Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Denver Post
September 23, 2007
Pg. C1
As the U.S. government continues to delay action to neutralize and dispose of mustard agent at the Pueblo Chemical Depot, area residents' patience wears thin and concern deepens.
By Erin Emery, Denver Post Staff Writer
Avondale - JoAnn Solano lives 4 miles outside the razor-wire fence that encloses thousands of chemical weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot.
She has been issued an "alert" radio and an emergency kit of plastic sheeting and duct tape to create an airtight environment in her home should catastrophe strike.
Like so many in this community, Solano has been waiting two decades for the Army to destroy more than 780,000 mortar and artillery projectiles containing 2,611 tons of mustard agent.
She has tried to be patient. But when she heard last week that the government has ordered two more studies to determine whether to ship a toxic cocktail of mustard and water across state lines, Solano was exasperated.
"What's with the government?" she asked. "First they said they were ready to get started, then there was a holdup, then they were ready to get started, then another holdup. Now they want to transfer it? Why endanger more than one city by moving this stuff?"
Mustard agent is a liquid that resembles molasses in color and consistency. It can cause blistering of the skin and, in very large amounts, respiratory problems and death.
The weapons have been kept at the depot since the 1950s. And despite 20 years of planning for their demise, only in the past few years have there been signs that weapons will be destroyed.
An access road, security fence, security checkpoint, high-mast lights and utilities have been installed at a cost of $450 million, a fraction of the projected total cost of $3.6 billion.
The community accepted a plan to neutralize the mustard with water, creating a substance called hydrolysate that would be sent to an on-site biotreatment plant, similar to a municipal sewage plant, for destruction.
But again, it is all up in the air.
Now the government wants to find out whether it can save time or money by shipping the hydrolysate somewhere else rather than building a treatment plant at the site. Two studies will be completed, one by the National Research Council to consider the best way to dispose of secondary waste (crates and metal parts used to hold the mustard) and another by Noblis, formerly known as Mitretek, to study the shipment of hydrolysate. The Noblis study will cost $450,000. The Army did not know how much the NRC study would cost.
Both studies are to be completed in February, and the Army has promised that it will not delay the project. But after 20 years of waiting, people are suspicious.
"It gets to the point of how many more studies do you need?" said Irene Kornelly, chair of the Citizens' Advisory Commission. "Is this study after study so that you get the answer that you want? This is going to be, what, studies four and five?"
Pueblo leaders want the hydrolysate destroyed on-site. They fear that going through another round of discussion about destruction will only delay the project and consequently make it even more expensive. They also want to save the jobs that would be created for workers to destroy the hydrolysate on-site.
The government agency in charge of weapons destruction at Pueblo and Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky said previous studies addressed community concerns and regulatory issues but did not adequately address whether shipping the hydrolysate would save money.
The U.S. has already received extensions on a global chemical-weapons treaty now mandating that the U.S. destroy its stockpiled weaponry by 2012. But delays in funding, and arguments over the technology used for destruction - incineration versus neutralization - have made it impossible for the U.S. to comply by that date.
Congress, led by Colorado Sens. Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar, is now in the process of mandating a destruction date of 2017. The Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternative (ACWA) program said that action has made the need for the studies even more urgent now.
"We were aware that this congressional legislation was being discussed, and so we anticipated that was probably going to be made into law. So we knew that we would have to begin looking for ways to accelerate the program schedule," said Kathy DeWeese, spokeswoman for ACWA. "We really can't tell from what we've done before whether or not shipping that stuff off-site currently would help accelerate the program schedule."
DeWeese said the government completed two studies in 2006, but "those were more about community input, and what we need it for now is to see whether there is cost and risk reduction to these communities."
But Kornelly said the studies showed "that if everything went right, they would be able to save some money, but in all probability everything would not go right, and so, therefore, it didn't make sense."
Ross Vincent, a senior policy adviser with the Sierra Club, said the hydrolysate is essentially diluted thiodiglycol, a close cousin to antifreeze.
"It really is wrong and reprehensible. You don't dump your waste over the fence and into your neighbor's yard," Vincent said.
The issue is back on the table, in part, because a judge in Indiana recently allowed the Army to move partially treated VX nerve-agent waste to the low-income, mostly African-American community of Port Arthur, Texas, for incineration.
"The decision in Indiana has definitely opened the door for a lot more waste to come to the city of Port Arthur," said Hilton Kelley, who is leading an effort in Port Arthur to oppose shipments of hydrolysate. "This is one reason why we are standing up so adamantly against the shipment of VX nerve gas to this area. This is not good for our community, it's not good for our health. It's not good for our kids."
In Avondale, people such as Solano sympathize with the people in Port Arthur.
"If it is dangerous, it's dangerous. Why move it? What happens if a truck tips over and it kills all the vegetation and gets into the water?" Solano said.
Meantime, Solano said she has no choice but to do what she has done for 20 years - be patient.
"We've lived here all these years," she said, "and I guess we'll just stay here and hope to God we die of natural causes and not that the government killed us off overnight because of a leakage or something that blew up overnight."
September 23, 2007
Pg. C1
As the U.S. government continues to delay action to neutralize and dispose of mustard agent at the Pueblo Chemical Depot, area residents' patience wears thin and concern deepens.
By Erin Emery, Denver Post Staff Writer
Avondale - JoAnn Solano lives 4 miles outside the razor-wire fence that encloses thousands of chemical weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot.
She has been issued an "alert" radio and an emergency kit of plastic sheeting and duct tape to create an airtight environment in her home should catastrophe strike.
Like so many in this community, Solano has been waiting two decades for the Army to destroy more than 780,000 mortar and artillery projectiles containing 2,611 tons of mustard agent.
She has tried to be patient. But when she heard last week that the government has ordered two more studies to determine whether to ship a toxic cocktail of mustard and water across state lines, Solano was exasperated.
"What's with the government?" she asked. "First they said they were ready to get started, then there was a holdup, then they were ready to get started, then another holdup. Now they want to transfer it? Why endanger more than one city by moving this stuff?"
Mustard agent is a liquid that resembles molasses in color and consistency. It can cause blistering of the skin and, in very large amounts, respiratory problems and death.
The weapons have been kept at the depot since the 1950s. And despite 20 years of planning for their demise, only in the past few years have there been signs that weapons will be destroyed.
An access road, security fence, security checkpoint, high-mast lights and utilities have been installed at a cost of $450 million, a fraction of the projected total cost of $3.6 billion.
The community accepted a plan to neutralize the mustard with water, creating a substance called hydrolysate that would be sent to an on-site biotreatment plant, similar to a municipal sewage plant, for destruction.
But again, it is all up in the air.
Now the government wants to find out whether it can save time or money by shipping the hydrolysate somewhere else rather than building a treatment plant at the site. Two studies will be completed, one by the National Research Council to consider the best way to dispose of secondary waste (crates and metal parts used to hold the mustard) and another by Noblis, formerly known as Mitretek, to study the shipment of hydrolysate. The Noblis study will cost $450,000. The Army did not know how much the NRC study would cost.
Both studies are to be completed in February, and the Army has promised that it will not delay the project. But after 20 years of waiting, people are suspicious.
"It gets to the point of how many more studies do you need?" said Irene Kornelly, chair of the Citizens' Advisory Commission. "Is this study after study so that you get the answer that you want? This is going to be, what, studies four and five?"
Pueblo leaders want the hydrolysate destroyed on-site. They fear that going through another round of discussion about destruction will only delay the project and consequently make it even more expensive. They also want to save the jobs that would be created for workers to destroy the hydrolysate on-site.
The government agency in charge of weapons destruction at Pueblo and Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky said previous studies addressed community concerns and regulatory issues but did not adequately address whether shipping the hydrolysate would save money.
The U.S. has already received extensions on a global chemical-weapons treaty now mandating that the U.S. destroy its stockpiled weaponry by 2012. But delays in funding, and arguments over the technology used for destruction - incineration versus neutralization - have made it impossible for the U.S. to comply by that date.
Congress, led by Colorado Sens. Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar, is now in the process of mandating a destruction date of 2017. The Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternative (ACWA) program said that action has made the need for the studies even more urgent now.
"We were aware that this congressional legislation was being discussed, and so we anticipated that was probably going to be made into law. So we knew that we would have to begin looking for ways to accelerate the program schedule," said Kathy DeWeese, spokeswoman for ACWA. "We really can't tell from what we've done before whether or not shipping that stuff off-site currently would help accelerate the program schedule."
DeWeese said the government completed two studies in 2006, but "those were more about community input, and what we need it for now is to see whether there is cost and risk reduction to these communities."
But Kornelly said the studies showed "that if everything went right, they would be able to save some money, but in all probability everything would not go right, and so, therefore, it didn't make sense."
Ross Vincent, a senior policy adviser with the Sierra Club, said the hydrolysate is essentially diluted thiodiglycol, a close cousin to antifreeze.
"It really is wrong and reprehensible. You don't dump your waste over the fence and into your neighbor's yard," Vincent said.
The issue is back on the table, in part, because a judge in Indiana recently allowed the Army to move partially treated VX nerve-agent waste to the low-income, mostly African-American community of Port Arthur, Texas, for incineration.
"The decision in Indiana has definitely opened the door for a lot more waste to come to the city of Port Arthur," said Hilton Kelley, who is leading an effort in Port Arthur to oppose shipments of hydrolysate. "This is one reason why we are standing up so adamantly against the shipment of VX nerve gas to this area. This is not good for our community, it's not good for our health. It's not good for our kids."
In Avondale, people such as Solano sympathize with the people in Port Arthur.
"If it is dangerous, it's dangerous. Why move it? What happens if a truck tips over and it kills all the vegetation and gets into the water?" Solano said.
Meantime, Solano said she has no choice but to do what she has done for 20 years - be patient.
"We've lived here all these years," she said, "and I guess we'll just stay here and hope to God we die of natural causes and not that the government killed us off overnight because of a leakage or something that blew up overnight."