The machinations go on, prociv still claims to be 'looking' for the
money (seems to have mislaid $42million also) make of this what you will as to whether ACWA funding will occur, IMHO it says Teledyne-Commodore are still in with a fighting chance:
P.O. Box 8606
80175 Summit County Road
Keystone, CO 80435-7998
Phone: 970-468-5822
Fax: 970-262-0152 1030 Fifteenth Street, NW
Suite 300 West
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202-783-0248
Fax: 202-783-0328
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Memorandum
Date: January 4, 1999
Meeting Summary Structure and Deadlines
The following meeting summary summarizes the discussions from the Dialogue on Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) meeting, which occurred on November 2-4, 1998. This summary is comprised of:
action items agreed to by the Dialogue at the meeting;
an overview of topics addressed in the presentations; and,
a summary of issues and concerns raised and discussed by the Dialogue.
For ease of reading, the meeting summary is organized by topic and is not necessarily chronological. Slides of presentations made at the meeting are available upon request by contacting Horne Engineering at 1-888-482-4312.
ACTION ITEM: The ACWA video to be distributed to all Public Outreach Offices and the Public Outreach Team will notify Dialogue participants via the Dialogue Exchange of its arrival. Responsible Entities: Ann Gallegos and Outreach Team. Time line: By December 18, 1998.
ACTION ITEM: Provide Bruce Braun of the National Research Council any recommendations of potential reviewers. Responsible Entities: Send reviewer recommendation and resume to Bruce Braun, National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20418. Timeline: No later than March 1, 1999.
ACTION ITEM: Inform Rob Bailey of any concerns regarding Dialogue participants serving as NRC reviewers. Responsible Entities: You can reach Rob at rbailey@nas.edu or by telephone at (202) 334-3247. Time line: As soon as possible.
ACTION ITEM: Provide feedback to Keystone regarding the concept of a joint Dialogue/NRC Dialogue meeting in the August time frame. Responsible Entities: Send feedback to Caroline Brendel at cbrendel@keystone.org or by telephone (970) 513-5800. Time Line: By January 1, 1999.
ACTION ITEM: Public Affairs, Keystone, and Horne will work with Dialogue participants from each state, as appropriate, to address requests related to public acceptability. Time Line: On-going.
ACTION ITEM: PMACWA will evaluate information requests (from state public acceptability breakouts) and provide feedback. Time Line: By January 1, 1999.
Summary of Meeting
The meeting summary is not intended to be a verbatim record of discussion, but rather to: provide a summary of the topics briefed and discussed; an overview of any concerns raised; and a record of decisions made. The following areas are outlined in the meeting summary:
Opening comments by the PM and Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Chemical Demilitarization;
Revised ACWA Schedule;
CATT Role in Demonstration;
Broad Agency Announcement Update;
NRC Update;
Technical Evaluation Team Updates;
Public Acceptability Proposal for Criteria #19;
Report to Congress;
Discussion with Congressional staffers;
Question and Answer session with Dr. Ted Prociv; and
Closing Comments.
Opening Comments
Michael Parker, Program Manager for ACWA
Michael Parker opened the meeting by noting that since the first meeting there has been great frustration and significant accomplishments. The DoD staff has been diligently working with the revised schedule to ensure that the timeline is executable. Parker thanked the CATT and Dialogue participants for their efforts.
Opening Comments
Dr. Ted Prociv, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Chemical Demilitarization
Slides are available for Dr. Prociv's presentation. If you would like a copy of these slides, please request Attachment A from Horne Engineering at 1-888-482-4312.
Prociv welcomed the group and gave an update regarding the 2007 Chemical Weapons Treaty deadline and current financial constraints that effect the Chemical Demilitarization Program. Prociv explained that there was now a law implementing relevant Chemical Weapons Convention treaty provisions that states the U.S. must rid itself of the chemical weapon stockpiles by 2007. Prociv clarified that a treaty supersedes all laws except the Constitution. Prociv stated that Chemical Demilitarization is currently going through a routine "What If" drill regarding the potential for moving $25 million from somewhere within the Chemical Demilitarization effort for the ACWA Program. Since the money must come from Research and Development, they are specifically focusing on the Aberdeen and Newport Programs in addition to the Non-Stockpile Program. Hypothetically they are looking at the impact of taking from both Newport and Aberdeen $10 million and taking the remaining amount from the Non-Stockpile Program.
Discussion regarding the treaty and schedule: A Dialogue participant noted that a senior official with the OPCW stated this past spring, that the Organization would look favorably upon any country who needed an extension to complete the destruction of the stockpiled weapons if they had made a good faith effort toward destruction of their stockpiles. Other Dialogue participants pointed out that employing up-front public participation accelerates permitting processes, citing the 19-month permitting process in Maryland as an example.
Revised Schedule for the ACWA Program
Bill Pehlivanian, Deputy Program Manager
Slides are available for Bill Pehlivanian's presentation. If you would like a copy of these slides, please request Attachment B from Horne Engineering at 1-888-482-4312.
Pehlivanian stated that the schedule was still being fine-tuned and not finalized as of the meeting date.
Question regarding revised schedule: A Dialogue participant asked why a two to three month schedule delay is resulting in a projected four to five month schedule slip. Pehlivanian reviewed the reasons presented on his slides and specifically noted that getting the contractors up and running after the protest, as well as the upcoming holidays has influenced the schedule slip.
Question regarding if ACWA hypothetically received the $25 million required to demonstrate unit operations of the other three technologies passing the technical criteria: A Dialogue participant asked if ACWA would be able to make the September 30, 1998 date to Report to Congress if they received an additional $25 million today. Pehlivanian stated that the schedule would slip, and that they would, therefore, need FY 2000 funds in order to continue the ACWA Program. Another Dialogue participant asked when was the latest possible date the ACWA Program could receive the additional $25 million and execute the additional demonstrations. Pehlivanian stated that a long delay could start to impact the 2007 Treaty deadline. Michael Parker clarified that if the ACWA Program received additional funds, the Program Manager's Office would brief Congress regarding their intent to demonstrate the additional technologies and the potential implications for the 2007 Treaty deadline.
ACWA Technical Team Update
Joe Novad, ACWA, Chuck Comaty, ACWA, Darren Dalton, ACWA, Carl Eissner, ACWA, Jim Richmond, ACWA, Scott Susman, ACWA, Fred Hildebrandt, ACWA
Slides are available for this presentation. If you would like a copy of these slides, please request Attachment C from Horne Engineering at 1-888-482-4312.
Question regarding demonstrations: A Dialogue participant asked what type of caustic they are using for demonstration. A member of the technical team clarified that it is sodium hydroxide.
Question regarding the selection of 4.2 metal mortars for demonstration testing: A Dialogue participant asked why 4.2 metal mortars were being used for demonstration testing when they do not exist anywhere in the chemical weapons stockpile. The Technical Team noted that this is the only size mortar that fits into equipment already designed by a technology provider. Also, the Technical Team explained that these were the most technically difficult to destroy and therefore if the technology could address the 4.2 mortar, it would be able to address less complicated configurations.
CATT: Role in Demonstration
Doug Hindman, KY CAC
Irene Kornelly, CO CAC
Bob Palzer, Sierra Club
Paul Walker, Global Green USA
Dan Cassidy, SBR Technologies Inc.
Slides are available for this presentation. If you would like a copy of these slides, please request Attachment D from Horne Engineering at 1-888-482-4312.
Additional CATT Comments following slide presentation: CATT member, Paul Walker, stated that the CATT had specifically been tracking the ACWA activities through one to two conference calls per week, attendance at the meetings finalizing the technology provider demonstration plans, and through participation in meetings such as the Utah public meetings designed to hear and respond to concerns regarding the transportation of agent from Deseret to Dugway for demonstration testing.
Kudos regarding the Utah Public Meetings and CATT Updates: A Utah participant passed on kudos regarding the public meetings held in her state saying that they were inclusive, open, and respectful toward the public. Another participant encouraged Dialogue participants to carefully read the CATT Updates, which he found to be extremely helpful.
Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) Update and Discussion
Chuck Comaty, Procurement Officer
BAA Work Group members
Chuck Comaty stated that 20 proposals have been received and reviewed. However, due to lack of funds, DoD does not plan to fund any BAA proposals at this time. Michael Parker clarified for a member of the audience that the ACWA Program is still pursuing additional funding to demonstrate the three remaining total solutions as well as some BAA proposals. However, the $18 million received for FY 99 is necessary for the completion of the three technologies chosen, and no other funding mechanisms have presented themselves.
Review of Video
Bill Pehlivanian, ACWA
Ann Gallegos, Public Outreach Team, ACWA
Pehlivanian and Gallegos stated that the video is in its final stages and that they are looking for the Dialogue's final approval. Public Outreach will notify the Dialogue when videos are available for check out at the depot outreach offices.
In response to Dialogue feedback, Gallegos stated that they would:
Re-film Bill Pehlivanian's closing comments;
Correct the audio track so that it matches with the video; and
Explore the possibility of integrating other recommendations based on cost and timeliness.
National Research Council Update
Bob Beaudet, Committee Chair, NRC
Slides are available for this presentation. If you would like a copy of these slides, please request Attachment E from Horne Engineering at 1-888-482-4312.
The NRC stated that recommendations of individuals to serve as NRC Reviewers could be submitted to Bruce Braun of the NRC by March 1, 1998. The Committee will select 10-12 reviewers.
Questions regarding the timing of the NRC Report: The NRC responded that they would use some demonstration data for their report as it became available. Additionally, the NRC recommended considering a joint NRC/Dialogue meeting in late August or early September, after the delivery of the NRC Report to Congress, so the NRC could report in detail to the Dialogue regarding their findings.
Request regarding the coordination of demonstration site visits: A CATT participant requested that the NRC, CATT, and DoD work to coordinate their site visits together. Both the NRC and DoD were agreeable to doing this whenever possible.
Question regarding additional information needed for the NRC Report, specifically thinking about the Public Acceptability Chapter: A Technology provider expressed his willingness to answer any questions the NRC Committee members might have as they are in the process of writing their Report. Other technology providers seemed in agreement.
Concern expressed concerning potential Reviewer conflict of interest: A member of the Dialogue expressed serious concern regarding the possibility of a Dialogue participant serving as a reviewer for the NRC Report. The NRC representatives noted this concern and asked others to approach them if there were other concerns.
Demonstration Evaluation and Reports
Jim Richmond, ACWA
Joe Novad, ACWA
Bill Pehlivanian, ACWA
CATT
Slides are available for this presentation. If you would like a copy of these slides, please request Attachment F from Horne Engineering at 1-888-482-4312.
Concern regarding the CATT's on-going participation in the Demonstration Evaluation period: Several members of the CATT stated the importance of having SBR and the Liaison Team continue to serve as a "watchdog" throughout the demonstrations and demonstration evaluations at an appropriate level. A member of the CATT asked Bill Pehlivanian if there was adequate funding for this task. Pehlivanian stated additional funds were placed on SBR's contract, and he believed this would enable these tasks to be completed.
Questions regarding Cost and Schedule Criteria: A Dialogue participant asked if schedule criteria would be assessed against the Treaty schedule, or to baseline incineration. Bill Pehlivanian explained that Arthur Andersen would be doing a similar schedule assessment to the one provided to PMCD regarding baseline incineration's projected ability to meet the Chemical Weapons Treaty deadline of 2007. If timing permits, the results of the Arthur Andersen report will be folded into the Supplemental Report to Congress. Additionally, it was stated that the technology providers will be contacted in the January time frame regarding additional cost and schedule information. Michael Parker stated that he would work to make the Arthur Andersen Statement of Work available for comment by Dialogue participants.
Public Acceptability Proposal for Program Implementation Criteria #19
Ralph Collins, KY Department of Environmental Protection
George Smith, AL CAC
Paul Walker, Global Green
Slides are available for this presentation. If you would like a copy of these slides, please request Attachment G from Horne Engineering at 1-888-482-4312. Additionally, each state compiled their Public Acceptability Strategy on slides. Those slides can be obtained by asking for Attachment H.
Comments regarding the proposed Public Acceptability Criteria #19 and Supplemental Report to Congress strategy: Participants felt the proposal was good in that it allowed for 1) data input for Public Acceptability Criteria #19; and 2) for each state to comment on public acceptability for their site. Specifically, participants appreciated the ability to customize the process for deciding this information according to their state's needs. A Dialogue participant asked if there was a place in the Supplemental Report for the Dialogue to comment as a whole regarding the importance of public involvement in any follow-on programming. The working group replied that a "global" message could be crafted by the entire Dialogue regarding any recommendations for future programming.
Discussion regarding the potential for including all six technologies passing the technical criteria required for CLIN 0002: Joe Novad explained that accessing information regarding the three additional technologies would be challenging since some pertinent information is still source selection sensitive. One Dialogue participant suggested that the Dialogue could address all six technologies in the more "global" Dialogue message in the Supplemental Report to Congress.
Challenges regarding obtaining Public Acceptability Information: The Dialogue discussed the challenge of asking the public to comment on the likelihood of acceptance with limited access to information prior to the completion of demonstrations. Additionally, some sites have the burden of distinguishing among concerns regarding a particular technology being demonstrated and existing issues regarding a planned or operating incinerator.
Agreements regarding Public Acceptability #19 and the Supplemental Report to Congress: It was agreed that for the matrices, the Dialogue participants would base their opinions on only the likelihood of acceptability for the specific technology and not compare with the baseline technology. In the state-specific narrative in the Report to Congress, the members of the state would include other influential factors on a community such as whether the community already had a technology under construction, the importance of the 2007 deadline to a community, etc.
Question regarding information availability post-demonstration: The Technical Team will be sending out an e-mail regarding what information will be available post-demonstration.
Concern regarding public meetings post-demonstration: The DoD Technical Team expressed concern regarding public meetings after demonstrations due to DoD's limited time to evaluate the technologies and prepare for the Supplemental Report to Congress. The Technical Team recommends that Dialogue participants consider holding public meetings prior to the late May time frame.
Questions regarding the ability for technology providers and SBR Technologies to participate in meetings or help with materials: At this time, technology providers and SBR Technologies seemed agreeable to the requests outlined in the state-specific report backs.
Dialogue Review of the 1998 Report to Congress
The Dialogue reached consensus regarding the draft language for the 1998 Report to Congress scheduled to be reviewed by OSD starting November 6, 1998. Bill Pehlivanian committed to informing the Dialogue immediately of any significant alterations recommended by OSD regarding Dialogue-crafted language.
Public Affairs Office Activities
Ann Gallegos, ACWA
Slides are available for this presentation. If you would like a copy of these slides, please request Attachment I from Horne Engineering at 1-888-482-4312
Activities in the Nonstockpile Program
Edmund Libby, Non-stockpile Program
Slides are available for this presentation. If you would like a copy of these slides, please request Attachment J from Horne Engineering at 1-888-482-4312.
Questions regarding how non-stockpile activities would be affected if the Non-Stockpile Program were asked to give money to the ACWA Program: Colonel Libby stated that the MMD-1 and RRS would be the last items to be affected. Hence, the Pine Bluff project might be affected with the lack of funding for the MMD-2.
Question regarding the status of the MMD-1: The system is in Dugway. The system is receiving a new cooling tower and some other small engineering changes. Currently it is a "race" between internal paperwork and the permit.
Discussion with Congressional Staffers
Tom Hawkins, Appropriations Committee, US Senate
Jean Reed, National Security Committee, US House
Charles Smith, Legislative Director, Senator Ford's Office
Bill Johnson, Legislative Director, Congressman Hansen's Office
Corrine Larson, Legislative Assistant, Senator Bennett's Office
Dudley Taverny, National Security Council, US Senate
Please note: The staffers above represent a diversity of perspectives. The statements below reflect the comments recorded throughout discussion.
Some Dialogue participants stated their concern regarding funding issues, specifically:
Shrinking Chemical Demilitarization funds overall; and
An inability to find funding for the ACWA Program to complete three additional technology demonstrations.
Some staffers replied:
Bills need to be paid, other programs took a higher priority currently;
Additional money was asked for in the Supplemental Bill, but the Appropriations Committee agreed no pork, thus it was cut;
As they looked at ACWA they noted it was meeting the existing law;
They asked DoD how much money in FY 98 could be applied within Chemical Demilitarization to the ACWA effort;
If Dialogue participants are looking to develop technologies for anything other than the purpose of destroying assembled chemical weapons, then avenues outside this program should be taken;
The ACWA program is not about technology development in general, but rather has a specific purpose of destroying assembled chemical weapons;
Due to limited time and money, it makes sense to move forward with three technologies given the storage risk at the stockpile sites;
The request for the additional $25 million was made late, the Committee took heed and diligent efforts were made, but no additional funds were identified; and
Do members of the Dialogue not feel that the three that have been selected have a good chance at being viable alternatives?
Some Dialogue participants expressed concern that the Chemical Weapons Treaty deadline is the primary driver for the chemical demilitarization program.
Some Staffers replied:
Meeting the Chemical Weapons Treaty deadline is of high importance otherwise the country loses moral and political clout internationally;
An extension is possible, particularly since the Russians will be unable to make the deadline; and
Another staffer stated there are questions regarding the Administration's willingness to ask for an extension.
Question regarding whether staffers expected this Program or a different Program to compare the alternative technologies to baseline incineration?:
Some Staffers Replied:
Science will need to determine this. Perhaps more legislation is needed to fill in the gaps here.
Some Dialogue participants asked if staffers would be supportive of moving the ACWA deadline for the Supplemental Report to Congress further into 1999 to accommodate any funding opportunities that make it possible to demonstrate additional technologies:
Some Staffers replied:
They would oppose any extension to the deadline;
No, not necessarily.
Closing Comments
Dr. Ted Prociv, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Chemical Demilitarization
Questions regarding unobligated funds in 1998: A Dialogue participant asked about unobligated funds in 1998, noting a $42 million difference in unobligated funds at the end of the fiscal year. Prociv replied that there is a difference between unobligated funds and money that is going to "expire" and that his office checked the books several times looking for those unobligated funds.
Questions regarding Impact Fees: Prociv stated that it is illegal to pay these, but that they were able to creatively address this issue in Utah.
Question regarding the "What If" drills being performed and the availability of results to the Dialogue or others: Prociv stated that he will see if it is possible to let the Dialogue see the different iterations of the "What If" drills.
Statement regarding ACWA as a priority for Chemical Demilitarization: Prociv stated that even if additional money was identified for chemical demilitarization that he is uncertain as to whether those funds would necessarily go toward the ACWA effort given all the priorities in the chemical weapons demilitarization program.
Closing Comments
Michael Parker, Program Manager, ACWA
Parker stated that a lot was learned and clarified at this meeting and that now a lot of work to be done in order to move forward and complete the goals of the ACWA Program. The DoD Technical Team and CATT have a number of tasks in front of them regarding applying the rigorous Program Implementation Criteria to the technology demonstration results. There are a variety of difficult questions highlighted by staffers that need to be answered in this next phase. Lastly, Parker asked everyone to be considerate in interactions with technology providers and staff for the next phase of the program, as they need to concentrate on the demonstrations and evaluations for the ACWA Program.
|
