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


Vol. 13, No. 13--June 28, 2005


DOD DEFENDS ACWA AGAINST CRITICISM OVER COST CAPS

The Defense Department is defending its commitment to safety at its alternative chemical weapons destruction facilities, despite cost caps that four key senators say jeopardize the safe, quick disposal of chemical weapons at the program's two sites.

Meanwhile, House lawmakers want to know by the end of the month where DOD stands in its reassessment of the alternative program, known as the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternative (ACWA) program, as part of a DOD effort to cut costs and reach an international treaty deadline to destroy the nation's chemical weapons.

In correspondence sent earlier this month, senators from Colorado and Kentucky charge Pentagon leaders with hobbling the ACWA program through self-imposed cost limits. Under the ACWA program, DOD is applying non-incineration technologies to destroy chemical weapons stockpiled in Pueblo, CO, and at the Blue Grass site in Richmond, KY. The letter is signed by Kentucky Sens. Mitch McConnell (R) and Jim Bunning (R) and Colorado Sens. Wayne Allard (R) and Ken Salazar (D).

While a Pentagon spokesman would not comment on the letter, he says DOD has made safety paramount in the ACWA program and indicates DOD plans to examine the issues the senators raised. "While the task has been to develop an alternative design that considers cost, schedule and performance, safety has never been a variable," he says.

At issue is DOD's decision to include specific cost estimates in congressional certifications regarding the alternative destruction technology chosen for the two sites. While Public Law 105-261 mandated that any alternative to incineration be "as safe as, and as cost effective as" incineration -- DOD's baseline destruction method -- it did not call for an exact cost number, citizen activists note. Nonetheless, DOD inserted a cost figure that was "grossly underestimated" and relied on "outdated incineration costs," the citizens coalition Chemical Weapons Working Group (CWWG) says.

In a June 17 letter to newly-appointed DOD acquisition chief Kenneth Krieg, the senators say, "Unfortunately, the definitive cost estimates contained in the June 18, 2003 certification for Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky ($2 billion) and the January 30, 2003 certification for Pueblo Chemical Depot ($1.5 billion) are driving critical decisions surrounding current re-design activities within the ACWA Program." Moving forward with the safe and quick disposal of the two stockpiles "is in jeopardy due to this fundamental flaw in the process," they say.

"Notwithstanding appropriate efforts to minimize costs associated with the overall Chemical Demilitarization Program, including ACWA, forcing any individual facility within the Program to adhere to outdated cost estimates is foolhardy since it risks sacrificing safety, treatment efficacy and schedule adherence," the senators write. And it ignores safety lessons from other sites, they say. They charge that the erroneous cost estimates are putting at risk design safety and destruction effectiveness.

"Unlike others who have a stake in this misguided decision, as a newly installed Under Secretary, we are hopeful you will breathe new life into the program by rectifying this situation," they say. They urge Krieg, who took over as under secretary for acquisition, technology & logistics just weeks ago, to internally lift these constraints, either through re-certification of the technology at these sites, a new acquisition decision memorandum, or other means. The letter is available on InsideEPA.com.

Earlier this year, these cost limits were used as a reason to halt funding at both the ACWA sites, suspending much of the work for up to five years, CWWG's Executive Director Craig Williams says in a press release on the letter. Lifting the cost limits is key to moving the ACWA program forward because the limits were the "inappropriate motivation" for halting work at the Pueblo site, reassessing decisions at the two sites, and other actions, he said in a follow-up interview.

DOD earlier this year proposed to severely slash funding for the two sites over the next several years and reevaluate design plans for the alternative destruction facilities there. DOD claimed that operations at existing destruction facilities should take precedence given limited financial resources and that proposed design costs at the two ACWA sites were unacceptably high and must be kept within original estimates. But lawmakers who closely watch the program told DOD such a funding approach would make compliance with the international treaty known as the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) impossible, and were able to restore some funding to the program.

Meanwhile, House defense authorizers are pressing DOD for ways to meet the 2012 deadline for destroying chemical weapons as the CWC mandates. DOD early this year launched an effort to re-examine ways to meet the 2012 CWC extended destruction deadline, reconsidering a controversial plan to transport chemical weapons for consolidated disposal. In report language attached to the House Armed Services Committee‚s fiscal year 2006 defense authorization bill, committee members say that since DOD believes it will not be able to meet the CWC deadline for destroying all stockpiled chemical weapons, DOD must submit a report by June 30 on both the results of the reassessment of alternatives for the ACWA program and "any recommendations for adjustments in the budget request or other actions required to reduce costs and increase the probability of achieving the CWC-mandated destruction schedule."

The committee report notes DOD testimony given to Congress in April indicates the cost and schedule for destruction continues to increase. "Worst-case cost estimates for destruction of the stockpile range from $26.8 billion to $37.3 billion and estimates of the time required to complete destruction of the stockpile range from 2021 to 2030," it says.

The DOD spokesman says the report is still in progress "and will not be released until it is delivered to Congress."

The committee report also pushes DOD to choose the most cost-effective solution for secondary disposal of the bulk chemical munitions stored at Newport, IN. The Army has faced major obstacles -- including opposition from citizens and lawmakers -- over its plan to ship neutralized VX agent, known as hydrolysate, from Newport to a commercial hazardous wastewater disposal facility in New Jersey. The committee calls for blocking any shipments until DOD addresses concerns EPA and the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention have raised and until the secretary of the Army certifies to Congress that such off-site treatment would significantly save cost and time as compared to on-site disposal of the hydrolysate. A CWWG spokesman says he hopes this latter requirement will force the Army to publicly reveal the cost savings it claims would be gained from disposing of the hydrolysate off-site rather than on-site.

The proposed mandate comes not long after then-acting DOD acquisition head Michael Wynne warned senators that any change in the Newport disposal plan might push costs beyond manageable levels. Specifically, he warned of a possible "Nunn-McCurdy" breach, referring to a 1982 law that requires DOD to terminate weapons programs that run 25 percent over budget (Defense Environment Alert, April 19, p4).

The House passed the defense authorization bill May 25, but the bill has not yet been conferenced with the Senate.