138th Year... and still on the job!	Saturday January 13, 2007

Depot's neutralization program gets green light

By JOHN NORTON
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

The Pentagon this week recertified its programs to destroy weapons at the Pueblo Chemical Depot and Bluegrass (Ky.) Army Depot even though the cost has more than doubled since the programs were approved five years ago.

Officials also said that even with the higher price tag, the environmentally friendly water neutralization method slated for use at those two sites remains comparable to the cost of incineration, which has also experienced higher costs at other locations.

Recertification of the programs was caused when new cost estimates developed in 2006 triggered a review under the Nunn-McCurdy Act that sets off alarms anytime a defense program's cost estimates rise 25 percent or more. The law, designed to stop the notorious cost overruns of the 1970s and 1980s, calls for the Defense Department to stop those programs unless the secretary of defense says they are essential.

The higher price tag was first announced several months ago when Mike Parker, program manager for the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives program, came to Pueblo and told local officials that the cost of the program here would be in the $3 billion range and that annual spending would be limited to $150 million.

Jean Reed, special assistant for chemical and biological defense and chemical demilitarization programs, said that the new baseline life-cycle costs for the ACWA program will be $7.9 million, with $3.6 million of that for the Pueblo portion.

The new schedule, which will be available in more detail in March or April, calls for the Pueblo program to be completed by 2020 and Blue Grass by 2023, he said.

After going through more than a year's delay when the Pentagon froze work here, the commitment to proceed alone was refreshing news, said John Klomp, chairman of the Colorado Chemical Demilitarization Citizens Advisory Committee. "It's not all bad news."

As far as the extended timeline, Klomp said, "My mission all along has been to try to move the project forward as quickly as possible so we could provide jobs and economic opportunities to members of our community.

"Certainly we'd like to see it accelerated, but on the other hand with the process going on longer, people are going to work longer."

Reed said that efforts would be made to speed both projects along and that with incentives to contractors and other options like off-site treatment of wastes, there could be some savings in time and money.

The issue of what to do with the wastewater from neutralization, called hydrolysate, has been controversial. The Army has been destroying nerve agent at its Newport, Ind., facility, but has had to store millions of gallons of hydrolysate because of opposition by New Jersey residents to having a DuPont plant there treat it.

Last week, DuPont pulled out of the deal and the Army is now looking at other options.

ACWA officials would like to ship Pueblo's mustard agent hydrolysate to another site rather than handle it here with the construction of a biotreatment plant that would add to the cost of the project.

Since New Jersey groups are just as opposed to taking any mustard hydrolysate, Parker said that ACWA is looking for other locations to send it. Local citizens commission members agree that they'd rather see it treated here, but Parker has said that carries its own risks because a biotreatment operation of that scale hasn't been tried before.

The reason the ACWA program stalled two years ago was because the life-cycle cost of the program had grown far beyond the original estimate certified to Congress. Under the legislation allowing Blue Grass and Pueblo to use water neutralization instead of incineration as the Army wanted, the cost has to be comparable.

However, in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a former undersecretary of defense ordered the weapons destruction program accelerated. But when Pentagon accountants saw the new price tag, they balked and ACWA and prime contractor Bechtel were told to come up with a new design that would keep the programs within the original costs certified to Congress. That was $1.5 billion.

That delayed work more than a year while construction material prices and other costs have sent the projections soaring to more than twice the original costs.

Still, Parker said, the cost is within the confines set by the original legislation.

Reed said the Defense Department also is working with Congress to win passage of an authorization bill left hanging when lawmakers adjourned in December. It included $42 million in military construction money essential to work planned in Pueblo later this year.

"It’Äôs a serious issue," he said. "If we do not have that legislation passed or do not have modification of the continuing resolution that lets us get a portion of that money, it could have a significant effect on the overall program."

He pointed out that the delegations from both states have gone on the record supporting that funding and that he has been in contact with the House Appropriations Committee staff asking that it be provided.

On Thursday, Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., said he is concerned about delays and would support funding. "Although I am pleased by the (Defense) department's acknowledgement of the critical nature of this program, I am concerned about the delays in destroying the stockpile. This program is critical to our national security, and it is important to Pueblo. I will be watching closely and working hard to see that DOD commits sufficient resources to complete the destruction of the chemical weapons in a timely and effective manner."