138th Year... and still on the job!	Wednesday September 13, 2006

Aberdeen finalizing mustard destruction

COURTESY PHOTO
A shearing machine breaks up sections of the Ton
Container Cleanout building at the Aberdeen
Proving Grounds where mustard agent residue was
removed from the empty containers.

By JOHN NORTON
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

As crews this week began one of the final steps in the destruction of the mustard agent stockpile at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, an environmental advocacy group has urged the Army to use the same water neutralization process at other sites.

On Monday, workers at the Maryland military facility began demolishing Aberdeen’Äôs Ton Container Cleanout building where residue from the containers that once held 615 tons of mustard agent was cleaned out.

Aberdeen Chemical Agent Disposal Facility Project Manager Brian O’ÄôDonnell said, ’ÄúWe are proud that our closure efforts are proceeding safely ahead of schedule. The contractor, Bechtel, has done an outstanding job bringing us one step closer to becoming the first continental United States chemical demilitarization site to close its doors.

’ÄúFurther, we are beating our original closure schedule and saving taxpayers money. That money can be used at other chemical weapons disposal facilities currently operating, helping those communities continue to reduce the risk posed by continued storage of their respective chemical weapons stockpiles.’Äù

The Pentagon expedited the work at Aberdeen because of fears of terrorist attacks after Sept. 11, 2001.

Fearing that the arsenal was too great a threat to the community, Army and Bechtel developed an accelerated program and the destruction process was completed by March 2005, a year ahead of schedule.

The Pentagon also wanted chemical demilitarization work at Pueblo and the Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky accelerated but Army officials balked at the price tag, halting both programs and setting their schedules back. While accelerating Aberdeen added $94.3 million to the original cost, Pentagon accountants estimated that the accelerated program Bechtel developed for Pueblo would have tacked $1 billion to the then-$1.5 billion price tag.

The Pueblo program has been redesigned to hold it within the original cost estimates.

Because its mustard agent was held in one-ton bulk containers, the Aberdeen disposal project was simpler than what faces the Army at the Pueblo Chemical Depot. The Pueblo stockpile contains 2,611 tons of mustard agent inside 780,000 mortar rounds and artillery shells whose explosives and propellants must be removed first. Bechtel expects to finish demolishing the Aberdeen TCC building in the next few months. The company then will clean, test and demolish the Process Neutralization Building, where the containers were drained and the agent neutralized. Decontamination efforts at that building are nearly 70 percent complete. The Army expects to complete all closure field work at ABCDF by summer 2007.

Meanwhile, the Chemical Weapons Working Group is urging the government to switch other facilities to water neutralization from its preferred option of incineration, pointing at anticipated delays in processing because of mercury emissions

The organization, based in Berea, Ky., has released a report titled "Incinerator Retrofit/Stand-Alone Neutralization Feasibility Assessment," which they claim obligates the Army to perform a thorough review of implementing neutralization rather than incineration for the disposal of the nation's stockpile of mustard agent.

More than 12,000 tons of mustard agent, some highly mercury-contaminated, remains stored at four facilities where incineration is planned for disposal: Anniston, Ala. Pine Bluff, Ark., Umatilla, Ore., and Tooele, Utah.

Pointing out that since 1985, 1,600 tons of mustard agent have been neutralized compared to 211 tons incinerated, the group said that the Army has had more experience with the environmentally-friendly water process.

Robert Tussey, a professional engineer who authored the report, concluded that retrofitting existing incinerators with neutralization equipment or erecting stand-alone neutralization facilities adjacent to existing incinerators are both ’Äúreasonably feasible.’Äù

The group acknowledged that the report lacked data that the Army had and CWWG Director Craig Williams emphasized that without all the necessary data, it would be inappropriate to demand that neutralization be deployed at the four incinerators.

Tussey said, ’ÄúThe objective of this report is to compel the Army to provide the missing information and determine, with citizen participation, the value of using this safer technology and whether or not such action would be prudent.’Äù

Because the Army’Äôs apparent way of dealing with the mercury emissions is to spread out the incineration process, the report asks whether the United States would better meet its treaty obligations by using water neutralization. An international treaty requires that chemical weapons be destroyed by 2012.

The report also asks if water neutralization would be safer for the surrounding community.

’ÄúUnless the Army engages in a serious examination of the options presented in this report, none of these questions can be answered. It's their responsibility to provide the American people (with) honest responses,’Äù said Williams.