Environmentalists worry that a recent report from a U.S. research panel could help pave the way for shipments of massive amounts of potentially hazardous waste from two chemical-weapon repositories, Defense Environment Alert reported this month (see GSN, Oct. 1).
The National Research Council report states that, with appropriate safety measures in place, it is reasonable to transport hydrolysate from the Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky and the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Colorado to other locations for final disposal.
“The experience to date with the off-site shipment and treatment of mustard and nerve agent hydrolysates from the Aberdeen [Md.] and Newport [Ind.] Chemical Agent Disposal Facilities indicates that off-site transportation and disposal of these materials is a safe and technically viable course of action,” the report states.
Panel members urged the Army to “consider such an option now, before the [Blue Grass and Pueblo] plants are built and operating, to maximize the benefit of such a change.”
Hydrolysate is produced through chemical neutralization of warfare materials such as mustard blister agent, sarin and VX nerve agents. The Kentucky and Colorado storage depots are both years away from beginning disposal operations.
The Defense Department has not yet decided how it will eliminate wastewater produced at the two sites, Defense Environment Alert reported.
One activist affiliated with the Chemical Weapons Working Group argued that the report disregards many concerns noted by the organization and other environmental groups and instead focuses on adhering to a consistent disposal schedule. They argue that shipments could cause safety problems and bring hazardous waste to communities such as Veolia, Texas, home of the incinerator used to destroy waste from the Indiana plant.
However, two sources with knowledge of National Research Council procedures said the report only promotes waste shipment as one potential method of handling the material.
Peter Lederman, chairman of the panel that authored the report, said the group’s analysis determined only that shipping the waste is “safe and technically feasible,” and “obviously there are economic considerations that we did not go into.” Still, “we think it would speed [disposal] up and save money,” he said (Defense Environment Alert/Chemical Weapons Working Group, Oct. 14).