Defense Environment Alert 04/19/05

Defense Environment Alert

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

Vol. 13, No. 8--April 19, 2005

DOD WARNS EPA REPORT PUTS NEWPORT CHEM DEMIL FUNDING AT RISK

A top DOD official is warning that EPA's concerns about the Army's controversial plan to dispose of secondary waste from neutralized chemical weapons in the Delaware River may jeopardize funding for the service's chemical weapons depot in Newport, IN -- which houses 1,269 tons of VX nerve agent.

If EPA does not give its blessing, the Army will be forced to find another disposal option ahead of the 2012 deadline mandated by the Chemical Weapons Convention, such as an on-site disposal or building a "tank farm" to store the waste, an Army spokesman says.

However, Acting Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisitions, Technology and Logistics Michael Wynne told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee April 11 that the process of evaluating new disposal methods for the hydrolosate could drive Newport's costs to a level that would scuttle the whole project.

Environmentalists describe Wynn's warning as an "underhanded" means of pressuring EPA into approving the Army's disposal plan.

The Army's plan would begin by neutralizing the VX at the Newport site, a process that is expected to produce four million gallons of caustic wastewater known as hydrolysate. The Army then plans to transport the hydrolysate to DuPont's Chamber Works Plant in Deepwater, NJ for further treatment. DuPont would then discharge the wastewater into the Delaware River.

But EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in a recent joint report, raised questions about DOD's plan to discharge the waste following secondary treatment. In its portion of the report, EPA withheld its approval for the Delaware River disposal, saying it needed more information on the plan's ecological impacts.

The CDC-EPA report, released April 5, was requested by members of Congress who are worried about the plan's safety. Despite EPA's reservations, the report approved much of DOD's demilitarization plan for Newport, prompting outgoing-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to order contractors to start neutralizing the VX stockpiles next month. Relevant documents are available on InsideEPA.com.

Wynne suggested that if the disposal costs were to rise significantly, he may not be able to certify to Congress that the Newport program is "critical" -- a move that is required under the so-called Nunn-McCurdy law to justify continued spending on weapons programs whose total costs grow by more than 25 percent over the original cost estimate.

To certify programs under the law, DOD must show it is essential to the national security, the program is cost effective, the new cost estimates are "reasonable," and DOD's management structure is adequate to control total program costs, according to the law. The law requires DOD to terminate such programs if they are not certified.

"There is a fine correlation between higher cost and longer schedule when it involves the complexity of the plans we're talking about," Wynne said. "I cite, for example, the continuing EPA concern over the hydrolysate from Newport. Changing the rules for environmental waste is beyond our management capability, yet it may cause me to not certify the Nunn-McCurdy breach for Newport, which would then jeopardize funding for that site, by law."

Wynne said that although he believes Newport's current estimated lifecycle cost of $1.3 billion is under control, "I don't know whether it's under control relative to the EPA regulations," he said.

A DOD spokesman says Wynne would have trouble certifying the Newport program's costs as "effective" and "reasonable" should EPA deny the Delaware disposal plan.

"The cost effectiveness statement requires a summary of whether there are alternatives that will provide equal or greater capability at less cost, and the reasonableness statement requires a total cost breakout and current program estimate," the spokesman says.

A source with the Chemical Weapons Working Group (CWWG), a chemical demilitarization watchdog organization, calls Wynne's Nunn-McCurdy concerns a "scam" aimed at ratcheting up pressure on EPA.

The source points out that Wynne's predecessor, E.C. "Pete" Aldridge, certified DOD's entire chemical demilitarization program against Nunn-McCurdy breaches in May 2002 "It is essential to national security because the United States has signed [the CWC treaty] . . . and by the need to destroy these chemical munitions as quickly and safely as possible to eliminate the risk of agent release from an accident or a terrorist attack," the certification document states.

However, in December 2004, Wynne divided the chemical demilitarization program into three distinct major acquisitions programs: Chemical weapons incinerator sites, Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternative sites, and Newport. This allows Wynne to invoke the threat of a Nunn-McCurdy breach should EPA or other agencies take regulatory actions that would raise costs in any of the three programs, the CWWG source explains.

"This is really underhanded," the source says.

A congressional Democratic source describes Wynne's Nunn-McCurdy argument as an "insane" attempt to use budgetary laws to justify contaminating New Jersey waters. The source declined further comment.

In its section of the report, EPA said there was not enough information to make an informed decision about the disposal. EPA found that trace elements of VX nerve agent could still be present in the hydrolysate, posing a risk to aquatic life in the river. EPA also said it is unclear if certain compounds in the wastewater would increase levels of dissolved inorganic phosphorus in the river, causing unwanted algal blooms and phytoplankton biomass production.

"The Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) does not contain adequate information to conclude that there is no unacceptable risk from the discharge of treated VX hydrolysate to the Delaware River," the report states.

EPA also questioned whether the disposal would meet conditions laid out in DuPont's discharge permit from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. "The Army and/or DuPont should provide effluent characterization studies so that a decision can be made on whether additional limitations and/or conditions on [pollutants] are necessary in the renewal permit," the report states.