[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 30 (Monday, February 25, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1124-S1125]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS RECEIVED DURING 
                                 RECESS

  By Mr. SALAZAR:
  S. 2656. A bill to prohibit the transport of hydrolysate from the 
Pueblo Chemical Depot, Colorado, to an off-site location; to the 
Committee on Armed Services under authority of the order of the Senate 
of 02/14/2008.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that will help us achieve swift and safe destruction of the chemical 
weapons stored at the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Colorado. Congressman 
John Salazar and Congressman Mark Udall are introducing similar 
legislation today in the House.
  The Pueblo Chemical Depot is home to 780,000 munitions filled with 
over 2,600 tons of liquid mustard agent--around 8.5 percent of the 
original U.S. chemical stockpile. The munitions sit in 96 high security 
igloos as they await disassembly and destruction.
  The congressionally ratified Chemical Weapons Convention mandates 
that these munitions be destroyed by 2012. Unfortunately, the 
Department of Defense is woefully behind in fulfilling its 
responsibilities because it consistently underfunds a program that is 
essential to our national security and to the safety of nearby 
communities.
  Every year we have to fight to put money back into the Assembled 
Chemical Weapons Alternatives, ACWA, program, the authority that is 
overseeing the destruction operation at Pueblo and at the Blue Grass 
Army Depot, in Kentucky. But, thanks to Congressional intervention, we 
have succeeded in getting the program moving. Last year Congress 
allocated over $400 million for weapons destruction at the Pueblo 
Chemical Depot and the Blue Grass Army Depot. I want to thank Chairman 
Levin and Ranking Member McCain of the Armed Services Committee, 
Chairman Inouye and Ranking Member Stevens of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee, and Chairman Dorgan and Ranking Member 
Hutchison of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs 
Appropriations Subcommittee for all their help.
  If you visit the Pueblo Chemical Depot today, you will see that 
contractors have begun to lay the utilities and foundations for the 
processing facility that will treat the agent. And you will see that 
they have begun construction of the biotreatment facility, which will 
treat the hydrolysate that is the byproduct of the mustard 
neutralization process. It is a welcome sight to finally see earth 
moving. In addition to the funding that Congress restored in fiscal 
year 2008 for chemical weapons destruction, we also passed legislation 
to set a hard deadline of 2017 for the Department of Defense to 
complete all chemical weapons destruction activities.
  It is no secret that DOD is going to miss the 2012 treaty deadline 
for weapons destruction at Pueblo. That's what happens when you drag 
your feet and fail to put adequate resources behind a program. But the 
law we passed last year says that even if they miss the 2012 deadline, 
the Department of Defense shall complete work on the destruction of the 
entire stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions absolutely no 
later than 2017. Every six months, the department has to report to 
Congress on the progress they are making, what resources are needed, 
and how much funding is programmed to fulfill this requirement.
  For those of us who have been fighting this fight for the Pueblo 
site, the hard deadline of 2017 is a dramatic improvement. At the pace 
that we were moving under administration's funding projections last 
year, destruction activities there were expected to be completed 
sometime in 2021. 2021.
  This is absurd, especially with DOD's own admission that with higher 
funding levels they could complete destruction at Pueblo a full five 
years earlier than that.
  I am proud that this 2017 deadline has been signed into law and I 
look forward to working with the Department of Defense to ensure that 
the U.S. Government meets this legal obligation.
  Unfortunately, we still have more work to do to see that these 
chemical weapons are destroyed as swiftly and safely as possible. For 
one thing, we will have to continue to hold DOD's feet to the fire to 
ensure that they are devoting adequate resources to chemical weapons 
destruction.
  We will also have to work to help make the chemical weapons 
destruction process proceed as smoothly, safely, and expeditiously as 
possible. This means watching to make sure that DOD does not get bogged 
down in bureaucracy or red tape that could cause delays.
  There is a real danger of this at the Pueblo Site, where the 
Department of Defense is yet again studying whether it should ship 
hydrolysate, a byproduct of neutralizing mustard agent, to an off-site 
location for destruction. Hydrolysate is a hazardous waste that must be 
subjected to a biotreatment process to make it non-hazardous.
  At Pueblo, they have already begun construction of an on site 
biotreatment facility to neutralize the hydrolysate. This is great 
news. It is the simplest solution and, according to two recent studies, 
the fastest way to treat all the hydrolysate.
  These two studies, completed in 2007, both concluded that shipping 
hydrolysate off-site would yield few, if any, cost-savings and would 
likely result in litigation, strong public opposition, and potential 
delays to chemical weapons destruction. An analysis conducted by 
Mitretek found that ``a decision for off-site treatment will probably 
result in litigation of the CD at Pueblo, resulting in extensive 
delays. Every month of delay costs roughly $15-$16 million. Any delay 
over 6 months, regardless of cause, would be expected to erase all 
possible savings, even under the most optimistic assumptions.''

[[Page S1125]]

  The report by Lean Six Sigma concluded that off-site destruction 
would actually cost more and could result in as much as a five-year 
delay in chemical weapons destruction at Pueblo.
  Given the conclusions of these recent studies on hydrolysate 
destruction, I am perplexed that the Department is conducting yet 
another study on the potential cost savings of hydrolysate destruction. 
It is unclear to me what questions remain unanswered. These studies 
clearly show that shipping hydrolysate off-site raises risks of 
permitting delays or litigation. With a 2017 deadline to meet, the 
Department of Defense can't afford a permitting delay that sets the 
project off course.
  The bill I am introducing today is very simple. It prohibits the 
Secretary of Defense from shipping hydrolysate at the Pueblo Chemical 
Depot off-site for treatment. This will ensure that DOD can continue to 
proceed on its current path toward treating hydrolysate on-site. It 
will help the U.S. Government meet its legal obligation to complete 
chemical weapons destruction by 2017. And it will provide some 
certainty to the communities that have waited so long for these 
chemical weapons to be safely destroyed.
  We need to put this potentially costly and dilatory issue behind us 
and proceed with the safe and swift destruction of our Nation's 
stockpile of chemical weapons.

                          ____________________