Hearing of te Subcommittee on Terrorism of the House Committee for Armed Services

Federal News Service April 1, 2004 Thursday

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE FOR ARMED SERVICES

SUBJECT: DESTRUCTION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS STOCKPILE

CHAIRED BY: REPRESENTATIVE JIM SAXTON (R-NY)

WITNESSES: RAYMOND J. DECKER, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE CAPABILITIES AND MANAGEMENT, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; DALE E. KLEIN, ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR NUCLEAR, CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAMS;

CLAUDE BOLTON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS); PAT WAKEFIELD, DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION AND COUNTERPROLIFERATION);

MIKE PARKER, DIRECTOR, U.S. ARMY CHEMICAL MATERIAL AGENCY; CRAIG CONKLIN, CHIEF, NUCLEAR AND CHEMICAL HAZARDS BRANCH PREPAREDNESS DIVISION EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE DIRECTORATE, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; PATRICK J. MEEHAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PROGRAM NATIONAL CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, CENTERS FO DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, AND AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY

LOCATION: 2118 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. MIKE ROGERS (R-AL): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Earlier Mr. Conklin made a statement that about 12 percent, based on the GB rocket -- (unintelligible) -- about 12 percent of the risk to the community had been eliminated. When the balance of the GB and VX rockets are completely destroyed, what would you say the risk factor to the community will be at that time? How much would it have been reduced?

MR. PARKER: It's almost 97 percent of the risk is eliminated once the nerve agent munitions are gone.

REP. ROGERS: And what time table do you think we will have those rockets eliminated by?

MR. PARKER: We anticipate having all of the GB munitions, the M55 GB rocket and the GB filled projectiles completed by the end of calendar year 2005 and would then go through a change-over period of a rather extended period of time and then go into VX operations which would run about a year and-a-half, which would take us out towards the end of calendar year 2007.

REP. ROGERS: At the end of calendar year 2005, when those GB rockets are destroyed, what level of risk would we have eliminated at this point in time?

MR. PARKER: It's a pretty-I think it's about 60 percent, 60 to 65 percent.

REP. ROGERS: Thank you. And recently, there's been a retest of PCB levels there at the Anniston depot. Can you discuss that for us?

MR. PARKER: Yes, sir. First of all, I think to frame the issue of concerns, legitimate-very legitimate concerns, given the history of the area with PCB emissions from the plant during the eight months that we've been in operation. I'd like to just make very clear that the levels of PCB, even based on the prior tests, were extremely, extremely low, well below the health effects and environmental thresholds. We recently completed the retest due to some anomalies in the first series of testing and based on a much stricter testing protocol in the area of how the samples were acquired and the analytical lab that conducted the results, we were able to demonstrate that we exceeded the destruction threshold under the Toxic Substance Control Act requirement. So the emission levels of PCB are negligible and have been throughout the rocket disposal operation.

REP. ROGERS: And you expect the EPA permit to be issued (beyond restart ?) work?

MR. PARKER: Yes, sir. The results are in the hands of the EPA and I shouldn't really speak for them but I think we're very confident we'll see the TSCA, Toxic Substance Control Act compliance issued here in the very near term.

REP. ROGERS: I heard you talking a little while ago about you expected your - Umatilla Pine Bluff and Newport facilities to be operating pretty soon. What are the lessons learned from the safety measures that you have taken at Anniston, that you think you're going to be carrying forward to those installations - to make them just as safe as Anniston?

MR. PARKER: Well, we've instituted many years ago and recently upgraded the Programmatic Lessons Learned Program, as we call it. Anniston was a particularly good start-up for us. It went very smoothly, both in an operational context and, more importantly, in a safety and environmental compliance context.

We did take a number of lessons learned out of Anniston on how some of the process equipment is maintained and having to do with maintenance cycles and the plant shut-downs for the purposes of cleaning and repairing and servicing equipment. We took that lesson out and we've already taken that and inducted that into the start-up procedures planned for Umatilla and Pine Bluff.

In the area of safety, we've rigorously looked at the start-up procedures which were very successfully applied at Anniston where we processed a very small number of rockets, took a pause to ensure all the operating parameters were in the appropriate range and all of the monitoring data was within compliance. And then we iterated up increasing gradually the through-put of the plant to demonstrate we could control both process and meet all the standards. We will duplicate that again at Umatilla and Pine Bluff because it was so successful at Anniston.

REP. ROGERS: That's all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to follow up briefly on something I talked about and something Mr. Langevin addressed. We talked about the Anniston depot. It's operating safely, but I also understand it's operating on schedule. Is that accurate? You indicated that by '07 we would have 97 percent of the risk eliminated and that the GB and VX rockets would be eliminated. Is that on schedule? Are we ahead of schedule or are we behind schedule in Anniston?

MR. PARKER: Mr. Rogers, at this point in time we're ahead of where we-ahead of schedule. We're doing better on M55 rocket disposal. We're moving nicely towards being able to start operations a little later this year with the projectile portion-the GB projectile portion of the stockpile. So Anniston is performing extremely well.

REP. ROGERS: But now I looked at this GAO extension deadline problem that we talk about for the - stockpile-wide. Are we going to be able to complete our mission at Anniston without the extension?

MR. PARKER: Within the context of --

REP. ROGERS: The CWC requirements?

MR. PARKER: Assuming that the department, in conjunction with the State Department, would go forward and seek the extension to 2012, we believe we'll complete operations at Anniston well within that treaty deadline.

REP. ROGERS: So even though we would have eliminated 97 percent of the risk at Anniston by '07, we will need that additional time there to eliminate that remaining 3 percent of the risk? MR. PARKER: Yes. I think, as you're aware based on briefings of yourself and your staff, the mustard-filled munitions, of which Anniston has a rather significant quantity, really are very, very low risk.

REP. ROGERS: Right.

MR. PARKER: Almost half the munitions at Anniston are mustard- filled. The predominance of the risk to the community, to your community, with the nerve agent munitions, which we'll get rid of by about the 2007 timeframe. So we'll eliminate the risk but there is still a very large quantity of munitions that will have to be processed through the plant.

REP. ROGERS: And then going back to what Mr. Langevin addressed, the stockpile-wide, are we not going to be able to hit the 45 percent threshold by '07?

MR. PARKER: Based on our ability to bring on three additional plants this year-the facility at Newport, the facility at Umatilla and the facility at Pine Bluff-we're highly confident that 80 to 90 percent level of the ability to satisfy that December 2007 date for 45 percent.

REP. ROGERS: And if we receive that extension to '12, which is the 100 percent level, do you feel confident that we'll be able to achieve that part of it?

MR. PARKER: That's much more of a challenge, it's much more problematic and it'll be very dependent on what the overall out year budgets are and how affordable they are. The final two sites, the Pueblo site that Mr. Hefley touched on, and the Blue Grass site are going to be pressing up very, very hard on 2012. And depending on how the overall budget and the availability of funding to accelerate sites will determine whether or not we'll be able to hit that 2012 mark.

REP. ROGERS: Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WAKEFIELD: Mr. Rogers, let me just add one thing if I could to that question you have on 45 percent. When we went through that very deliberative process using the former processing rates, as well as looking at them on an individual basis and a campaign basis by each one of the sites, and statistics, we looked at that and we looked at in confidence intervals in saying, what is the greatest confidence that we could have in achieving that 45 percent? That is indeed why we kept the December '07 deadline, giving us the greatest confidence that the U.S. can meet that deadline. That was a 90 percent confidence factor that we would make that date at that time.

As you pointed out, the facilities are running. As Mr. Parker has also indicted, the other ones need to come up online. But right now we still remain quite close to that confidence factor, even with the recent look at it. When I looked at it about two weeks ago we still remain there. The 2012 deadline, as you heard Mr. Parker indicate about budgets and other things and you also heard about the technical challenges that are often experienced when you begin facilities and new technologies as well. Each of these are factors that enter into our success in achieving those end dates.

REP. ROGERS: But now as I understood Mr. Parker, it's more of a budget driven concern than technical?

MR. WAKEFIELD: Any time we start new technologies in facilities there's always technical challenges, and those are all part and parcel to the successful operation --

REP. ROGERS: But do you see that as the dominant challenge or --

MR. WAKEFIELD: I see it as just part of the overall challenge itself. Not any more dominant than the other, but rather just part of the overall challenges that are there.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Rogers, may I make a comment? And I don't want to be the skunk at the party, but I think that the optimism to reach the 45 percent in 2007 is if all the stars line up exactly right, that there are no challenges with the permitting that has occurred at different sites, that there are no more incidents at a site, and that there are no unfunded requirements that have impact on any operational startups. And, unfortunately, we've seen that type of risk. These issues happen at different times, which means that the leadership has to be forward-thinking, forward-leaning, anticipating anything that could derail or stop the schedule, and that has not happened.

MR. BOLTON: Well, let me be the anti-skunk here. (Laughter.)

MR. : Tomato juice.

MR. BOLTON: Tomato juice. (Laughter.)

The last time I appeared before this committee, I think, we were just starting Anniston. And so we had two going, we were just starting Anniston. Today we have three. By the end of this year we hope to have six. Mr. Decker is absolutely right. This is a challenge for the leadership to bring this off. I would highlight one example where we've gone to school on lessons learned, to hopefully mitigate some of the concerns that we have.

For example, we talked about Newport and we talked about the challenges we had in Dayton.

As a result of those lessons learned we have spent a great deal of time taking the commander there, going to New Jersey and Delaware and talking to the citizens, talking to the media, talking to virtually anyone he can find to explain to everyone what we're doing, what we're trying to do and so forth, and working very closely with Dupont. I think that's an example of what we're doing in terms of looking at lessons learned and making sure that we don't make the same mistake twice, if indeed it was a mistake.

The other is just taking lessons learned from Anniston, as Mr. Parker has already pointed out, and putting those into other plants; not only from the technical side, but from the programmatic side and how we work with the contractor out there, how we work with the community, and I think that is helping us quite a bit. And, as Mr. Parker has already pointed out to your question on the schedule, we're ahead of schedule and my hope is that once we get the plants up and get into the operation, that we can get ahead of those schedules too.

I do temper that with reality, and reality is looking at the past and realizing that we have significant challenges there. But we've got the right people at the plants, the communities are supportive, and with your support and those of the chair and the committee here, I think we can press forward and meet that date: the first 45 date, 31st December 2007.

REP. ROGERS: Well, that's why I'd asked the question earlier in my line of questioning about the lessons learned, and I hope you were going to take the other facilities, because Anniston is a success, and I think that there have been a lot of challenges along the way. But surely the more that we're doing this, the better we're getting as we go along that we don't step on the same rakes and --

MR. BOLTON: I anticipate that Mr. Decker will keep my feet to the fire.

REP. ROGERS: Is that right?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. SAXTON: Thank you for that.

Mr. Rogers, do you have any further questions?

REP. ROGERS: (Inaudible response.)