CWWG
Chemical Weapons Working Group
P.O. Box 467, Berea, Kentucky   40403
859-986-7565      859-986-2695 (F)
kefcwwg@cwwg.org
www.cwwg.org


The Honorable Claude M. Bolton, Jr.
Assistant Secretary of the Army (AL&T)
103 Army Pentagon
Washington DC 20310-0103


September 1, 2005


Dear Secretary Bolton,

For more than two years, the U.S. Army Office for the Elimination of Chemical Weapons has pushed to destroy VX hydrolysate from Newport, Indiana at an off-site commercial hazardous waste treatment facility.  And for more than two years, citizens living in Indiana have opposed this plan.

First, the Army tried to ship the waste for disposal to a Perma-Fix biological treatment facility in Dayton, Ohio.  The neighborhood surrounding the facility, having valid concerns regarding the final disposition of the waste, refused to accept the VX hydrolysate.  Local residents, community groups and Ohio elected officials protested the shipment, citizens filed an Environmental Justice complaint, and noticed their intent to file a NEPA complaint The Army then determined not to ship the waste to Dayton.  However instead of going back to its original plan for on-site disposal of the hydrolysate in Indiana, as was repeatedly requested by the CWWG and Indiana citizens, the Army turned it’s attention to the DuPont facility in Salem County, New Jersey.  

More recently, the Pentagon has asked the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives program (ACWA) to consider off-site shipment of hydrolysate from Kentucky and Colorado as a cost-saving measure.  These two communities, like Newport, Indiana, have unequivocally stated their desire to destroy the hydrolysate on-site using safe, publicly acceptable technology.

Despite its repeated assertion that shipping the hydrolysate for off-site treatment will be cheaper than on-site disposal, the Army has yet to produce any evidence to that effect.  Ironically, there are a number of factors associated with hydrolysate shipment that makes that option more expensive:  1) because the Army didn’t follow the original plan, they have already had to construct a storage tank farm in Newport to store the hydrolysate until a final treatment decision is made; 2) gas prices have increased sharply and will undoubtedly impact transportation costs; and 3) the number of technical problems with the hydrolysate directly related to the storage and shipment of the waste (such as the flammability of the hydrolysate), significant issues associated with the treatability via bioremediation of the VXH and ecological impact of final disposition of the effluent into the Delaware River, all of which have yet to be resolved.   

As time goes on, the Army’s hydrolysate shipment plan only draws greater criticism and opposition from chemical weapons stockpile communities as well as the residents in the proposed reception communities and along the transportation route.  In New Jersey, law makers have legitimately attempted to stop this unsafe disposal plan.  Specifically they introduced federal legislation mandating that the Army consider on-site treatment of hydrolysate with one of the same non-incineration technologies demonstrated viable by the ACWA program.

The Chemical Weapons Working Group (CWWG), along with the organizations listed below, are writing to recommend the following solution that is simple, viable and makes sense:
1. that the Army construct a Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) facility at Newport to destroy the VX agent hydrolysate currently being produced; and
2. that the SCWO units then be relocated to the Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky to destroy the chemical agent hydrolysate that will be generated there.

The benefits to the Army and citizens in Indiana and Kentucky are clear.

• SCWO is a proven technology that is already permitted in Indiana and that has full support from citizens and elected officials in Kentucky.
• The Army could save costs by reuse of the SCWO units.
• Officials at the Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky have expressed interest in using a SCWO unit to destroy other conventional munitions in a contained environment, rather than the past practice involving open detonation.
• Disposal operations would unquestionably be in compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
• Transportation risks regarding the toxicity and flammability of hydrolysate would be moot, as disposal would take place in a unit capable of handling the waste.
• SCWO is a technology that successfully passed ACWA demonstrations as an effective means of disposal for all types of chemical agent hydrolysate.
• In choosing on-site disposal the Army will most certainly avoid additional  Environmental Justice complaints or litigation by citizens and environmental groups on the hydrolysate shipment issue.
• Indiana and Kentucky laborers would welcome the job opportunities that would otherwise be lost if the hydrolysate is shipped elsewhere.     
• The Army would avoid any hazardous materials transportation re-routing and chemical security regulations, which may apply now or in the future, to chemical agent hydrolysate.

For their part, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania would be spared any safety risks associated with transportation; New Jersey and Delaware residents would likewise be spared any safety and ecological risks associated with transport and treatment of the hydrolysate at DuPont.   Biological treatment of VX hydrolysate has simply not been proven effective, and few of the “fixes” proposed by the Army and DuPont have been tested to the satisfaction of citizens or regulatory agencies.

The controversial history associated with off-site shipment speaks for itself.  In addition, however, it appears that hydrolysate shipments may violate existing federal law and international agreements.  Under US law it is illegal to transport chemical weapons across state lines (PL  103-337). “Chemical weapons,” as defined within the CWC means “toxic chemicals and their precursors,” whether “together or separately.”  Many of the identified constituents contained in hydrolysate meet this definition.    

In summary, there appears to be no cost, schedule, public safety, or political benefits in sending the hydrolysate off-site.   The Army’s decision to send the waste off-site came about in response to a Congressional request to speed up the chemical agent destruction process, yet the plan has only created new complications. As you know, VX neutralization is underway in Indiana and the permitting process is moving forward in Kentucky, yet the Army’s illogical allegiance to off-site disposal of the hydrolysate continues to hold back the chemical weapons disposal program and has created fear and distrust of the agency where  little ill-will had previously existed.    

If the Army continues to push for off-site shipment of the hydrolysate, there will most certainly be continued community and political resistance, unanswered safety questions, technical risks, schedule delays, lawsuits, and cost escalations.  This is counterproductive to the Army’s mission, Congress’ goal to meet CWC milestones and deadlines, and the well-being of the communities that wholeheartedly embraced the neutralization/SCWO treatment option.  It is time for the Army to quit fooling around and seriously assess its options for treatment of the hydrolysate in an open, transparent manner.  

The CWWG intends to actively pursue the proposal outlined in this letter.  We welcome the opportunity to discuss this proposal further with you and/or CMA officials, elected officials, the Indiana Citizens Advisory Commission, the Kentucky Citizens Advisory Commission and the Chemical Destruction Community Advisory Board at the soonest possible time.    

Sincerely,



Craig Williams, Director
Chemical Weapons Working Group
Berea, KY

Sara Morgan
Citziens Against Incineration at Newport
Newport, IN

Leonard Akers
Plumbers and Steamfitters Local Union 157
Newport, IN

Tina Daly, Military Toxics Coordinator
Pennsylvania Environmental Network
Phoenixville, PA

Joe Parrish
NJ Environmental Watch
Elizabeth, NJ

Laura Rench
Citizens for the Responsible Destruction of Chemical Weapons
New Lebanon, OH

Sharon Finlayson, Chair
New Jersey Environmental Federation
Pennsauken, NJ

Rae Schnapp, PhD
Wabash Riverkeeper
Hoosier Environmental Council
Indianapolis, IN

Maya van Rossum, Director
Delaware Riverkeeper Network
Washington Crossing, PA
 
Alan Muller, Director
Green Delaware
Port Penn, DE

Sandy Buchanan, Executive Director
Ohio Citizen Action
Cleveland, OH

Bill Smedley, Executive Director
GreenWatch, Inc.
Jersey Shore, PA


Cc:    
Kenneth Krieg, Under Secretary of Defense
Dr. Dale Klein, Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs
Douglas Englund, Interim Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Chemical Demilitarization and Threat Reduction
Michael A. Parker, Director Chemical Materials Agency
Kevin J. Flamm, Program Manager for the Elimination of Chemical Weapons
Col. Jesse Barber, Project Manager for Alternative Technologies and Approaches
Evan Bayh, U.S. Senator—IN
Richard Lugar, U.S. Senator—IN
John Hostettler, U.S. Representative—IN
Tim Skinner, IN State Senator
Dale Grubb, IN State Representative
Mitch McConnell, U.S. Senator—KY
Jim Bunning, U.S. Senator—KY
Ben Chandler, U.S. Representative—KY
Ed Worley, KY State Senator
Harry Moberly, KY State Representative
Jon Corzine, U.S. Senator—NJ
Frank Lautenburg, U.S. Senator—NJ
Robert E. Andrews, U.S. Representative—NJ
Stephen Sweeney, NJ State Senator
John Burzichelli, NJ State Assemblyman
Douglas Fisher, NJ State Assemblyman
Joseph Biden, U.S. Senator—DE
Thomas Carper, U.S. Senator—DE
Michael N. Castle, U.S. Representative—DE
David B. McBride, State Senator—DE
Gregory F. Lavelle, State Representative—DE
Richard Cathcart, State Representative—DE


CWWG

CWWG Home Page

Contact us:
Chemical Weapons Working Group
Kentucky Environmental Foundation
P.O. Box 467
Berea, KY 40403
phone: 859-986-7565
fax: 859-986-2695


For comments about this WWW page contact Lois Kleffman.