Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
C LETTER FROM CHARLES BARONIAN, DATED AUGUST 7, 1992 215 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENTAL COST AND SCHEDULE ESTIMATES 1. Purpose. This paper addresses the impacts on the program in the event the McMillen amendment is adopted by Congress. Basically, the amendment mandates stoppage of all work at the Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), Newport Army Ammunition Plant (NAAP), and Lexington-Blue Grass Army Depot (LBAD) sites until a Congressionally-established commission reviews alternative technologies and provides a report to Congress and the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense then would have to submit to Congress a program plan implementing the alternative technology into a demilitarization program based on his determinations. The commission study is required to be available I January 1994, and the Department of Defense plan six months later, or 1 July 1994. 2. Discussion. a. Two results can ensue from the commission. The first is that they recommend an alternative technology (probable). The second is that they conclude there is no alternative technology (relatively improbable). In the event of no new technology the increase in the costs would be limited to the delay caused by deferring all work on the three sites including design and environmental documentation until January 1994 when the report is received and design is restarted. In the event of new technology recommendation, however, the delay would be much more severe as a developmental program must be created to confirm the technology in a laboratory as well as a pilot plant facility. It would be irresponsible of the Army to not confirm the commercially available data base by running actual agent and energetic operations in these two steps. b. In order to project a schedule and costs with any degree of validity one should know the technology, the maturity of the technology, and the data base associated with the particular technology. Obviously, there is no technology selection at this time. Therefore, one can only conceptualize generic schedule and cost estimates that are somewhat independent of the technology. Thus the schedules and costs must be considered rough order of magnitude projections which cannot be utilized for any purpose other than conceptual cost and schedule impacts. c. Currently there is on-going activity at all three of the affected sites in terms of design, Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
