Defense Environment Alert
June 18, 2002

DOD PREDICTS NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS FROM ACWA PILOT TESTING

The Defense Department has issued a more than 1,400-page document predicting no significant environmental impacts would result if the military were to pilot test up to four non-incineration technologies for the destruction of assembled chemical weapons at four possible Army sites where the weapons are currently stockpiled.

The final environmental impact statement (EIS) names one of the four non-incineration technologies as DOD's preferred alternative for just one of the sites ---- Pueblo, CO. It also leaves the door open for pilot testing a nonincineration method at the Blue Grass, KY, site. It calls for no pilot tests at the other sites.

The EIS, prepared by DOD's Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) program, analyzes four alternatives to chemical weapons incineration, all of which have successfully gone through a demonstration phase. They are: neutralization followed by biological treatment; neutralization followed by supercritical water oxidation. neutralization followed by gas-phase chemical reduction and transpiring wall supercritical water oxidation, and electrochemical oxidation. The document examines pilot testing some or all of these technologies at any of four Army stockpile sites: Anniston Army Depot, AL; Pine Bluff Arsenal, AR; Pueblo Chemical Depot; and Blue Grass Army Depot. A no action alternative, where the weapons would remain in storage for now, was also evaluated.

"For the majority of impact areas considered at each installation. the technology alternatives had similar impacts," the EIS says. "Distinctions among the technologies did, however, occur in the areas of utility requirements, human health and safety, and socioeconomics. In all cases, the impacts associated with construction and normal operations were not significant. The impacts that might occur would be short-term," the document says. Included among the types of impacts examined were: land use; waste management; air quality; noise; human health and safety; water use and quality; soils; biological resources-, cultural resources: socioeconomics; environmental justice; accidents; agriculture, and cumulative effects, it says.

DOD announced the availability of the final EIS in the May 30 Federal Register. The final EIS is available on InsideEPA.com. See page 2 for details.

Under defense legislation passed in 1996, Congress created the ACWA program to test out alternatives to the Army's baseline incineration method for destroying stockpiled, assembled chemical weapons.

In general, DOD says "the preferred alternative is to pilot test ACWA technologies at one or more locations." It then goes on to specifically list preferred alternatives for each of the four sites. The document's preference to pilot test neutralization followed by biotreatment at the Pueblo site coincides with a recent endorsement of the technology by DOD's acquisition chief as the preferred destruction method at Pueblo. A separate FIS the Army completed for that site chose neutralization/biotreatment over incineration and other alternatives (Defense Environment Alert, April 23, p 17). The ACWA EIS says that, for Pueblo, the Army will also "look for ways to accelerate the demilitarization process."

DOD examined all four technologies for pilot testing at Blue Grass, none of which would significantly affect the human environment, the EIS says. It says the preferred alternative for this site at this time is no action. But it adds, "The Army will continue analysis in the site-specific EIS by [its program manager for chemical demilitarization], which will preserve options for deployment of a full-scale pilot plant." Also, the Army will consider ways to speed the demilitarization process, it says.

None of the ACWA technologies examined for testing at the Anniston and Pine Bluff sites would have a significant effect on the human environment, the EIS says, naming no action as the preferred alternative. The Army currently plans to use incineration to destroy the stockpiled weapons at these two sites, and has begun trial bums using surrogates at the Anniston site.

The EIS only addresses pilot testing the ACWA technologies, saying "it would be premature to assume that a proposed technology would be used to destroy the entire inventory at an installation." In fact, the document says that pilot testing "would occur simultaneously with any existing chemical weapons destruction or demilitarization programs and schedules at these installations."

The document assumes construction of an ACWA pilot test facility would take about 34 months, and operations would last up to 36 months. Closure of the facility would take up to 24 months, it says.

At least 30 days from the publication of the final EIS, DOD will issue a record of decision, describing the department's decision on the proposed action in the EIS. Then, DOD's acquisition executive will decide whether an ACWA technology should be implemented and where. This decision will be based on cost, schedule, safety and environment, the EIS says. The defense acquisition executive's decision will come at the end of a high-level review process that provides advice on critical decisions concerning acquisition programs.