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 Orleans Times 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
Dems Urge Biden to Limit Presidential Authority to Launch Nuclear War Before Trump Takes Charge
"As Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office, it is more important than ever to take the power to start a nuclear war out of the hands of a single individual and ensure that Congress's constitutional role is respected and fulfilled," wrote Sen. Edward Markey and Rep. Ted Lieu.
Dec 12, 2024
Two Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden Thursday, urging him to place more checks on potential nuclear weapons use by mandating that a president must obtain authorization from Congress before initiating a nuclear first strike.
The letter writers, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), argue that "such a policy would provide clear directives for the military to follow: A president could order a nuclear launch only if (1) Congress had approved the decision, providing a constitutional check on executive power or (2) the United States had already been attacked with a nuclear weapon. This would be infinitely safer than our current doctrine."
The two write that time is of the essence: "As Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office, it is more important than ever to take the power to start a nuclear war out of the hands of a single individual and ensure that Congress's constitutional role is respected and fulfilled."
The Constitution vests Congress, not the president, with the power to declare war (though presidents have used military force without getting the OK from Congress on multiple occasions in modern history, according to the National Constitution Center).
During the Cold War, when nuclear weapons policy was produced, speed was seen as essential to deterrence, according to Jon Wolfsthal, the director of global risk at the Federation of American Scientists, who wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post last year that makes a similar argument to Markey and Lieu.
"There is no reason today to rely on speedy decision-making during situations in which the United States might launch first. Even as relations with Moscow are at historic lows, we are worlds removed from the Cold War's dominant knife's-edge logic," he wrote.
While nuclear tensions today may not be quite as high as they were during the apex of the Cold War, fears of nuclear confrontation have been heightened due to poor relations between the United States and Russia over the ongoing war in Ukraine, among other issues. Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree lowering the threshold for potential nuclear weapons use not long after the U.S. greenlit Ukraine's use of U.S.-supplied long range weapons in its fight against Russia.
This is not the first time Markey and Lieu have pushed for greater guardrails on nuclear first-use. The two are the authors of the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act, a proposed bill first introduced in 2017 that would bar a U.S. president from launching a nuclear first strike without the consent of Congress.
"We first introduced this act during the Obama administration not as a partisan effort, but to make the larger point that current U.S. policy, which gives the president sole authority to launch nuclear weapons without any input from Congress, is dangerous," they wrote.
In their letter, Markey and Lieu also recount an episode from the first Trump presidency when, shortly after the January 6 insurrection, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley ordered his staff to come to him if they received a nuclear strike order from Trump.
But Milley's ability to intervene was limited, according to Lieu and Markey, because his role is advisory and "the president can unilaterally make a launch decision and implement it directly without informing senior leaders." They argue this episode is a sign that the rules themselves must change.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amnesty Urges War Crimes Probe of 'Indiscriminate' Israeli Attacks on Lebanon
"The latest evidence of unlawful airstrikes during Israel's most recent offensive in Lebanon underscores the urgent need for all states, especially the United States, to suspend arms transfers," said one campaigner.
Dec 12, 2024
Amnesty International on Thursday called for a war crimes investigation into recent Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon that killed dozens of civilians, as well as a suspension of arms transfers to Israel as it attacks Gaza, the West Bank, and Syria.
In a briefing paper titled The Sky Rained Missiles, Amnesty "documented four illustrative cases in which unlawful Israeli strikes killed at least 49 civilians" in Lebanon in September and October amid an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) campaign of invasion and bombardment that Lebanese officials say has killed or wounded more than 20,000 people.
"Amnesty International found that Israeli forces unlawfully struck residential buildings in the village of al-Ain in northern Bekaa on September 29, the village of Aitou in northern Lebanon on October 14, and in Baalbeck city on October 21," the rights group said. "Israeli forces also unlawfully attacked the municipal headquarters in Nabatieh in southern Lebanon on October 16."
Erika Guevara Rosas, Amnesty's senior director for research, advocacy, policy, and campaigns, said in a statement that "these four attacks are emblematic of Israel's shocking disregard for civilian lives in Lebanon and their willingness to flout international law."
The September 29 attack "destroyed the house of the Syrian al-Shaar family, killing all nine members of the family who were sleeping inside," the report states.
"This is a civilian house, there is no military target in it whatsoever," village mukhtar, or leader, Youssef Jaafar told Amnesty. "It is full of kids. This family is well-known in town."
On October 16, Israel bombed the Nabatieh municipal complex, killing Mayor Ahmad Khalil and 10 other people.
"The airstrike took place without warning, just as the municipality's crisis unit was meeting to coordinate deliveries of aid, including food, water, and medicine, to residents and internally displaced people who had fled bombardment in other parts of southern Lebanon," Amnesty said, adding that there was no apparent military target in the immediate area.
In the deadliest single strike detailed in the Amnesty report, IDF bombardment believed to be targeting a suspected Hezbollah member killed 23 civilians forcibly displaced from southern Lebanon in Aitou on October 14.
"The youngest casualty was Aline, a 5-month-old baby who was flung from the house into a pickup truck nearby and was found by rescue workers the day after the strike," Amnesty said.
Survivor Jinane Hijazi told Amnesty: "I've lost everything; my entire family, my parents, my siblings, my daughter. I wish I had died that day too."
As the report notes:
A fragment of the munition found at the site of the attack was analyzed by an Amnesty International weapons expert and based upon its size, shape, and the scalloped edges of the heavy metal casing, identified as most likely a MK-80 series aerial bomb, which would mean it was at least a 500-pound bomb. The United States is the primary supplier of these types of munitions to Israel.
"The means and method of this attack on a house full of civilians likely would make this an indiscriminate attack and it also may have been disproportionate given the presence of a large number of civilians at the time of the strike," Amnesty stressed. "It should be investigated as a war crime."
The October 21 strike destroyed a building housing 13 members of the Othman family, killing two women and four children and wounding seven others.
"My son woke me up; he was thirsty and wanted to drink. I gave him water and he went back to sleep, hugging his brother," survivor Fatima Drai—who lost her two sons Hassan, 5, and Hussein, 3, in the attack—told Amnesty.
"When he hugged his brother, I smiled and thought, I'll tell his father how our son is when he comes back," she added. "I went to pray, and then everything around me exploded. A gas canister exploded, burning my feet, and within seconds, it consumed my kids' room."
Guevara Rosas said: "These attacks must be investigated as war crimes. The Lebanese government must urgently call for a special session at the U.N. Human Rights Council to establish an independent investigative mechanism into the alleged violations and crimes committed by all parties in this conflict. It must also grant the International Criminal Court jurisdiction over Rome Statute crimes committed on Lebanese territory."
"Israel has an appalling track record of carrying out unlawful airstrikes in Gaza and past wars in Lebanon taking a devastating toll on civilians."
Last month, the court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in connection with Israel's 433-day Gaza onslaught, which has left more than 162,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing in the embattled enclave.
The tribunal also issued a warrant for the arrest of Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri for alleged crimes committed during and after the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, in which more than 1,100 people were killed and over 240 others were kidnapped.
Meanwhile, the International Court of Justice is weighing a genocide case brought by South Africa against Israel. Last week, Amnesty published a report accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza.
The United States—which provides Israel with tens of billions of dollars in military aid and diplomatic cover—has also been accused of complicity in Israeli war crimes in Palestine and Lebanon.
"Israel has an appalling track record of carrying out unlawful airstrikes in Gaza and past wars in Lebanon taking a devastating toll on civilians," Guevara Rosas said. "The latest evidence of unlawful air strikes during Israel's most recent offensive in Lebanon underscores the urgent need for all states, especially the United States, to suspend arms transfers to Israel due to the risk they will be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Congressional Report Calls Trump Deportation Plan 'Catastrophic' for Economy
"All it will do is raise grocery prices, destroy jobs, and shrink the economy," JEC Chair Martin Heinrich said of the president-elect's plan to deport millions of immigrants.
Dec 12, 2024
Echoing recent warnings from economists, business leaders, news reporting, and immigrant rights groups, Democrats on the congressional Joint Economic Committee detailed Thursday how President-elect Donald Trump's planned mass deportations "would deliver a catastrophic blow to the U.S. economy."
"Though the U.S. immigration system remains broken, immigrants are crucial to growing the labor force and supporting economic output," states the new report from JEC Democrats. "Immigrants have helped expand the labor supply, pay nearly $580 billion a year in taxes, possess a spending power of $1.6 trillion a year, and just last year contributed close to $50 billion each in personal income and consumer spending."
There are an estimated 11.7 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, and Trump—who is set to be sworn in next month—has even suggested he would deport children who are American citizens with their parents who are not and attempt to end birthright citizenship.
Citing recent research by the American Immigration Council and the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the JEC report warns that depending on how many immigrants are forced out of the country, Trump's deportations could:
- Reduce real gross domestic product (GDP) by as much as 7.4% by 2028;
- Reduce the supply of workers for key industries, including by up to 225,000 workers in agriculture and 1.5 million workers in construction;
- Push prices up to 9.1% higher by 2028; and
- Cost 44,000 U.S.-born workers their jobs for every half a million immigrants who are removed from the labor force.
Highlighting how mass deportations would harm not only undocumented immigrants but also U.S. citizens, the report explains that construction worker losses would "make housing even harder to build, raising its cost," and "reduce the supply of farmworkers who keep Americans fed as well as the supply of home health aides at a time when more Americans are aging and requiring assistance."
In addition to reducing home care labor, Trump's deportation plan would specifically harm seniors by reducing money for key government benefits that only serve U.S. citizens. The report references estimates that it "would cut $23 billion in funds for Social Security and $6 billion from Medicare each year because these workers would no longer pay into these programs."
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), who chairs the JEC, said Thursday that "as a son of an immigrant, I know how hard immigrants work, how much they believe in this country, and how much they're willing to give back. They are the backbone of our economy and the driving force behind our nation's growth and prosperity."
"Trump's plan to deport millions of immigrants does absolutely nothing to address the core problems driving our broken immigration system," Heinrich stressed. "Instead, all it will do is raise grocery prices, destroy jobs, and shrink the economy. His immigration policy is reckless and would cause irreparable harm to our economy."
Along with laying out the economic toll of Trump's promised deportations, the JEC report makes the case that "providing a pathway to citizenship is good economics. Immigrants are helping meet labor demand while also demonstrating that more legal pathways to working in the United States are needed to meet this demand."
"Additionally, research shows that expanding legal immigration pathways can reduce irregular border crossings, leading to more secure and regulated borders," the publication says. "This approach is vital for managing increased migration to the United States, especially as more people flee their home countries due to the continued risk of violence, persecution, economic conditions, natural disasters, and climate change."
The JEC report followed a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday that explored how mass deportations would not only devastate the U.S. economy but also harm the armed forces and tear apart American families.
In a statement, Vanessa Cárdenas, executive director of the advocacy group America's Voice, thanked Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) "for calling this important discussion together and shining a spotlight on the potential damage."
Cárdenas pointed out that her group has spent months warning about how Trump's plan would "cripple communities and spike inflation," plus cause "tremendous human suffering as American citizens are ripped from their families, as parents are separated from their children, or as American citizens are deported by their own government."
"Trump and his allies have said it will be 'bloody,' that 'nobody is off the table,' and that 'you have to send them all back,'" she noted, arguing that the Republican plan will "set us back on both border control and public safety."
Cárdenas concluded that "America needs a serious immigration reform proposal—with pathways to legal status and controlled and orderly legal immigration—which recognize[s] immigrants are essential for America's future."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular