Few details have been decided, and no decision is expected from the military until next month.

But Doug Hindman, a member of the advisory board, called what he had heard so far "pretty darned scary."

The change was proposed as one of a series of potential cost-saving measures. But five fires that broke out as rockets were being sheared at incinerator plants in Arkansas and Oregon this spring prompted a closer look at the idea. The Army is still investigating the fires.

"I'm concerned about the speed with which the decision-makers may be moving on this," said Peter Hille, a local activist, "... without really understanding what caused the fires."

One theory is that nitrogly-cerin had migrated into the part of the rocket where propellant is stored, and it exploded when the shearing equipment touched the rocket. For that reason, advisory board members want the Army to assume that chemical agent could be present at the point where the shearing would occur, and build in protections accordingly.

Two prime areas of concern are the building where the separation would occur and the means that would be used to get the rockets there. The building being considered would consist of fabric, supported by aluminum ribs atop a concrete slab. It could be built quickly and cheaply and to the specifications needed.

Chris Midgett, project manager for the contractor, Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass, said he recommends that the area where the shearing would occur be reinforced against blasts, although Army regulations do not require it.

The rockets would be brought there by what the Army calls a Single Pallet Overpack Rocket Transport, or SPORT for short. Basically a stainless steel box, it, too, lacks the protections of the transport vehicles contained in the original plans.

With so little having been decided, it's premature for the advisory board to make many recommendations, said Craig Williams, its co-chairman. The group signaled that it wants to continue working closely with those designing the plant to resolve its concerns.

But there is clearly scant support for another cost-cutting measure, a proposal to ship caustic wastes from chemical neutralization off-site to be processed. A similar plan to ship waste from Newport, Ind., to New Jersey already has run into strong opposition.

Shipping waste instead of building a treatment facility could save up to $40 million. But, when advisory board members were asked yesterday to show support for the plan by raising their hands, no hands went up.