Any potential risk -- no matter how small or unlikely -- associated with dumping a treated byproduct of a deadly nerve agent into the Delaware River is too much.
Extending 330 miles, the Delaware is
the longest undammed river east of the Mississippi. Nearly 15 million
people (about 5 percent of the nation's population) rely on the
Delaware River Basin for drinking water and industrial needs. It
provides a livelihood to area residents and recreation to boaters and
wildlife enthusiasts. The river is fed by 216 tributaries, affecting
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Delaware, and includes some
designated as wild and scenic.
This natural resource is critical to our region, yet could be endangered by an Army plan to transport millions of gallons of VX wastewater from a chemical weapons depot in Indiana to DuPont's Chambers Work plant in Carneys Point, where it would be treated and discharged into the river.
We're not reassured that the Army and DuPont say the plan is safe, or that the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease Control say the plan poses no unacceptable risks. We believe the plan poses too many risks and leaves too many unanswered questions. One such question is why the Army keeps insisting on this plan when it's clear New Jersey officials -- federal, state and local -- oppose it?
As Rep. Rob Andrews points out, there are at least seven treatment methods rated more efficient, ones that include treating this VX byproduct at the Indiana site. The Army should be more concerned about efficiency and safety than the millions of dollars more it says it will cost to treat the wastewater onsite in Indiana.
We praise Reps. Frank LoBiondo, Jim Saxton and Andrews for continuing to fight this proposal and being successful in delaying it at least until after the Government Accountability Office (a bipartisan, investigative arm of Congress) concludes a study that will thoroughly review the plan and test the Army's assumptions.
Andrews said previous studies
have been flawed because they were "based on assumptions" given to them
by the Army. Acceptable risks? As far as we're concerned, no risk to
the river's wildlife and water quality is acceptable.
Originally published October 21, 2006