The Army Corps of Engineers is denying that Tooele Army Depot's chemical weapons destruction facility has design flaws as alleged by fired safety officer Steve Jones.
A corps report released Wednesday says none of Jones' allegations "indicate a flawed or inadequate design" at the $400 million Chemical Agent Disposal Facility but goes on to say a dozen of Jones' design-related allegations have either been resolved or are currently being resolved."A review of the 119 allegations . . . revealed that only 12 of the allegations were actually design related," reads the corps' executive summary.
Jones said only 12 of his complaints addressed design problems, so he is claiming a perfect score from the corps' review. And the corps' statement that it has, or is, making corrections on the 12 tells Jones the Army is finding substance in his complaints - at least privately.
Jones said he is not questioning whether the contractor built the plant to design specifications, but whether the design will work. "They built (the plant) to design specs," he said, "The problem is there is no standard."
Outside Tooele, the only other plant has been built to incinerate chemical weapons is on the two-mile-long Johnston Atoll in the Pacific. Johnston's design is the model for the Tooele plant, which is to be the operational model for other plants the Army plans to build at chemical weapons stockpile sites on the U.S. mainland.
Jones was released from his job as the plant's safety chief for what contractor EG&G called management differences. He maintains he was fired for not buying off on safety deficiencies at the plant.
Wednesday's Army release refers to results of an earlier investigation by a team from the Army Safety Center. "The team agreed that the safety and health risks currently experienced are minimal and acceptable."
The statement is one example where the Army is misleading the public, Jones believes. "It's true nobody's health is in danger and there are no environmental issues right now because they're not hot," meaning the plant is not operational.
Further, Jones believes the public may define "minimal and acceptable" risks differently than the Army. "They deal with casualties different than most people."
The corps called the facility construction certification process "consistent and thorough" and concluded "there is a comprehensive, rigorous, professional program in place that ensures that construction conforms to the permitted design."