A Russian soldier examines one of thousands of artillery shells filled with nerve gas at a storage site in western Siberia.		"The timetable is out the window.  Our national security is hindered by letting our own weapons of mass destruction languish in U.S. communities."            -Craig Williams, Chemical Weapons Working Group
		Russian army archives

Federal audits find that the military will not eliminate its 31,000 tons of deadly nerve gases and skin-blistering agents by 2012 as required by the international Chemical Weapons Convention.

The military destroyed only 6% of the arsenal in the past 12 months. And disposal plants that were supposed to start this summer in Newport, Ind., and Pine Bluff, Ark., still aren't running. In all, 32% of U.S. chemical weapons have been eliminated since work began in 1990.

The Pentagon's struggles to meet destruction deadlines lessens U.S. leverage to press Russia to eliminate its chemical arms, seen by U.S. officials as a proliferation risk.

Local officials and community activists near the eight U.S. disposal sites where chemical weapons remain stockpiled say the delays also raise domestic safety and security risks. They fear accidental chemical releases or attacks by terrorists to detonate or steal the weapons. One artillery round filled with nerve gas could kill thousands in a crowd.

"The (disposal) timetable is out the window," says Craig Williams of the Chemical Weapons Working Group, a citizen coalition monitoring U.S. progress. "Our national security is hindered by letting our own weapons of mass destruction languish in U.S. communities."

Russians feel 'left off the hook'

Under the 1997 weapons convention, the United States and Russia were to destroy 45% of their chemical stockpiles by April 2004, with total elimination by 2007. Both nations got extensions on the 45% deadline, and both say they will exercise options to extend the final deadline by five years, to 2012.

Technical problems and construction snags have stalled chemical weapons disposal at several U.S. incineration plants this year. And the Pentagon in September froze design work on a disposal plant slated for Pueblo, Colo., that will neutralize chemical agents instead of burning them. That decision also slows the design of a similar plant in Blue Grass, Ky.

Because of the delays, the Pentagon has raised cost estimates for eliminating its chemical arsenal from $15 billion to $24 billion. Officials now believe costs will rise an additional $1.4 billion, according to reports by Congress' Government Accountability Office (GAO).

"Current (Pentagon) schedule estimates show that the Army will not complete destruction of the entire stockpile until after the year 2012," the GAO reported this year.

Michael Parker, who manages the military's disposal program, says the audits don't account for recent changes that make the program more efficient.

"I still think we have a reasonable shot ... at 2012," he says.

In the months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, the Bush administration promised an urgent effort to secure and destroy both U.S. and Russian stockpiles of chemical weapons. Officials scrambled to boost protection of U.S. caches and speed disposal efforts. And they promised financial aid to help Russia do the same.

Since then, the Pentagon has moved all U.S. chemical weapons into hardened bunkers and destroyed one of its nine original stockpiles, on Johnston Atoll in the Pacific. Russia has added new fences, alarms and other security measures at major storage sites.

"The sooner we get rid of these weapons, the safer we're all going to be. But it's been a very costly, technically challenging and politically laden process," says Paul Walker of Global Green USA, a U.S.-Russian watchdog group pushing for safe and rapid destruction of both countries' chemical weapons. Because of the U.S. disposal delays, "the Russians really have felt a bit left off the hook," he says.

The U.S. and Russian arsenals include VX and sarin nerve gases as well as blister agents such as mustard gas. All are stored both in bulk containers and armed munitions. U.S. holdings total 31,000 tons. Russia has close to 40,000 tons.

Costs mounting with delays

The United States spends about $1.5 billion a year to protect and dispose of chemical weapons. That's about twice as much as Russia, even counting hundreds of millions of dollars the Russians get each year in U.S. and European assistance. But the Pentagon's investment is bringing limited progress:

• The Bush administration warned Congress this year that the U.S. disposal program has a high potential for failure. The assessment, provided in a 2004 budget addendum, gave the program a score of 17% out of 100% on progress toward destroying all stockpiles by 2012.

• The Pentagon has repeatedly pushed back its schedules for destroying the weapons. Some Pentagon reviews, cited in congressional reports, suggest the program could miss the 2012 deadline by several years or more.

• As of April, six of 10 states that are near the eight remaining U.S. stockpiles were considered fully prepared for emergencies, such as chemical leaks or a terror attack, according to the GAO audits. The other four states were close to being prepared. But delays in disposing of the weapons are increasing safety and security costs. Community requests for federal money to help with emergency preparedness exceeded budget allotments by $88 million in the last two years.

Parker says all the stockpile sites "are in a very strong security posture now." But he says the coming months will be a "cardinal moment" in salvaging any prospect of making the 2012 disposal deadline.

Glitches delay plant startups

One key goal, Parker says, is to begin operating the disposal plants in Indiana and Arkansas, where startups were delayed by technical problems.

At the same time, the Pentagon must keep work on schedule at incineration plants that are running in Anniston, Ala., Umatilla, Ore., and Deseret, Utah. Work at the Utah plant resumed earlier this year after a nine-month halt caused by a small chemical leak.

The Pentagon also must get the planned neutralization plants in Colorado and Kentucky back on track after freezing design work because plans wouldn't meet disposal schedules at an acceptable cost.

The final hurdle is funding to keep the program on track, especially given its troubled history.

"If any part of (the equation) fails to happen," Parker says, "it makes it extremely problematic against the treaty deadline of 2012."