Rep. Jim Matheson says a letter from the U.S. Department of Defense reinforces fears that aging chemical weapons will be shipped from Colorado to Utah for incineration.

The letter, dated March 10, was written by Michael W. Wynne, acting undersecretary of the Defense Department. Wynne was responding to a Jan. 26 letter from Matheson, D-Utah, that was addressed to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Matheson wrote to the secretary to express concerns that chemical weapons might be shipped from the Pueblo, Colo., Chemical Depot to the Army's chemical weapons incinerator near Stockton, Tooele County, for destruction. The concern was prompted by a study the Army is carrying out on how to destroy weapons by a treaty deadline. The study includes looking at the possibility of moving the arms.

Matheson had pointed out that a law passed by Congress, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, "expressly prohibits the transportation of chemical munitions across state lines."

In his reply, Wynne wrote that the department "remains committed to the timely, safe and cost-effective disposal of the chemical weapons at the Tooele facility, while ensuring the safety of the public and environment."

Plans that would have led to a chemical neutralization program at Pueblo are on hold, Wynne noted. He called the proposed method "technically challenging."

The proposed design at Pueblo would have "unacceptably high risk," and that factor is reflected in the cost of the project. At the same time, he cited "the design to maximize our ability to also meet the 100 percent" criteria in the Chemical Weapons Convention — destruction of all the arms by April 2012.

Because of that, Wynne wrote, he has directed the program manager for chemical demilitarization "to develop potential alternatives that are timely, safe and cost-effective. These potential alternatives may include consolidation of the chemical weapons, redefining our requirements in terms of performance, cost and schedule, as well as seeking competition for further work."

The acting undersecretary added, "We understand that any plan to relocate chemical weapons would require statutory authority."

Although the Army may well continue in the current direction, meaning destruction of the Pueblo weapons in Pueblo, the study would at least fully inform planners of "the cost and benefit of that alternative," he added.

More information about the future of the Pueblo stockpile is expected by June.

Matheson called Wynne's response unsatisfactory. According to his office, he is teaming with Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., to say the letter seems to indicate the Army does intend to move the arms to Utah.