Pueblo Chieftain
July 9, 2003

Pueblo, Colo., Group Pares Options on Destruction of Chemical Weapons

Source: The Pueblo Chieftain
Publication date: 2003-07-09

Jul. 9--Whether Pueblo will continue to support having the entire mustard agent destruction process conducted at Pueblo Chemical Depot or will agree to some off-site shipments remained an open question Tuesday.

The acceleration options working group of the Citizens' Advisory Commission reached a general consensus on two options, discarded another three and put off deciding on a sixth until it reconvenes at 8 a.m. today at the Department of Social Services Building, 12th and Main streets.

Working group chairman Ross Vincent told the members late Tuesday he intends to report to the Citizens' Advisory Commission that the group does or does not recommend the commission change its position.

A year ago, a community forum expressed its opposition to shipping demilitarized solids and liquids off site, Irene Kornelly reminded the group. The concern then was the potential loss of jobs and "the community's commitment to addressing its waste issues locally," excerpts from that June 21, 2002, meeting read. The group also was concerned about issues of safety and environmental implications.

But as part of the contract that was awarded near year-end to the Bechtel for the estimated $1.5 billion destruction of mustard agent in the munitions at the depot was a requirement that final disposition issues be revisited.

The acceleration working group was formed as part of the Army's effort to reduce cost and save time in the ultimate destruction process.

"The ... thinking was that we (the Pueblo community) didn't have enough information," Kornelly said.

In February, the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternative (ACWA) hired FOCIS Associates Inc., a Newton, Mass.-based consulting firm that specializes in program management analysis, including safety, risk and cost considerations.

Six months later, the final draft report was presented to ACWA and Tuesday, FOCIS made the presentation to the CAC acceleration group.

FOCIS explored six alternatives to destroying the end refuse on site and assessed the treatment options.

The working group quickly disposed of three options after Mike Lewis, project manager for Bechtel, and Scott Susman, manager for ACWA, agreed they aren't practical.

One option would ship partially decontaminated metals off-site to be cleaned further, at an additional program cost of $10 million. The other two would have shipped explosives (the bursters and fusers on the munitions) to another site, raising safety concerns.

And it reached a general agreement that disposal of wooden pallets, known as dunnage, be further explored with an eye to recycling those where it's suitable. And they generally agreed that propellant might be trucked to another location for disposal, although the prospect of incineration in another spot drew criticism.

A third option -- whether neutralized agent should be shipped in tankers to a New Jersey disposal site -- remained on the table when the committee adjourned. It will formalize its recommendations at today's meetings, although the final decision on whether they will be followed will be by the Department of Defense.

Vincent, and vice chairmen Kornelly and Susman will present the group's recommendations to the full CAC meeting at 6 p.m. Thursday at the McHarg Community Center at 409 Second Lane in Avondale. The public is invited to the CAC meeting, which will be primarily devoted to the off-site treatment options recommendations.