Defense Environment Alert

an exclusive biweekly report on defense policies for cleanup, compliance and pollution prevention

Vol. 16, No. 6

March 18, 2008

LAWMAKERS SEEK TO HALT OFF-SITE CHEM WEAPONS WASTE SHIPMENT

Colorado lawmakers are seeking to block any off-site shipping of secondary waste products from a chemical weapons disposal plant in Pueblo, CO, as DOD considers alternatives to on-site processing, despite public and political support for on-site disposal. The push against off-site treatment comes as activists are continuing their long-time battle with the Army over off-site treatment of secondary waste stemming from its Newport, IN, facilities and as DOD may face another fight at a chemical weapons facility in Blue Grass, KY.

Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) introduced legislation in the Senate Feb. 15, which would prohibit DOD from moving neutralized waste product from the destruction of chemical weapons at Pueblo to another site for final disposal. Salazar's bill, S. 2656, states "the Secretary of Defense may not transport hydrolysate from the Pueblo Chemical Depot, Colorado, to an off-site location for treatment, storage or disposal." Hydrolysate is the waste product produced after the military breaks down chemical agent by the process known as neutralization.

Reps. John Salazar (D-CO), Mark Udall (D-CO) and Ben Chandler (D-KY) are also backing the measure, urging DOD in a joint Feb. 15 statement with Sen. Salazar not to miss a new congressionally-mandated deadline for disposal of all chemical weapons in the U.S. stockpile by 2017. Reps. Salazar and Udall have introduced companion language in the House, proposing to add the measure to the upcoming fiscal year 2009 defense authorization bill.

"I will work with my colleagues to stand firm on the 2017 deadline and to assure the entire job is done in Pueblo and nothing is shipped off-site," Rep. Salazar says. Udall adds "the community and the Army have agreed on the plan to be followed, which includes doing the whole job on-site."

Lawmakers and activists in Colorado are disturbed that after DOD laid plans to dispose of the weapons and to treat all resulting waste on-site, it is now considering shipping the hydrolysate elsewhere in a bid to save money. Activists point to previous studies conducted by external consultants and the military that found delay and additional costs are likely if the materials are shipped off-site, especially if shipment elsewhere results in litigation. DOD has already begun construction of a bio-treatment facility to handle the hydrolysate at Pueblo, they add.

The concern over off-site shipment stems from two ongoing studies into the economic viability of off-site processing, one by the consultant Noblis (formerly Mitretek), and the other by the National Research Council (NRC). According to a spokeswoman for DOD's Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) program, which oversees destruction of the stockpiles at Pueblo and Blue Grass, the results of the Noblis study should be known in April, while the NRC study should be complete by the end of the year.

On off-site shipment, the spokeswoman says: "We are in the middle of assessments to determine whether it would be cost effective." ACWA will not comment on the proposed legislation, saying only "we will implement whatever Congress decides." Relevant documents are available on InsideEPA.com. See page 2 for details.

ACWA's decision to request the studies came in response to a January 2007 directive from then-Under Secretary of Defense Kenneth Krieg, who resigned in June 2007. In the Jan. 10, 2007 memo, Krieg directed ACWA to "continue to pursue off-site treatment and disposal, as long as doing so would be economically beneficial to the Department."

A source with the Sierra Club says in written comments submitted to the National Academy of Sciences, the parent body of the NRC, that off-site shipment is potentially unsafe, and does not save money. The comments formed part of a public consultation exercise preceding the NRC study.

"Transportation of contaminated wastes almost always increases risks to workers and to the public," says the source, who also argues that asking communities in other parts of the country to accept the risks associated with those wastes, without any say over the matter, is "unethical and irresponsible." "The chances of saving money by attempting to transport chemical weapons-related wastes are slim-to-none," the source says.

"The total cost of destroying the weapons here will be minimized and the schedule will be compressed as much as possible if the Pentagon and ACWA will simply commit fully to the current design and request sufficient funding to get the job done," says the source.

A source with the citizen activist coalition Chemical Weapons Working Group (CWWG), which also opposes off-site shipment of hydrolysate, points to studies conducted in 2006 by Mitretek and ACWA that found no time or cost savings in off-site shipment.

CWWG along with the Sierra Club, is suing the Army for the off-site shipment of hydrolysate from its Newport facility. The CWWG source says that the plaintiffs are now awaiting a ruling in the case, Sierra Club, et. al. v. Robert Gates, Secretary ofDefense, et al., which is before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The court so far has allowed the shipments of waste to proceed to Port Arthur, Texas, where it is being incinerated by a commercial incinerator (Defense EnvironmentAlert, Oct. 30, 2007, pl7).