Defense Environment Alert 05/02/06

DOD EYES EXPANDING CONTROVERSIAL OFF-SITE CHEMICAL AGENT TREATMENT

Significant public opposition to an Army plan to ship treated nerve agent byproduct from Indiana to New Jersey for additional treatment is not deterring the military from considering a similar plan for mustard agent liquid waste from an Army depot in Pueblo, Colorado, several sources say.

A spokeswoman for DOD's alternative chem demil program says military officials are considering off-site treatment of neutralized chemical weapons liquid waste from the Army's Pueblo Chemical Depot, CO as a potential cost-savings mechanism, even though public opposition to shipping waste from the Indiana facility has slowed the Army's plans there.

The New Jersey facility - the site to which the 4,rmy wants to send the Indiana wastewater for additional treatment - is a likely target for the Colorado waste if off-site treatment is chosen, the DOD spokeswoman says. She concedes, though, that "if regulators aren't supporting you, you could face years of delays. You can't save any money then," adding that other technology options such as incineration are also available to dispose of the waste. Incineration is a method long opposed by environmentalists as a primary treatment of chemical weapons because of the perceived harm to air quality.

DOD is weighing off-site treatment of Pueblo's post-neutralization chemical weapons liquid waste, called hydrolysate, despite widespread resistance from politicians and environmentalists to a similar plan that would send waste from the Newport, IN chemical weapons destruction facility to the DuPont Chambers Works treatment plant in Deepwater, NJ. Politicians and activists along the proposed shipment route - including portions of Ohio, Pennsylvania and other states - and in New Jersey have joined in opposition to the plan, which has already faced permitting obstacles and introduced legislation that would block the effort.

DOD officials are awaiting completion of a third-party report on secondary treatment options at Pueblo before making a decision on off-site treatment, according to the DOD spokeswoman, who officially represents the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) program under which the Pueblo weapons are being destroyed. The report, which she said is expected to be completed in August and will be made public, will look at multiple risk factors associated with shipping and other options at the site.

At issue is how best to dispose of hydrolysate, produced after chemical agents are neutralized with hot water. Although neutralization technology successfully destroys chemical weapons as outlined in the Chemical Weapons Convention, a treaty ratified by the United States and other countries, treatment options for the hydrolysate byproduct have become a contentious issue. Many environmental and citizen groups support on-site secondary treatment, which would require the construction of a facility capable of handling hydrolysate at a demilitarization site.

Nevertheless, the military "is keeping shipment of hydrolysate open as an option" at Pueblo, according to the ACWA

spokeswoman. The site is currently under newly planned construction after years of budget battles and DOD refusals to fully fund the project, potentially ending a period of uncertainty "which has cost us two years of delays," according to a source on the Citizens Advisory Commission (CAC), a panel appointed by the governor that reports to him on the issue.

In the wake of the September I I th attacks DOD sought to accelerate destruction of chemical weapons at Pueblo but backtracked in early 2005 on the plan, instead seeking to put a cap on cost projections and delay funding for several years. The move drew ire from Colorado and Kentucky senators, since ACWA also operates the Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky. DOD reversed course last April and resumed funding for the program (Defense Environment Alert, May 3, 2005, p7).

The ACWA spokeswoman says the new design, which is not yet finalized and could be changed, includes a treatment center that could handle the hydrolysate on-site, but the final decision "could go either way. There are certain cost-saving factors we're considering. Clearly if you don't have to build a [new] facility for something that already exists off-post, you save money."

DOD chemical demilitarization official Jean Reed told Defense Environment Alert that he would rather not comment on budget caps or hydrolysate transport until completion of the August review.

Critics of the off-site treatment option say the move would cost more taxpayer money than on-site treatment, would mean fewer Colorado jobs and is unfair to New Jersey communities who had nothing to do with the waste. "I believe litigation would be filed here in Colorado and other states if they tried to ship it clear to New Jersey," says a second CAC source. "It would add millions to the cost and take years. I think what DOD will find is that there are so many barriers [to shipping hydrolysate] that it won't be cost-beneficial in the long run."

An environmentalist says activists will "wait to see" what decision comes out of DOD in August. "We may have to get our heads together and say 'what do we do now?"' Activists may turn to lawmakers to try to block the shipments, the source says. "I'm fairly convinced that if they plan to ship it, it won't go according to their schedule," the source says.

The DuPont facility in New Jersey is the only site able to handle the entire expected hydrolysate load from Pueblo, several sources say. Other facilities, such as one in Houston, could potentially accept partial shipments, one CAC source says. The New Jersey facility has become the center of a debate about the dangers of shipping such waste across state lines and the possible environmental damage caused by dumping the treated hydrolysate into the Delaware River as the Army plan intends.

The New Jersey disposal plan for the Newport shipments has already faced stiff criticism, with New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D) opposing it and Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) recently including legislation in the defense authorization bill to block the shipment pending a Government Accountability Office cost-benefit analysis.

Reining in costs has been a consistent DOD theme in its chemical weapons program, an issue addressed by several high-level DOD officials at a CAC meeting April 17. According to several sources present, officials including Dale Klein, assistant to the Secretary of Defense for nuclear and chemical and biological defense programs, and Reed, DOD special assistant for chemical and biological defense and chemical demilitarization programs, assured the CAC and others at the meeting that funding would be made available in future years for the Pueblo facility despite historical difficulties.

"Klein was emphatic when he said the design and budget would have [his] full support. His message is everything is on track," says a CAC source. The source points out, however, that "the [DOD] commitment is there but other national issues could take precedence at any time" when Congress approves appropriations.

The Pueblo site is being designed for destruction of munitions with chemical warheads, whereas the Newport facility has only bulk containers of liquid agent. The energetics, or explosive components of munitions, may also be shipped off-site for disposal from Pueblo, according to the ACWA spokeswoman. That plan is less controversial, although some civilian activists oppose it.