Defense Environment Alert 01/13/04

Defense Environment Alert

an exclusive biweekly report on defense policies for cleanup, compliance and pollution prevention

Vol. 12, No. 1--January 13, 2004

DEFENSE DEPARTMENT BACKTRACKING ON ACCELERATION PLANS AT ACWA SITES

The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) appears to be putting the brakes on existing plans to accelerate the destruction of chemical weapons at its Pueblo, CO, and Blue Grass, KY, sites, where DOD has chosen non-incineration methods to destroy the weapons. An official in the OSD office that oversees chemical demilitarization recently told Colorado and Kentucky senators that the department was re-analyzing the design concept for accelerated destruction plans at the two sites.

While we directed accelerated destruction of the Pueblo chemical weapon stockpile, current information indicates the emerging design concept is not executable," writes Dale Klein, an assistant to the secretary of defense on nuclear and chemical and biological defense programs, in a Dec. 22, 2003, letter. "Consequently, we are conducting an analysis to evaluate and select an optimal design concept that is safe, affordable, and technically viable, while remaining in compliance with Public Law 105-261. Consistent with this approach, we are also doing the same for Blue Grass." Public Law 105-261 is the Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Authorization Act, which required DOD to ensure that any non-incineration destruction technologies chosen for the assembled chemical weapons sites be as safe, cost-effective and capable of meeting destruction deadlines as incineration would be.

But safety and technical viability are not the problem with the design concept, it is the cost that the department is struggling with, according to Craig Williams, director of the Chemical Weapons Working Group (CWWG), which closely watches the chemical demilitarization program. A source with the alternatives program agrees the cost of acceleration is the issue Klein is referring to. Cost overruns at other chemical demilitarization sites and unanticipated funding needs at the Pueblo and Blue Grass sites are prompting the move by Klein's office, Williams believes.

Upon signing off on the specific destruction technologies for Pueblo and Blue Grass, defense officials directed that disposal be accelerated at the two sites. Under the acceleration plans, DOD's Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) program has looked to perform certain tasks simultaneously, rather than under the traditional process of sequentially fulfilling those requirements. For example, ACWA has considered submitting hazardous waste permit application documents earlier in the facility design process than under the traditional chemical demilitarization program. Relevant documents are available on InsideEPA. com. See page 2 for details.

The irony, Williams says, is that the unanticipated funding needs in Colorado and Kentucky are associated with successes that the ACWA program has achieved in following the acceleration directive. "It now appears they may be penalized for doing such a good job and making such precedent-setting achievements in the mission," he says. The ACWA source says the funding the program needs to accelerate at the front end was more than DOD could afford, so the program is now considering ways to redistribute the costs over different years and still accomplish the same goals. The program will bring options to Klein by the end of January, the source says.

The Pueblo and Blue Grass sites are the last in a line of nine locations where stockpiled chemical weapons will be destroyed, and are the only two included in the ACWA program. Under the program, DOD evaluated and chose alternative destruction methods to its traditional incineration program.

Klein's letter responds to an inquiry from Kentucky and Colorado's senators, in which the senators expressed concerns over possible plans to severely cut budgets at the two sites this year and in future years, in order to pay for shortfalls and cost overruns at other disposal sites. The senators expressed opposition to the plans, instead backing full funding for all the disposal sites (Defense Environment Alert, Dec. 2, 2003, pl0).

While Klein gives some assurances that DOD does not plan to cut funding at the two sites, at the same time he leaves the door open for possible funding shifts.

"The Department has no plans to reduce funding for either the Pueblo or Blue Grass facilities in Fiscal Year 2004," he writes. "You may be assured that we are committed to fully funding the life cycle cost of both facilities, while funding realignments may be necessary in the near term to address emergent issues.

"This process is not intended to hinder progress at Pueblo or Blue Grass, but rather to ensure the appropriate discipline is equally applied throughout the Chemical Demilitarization Program, as required for all Major Defense Acquisition Programs," Klein says.

According to Williams, affordability is the primary design concept problem to which Klein is referring. Acceleration is considered too expensive for two reasons, he adds. First, the FY04 budget request did not capture front-end acceleration costs for Pueblo and Blue Grass, he says, explaining that at the time of the budget's formulation, the department had not yet realized the extent of possibilities for accelerating the demilitarization process at the two sites. Second, the destruction facilities that are not part of the ACWA program have all exceeded their budgets because of unanticipated expenditures. The incineration facilities in Utah and Alabama in particular need additional funds to sustain their operations, he says. According to Williams, the Klein proposal would slow down the Pueblo and Blue Grass sites, freeing up funds for other sites.

Design work for the two destruction plans has not stopped, and funding for the current fiscal year has not been changed, the ACWA source says. But Pentagon staff has contemplated halting design work and told the ACWA program that it is a possibility, according to CWWG. An earlier draft memo on the issue, formulated by Klein, called for stopping design work, saying the accelerated plan was not executable. It called for conducting an "Analysis of Alternatives" consistent with the technology decisions made for the two sites. And in the case of Blue Grass, it said that analysis should come up with a design concept that is affordable.

Given these changes, the draft memo said, "the OSD Comptroller shall address the excess FY 2005 ACWA funding impact associated with this action in a Program Budget Decision." And later in the memo, Klein expressed concern "about managing within current fiscal resources while creating efficiencies to reduce programmatic schedule growth to ensure compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)."

A DOD spokesperson for Klein, and Army and Senate staff could not be reached for comment.