What happens when a country with close to 150 coal mines, hundreds of chemical plants and more than a dozen nuclear reactors becomes a wasteland pockmarked by artillery shells? As the war in Ukraine continues, the world is about to find out, and the answer is alarming.
The environmental impacts of war historically have not received much attention. This is understandable, given that war usually creates issues that require an acute international response, such as refugee flows and military assistance. However, as an increasing number of countries become industrialized, attacks on infrastructure become more detrimental to the environment and the people who depend on it.
In Ukraine, environmental concerns chiefly surround damage to industrial, agro-industrial and energy infrastructures. Strikes on chemical plants and other facilities that store toxic chemicals or waste products have created immediate consequences.
In Mariupol, all ground-level infrastructure at the Azovstal steel plant was destroyed and site retaining walls were weakened. The plant is situated on the edge of the Sea of Azov, and if the berms fail, thousands of tons of concentrated hydrogen sulfide solution could end up in the water, creating a disaster in the nearshore coastal ecosystem.
On April 5, 2022, orange smoke erupted from a struck nitric acid tank in the Luhansk region of Ukraine, which has been embroiled in war between Russian-backed separatists and Ukrainian forces since 2014. Nitric acid, used to make TNT and fertilizers, can cause severe chemical burns to human skin upon contact.
Residents of the area were told to stay inside bomb shelters and to shut all windows and doors until the acute threat was reduced by rain showers. The situation repeated itself in late May after pink smoke rose from another nitric acid tank. Each side accuses the other of causing the damage.
The impact of a nitric acid tank explosion does not end once the fumes leave the air. As the chemicals leave the air, they enter the ground, further adding to the pollution already plaguing the groundwater of the Donbas region.
The 2014 invasion of the Donbas region, which includes the Luhansk and Donetsk regions, prompted the shutdown and abandonment of coal mines. Without continuous pumping and treatment of mine drainage waters, an overflow of acidic mine water polluted rivers and damaged aquatic ecosystems. This damage may last more than a generation.
Damage is not limited to the Donbas region: damages to nuclear facilities across the country have leaked toxic chemicals into surrounding soil and water. For a five week period in March 2022, Russian troops occupied the Chernobyl area before making a hurried exit most likely prompted by acute radiation sickness. As they dug trenches, concerns were raised about the unknown effects of stirring up radioactive soil.
Zach Miller studied geoscience in preparation for his career as a high school science teacher. He explains that damaged groundwater can have extremely far-reaching impacts, both across time and geographical location. “When groundwater gets polluted it can cause major issues for entire ecosystems. If the pollution gets into the aquifer and that aquifer is the source of drinking water then it potentially can eliminate an entire source of safe drinking water,” he said.
“In addition to drinking water, often water is drawn out of the ground to water crops and support agriculture. A potential source of worry would be contamination being transferred from water to the soil crops are grown in, thus affecting the world’s food supply.”
Weaponry itself creates pollution, too. Rocket and artillery explosions release toxic compounds such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide vapor and more.
Senior Cheyenne Meeks, daughter of a US Army veteran, believes the environmental damage combat causes is unavoidable. “I think that the military can protect and defend the country without polluting the environment only during peacetime,” she said. “In wartime, cleaning up isn’t the number one priority for soldiers, as their lives are on the line every moment they’re out in combat.”
To help Ukrainian soldiers in combat against Russian troops, the US, Canada, Australia, Poland, Czech Republic, Turkey, UK, Slovakia and more have supplied Ukraine with weapons systems. The production of weapons, from material manufacturing to testing, creates pollution of its own, further extending the environmental damage to peacetime countries.
No international wars have been fought on Iowan or Illinoisian soil, but the environmental damage has still manifested itself across both states in the form of formerly used defense sites (FUDS) as well as active production facilities. Notably, the Savanna Army Depot Activity, a former US Army munitions testing and storage site, and the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant have both been listed on the Superfund National Priorities List.
Superfund is the informal name for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensations and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), which gives the Environmental Protection Agency the power to clean thousands of sites across the US that pose a threat to human health and the environment. The EPA either forces responsible parties to clean contamination or reimburse the EPA. Additionally, at sites where no responsible party can be established, CERCLA the EPA has the funds and authority to complete the task. Over 1,330 sites across the country are currently on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL).
The Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (IAAAP), located in Middleton, Iowa, has been on the NPL since 1990. The ammunition production facility was constructed in 1940, and was operated partially by the Atomic Energy Commission from 1947 to 1975. Site activity by both the Army and the Atomic Energy Commission contributed to the accumulation of explosives, metals and depleted uranium.
The 19,000 acre site has been split into 11 sub-areas, called Operable Units, or OUs. These units focus on issues such as soils, off-post groundwater, inert disposal areas, on-post groundwater, explosive disposal areas and more. Efforts to clean up the site are ongoing, but have thus far mainly consisted of excavating and treating contaminated soil. Nearby residents have also been connected to an alternative water supply while the EPA continues to monitor the groundwater through periodic sampling.
Seven miles north of Savanna, Illinois, on the bank of the Mississippi River lies the Savanna Army Depot Activity (SVDA) site. The site was constructed in 1918 as a sub-post of the Rock Island Arsenal used for testing artillery and ammunition, but became independent of the base as the Savanna Ordnance Depot in 1921. During WWII, munitions, explosives, and industrial chemicals were stored and processed at the Depot.
After the war, the site was used to demolish and burn outdated ordnance (artillery) before its eventual closure in March 2000. The extensive testing, storage and destruction of weaponry greatly contaminated the soil, groundwater, surface water and sediment of SVDA. Since 1989, the US Army, under the oversight of the Illinois EPA and the federal EPA, has been investigating and remediating 73 areas of potential concern across the site’s 13,062 acres.
The EPA considers significant progress to have been made at nine areas, including sites of TNT washout, fire training, open burning, pesticide disposal, and nitric acid storage. While cleanup is ongoing at six more areas, the most time-sensitive issues have been treated appropriately. Similar to the cleanup of the IAAAP, remediation has mainly consisted of treatment and removal of soil and debris. However, unlike the IAAAP, the SVDA is no longer an active site of military activity. Instead, over 9,000 acres of the site is part of the Upper Mississippi Valley National Wildlife and Fish Refuge.
As more remediative and preventative measures are taken, the peacetime operations of the US armed forces become intentionally less damaging to the environment, although the nature of national defense necessitates some damage. “Personally, I have not experienced any pollution resulting directly from military activities,” Meeks continued. “Although, it’s very possible for military munitions and tests to leave harmful effects on the environment if things go wrong or they simply didn’t take the responsibility of clearing hazardous waste.”
The US can be held solely responsible for the environmental damage caused by US military activity on domestic soil. However, Ukraine is not responsible for the environmental damage caused by Russian troops. Currently, Ukraine has no clear channel through which to pursue action against Russia for the potential war crime of environmental damage, but the Ukrainian government, in addition to multiple environmental groups such as Ecoaction, are preparing evidence against Russia for use in international court.
Under the Geneva Conventions, “Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause… widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated,” is a war crime. Yet, without a provision for punishment, the Geneva Conventions aren’t going to provide Ukraine with the repayment they seek.
Ukraine’s best option is to pursue action through the UN International Court of Justice, but current wartime damages may prove hard to separate from Soviet era ones. The UN International Law Commission recently published a list of 27 principles that guide treatment of the environment during wartime that will help in prosecuting Russia in instances where the cause of pollution is clearly linked to Russian activity.
For over nine months, the war in Ukraine has been destroying the country’s environment, causing damage to groundwater and soil that will outlast the conflict itself. The cost of war is thought of in terms of lives lost and dollars spent, but hardly ever in terms of aquifers polluted or ecosystems destroyed. For the sake of Ukraine’s future, the international community needs to recognize the environmental damage the country has suffered.
