Mr. Michael Parker, Director
U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency
5183 Blackhawk Road
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland
21010-5424

Dear Mike,

We are replying to your correspondence of 27 September 2005 written in answer to our
1 September 2005 letter to Assistant Secretary of the Army Claude Bolton, regarding the path forward for treatment of the hydrolysate waste resulting from VX agent neutralization at Newport and the Army’s current preferred option of off-site treatment.

Our response addresses specific issues contained in your 27 September letter in the sequence in which they were articulated.

First, your use of the DuPont experience in treating mustard hydrolysate from Aberdeen to validate the company’s capability for treating VXH (VX Hydrolysate) from Newport is illogical and unscientific.  As the Army is well aware, the chemical constituents that made up the Aberdeen hydrolysate are significantly different from those contained in the VXH. Additionally, citizens groups were not as “engaged” in the Aberdeen decision to use DuPont as they are in the current proposal for Newport.  Granted, there was public notice associated with the Aberdeen decision and much responsibility for minimal involvement falls to the communities.  Nevertheless, we would say strongly that, as a practical matter, the Aberdeen experience demonstrates little beyond the fact that that particular mission has been completed. Anything further is equivalent to claiming that because people consume certain types of mushrooms safely, all mushrooms are safe to eat. We all know better.    

We agree that in the post 9/11 environment there was strong support for accelerating the destruction the VX agent in Newport. However, your claim of “universal support” of off-site treatment of neutralized wastewater is a extreme distortion of the facts.  Furthermore, we believe making such an inaccurate statement, was not directed to the undersigned but at the elected officials, to whom you provided copies of the 27 September letter, in an attempt to persuade them that their constituents approve of the proposal - although the facts do not bear this out.  To demonstrate how misleading such a statement is, we provide the following.  

• On 20 May 2003, the Parke County, Indiana Commission sent a letter to Assistant Secretary Bolton stating, “It would be most unfortunate if this objective [neutralization of the VX] should be derailed or delayed due to unanticipated or mishandled circumstances at any potential off-site secondary waste reception community. It is our position that should off-site secondary waste disposal create a situation wherein neutralization of the VX is delayed, the agreed-upon plan of on-site treatment of the hydrolysate should be implemented.”

• On 13 July 2003 identical comments were sent to Secretary Bolton from Indiana Representative Dale Grubb.

• On 13 April, 2004, the Council for the Town of Fairview Park, Clinton, Indiana passed a resolution, a copy of which was provided to the Army, stating, “NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that the Fairview Park, Indiana Town Council oppose the transporting of hydrolysate through our community, located in Clinton Township.”

• On 20 April 2004, the Vermillion County, Indiana Board of Commissioners passed a resolution, a copy of which was provided to the Army, stating, “NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Vermillion County Indiana Board of Commissioners oppose the transporting of hydrolysate through any of the communities, located in Vermillion County, Indiana.”

• On 24 March 2004 the organization, Citizens Against Incineration at Newport, wrote a letter to their Congressional Representative, a copy of which was provided to the Army, stating, “The risk posed to the citizens in the 8th District should not be held hostage to the Army’s persistence for secondary treatment off-site.  As you know, previous attempts to ship this material to Dayton, Ohio failed, and based on the mounting community and political opposition in New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania, it appears chances of success there are minimal at best.”

•  In February 2004 the Plumbers and Steam Fitters Local 157 located in Seelyville, IN formally stated their opposition to off site shipment.

• In May of 2004 Citizens Against Incineration at Newport (CAIN) and the Newport Study Group presented a petition to their Congressional Representative, and copied to the Army, signed by 133 citizens of the Newport area opposing off-site shipment.

It would be impossible for anyone to interpret the above examples as demonstrating “universal support” for off-site treatment.  Furthermore they demonstrate that your statement, “Follow on discussions with a cross section of Indiana citizens finds continuing support for off-site treatment at a permitted commercial facility” is also completely unsupported by the facts.

Based on the accurate history and current state of affairs, we call upon you, and/or the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (AL&T) to immediately provide a retraction of the statements contained in your 27 September 2005 letter regarding community support for off site treatment. Additionally, we believe such inaccuracies require the retraction to be forwarded to all parties to whom copies of your letter were furnished. Such a brash and deliberate distortion of the truth communicated to elected officials is a gross disservice to the affected communities and those elected to represent them. In addition, it is a sad measure of honesty and candor by the U.S. Army.

Noticeably missing from you response was any reference to the level of opposition present along the transportation corridors in Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania and at the reception locations of both New Jersey and Delaware. We are confident this omission was not an oversight.

Briefly, in addition to the undersigned, the following local/state governments and elected officials have taken a position formally opposing the Army plans to transport VXH to DuPont: The Governors of both New Jersey and Delaware; New Jersey Senator Jon Corzine and his opponent in the upcoming Gubernatorial race, Mr. Forrester; N.J. Representative Rob Andrews; Lawrence Township, Cumberland County, N.J.; Pittsgrove Township, Salem County, N.J.; Mantua Township, Gloucester County, N.J.; Lumberton Township, Burlington County, N.J.; Pennsylvania State Representative, Tony Melio; Morrisville Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania; the Delaware State Senate; multiple Townships and elected officials in Ohio, and others.
 
Clearly if any sentiment approaches universality, it is that opposing your preferred transportation option.
 
In response to your position that DuPont’s treated material far exceeds discharge standards for the Delaware River, we refer to the April 2005 CDC/EPA Report which states, “EPA’s ecological analysis indicates the Dupont assessment does not contain information adequate to determine that the ecological risk from the discharge of treated CVXH to the Delaware River is acceptable. Consequently, CDC cannot recommend proceeding with the treatment and disposal at the DuPont SET facility until EPA’s noted deficiencies are addressed.”

We are aware that additional information has been provided to EPA and CDC to, as you put it, “validate the DuPont process.” However, that data has not been reported on as of yet by either agency.  To claim such validation before determinations have been made and opportunities for independent peer review of any conclusions have occurred is premature and inappropriate. It is misleading for you to have made that statement at this point in time.

We fail to recognize the basis upon which the Army would assume that the forthcoming CDC updated report would necessarily support the Army’s position – particularly since the Army assured everyone before the April 2005 CDC report at no ecological risk would occur using the DuPont treatment.  Such an assumption in the current situation reflects a level of audaciousness and/or the possibility of inappropriate pressure being brought to bear on the CDC to come up with recommendations favorable to the Army’s position.  Regardless of what prompted such unsubstantiated claims, they are premature and pre-decisional.

Furthermore, an independent preliminary review of the DuPont Treatability Studies released on 29 August 2005 has identified important questions including, but not limited to: how the chemical derivatives will respond (in combination) once introduced into the Delaware River; the potential accumulation of derivatives in the organisms examined; the chronic toxicity in aquatic organisms when the time frames of the experiments within the treatability studies are relatively short (e.g., a few months); and other issues. In addition, experts have raised questions concerning inadequate identification of VXH constituents, noting the absence of specific names corresponding to the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and their Chemical Abstracts Registry Numbers and recommending such be used to avoid any ambiguity concerning the nature of VXH and what the Army is claiming will be destroyed.

Before the Army reaches any decision we would expect adequate time for review and critique of the upcoming CDC Report and any associated documentation by our independent experts.

We appreciate the offer regarding the opportunity to review the cost data associated with the various options for VXH treatment.  We suggest that before going to such lengths as signing non-disclosure agreements, etc., that the Army merely presents the actual anticipated cost savings and the basis for such conclusions.  If further information is deemed needed, one or more representatives of the signatory organizations below will contact CMA to make arrangements to do so.
 
On that subject, we would point out that there appears to be an extraordinary level of exaggeration coming from the CMA Public Affairs and Information Office (PAIO) regarding the alleged potential cost savings associated with the off-site option.  Information on cost of the off-site option for treatment of the VXH at Perma-Fix, taking into consideration that that the DuPont proposal presents a different paradigm, in no way supports the Army’s statement that the cost savings would be “$300 million” (Associated Press; 2 September 2005). This figure, by your PAIO, is over 400% higher than the estimated cost savings associated with the Perma-Fix option.  Clearly such exaggerations are meant to create sympathy for the Army’s preferred option among taxpayers and their elected representatives who expect due diligence in the expenditure of their dollars. However, it is our contention that these numbers are inaccurate and intentionally exaggerated to garner support for off site treatment.

An honest estimate of potential savings could be provided to the public without infringing on the procurement process. Specific cost drivers, such as energy costs could be discussed further should a review of CMA’s books be pursued.

On the matter of reuse of SCWO units and the contention that “There will be very significant engineering challenges at a Newport production scale as demonstrated by the testing completed under the Newport and ACWA projects,” we offer the following facts:

• During thousands of hours of testing for various programs, supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) technology has consistently shown excellent destruction of virtually any organic feed, with organic efficiencies exceeding 99.99%. The liquid effluent from these tests typically contained about 1 ppm total organic carbon (TOC), and the CO, NOX, and SOX levels in the gaseous effluent were typically below detection limits. These excellent treatment characteristics were what led to the selection of SCWO as the original secondary treatment technology for the Newport. Early in the program, SCWO was fully permitted for use at the Newport site, as documented in the original Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Furthermore, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) delisted the SCWO liquid effluent such that it was no longer considered an effluent derived from VX agent, thus providing flexible discharge capabilities.

• Subsequently, under the ACWA Program, SCWO technology has continued development for application to secondary treatment of hydrolysate at the Blue Grass. And, while not intended for this purpose, much of the technical progress for Blue Grass can be applied directly to the disposal of the neutralized VXH at Newport.

• Throughout the SCWO development programs for Newport and Blue Grass, numerous in-depth reviews have been performed, including many by committees of the National Research Council (NRC). Over the past five years, virtually all of the significant technical issues identified in these reviews have been resolved, and the technology is sufficiently proven and robust for implementation at either Blue Grass or Newport. The primary technical issues that have been addressed during continued development and testing for Blue Grass are corrosion, scale-up, and reliability, and these issues have now been resolved for all the hydrolysates at Blue Grass including VXH.  The same technical solutions can now be applied to destruction of the VXH at Newport.
 
With regard to schedule, there is no known basis for the two-year delay recently stated by the Army PAIO. More reasonable estimates are that a SCWO system based on the Blue Grass design can be delivered to Newport in 12 to 18 months. Meanwhile, efforts are underway at Newport to add additional VXH storage tanks so that VX neutralization operations can continue on schedule. With a Blue Grass size SCWO system at Newport, the estimated completion date for VXH disposal would be 2008, in time for relocation and use of the system at Blue Grass.

The unique advantage for selecting SCWO is that it was already permitted for Newport, and the equipment and experience from Newport can be used to support Blue Grass - thus a win-win for both programs.

Regarding the potential violation of the terms of the CWC and PL 103-337, we recognize that a legal review inside the Army indicates compliance.  However, legal analysis by one organization does not render such issues moot.

Finally, it is quite remarkable that the Army would allege that state and federal regulators have endorsed the off-site treatment of VXH in your correspondence.

On 14 April 2004, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (a state regulatory agency) stated, “The State of Delaware should not endorse the project” and “From an engineering perspective, the lack of real treatment is sufficient to dismiss this project.”

The Delaware River Basin Commission has challenged the tests used by the DuPont Co. Scientists suggesting that DuPont's treated wastewater, including the proposed new discharge, would fail to meet New Jersey state permit requirements. The commission, which is governed by officials from Delaware, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, oversees water supply and quality issues for the entire watershed of 13,539 square miles that drains into the Delaware River and its tributaries.

On 20 May 2005, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (a state regulatory agency) issued a draft surface water permit for DuPont Chamber Works – the targets reception site for Newport’s VXH.  An associated press release stated, “The wastewater permit does not allow treatment of a neutralized VX nerve agent byproduct, which is part of a proposed plan by the U.S. Army…”  The Commissioner of the Department stated, “The Army’s proposal is flawed, and should be abandoned not revised.” The Department went on to say, “Further, DEP included specific language in the draft permit renewal that states the acceptance of VX hydrolysate is prohibited at this time.”  (Emphasis added)

As examples, the above statements from New Jersey and Delaware regulators and the Commission appear to be in direct contradiction to your claim that “evaluations by state and federal regulators agree that public safety is fully preserved by off-site treatment.” It is our belief that your misrepresentations were again aimed at those receiving copies of your letter – elected officials – with the assumption they would not bother to investigate your claims any further.

Such distortions are unfortunate.  They not only undermine the credibility of the Army on this particular dimension of the chemical demilitarization effort, but they have a nationwide ripple effect that impacts all aspects of the Chem De-mil program at all sites.

We would therefore propose that the Army stop making assertions that are exaggerated, distorted, misleading, inaccurate and inappropriate in an effort to achieve a particular objective and instead work with communities, local elected officials and regulators to reach acceptable and appropriate methods for chemical weapons disposal – particularly, in this case, VXH.

The organizations represented herein are, as always, interested in participating in honest and transparent activities to reach such goals.  

Based on the above, we urge reconsideration our proposal of 1 September 2005.

 
Sincerely,




Craig Williams, Director
Chemical Weapons Working Group
Berea, KY

Sara Morgan
Citizens Against Incineration at Newport
Montazuma, IN

Leonard Akers
Plumbers and Steamfitters Local Union 157
Newport, IN

Mark Hudson
Newport Study Group
Newport, IN

Tina Daly, Military Toxics Coordinator
Pennsylvania Environmental Network
Phoenixville, PA

Joe Parrish
NJ Environmental Watch
Elizabeth, NJ

Laura Rench
Citizens for the Responsible Destruction of Chemical Weapons
New Lebanon, OH

Amy Goldsmith, State Director
New Jersey Environmental Federation
Pennsauken, NJ

Tim Maloney. Executive Director
Hoosier Environmental Council
Indianapolis, IN

Maya van Rossum, Director
Delaware Riverkeeper Network
Washington Crossing, PA

Alan Muller, Director
Green Delaware
Port Penn, DE

Sandy Buchanan, Executive Director
Ohio Citizen Action
Cleveland, OH

Suzanne Marshall
Leghigh Valley Group of the
Pennsylvania Chapter of the Sierra Club
Bethlehem, PA

Rex Beers, President
Pennsylvania Boating Association Southeastern
Philadelphia, PA

Greg and Jan Moore
Citizens For Intelligent Weapons Disposal
Bloomington, IN

Peter Montague, Director
Environmental Research Foundation
New Brunswick, N.J.


Copies furnished to the following.

Honorable Kenneth J. Krieg, Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology) 3010 Defense Pentagon, Room 3E933 Washington, DC 20301-3010

Dr. Dale Klein, Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs, 3010 Defense Pentagon, Room 3E933 Washington, DC 20301-3010

Mr. Douglas Englund, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary to the Secretary of Defense for Chemical Demilitarization and Threat Reduction, 1515 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 720, Arlington, Virginia 22209

Honorable Claude M. Bolton, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Amy (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology), 103 Army Pentagon, Room 2E532 Washington, DC 20310-0103

Mr. Dale Ormond, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Elimination of Chemical Weapons), 200 12th Street South, Suite 702, Arlington, Virginia 22202

Honorable Evan Bayh, United States Senate, SR-463 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-1404

Honorable Richard G. Lugar, United States Senate, SH-306 Hart Senate Office Building,Washington, DC 20510-1401

Honorable Mitch McConnell, United States Senate, SR-361A Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-1702

Honorable Jim Bunning, United States Senate, SH-316 Hart Senate Office Building,Washington, DC 20510-1703

Honorable Jon S. Corzine, United States Senate, SH-502 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-3001

Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg, United States Senate, SH-324 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-3002

Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr., United States Senate, SR-201 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-0802

Honorable Thomas R. Carper, United States Senate, SH-513 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-0803

Honorable John N. Hostettler, House of Representatives, 1214 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515-1408

Honorable Steve Buyer, House of Representatives 2230 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515

Honorable Ben Chandler, House of Representatives, 1504 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515-1706

Honorable Robert E. Andrews, House of Representatives, 2439 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515-3001

Honorable Frank LoBiondo, House of Representatives, 225 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515

Honorable James Saxton, House of Representatives, 2217 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515

Honorable Michael N. Castle, House of Representatives, 1233 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515-0801

Honorable Timothy Skinner, Indiana Senate, 5899 Devonald Avenue, Terre Haute, Indiana 47805

Honorable Ed Worley, Kentucky Senate, P. 0. Box 659, Richmond, Kentucky 40475

Honorable Stephen M. Sweeney, New Jersey Senate, 14 East Commerce Street, Third Floor, Bridgeton, New Jersey 08302

Honorable David B. McBride, Delaware Senate, 7 Nicole Court, Hawk's Nest, New Castle, Delaware 19720-3760

Honorable F. Dale Grubb, Indiana House of Representatives, P. 0. Box 9, Covington, Indiana 40475

Honorable Harry Moberly, Jr., Kentucky House of Representatives, P. 0. Box 721, Richmond, Kentucky 40475

Honorable Gregory F. Lavelle, Delaware House of Representatives, 500 Whitby Drive, Wilmington, Delaware 19803

Honorable Richard C. Cathcart, Delaware House of Representatives, 226 Milford Drive, Middletown, Delaware 19709

Honorable John J. Burzichelli, New Jersey General Assembly, 14 East Commerce Street, Third Floor, Bridgeton, New Jersey 08302

Honorable Douglas H. Fisher, New Jersey General Assembly, 14 fast Commerce Street, Third Floor, Bridgeton, New Jersey 08302

Mr. Kevin J. Flamm, Program Manager for the Elimination of Chemical Weapons, US Army Chemical Materials Agency, 5183 Blackhawk Road, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21010-5424

Col. Jesse Barber, Project Manager for Alternative Technologies and Approaches, US Army Chemical Materials Agency, 5183 Blackhawk Road, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21010-5424