A federally mandated study has found that there would be "no significant impacts" to the environment through a U.S. Defense Department proposal to detonate a portion of the chemical weapons stored at the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Colorado, the Pentagon announced Friday (see GSN, Feb. 19).
The environmental assessment was conducted by the Pueblo depot and the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives program, which is preparing for disposal operations in Colorado and at the Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky. The study examined the possible environmental effects of installing and operating the Army's Explosive Destruction System and other explosive detonation technologies at the weapons site, according to an ACWA release (U.S. Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives release, Feb. 26).
"The environmental assessment concludes that no significant environmental impacts would occur as the result of the construction and operation of the EDS and/or other explosive destruction technology systems," according to a release from the Pueblo installation.
Chemical weapons disposal operations at Colorado are projected to wrap up in 2017 and disposal work is slated to finish four years later in Kentucky. Current projections indicate that there will be periods when no chemical weapons disposal work would be occurring in the United States, following the destruction of the last materials overseen by the U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency around 2012.
In order to bridge that gap, the Pentagon has proposed to use explosive technologies to eliminate a portion of the munitions stockpiled in Colorado and Kentucky while work on the chemical neutralization facilities in the two states continues.
Leaking munitions that have been placed in special containers would be destroyed in the initial phase of the proposed plan, according to the Pueblo release. The second phase would involve the blowing up of boxed munitions. When the Pueblo neutralization facility goes online, only troublesome ordnance and any remaining overpacked weapons would be destroyed by explosives.
"The proposed action would support the overall goals of (1) increasing the program's confidence to complete destruction of the [Pueblo Chemical Depot] inventory of chemical weapons by 2017, (2) maintaining the continuity of U.S. chemical weapons destruction operations and (3) conducting the destruction activities in a safe and environmentally acceptable manner," the release states (U.S. Pueblo Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant release, Feb. 26).
Irene Kornelly, chairwoman of the Colorado Chemical Demilitarization Citizens' Advisory Commission, told the Associated Press that the study did not provide sufficient details.
"They say, 'Well, we're going to have enough water to do the process' ... but they don't tell us how much water the process needs," Kornelly said.
Another member of the advisory panel, Ross Vincent, said he would have liked to see the Defense Department undertake a more detailed assessment that would have provided a greater degree of documentation and specifics as well as have a longer public review process.
"Now they want to do a major change in the project and they want to blow it off with a superficial document and a finding of no significant impact," Vincent said.
The public has two months, from Feb. 27 to April 27, to comment on the document.
ACWA Program Manager Kevin Flamm said the study was comprehensive and pointed out that the public comment period extends a month longer than what is mandated by law.
"If the public feels we have overlooked some aspect, that's what the comment period is for," Flamm said (Dan Elliott, Associated Press/Google News, March 1).
Meanwhile, Pentagon officials and depot contractors informed the Pueblo City Council yesterday that they were on track to eliminate the 780,000 mustard munitions stockpiled at the depot between 2015 and 2017, the Pueblo Chieftain reported (Peter Roper, Pueblo Chieftain, March 2).
---------------------------------
Response:
I had a couple of issues with this piece. Much of it focuses on the actual process of destroying these chemical munitions, but it also makes brief reference to "leaking munitions." I would have liked to know if there's an environmental issue to NOT destroying those weapons. Could the chemicals leak out and contaminate the environment if not disposed of? Part of that may be the study itself, which has been criticized by several people in the piece for being too vague, and even hurried.
I'd also liked to have heard more about the specifics of the actual disposal. The general idea I got was that the Defense Dept. is simply going to blow up the weapons. How are they disposing in them in such a way that is not environmentally damaging?