August, 25 2009, 10:54am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Dylan Blaylock GAP Communications Director
202.408.0034, ext. 137, 202.236.3733 cell
dylanb@whistleblower.org
OSC Report Substantiates Allegations of Defective Hydraulic Pumps in New Orleans
GAP Client Completely Vindicated; Half-Billion Dollar System Originally Pegged for 50-Year Lifespan in Need of Replacement
WASHINGTON
An independent evaluation released
in June by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), relying on the assessment of an
independent engineer, has determined that there are serious safety and
reliability issues with hydraulic pumps that were installed in New Orleans
after Hurricane Katrina. These pumps are designed, in case of emergency, to
move flood water away from the city to the lake side of the floodgates. Despite
repeated internal reports that the pumps were faulty, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) and Department of Defense Inspector General (DoDIG) have repeatedly
denied inherent flaws in the hydraulic pumps since 2007.
Click
here to read the OSC letter to President Obama detailing the report: https://bit.ly/jGWeQ.
Click here to read the full report of the independent
engineer: https://bit.ly/HENJy (Part 1), https://bit.ly/IZwns (Part 2)
GAP client Maria Garzino, a USACE mechanical and civil engineer, was the
Pump Team Installation Leader who blew the whistle on several problems that
render the pumps ineffective. After unsuccessfully taking her concerns to the Army
Corps in August 2006, Garzino made a whistleblower disclosure in August 2007 to
the OSC - the federal agency charged with investigating whistleblower
disclosures and defending such employees. After assessing Garzino's
charges and the DoDIG's response, the OSC determined in August 2008 that
"...it appears that the pumps remain inadequately untested, and
vulnerable to failure in the event of a hurricane."
Click here to read the 2008 OSC letter to
President Bush: https://bit.ly/XAVTr.
On the third anniversary of Hurricane Katrina
and during Hurricane Gustav's rapid approach toward New Orleans last August, the OSC reopened the
case, and in a rare step, hired its own independent professional engineer to
conduct a thorough and impartial investigation. This second report, released in
June 2009, completely validates Garzino's allegations about the
effectiveness of the pumps.
"The
citizens of New Orleans
are at serious risk in the event of a next hurricane because these hydraulic
pumps don't work as intended - that is, as emergency operations
pumps," said Jesselyn Radack,
GAP Homeland Security Director and counsel for Ms. Garzino. "It's
been four years since Hurricane Katrina and the Army Corps still hasn't
protected the city from floods, and at the same time is telling residents that
they are safe."
Detailed Background
In August 2007, Garzino, unable to find
resolution for the issues she raised through her agency, contacted the OSC,
which concluded its initial investigation in August 2008.
The OSC, in its initial investigation, concluded
"that there is a substantial likelihood that the information Ms. Garzino
provided discloses a violation of law, rule, or regulation, gross
mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, and a substantial and specific danger to
public safety" and required the DoDIG to evaluate and investigate the
situation itself. The Inspector General (then Claude Kicklighter) substantiated
more than half of Garzino's claims, but ultimately concluded that the
deficiencies were "...performance related short-comings that did not
rise to the level of a serious violation..."
Garzino submitted comments strenuously
disputing the Inspector General's report and, after examining both, the
OSC concluded that:
After
reviewing the agency report, one finds that the agency's findings and
conclusions are hollow and incomplete, despite compelling evidence that would
lead one to conclude that USACE employees are responsible for wrongdoing. The
agency report appears to avoid holding people accountable for documented
deficiencies in how USACE managed the design, installation, and oversight of
the pump units in New Orleans, all at a substantial and specific danger to
public health and safety to the people of New Orleans
The OSC further found that "The
government and the public cannot reasonably trust that the flood control system
in place in New Orleans
possesses reliability and integrity." The OSC then concluded that:
...apparent
defects in the agency's report lead me to question the impartiality of
the investigation into Ms. Garzino's allegations and conclude that many
of the agency's findings are inconsistent with available evidence...I
am particularly concerned about the public safety risk created by the
assumption that the pumps will adequately operate during a hurricane....I must
concur with Ms. Garzino's recommendation that an investigation be
conducted by independent professional engineers, not subject to the supervision
of DoD management, in order to ascertain reliably the scope of past and present
dangers of the defective pumping units to determine appropriate remedial
actions.
The OSC then reported its results to the Bush
administration and relevant Congressional committees, and closed the case (as
protocol dictates).
Click
here to read the OSC Report on Analysis of Disclosure, Agency Report,
Whistleblower Comments, and Comments of the Special Counsel: https://www.osc.gov/FY2008/Scanned/08-19%20DI-07-2724/08-19%20DI-07-2724%20Analysis.pdf
A few weeks later, the DoDIG, then headed by
newly-appointed acting Inspector General Gordon Heddell, announced it was
re-examining the case. After months of investigation, the DoDIG found the pumps
to be safe, relying on an independent assessment performed by Parsons
Corporation, a defense contractor with long-standing ties to the USACE.
In an unprecedented move, the OSC reopened the
case and hired its own independent engineering expert to review and analyze the
DoDIG report, the Parsons report, Garzinos' response to the Parsons
report, and an overall analysis of the hydraulic pumping system, and then make
a determination as to who was right.
Upon conclusion of the review and analysis of
the above-cited material, the independent engineering expert submitted his
independent technical opinion in a report detailing his findings, and
concluded: "Based on a review of the documents and communications with
the whistleblower, Apariq believes the allegations of the whistleblower have
significant merit and should be seriously considered by OSC."
The OSC, relying on the independent
engineering technical opinion, completely rejected the DoDIG argument. This OSC
report, which was released in June 2009, stated:
There
appears to be little logical justification for: (1) restricting the emergency
pumping solicitation to only the untested hydraulic pump systems, (2) not
requiring the installation of a reliable pumping system which would adequately
protect New Orleans, (3) spending hundreds of millions of dollars to install forty
MWI hydraulic pumps...which are scheduled to be replaced at an estimated
cost of greater than $430 million...and (6) installing hydraulic equipment
without containment protection to prevent potentially violating the Clean Water
Act.
This OSC report further stated:
After
a review of the agency report, and the assessment conducted by Parsons, Inc.,
as well as the whistleblowers comments, given the scope of the design and
installation failures, I am not persuaded to reverse our previous
determination.....
This report was again sent to the President,
the Chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, and those
committee's rankings members.
Recent Developments
On numerous occasions USACE officers cited the
original lifespan of the hydraulic pumps to be 50 years. This life span was reported
to Congress in order to get authorization and funding for the project). (This information is accessible through
USACE Project Information Reports)
In addition, Col. Jeff Bedey, commander of the Corps'
Hurricane Protection Office in New
Orleans, informed the public in a November 2007 public
meeting that the "closure structures," which include the hydraulic
pumps, were a 50-year solution:
These
have something around a 50-year lifespan. These were designed to be there for
50-years. (page
3).
Click here to read Bedey's full interview: https://www.nolaenvironmental.gov/nola_public_data/projects/usace_levee/docs/original/2_26_08MtgSummary.pdf
Furthermore, as Karen Durham-Aguilera, director
of the Corps' Task Force Hope, explained in 2007, the interim closure
structures with installed pumps were supposed to be incorporated into the permanent hurricane protection
solution, not scrapped:
...first,
the concept is in play right now in the temporary pumps we're putting in
place. To make those permanent and to increase that solution, we are working on
that now...
Click here to read Durham-Aguilera's full
transcript: https://www.lacpra.org/assets/docs/April%2012%202007.pdf
But now, after extensive investigation into the
defective nature of the hydraulic pumps, the Corps is claiming that the pumps
were only designed to be temporary. Brigadier General Michael J. Walsh,
commander of the Mississippi Valley Division of the Corps, wrote in an op-ed
that the pumps were supposed to have a "temporary service life."
The
temporary pumps and closure structures at the three outfall canals have a
limited service life...The temporary pumps were built to last for five to
seven years, or through the years 2011 to 2013.
Click here to read Walsh's op-ed in the New OrleansTimes Picayune: https://blog.nola.com/guesteditorials/2009/07/point_of_view_pumping_options.html
In fact, the proposed abandonment of the existing
gated closure structures with installed pumps was never part of the original
plan submitted to Congress. This newest plan by the Corps involves rebuilding
the same gated structure with installed pumps a few hundred yards further
downstream, except this time with "direct drive" pumps instead of
the defective hydraulic pumps that will likely fail in the event of a
hurricane. Instead of paying the estimated $275 million to correct the problems
with the hydraulic pumps and roughly $200 million to increase the needed
pumping capacity, the Army Corps is proposing to abandon the project they have
already spent half a billion dollars on, destroy and haul away the
"temporary" gated closure structure with installed pumps, and then
spend almost $700 million to rebuild everything from scratch.
The Corps is also
claiming that the defective hydraulic pumps have been "battle
tested" by two hurricanes, Gustav and Ike. But, the OSC and their
independent engineer agreed with the whistleblowers charge that the
"black box" data (technically "SCADA" data) shows the
hydraulic pumps were not utilized when the highest canal water levels were
present in the beginning, were not allowed to run at full operating
speeds/pressures, and were not allowed to run for extended periods of time; instead,
they were relegated to an "also pumped" status that was then turned
into a straw man for hydraulic pump performance that was offered up to the
highest levels of the Army Corps as evidence that the pumps were fully
functional. The recorded storm SCADA data shows clearly that the hydraulic pump
runs were not examples of pumping performance that replicate that as seen in a
true hurricane event, but rather examples of what can be called
"demonstration/exercise runs." The Corps offered these
demonstration runs as evidence that the pumps work and keep telling the 311,800
residents of New Orleans
that they are safe.
"The
OSC really went above and beyond the call of duty here," said Radack.
"They should be commended in this instance for getting to the bottom of a
whistleblower's disclosure and standing up for the safety of American
citizens."
The Government Accountability Project (GAP) is a 30-year-old nonprofit public interest group that promotes government and corporate accountability by advancing occupational free speech, defending whistleblowers, and empowering citizen activists. We pursue this mission through our Nuclear Safety, International Reform, Corporate Accountability, Food & Drug Safety, and Federal Employee/National Security programs. GAP is the nation's leading whistleblower protection organization.
LATEST NEWS
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular