Hermiston Herald: May 22, 2001

Review shows Army may have to adjust its schedule

By Frank Lockwood - - Staff writer

HERMISTON - The Army's estimated schedules and costs for chemical weapons incineration were too optimistic, a Congressional Research Service review says.

Craig Williams of Chemical Weapons Working Group testified before the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee April 25. Data from the Army's Operations Schedule Task Force 2000 Final Report showed that the USA would not meet Chemical Weapons Convention deadline for destruction of chemical weapons, he said.

The chemical destruction program was already 600 percent over budget and 14 years behind schedule.

Army spokesman Greg Mahall said Thursday, however, that Williams' testimony did not factor in steps that the Army may take to rectify the situation.

About the 2000 Final Report
The Operations Schedule Task Force 2000 Final Report contained baseline data from incineration projects already in operation at Johnston Atoll and Tooele, Utah. Before that Final Report, Army projections were made without the benefit of data from operational chemical weapons incineration programs, because no such programs or data had existed.

The Chemical Weapons Convention calls for the stockpile to be destroyed in 2007 or before, but Army documents indicated that destruction of chemical weapons would take until 2018. The Army had not revealed that information, he said, and he might not have known either except that someone had sent Williams the document, perhaps by mistake.

Soon after the testimony, Army spokesmen said Williams' figures were flawed. A leaflet, by Marilyn Daughdrill of the Program Manager for Demilitarization, was circulated in rebuttal. "Data noted as facts ... are interpretations ... and show artificially extended schedules and inflated cost estimates," Daughdrill wrote. PIO Greg Mahall, of Maryland, had said Williams made erroneous conclusions based on "worst case scenarios."

Congressional Research Service Checks Figures
The subcommittee had the Congressional Research Service review the documents and check Williams' work. Steve Bowman, a specialist in national defense, summarized the results,
saying, "My examination of Mr. Williams' assessment indicates that his calculations are accurate."

Factoring in data from real processing plants would result in "substantial lengthening of the chemical demilitarization program at each depot," the Congressional Research Services report said. Although the Final Report was submitted in October 2000, the Army apparently still has not revised the schedules. The Army's Final Report recommended that new munition destruction rates be used to develop new operations schedules, but the Final Report itself did not take that step, and as late as May 8, Army spokesmen were saying the project would be completed on schedule.

The Congressional Research Services' report also refuted the notion of "worst case scenarios."
"It would appear that the Final Report's revised munition destruction rates are, in fact, conservative, rather than worst case scenario," the Congressional Research Services concluded.

On the other hand, the Army's Final Report noted steps which could be taken to mitigate the "schedule risks," a term the Army uses to describe the risk of not completing incineration on schedule. According to Mahall, the Army's main objection to the Williams testimony was that Williams did not factor in those mitigating activities. Those mitigating activities will bring the schedule more in line with where it needs to be, although it is possible the former schedules may need to be adjusted too, Mahall said.

Army Studies Mitigating Actions
The Final Report was sponsored by Project Manager, Chemical Stockpile Disposal Project (PMCSD). PMCSD initiates task forces to identify and examine risks associated with the destruction of US stockpile of chemical agents and munitions.

The Final Report was to update assumptions contained in a 1996 study. Assumptions included processing rates, shift scheduling, post trial burn rates, reject munitions, leaking munitions, secondary waste, slag removal, pollution abatement system maintenance, major maintenance outages, liquid incinerator rebricking, and workforce learning curve, and others. The PMCSD has established a Risk Mitigation Team to further evaluate and address options for mitigating identified areas of "schedule risk." The Risk Management Team will further define the steps that PMCSD needs to take in order to continue to reduce schedule risk.

The RMT is assessing solutions to assure that safety and environmental requirements are met while also achieving schedule and Chemical Weapons Convention mandates.

The Congressional Research Services recommended: "Given that use of the Final Report's destruction rate estimates do not support meeting the 2007 deadline for chemical stockpile destruction, it appears that the PMCD (Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization) is using another set of destruction rate estimates in its assertion that the deadline will be met. It would be useful if the PMCD could provide these estimates, so that the differences could be examined and reconciled."

Wayne C. Thomas, Oregon DEQ's Chemical Demilitarization Program administrator told the Hermiston Herald yesterday that the Williams testimony had not caught the agency by surprise. "We've recognized for some time that there's going to be a schedule change," he said.

Risk of continued storage is greater than risk of incineration, so he would like to see the weapons destroyed in a timely manner, he said, but not in any way that would increase risks to safety.

Thomas said, "Our first concern is to protect the safety of the public and of the environment."