Defense Environment Alert
an exclusive biweekly report on defense policies
for cleanup, compliance and pollution prevention
Vol. 12, No. 5--March 9, 2004
NRC URGING ARMY TO ABANDON PLANS FOR FIXED NON-STOCKPILE PLANT
The National Research Council (NRC) in a new report is urging the Army to
scrap plans to build a permanent facility to treat stored non-stockpile chemical
weapons at the Pine Bluff Arsenal in Arkansas. Instead, the NRC says the
Army should use a proven, transportable technology that has widespread citizen
support.
At issue is the Army's plan to build a facility at Pine Bluff to destroy
some 1,200 recovered munitions, mainly 4.2-inch mortar rounds containing
mustard agent and 15-centimeter German Traktor rockets (GTR) containing a
variety of chemical agent. Pine Bluff has 85 percent of the known non-stockpile
materiel in the United States, most of which was recovered from excavated
burial pits at Pine Bluff.
The Pine Bluff Non-Stockpile Facility (PBNSF) would rely in large part on
legacy equipment from a discontinued technology research project, as well
as processing equipment developed under the stockpile program's Assembled
Chemical Weapons Assessment program.
In the March 8 report Assessment of the Army Plan for the Pine Bluff Non-Stockpile
Facility, the NRC committee says it has serious reservations about the desirability
of implementing the PBNSF design concept. The committee outlines concerns
about worker safety, the risk of failure to achieve an April 2007 international
treaty deadline to
destroy the weapons, cost, complexity, and "the relative lack of robustness
that is inherent in the current design."
Instead, the committee presents two alternative approaches that would implement
multiple explosive destruction systems (EDSs), a transportable system that
detonates munitions inside a sealed pressure vessel and then neutralizes
the remaining chemical agent. It has already been used at four other sites,
and the committee says two or three EDS units can perform most if not all
of the tasks currently planned for the PBNSF.
"The new challenges that would be posed by changing to a new operational
concept at this late stage in the design planning for PBNSF should be no
greater than those associated with meeting the deadline with currently planned
PBNSF operations," the report says. The permitting process for the PBNSF
is behind schedule, according to the committee, but Arkansas regulators are
already considering permitting an EDS that would be used to destroy munitions
too unstable to move to the PBNSF.
Under the first option, the Army would just use EDSS. But this scenario is
contingent on the ability to remove the rocket motors from the 31 GTRs whose
rocket motors contain propellant.
The second option, which the report says the Army is evaluating, would replace
most of the planned components of the PBNSF with EDSs but would retain one
of the explosive containment chambers (ECC) for processing the propellant-filled
GTR motors. "Use of the ECC-2 is necessary to process the complete GTRs because
the total net explosive weight of the GIR, including propellant, exceeds
the containment capacity of both EDS systems," the report says.
"[T]he committee's proposal for an alternative configuration for PBNSF using
multiple-EDS units is a consequence of the success of EDS deployments, both
technically and with respect to public acceptability, at four non-stockpile
sites across the United States," the report says. "It is also a logical extension
of the Army's efforts to enhance the efficacy of EDS units - such as multiple-round
testing - as well as ongoing Army activities aimed at
separating GTR warheads from their motors and improving the characterization
of the contents of the recovered chemical munitions in storage at Pine Bluff."
The NRC panel says there is very little slack time in the schedule to construct,
test and operate the PBNSF because of the international treaty deadline.
And several issues remain unresolved. The ability of the PBNSF processing
equipment to process energetically configured 4.2-inch mortar rounds containing
gelled or solidified mustard hasnot been demonstrated, nor has it been demonstrated
that the current PBNSF design can neutralize some of the agents in the GTRs
that have high levels of arsenic, the report says.
Additionally, while "the Army has determined the design to be consistent
with Army safety regulations the inability of the building as designed to
withstand the maximum credible event (MCE) seems inconsistent with the congressional
mandate to provide 'maximum protection for the environment, the general public,
and the personnel who are involved in the destruction of the lethal chemical
agents and munitions,"' the committee says. The Army defines an MCE to be
the detonation of a fully configured GTR motor and warhead combination while
being processed in the PBNSF.
The report also makes several recommendations on ways to increase public
involvement in the non-stockpile disposal process at Pine Bluff. These include
the Army:
- identifying and addressing the reasons for limited participation in
meetings at Pine Bluff;
- establishing an informal advisory group at Pine Bluff similar to a
restoration advisory board;
- augmenting a national advisory group with citizen stakeholders from
Pine Bluff and from the yet-to-be determined location of the facility that
is selected to treat and dispose of the secondary wastes from Pine Bluff;
- ensuring that the contractor for disposal of secondary wastes goes
beyond information and outreach activities to involve local community stakeholders;
and
- considering the revision of Army Regulation 360-1 to expand the definition
of public affairs activities to include involvement as well as information
and outreach activities.