Home About Us Press Releases Publications Contact Us Links

Chronology of the Army’s Efforts to Ship VX Nerve Agent Waste from 
Newport, Indiana to Commercial Treatment Facilities

March 2002

• DoD issues directive for off-site shipment of VX hydrolysate (VXH) as part of their accelerated disposal effort in response to September 11th.
• Early input from community groups expressing concerns are met with the position that, “If a facility is permitted to treat hazardous waste, then it’s not our problem.”
• Off-site option is claimed to be “quicker and more cost effective.”*

* To date (July 2007) the Army has provided only one detailed cost analysis document. Of that document, the Government Accounting Office said, “We determined that the [Army] estimates were unreliable because of (1) the quantity and magnitude of errors, (2) quality control weaknesses, (3) questionable or inadequate supporting source data and documentation, and (4) the undetermined sensitivity of key assumptions.” The Report went on to say, “Neither the Army nor the contractor has a system in place to perform cross-checks of the costs, underlying assumptions, or the technical parameters that went into the estimates.”

August 2002

• Proposals from off-site Toxic Substance Disposal Facilities to treat VXH are solicited.

January 2003

• Perma-Fix facility, located in Dayton, Ohio identified as the off-site treatment facility of choice. Treatability studies initiated.

 February 2003

• Organized opposition to receiving VXH begins in Dayton:

                         - Local elected officials begin voicing opposition;
                   - Local government tasks an independent scientific review of the plan;
                   - Dayton citizens groups obtain legal council.

April 2003

• Public meetings held in Dayton on shipment. Local government officials promise official opposition via resolutions, etc.

June 2003

• Indiana elected officials voice support for on-site treatment of VXH.

July 2003

• Ohio citizens groups file federal lawsuit to block shipment.

October 2003

• Ohio Congressman holds hearings on proposed shipment; voices opposition.
• Independent review identifies serious issues with VHX treatment in Dayton.

October 2003

• Perma-Fix is issued a stop work order on the planned treatment of VXH.

January 2004

• Army announces intention to ship VXH to DuPont in New Jersey.
• Opposition begins almost immediately.
  

March 2004

• Hundreds attend public meeting in opposition to VXH proposal.

April 2004

• Indiana townships pass resolutions (some for the 2nd time) advocating on-site treatment.
• N.J. elected officials begin vocal opposition.
• CDC directed to analyze proposed DuPont treatment.

May 2004

• N.J. and Delaware Governors oppose VXH shipment.
• N.J. regulators recommend abandonment of proposed treatment at DuPont.

June 2004 – December 2004

• Opposition solidifies as media attention increases, communities organize, legal strategies are developed, and more and more elected officials voice opposition.
• Army develops temporary on-site storage contingency should off-site not be viable.

April 2005

• Combined CDC/EPA report issued; finds significant flaws in proposed DuPont proposal.

May 2005

• Neutralization begins at Newport. Hydrolysate stored on-site awaiting final disposal decision.

June 2005

• Senator Corzine (running for Governor) and his Republican opponent both announce opposition to shipment; Congressman Andrews also makes VXH a campaign issue.
• Gov. Codey announces prohibition to having VHX on N.J. Turnpike.
• Army awaits follow-up CDC/EPA report hoping it will soften its findings from April; maintains DuPont option is still their preferred approach.
• No information on projected cost savings of on-site vs. off-site have yet been received by citizens, CACs or the media, despite repeated requests. No information on the costs associated with attempts to ship VXH to OH or NJ has been made available, including, but not limited to: public outreach; treatability studies; increased costs associated with pre-treatment either on-site at Newport or off-site at DuPont; legal challenges; regulatory activities; management costs or other associated costs internal costs.

July 2005

• East Windsor Township Council expresses grave concerns about VXH transport route through township using NJ turnpike.
• Army lab tests reveal VXH far more flammable than previously believed. Analysis shows flashpoint ranged between 68 and 88 degrees F; previous lab scale test had shown a flashpoint above 200 degrees F.

September 2005

• Multi-state coalition of a dozen citizen and environmental groups urge Army to abandon plans to ship VXH to DuPont NJ plant; write letter to assistant Army Secretary arguing that a safer, proven alternative is available for on-site treatment.
• Delaware Riverkeeper Network threatens lawsuits if necessary to stop shipment.

October 2005

• Army rejects citizens’ on-site treatment proposal despite their claims that off-site plan poses transportation risks, will likely boost costs, prompt lawsuits and delay destruction.

February 2006

• Citing new safety assurances and changes to the treatment plan, the EPA drops objections to Army shipping VXH to DuPont; latest findings now go to CDC for human health risk determination.
• Rep. Andrews remains “steadfastly opposed” to the project; vows it will be stopped despite EPA’s green light.

March 2006

• DuPont and Army representatives attend local N.J. township meetings in order to pitch shipment plan, but township officials, fishermen and other residents remain opposed.
• NJ lawmakers redouble efforts to block Army’s plan. In joint news conference, U.S. Sen. Menendez and Rep. Andrews vow VXH will never come to South Jersey; call on US DOT to study whether safe transport of VXH is possible.

April 2006

• Opponents to the Army’s shipment plan, including environmental groups and individuals, boaters’ groups and DuPont’s workers’ union hold parallel press conferences in New Jersey and Indiana to decry the proposal.
• Army’s study of its own shipment plan, which finds proposal makes good economic sense, is vehemently dismissed by Rep. Andrews as “flimsy” and not supported by facts. Andrews vows to ask GAO to analyze Army’s calculations.

May 2006

• U.S. House passes bill prohibiting shipment of VXH pending GAO review of the plan.

June 2006

• Not moved by assurances by Army and DuPont, Downe Township passes 2nd resolution opposing VXH shipment to NJ.

July 2006

• CDC approves shipment plan; claims the plan now adequately addresses public health concerns.
• Despite CDC approval, public opposition is not quelled; legislators assure residents plan will remain on hold pending the GAO analysis.

August 2006

• Army hints at possibility that if DuPont is okayed for accepting VXH from IN, chemical weapons waste from KY and CO could also be shipped there.

September 2006

• DOD urges legislators to cut bill language prohibiting Army from shipping VXH pending GAO analysis.

October 2006

• DoD urging doesn’t work: bill passes House and Senate assuring that GAO will analyze Army’s plan before shipments can begin.

November 2006

• DuPont suspected of bribing NJ communities to support VXH plan with offers of financing community development projects.

December 2006

• The Delaware Riverkeeper Network, CWWG and five allied groups file federal lawsuit to block VXH shipment to DuPont

January 2007

• Subsequent to citizens filing lawsuit, DuPont bails out of VXH treatment proposal.

February 2007

• Army says it is back to ‘square one’ after DuPont bails; that they are now looking at several on-site and off-site options.
• Meanwhile, two studies conclude that treating chemical weapons waste from KY and CO on-site would be cheaper than shipping off-site.

April 2007

• Without informing affected citizens, Army signs $49 million contract with Veolia Environmental Services to incinerate VXH in Port Arthur, TX, a low-income, minority community already over-burdened with polluting industries.
• Army official states that not involving the public in the decision was a ‘lesson learned’.
• Under cover of night and without public notice, the first four tanker trucks with 4000 gallons of VXH each begin the 900-mile trip from Newport to Port Arthur.
• The plan is for 12 trucks per week to head to Texas.
• Port Arthur residents have serious concerns about VXH shipment to and incineration in their community. Indiana residents also upset; they believe transportation is too dangerous, probably illegal and completely unnecessary when a safe and viable solution exists and was originally agreed on by the Army, the IN community and permitted by IN regulators.
• Port Arthur’s Community In-power Development Association (CIDA) holds protests.
• CIDA, CWWG and the Sierra Club make plans to file lawsuit to halt VXH transport.

May 2007

• Citizens’ lawsuit filed in federal court in Indiana.

June 2007

• Subsequent to notice that citizens plan to also file for a Temporary Restraining Order, Army agrees to temporarily stop VXH shipments pending outcome of an Injunctive Hearing in an Indiana Federal Court.
• Hearing scheduled for mid-July; meanwhile Army ships no more VXH to Port Arthur until Judge makes his ruling.