Defense Environment Alert
February 25, 2003

CITIZENS URGE ON-SITE DISPOSAL FOR CHEM WEAPONS SECONDARY WASTE

A coalition of citizen groups from communities near the Army's chemical weapons storage and disposal sites is calling on the military to only use on-site disposal methods for secondary wastes from destruction of the nation's chemical weapons stockpile. The coalition is raising concerns about the potential violation of environmental justice principles if secondary waste is sent to commercial facilities. An Army spokesman, however, says that any off-site disposal will only occur at properly permitted facilities.

The Feb. 17 statement from the Chemical Weapons Working Group (CWWG) reiterates the coalition's opposition to incineration but acknowledges the chemical weapons disposal process will result in waste that will unavoidably be landfilled because it is impossible to truly destroy matter. "Our goal is to urge the Army and its contractors to reuse and recycle materials whenever possible, and ensure that other wastes be reduced as far as possible to the lowest quantity, and the lowest toxicity, in order to minimize the impact to public health and the environment." The statement is available on InsideEPA. com. See page 2 for details.

CWWG says it supports "the safe, on-site disposal of chemical weapons and secondary wastes with nonincineration technology" based on four principles.

The first is outlined in CWWG's 1991 International Citizens Accords, which state, in part, "If, as a last resort, transportation of chemical weapons must be undertaken, it should be only for final treatment and/or disposal, after necessary stabilization, with the consent of affected communities."

CWWG also says the majority of hazardous waste disposal facilities, particularly those that burn, deep well inject or landfill such wastes, are located in communities where the population is mostly poor and/or non-white. And the off-site shipment of wastes to such facilities violates the principles of environmental justice, "which state that all peoples, regardless of race and income, deserve equal protection of public health."

Finally, CWWG says the Defense Department has approved several non-incineration technologies for disposal of chemical agent neutralent and other secondary wastes. "These technologies were designed to be used as on-site follow-up treatment to chemical agent neutralization processes," the statement says. "There is no need for transporting secondary wastes to incinerators, nor 'waste- to -energy' combustion facilities, nor deep well injection, nor any other such technology."

"In the instance of off-site secondary waste treatment in a non-incineration facility, the recipient community and communities along transportation routes must be fully informed of this option by the Army and its contractor, before any final decisions have been made," the statement says. "Those communities have every right to reject such shipments, based on factors such as environmental racism, poor technology performance, avoidable risks to human health or the environment, adverse impacts on affected communities, and/or lack of government or corporate accountability."

Speaking last week at a meeting of the Indiana Citizens Advisory Commission - a governor-appointed board tasked with advising the Army and state on chemical weapons disposal issues - Sara Morgan of Montazuma, IN, said there were numerous reasons why secondary wastes should be treated on-site.

"Whether the reason is based in environmental justice, or keeping jobs at the chemical weapons sites, we believe that the waste can best be treated on-site," Morgan said in a statement released by CWWG Feb. 20. "The Army and its contractors need to consider secondary waste treatment very carefully, and engage the public in reviewing the options before any decisions are made. At the very least, the Army needs to fully inform communities of the potential for receiving wastes, even if those wastes are relatively benign. If they don't they may wind up finding opposition around every corner."

According to CWWG, the Army is facing opposition to its plan to commercially treat VX hydrolysate from its Newport, IN, stockpile site at a PermaFix facility in Dayton, OR A Dayton community group, Land Lovers Against Neighborhood Dumping, says the facility is a menace to local residents and cannot be trusted to manage the waste responsibly, CWWG says. Citizens and elected officials from East St. Louis, IL, have also publicly opposed chemical weapons waste shipments to a facility in that community.

CWWG director Craig Williams, in the Feb. 20 statement, said one of the most blatant examples of environmental injustice is the plan to ship secondary wastes from the Army's Anniston, AL, chemical weapons incinerator to Sauget, IL, Port Arthur, TX, and Emelle, AL. CWWG says these communities' populations are 90 to 97 percent minority, have high poverty rates and a history of toxic contamination.

Williams called on the Army to conduct an assessment of the impact these shipments would have on other communities and to provide up-to-date, concrete evidence that off-site waste shipments would be protective, efficient or cost effective. "We want the Army and its contractors to be more responsible with this waste, and we think other communities will join us in that position," he said.