right to Know Act of 1986 establishes requirements
for Federal, State and local governments and industry regarding
emergency planning and community right to know reporting on
hazardous and toxic chemicals. This legislation builds upon
EPA's Chemical Emergency Preparedness Program and numerous
State and local programs aimed at helping communities to better
meet their responsibilities in regard to potential chemical
emergencies. The Community Right to Know provisions will help
to increase the public's knowledge and access to information on
the presence of hazardous chemicals in their communities and
releases of these chemicals into the environment. States and
communities--excuse me, I lost my place. States and communities
working with facilities would be better able to improve
chemical safety and protect public health and the environment.
The Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know, also known
as Title III----
Mr. Shays. We need you to wrap up.
Mr. Arnold. I was just going to let you know it is four
sections.
Mr. Shays. OK, thank you.
Mr. Arnold. You are welcome. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. I appreciate it very much.
I am sorry to rush you like this, but if you could, please.
STATEMENT OF TOM TILLER
Mr. Tiller. My name is Tom Tiller and I live in Montgomery
County. I have several points that I certainly would like to
make. The designation of a Schedule II component in the VX
hydrolysate is from the Chemical Weapons Convention, the
international treaty. That is not just an incidental item. That
is given that designation because of its ability to
reconstitute the VX.
I also certainly think this committee should look at the
whole concept of putting out a contract, the subcontract to
Perma-Fix, that was both demonstration and destruction of the
material, that they were not dealing with that material in the
past. They had not done it before. They had to demonstrate that
they had a process to do it, as opposed to other processes that
were investigated by the National Research Council where the
Army went to someone and said this is the process to use. They
went to Perma-Fix and gave them a contract to both come up with
the process and destroy it, which gives, you know, problems in
all respects. Certainly I would not expect a contract to be
written on that basis for that material.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, sir.
STATEMENT OF LAURA RENCH
Ms. Rench. My name is Laura Rench. I live in New Lebanon,
OH.
If I was to understand Mr. Parker correctly from the Army,
he stated that if we are to believe the National Research
Council, incineration is a safe way of destroying chemical
weapons. He also stated that the maintenance and construction
of facilities to destroy chemical weapons is of the highest
standards, but yet the maintenance, construction and treatment
of these facilities is not done by NRC scientists. It is done
by contractors like Parsons and subcontractors like Perma-Fix;
therefore, how do we ever know destruction of chemical weapons
is done by the highest standards?
Thank you.
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much.
Tip the mic down a little bit.
STATEMENT OF GWENDOLYN CRUTCHER
Ms. Crutcher. My name is Gwendolyn Crutcher and I live on
Liberty Ellerton Road.
When it started, we were told that it could not be
incinerated, that it had to be disposed of the way Perma-Fix
was. I want to know how can that be when you have it
incinerated in Anniston, AL, and if anybody is going to do
anything in Congress to make sure that that community is safe?
Because they have given them gas masks. Nobody has ever brought
that out. Please check other sites.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Crutcher. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. Does that mic work over there?
Ms. Bronston. Yes.
Mr. Shays. OK. Yes, ma'am.
STATEMENT OF WILLA BRONSTON
Ms. Bronston. I would like to say that----
Mr. Shays. Give us your name and where you are from.
Ms. Bronston. Willa Bronston, Dayton, OH, Jefferson
Township.
And I would like to say that one of our assertions from the
beginning was that this was an experiment, and by their own
testimony they were trying to demonstrate to see if they could
do it. All along that is probably something that should have
preceded really even trying to come into a community, the
testing.
The other thing that I would like to say is about Anniston,
AL, and draw your attention to incineration. They have a state-
of-the-art--``state-of-the-art'' facility there where after
their beginning incineration trials left a large percentage of
material that was dangerous, unincinerated when they opened the
incinerator. And further, they do not incinerate in Anniston,
AL during school hours. And I think that is an important
acknowledgement of their fear for the community and for their
children.
Thank you.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, ma'am.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL OHUI
Mr. Ohui. I am General Ohui and I live in Jefferson
Township, and I want to express my appreciation to my neighbors
for struggling through this, and for you to come and help us to
try and alleviate a problem.
I recognize the fact that the Army has to destroy this
because it is an international problem. I want to point out,
because it has not been mentioned very much, the difference
between Newport and Jefferson Township is that is a military
operation. It is protected from any intrusion or incursion from
anybody on the outside because that is a dangerous material. I
think it needs to be mentioned that is the Army's
responsibility. And, of course, we get away from this because
they continue to say that they are going to put this to a
civilian contractor. It does not alleviate the Army or the
military's responsibility to do away with this. I think we need
to keep that in mind. Jefferson Township is not a military
place. It is a civilian area and we are concerned about
citizens, as well as we are concerned about the weapons of mass
destruction. We are not negating the fact it needs to be
destroyed. But from our research and whatever, it has not been
done successfully anywhere. It has been looked at by many, many
areas in terms of zoning and responsibilities and whatever and
that question has not been answered. So we are still struggling
for answers and we recognize the fact that you have a problem,
but we recognize the fact that we do, too. Health, welfare and
morals is our end of the thing.
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much, sir.
Are we all concluded here? Let me again thank
Representative Michael Turner. I only took the gavel--
[applause]--I only took the gavel when I started noticing he
was calling all of our witnesses from the floor by their first
names--[laughter]--and struggling with how he can ask them to
speak in such a short period of time. I realize that you could
have gone on much longer and I apologize for moving it along so
quickly. Again, I thank both our first and second panel. We are
all learning through this process. The comments made from the
floor are noted, particularly by our staff. We will followup on
some of those points. Again, any last comments before I hit the
gavel?
Mr. Turner. I would again just like to thank the chairman
for having this committee. I know he did not pause to allow me
to do it again, but the reality is, you know, as chairman of
the committee, what we look at and what issues we dive into are
of his perusal and control, and his being--the chairman being
willing to travel here and cause this hearing to occur here in
addition to his time spent on it is much appreciated. So thank
you.
[Applause.]
Mr. Shays. Just before hitting the gavel, I would like to
thank Mr. Turner's staff, Stacy Barton, Mike Gaynor and Bill
Vaughn. The staff of Sinclair Community College. This has been
a wonderful facility to be at, and we thank them. The
subcommittee's staff, Chris Skaluba, who is here as a DOD
management intern and will be returning back to the DOD, and we
will miss him dearly. Bob Briggs on our staff, as well as the
court reporter, William Warren. So, William, you get to note
your name at the very end of this hearing. Thank you. This
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3283.087