Chemical weapons will not be moved from Colorado and Kentucky to the Pine Bluff Arsenal or other stockpile sites for destruction, according to a Defense Department memo.

While the option of moving the Cold War-era weapons could come up again, it’s definitely off the table for now, department spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Joe Carpenter said Wednesday. "We have enough information on the means and methods to accomplish our objectives without the necessity to address the concept of transportation," Carpenter said.

Army leaders first considered moving the weapons to centralized destruction sites in the 1980s but ruled out that option at the time because of the potential danger. They re-examined the alternative earlier this year in a bid to save both money and time.

However, in a memo Friday, Michael Wynne, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, released millions of dollars to begin building destruction facilities in Pueblo, Colo., and Richmond, Ky. The money had been frozen pending the latest study, and Wynne wrote that he believes the weapons can be destroyed on-site in time to meet a 2012 international treaty deadline.

The news was welcomed by those who say transporting chemical weapons would be far too risky in opening up the chance of terrorism, sabotage or accidents that could unleash lethal agents during transport.

Evelyn Yates, a member of the group Pine Bluff for Safe Disposal, said she and many of her neighbors have been anxious about the possibility of chemical weapons rolling into her vicinity for months.

Yates was one of many people who were upset in January when Army officials announced they were reconsidering the transportation option. Now, she said, she can relax.

"This makes me very happy. It’s something I’m not going to have to worry about," she said.

Raini Wright, the public affairs officer for the Pine Bluff Chemical Agent Disposal Facility at the arsenal, said she hadn’t gotten official word that weapons won’t be transported.

The Pine Bluff incinerator started burning weapons last month, and nearly 1,000 rockets packed with nerve agent have been processed so far.

Crews will destroy weapons slowly over the next few months during what’s called the rampup period, Wright said. Eventually they’ll destroy more than 30 weapons an hour.

The Pine Bluff Arsenal is home to 12 percent of the nation’s chemical weapons stockpile. The cache includes 3,850 tons of chemical agent spread out among rockets, land mines and bulk containers. Many of the arsenal’s aging munitions have been stored in dirt-covered cement igloos for more than 60 years.

Some said the decision to stick with the original plan of destroying weapons where they’ve been stored is a mixed blessing.

"It’s not a simple, clear-cut thing," said Wesley Stites, a chemistry professor at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville and a member of the Pine Bluff Arsenal’s Citizen Advisory Committee.

Hauling more weapons to the Pine Bluff Arsenal would also bring more money, he said.

"If you have a job at the arsenal and it prolongs your job, obviously it’s a good thing for you," Stites said. "The obvious and pronounced downside is the potential risk involved in transporting and storing the weapons here," he said.

Construction has yet to start on weapons destruction facilities in Colorado and Kentucky, so moving weapons from those sites to places where incinerators already exist would be "cheaper and more efficient," Stites said. "But that doesn’t necessarily mean we should do it."

The Department of Defense is racing to meet the international deadline to dispose of the nation’s massive chemical weapon stockpile stored at the Pine Bluff Arsenal and seven other sites.

At the same time, the department is trying to get a handle on predicted cost overruns at the stockpile sites in Pueblo and Richmond, where community opposition to incinerating the weapons persuaded the Army to use the newer technology of neutralization instead, Carpenter said.

Developing the neutralization technology has proved expensive and time-consuming. On top of that, a wartime funding crunch had military officials worried that the Pueblo and Richmond stockpile sites wouldn’t have enough money to build neutralization systems until 2011, leaving too little time to destroy the weapons and putting the United States in violation of the international treaty.

The study begun in January was an attempt to find ways to keep the budget under control while still meeting the treaty deadline, Carpenter said.

The results of the study persuaded defense officials to destroy weapons on-site in Colorado and Kentucky but to modify design plans for the neutralization destruction facilities so they’ll be closer to original cost estimates, he said.

"We have to be cognizant of the fact that our resources are not unlimited," Carpenter said.

This story was published Thursday, April 21, 2005.