3
Application of the Non-Stockpile Treatment Systems to the NSCWM Inventory

INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1 described the kinds of challenges that the Army faces in disposing of NSCWM. Chapter 2 focused on defining the technologies and systems available to the Product Manager Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel (PMNSCM) for destroying the non-stockpile inventory. In this chapter the committee matches the systems with the materiel or munitions that have been or may be recovered to determine if there are any gaps in the current program. Technologies or systems for treating secondary wastes (energetics, neutralents, rinsates, solids, etc.) are also matched. The committee then reviews the nature of the NSCWM treatment categories by comparing type, quantity, condition, and location with the available systems or technologies. Because this evaluation of the candidate systems and technologies relative to the Army’s needs involves an exercise of judgment by the committee, few outside sources can be cited. Lastly, findings and recommendations are provided,1 followed by a brief discussion of future program needs that the Army should address for the successful accomplishment of its mission.

COMPARISON OF CANDIDATE TECHNOLOGIES AND NEEDS

Table 3-1 compares the technologies and systems with the materiel and munitions that constitute the non-stockpile inventory. As shown in the table, no tools are available for very large bombs, some of which have recently been discovered outside the United States. Most of the remaining inventory items have several alternative means for disposal, and most of the available technologies have several applications.

Table 3-2 then looks at the available technologies for treating secondary wastes. There are multiple choices available for the treatment of agent, neutralent, and rinsate. Not all of these technologies are needed to provide adequate coverage.

The committee then matched non-stockpile CWM treatment requirements to the CWM treatment systems currently available and under development. In this analysis the following 10 operational CWM treatment categories were considered:

  1. CAIS PIGs2

  2. individual CAIS vials and bottles

  3. small quantities of small munitions

  4. chemical agent in bulk containers

  5. binary chemical weapons materiel components

  6. unstable explosive munitions that cannot be moved

  7. secondary liquid waste streams

  8. large quantities of NSCWM items currently in storage

  9. large NSCWM items

  10. large quantities of not-yet-recovered small munitions

These operational CWM treatment categories are discussed in the following sections, and the suitable treatment technologies for each category are identified. The commit

1  

In some cases, the relevant findings and recommendations were stated in Chapter 2, and the reader is referred to the appropriate sections of that chapter.

2  

PIGs are metal canisters with packing material designed to protect CAIS sets during transport.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 46
3 Application of the Non-Stockpile Treatment Systems to the NSCWM Inventory INTRODUCTION Chapter 1 described the kinds of challenges that the Army faces in disposing of NSCWM. Chapter 2 focused on defining the technologies and systems available to the Product Manager Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel (PMNSCM) for destroying the non-stockpile inventory. In this chapter the committee matches the systems with the materiel or munitions that have been or may be recovered to determine if there are any gaps in the current program. Technologies or systems for treating secondary wastes (energetics, neutralents, rinsates, solids, etc.) are also matched. The committee then reviews the nature of the NSCWM treatment categories by comparing type, quantity, condition, and location with the available systems or technologies. Because this evaluation of the candidate systems and technologies relative to the Army’s needs involves an exercise of judgment by the committee, few outside sources can be cited. Lastly, findings and recommendations are provided,1 followed by a brief discussion of future program needs that the Army should address for the successful accomplishment of its mission. COMPARISON OF CANDIDATE TECHNOLOGIES AND NEEDS Table 3-1 compares the technologies and systems with the materiel and munitions that constitute the non-stockpile inventory. As shown in the table, no tools are available for very large bombs, some of which have recently been discovered outside the United States. Most of the remaining inventory items have several alternative means for disposal, and most of the available technologies have several applications. Table 3-2 then looks at the available technologies for treating secondary wastes. There are multiple choices available for the treatment of agent, neutralent, and rinsate. Not all of these technologies are needed to provide adequate coverage. The committee then matched non-stockpile CWM treatment requirements to the CWM treatment systems currently available and under development. In this analysis the following 10 operational CWM treatment categories were considered: CAIS PIGs2 individual CAIS vials and bottles small quantities of small munitions chemical agent in bulk containers binary chemical weapons materiel components unstable explosive munitions that cannot be moved secondary liquid waste streams large quantities of NSCWM items currently in storage large NSCWM items large quantities of not-yet-recovered small munitions These operational CWM treatment categories are discussed in the following sections, and the suitable treatment technologies for each category are identified. The commit 1   In some cases, the relevant findings and recommendations were stated in Chapter 2, and the reader is referred to the appropriate sections of that chapter. 2   PIGs are metal canisters with packing material designed to protect CAIS sets during transport.

OCR for page 46
TABLE 3-1 Match of Primary Technologies and Systems to Items in the Non-Stockpile Inventory  

OCR for page 46
TABLE 3-2 Focus of Secondary Technologies Candidate Secondary Technology Energetics Neutralents Rinsates Solids Plasma arc   X X X Commercial incineration   X   X Chemical oxidation   X X   Stockpile incineration   X   X Wet air oxidation   X X   Caustic hydrolysis X X     POTW/FOTW     X   Peroxide/TiO2/UV     X   Explosive containment chambers X       Metal parts furnaces       X   SOURCE: Compiled by the committee. tee also notes where there are no existing technologies for an identified category. CAIS PIGs Finds of complete CAIS PIGs have added a technical requirement for opening the PIG container to access the individual CAIS vials and identify their content prior to treatment. This additional requirement prevents using the Explosive Destruction System (EDS) or Single CAIS Accessing and Neutralization System (SCANS). The RRS is an existing system that was designed specifically for handling and treating complete CAIS PIGs. Either the RRS can be brought to the location of the CAIS PIG or a PIG can be shipped to the location of the RRS in the multiple-round containers (MRCs) developed for this purpose. In both cases, the PIGs will be opened, the CAIS vials neutralized in the RRS, and the resulting neutralent treated at a commercial TSDF, as planned by the Army. Neutralent could also be treated in stockpile facilities if regulator and public approval can be obtained. CAIS vials containing industrial chemicals are separated from those containing agent and sent to a TSDF for disposal. As with small-quantity CAIS finds, MRCs could conceivably be used to ship CAIS PIGs to a stockpile incineration facility or one of the planned non-stockpile treatment facilities; however, the receiving state must be willing to accept the materiel to be received and treated (see Appendix G for a discussion of transportation issues). Because there is a wide range of suitable treatment options for this NSCWM category, the committee believes that PMNSCM has adequate options to handle and treat complete CAIS PIGs. Individual CAIS Vials and Bottles This category is defined as a find of CAIS vials or bottles not containerized in a PIG. Loose CAIS vials or bottles have been found at military training areas (e.g., Fort Ord, California, and Fort Meade, Maryland) during remediation projects for other contaminants, and additional finds are expected in the future. These vials and bottles are suspected to be discarded CAIS that remained after training exercises were completed. There are three existing systems capable of adequately handling these finds. The first is neutralization in an RRS, followed by disposal of the resulting neutralent and solid waste. A second option is the explosive opening of loose CAIS items in an EDS, followed by neutralization of the products in the EDS and disposal of the neutralent and solid waste.3 The third option is transportation of the loose CAIS items in an MRC to the location of a stockpile or non-stockpile facility, mobile system, or commercial TSDF for disposal. Two developmental systems could also be used. First, the SCANS system for on-site disposal of individual CAIS vials or bottles is under development specifically for this category. The benefit of SCANS is that it is designed to be an efficient treatment system that can be used if an RRS or EDS is not available for relocation to the site of the CAIS find and if transportation in an MRC is not allowed by the receiving state. SCANS may be a worthwhile alternative disposal option that can save the expense and time of transporting an RRS or EDS to the site. Second, if the development and permitting of the Donovan blast chamber (DBC) are completed, this system could be used for the disposal of loose CAIS, with the DBC transported to the CAIS or the CAIS 3   Some components of CAIS sets, such as lewisite, charcoal, and neat chloroform, have never been introduced into the EDS, and it is possible that treatment procedures might have to be modified to accommodate these materials. Testing would need to verify that treatment goals can be met. However, the committee does not anticipate that any serious difficulties would be encountered in treating CAIS vials and bottles in the EDS.

OCR for page 46
transported to the DBC in an MRC, although the latter might not be cost-effective. The committee believes that PMNSCM has adequate treatment options for this category. Small Quantities of Small Munitions For the purposes of this analysis, small munitions are defined as those that can be efficiently processed in the EDS-1 or EDS-2 (the latter will be capable of destroying chemical munitions as large as World War I-type 8-inch or a modern 155-mm projectile, including the necessary shaped charges). For this analysis, a small quantity is defined as the amount that can be treated efficiently in a single EDS. The quantity is specified as “small” because with only six additional EDSs planned for production, it may not be appropriate to tie up the existing EDS capability (throughput is currently 2 days per CW munition) for an extended time at only one or two sites with large quantities of CW munitions, to the detriment of other sites with munitions awaiting disposal. However, the EDS has been demonstrated to be an appropriate method for disposing of small quantities of small CW munitions: 10 GB-filled bomblets were treated at the former Rocky Mountain Arsenal. Also, MRCs can be used to transport small quantities of small munitions to the current location of an EDS, instead of moving the EDS to every small find. It might also be possible to transport such finds in MRCs to one of the planned non-stockpile disposal facilities if regulatory approvals for transportation and treatment can be obtained. The DBC is another disposal system suitable for small quantities of small munitions. It is currently being tested and evaluated for disposing of CWM in Belgium. The DBC offers an alternative treatment option for neat chemical agents that avoids the addition of chemical reagents and the generation of associated liquid waste streams. However, increased regulatory approval difficulties are anticipated for the DBC, because its agent destruction efficiency is only 99 percent4 and there is potential for worker exposure. Thus, the EDS is currently the more desirable disposal system in this category. Nevertheless, the DBC might be operable in a manner that protects workers and the community, particularly if it is a component of a multistage treatment system. For example, if the residuals from several days of operation of the DBC (which are expected to contain about 1 percent chemical agent) are subject to further treatment (e.g., neutralization or incineration), the destruction and removal efficiency of the entire treatment system may exceed 99.9999 percent. Thus, the DBC could be used if these issues, including gas/vapor containment and contaminated particulates issues, can be resolved and regulatory approvals can be obtained. The committee believes that PMNSCM has an adequately wide range of disposal options, existing or planned, that are suitable for this disposal category. Chemical Agent in Bulk Containers Because all known non-stockpile ton containers are located at or adjacent to stockpile sites (U.S. Army, 1996), the committee recommends that the stockpile facilities should be used to process them to the extent possible (Chapter 2). Use of the stockpile facilities would destroy the neat agent directly, avoiding the addition of chemical reagents and the generation of associated liquid waste streams. Two sites will require special arrangements (Appendix C). At the Bluegrass Army Depot, regardless of the technology chosen, there is a GB-filled ton container that will have to be drained into smaller containers, because the Bluegrass Chemical Disposal Facility (BGCDF) will not have facilities for handling ton containers, although it will be able to destroy GB. At Pine Bluff Arsenal (PBA), two GB-filled ton containers can be handled in the Pine Bluff Chemical Disposal Facility (PBCDF) without equipment modification. However, some of the more than 4,000 empty ton containers at Pine Bluff may have contained lewisite, and these must be decontaminated in a special non-stockpile facility because the PBCDF incinerator will not be equipped to process arsenic-containing materiel. Smaller bulk containers (vials, bottles, buckets, and drums) are also located primarily at stockpile sites and generally appear suitable for disposal in stockpile incinerators if these facilities can be permitted to destroy the agents in the smaller bulk containers and if the agents can be accessed by the demilitarization machines at the stockpile facilities. In some instances, modest equipment changes will be required as well as permit modifications (Appendix D). Chemical samples at PBA and the Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) cannot be disposed of in those CDFs, but suitable options are available in the planned facilities (PBNSF and MAPS) that include drill-and-drain and bulk neutralization capabilities. The Chemical Agent Munitions Disposal System (CAMDS) facility at Tooele also has facilities for disposal of nonstandard sample containers stored at Deseret Chemical Depot (DCD) and Dugway Proving Ground (DPG). The committee believes that the disposal of bulk containers of chemical agent can be addressed through the use of existing or proposed facilities (i.e., the stockpile facilities, CAMDS, PBNSF, MAPS), providing that the necessary equipment and permit modifications are made, and assuming all transportation issues can be addressed (see Appendix G). Binary Chemical Warfare Materiel Components The only known inventories of the phosphorus-containing binary CWM components DF and QL are stored at PBA in canisters and drums. Either a plasma arc system or the 4   Herbert C. De Bisschop, personal communication to G.W. Parshall in an interview at the Belgian Royal Military Academy on July 25, 2001.

OCR for page 46
PBCDF incinerator would destroy the neat binary precursors directly, thus avoiding the addition of chemical reagents and the generation of associated liquid waste streams. Several options for direct destruction of these compounds appear attractive but may not be feasible. Burning them at a commercial incinerator is unlikely because the TSDFs capable of handling the fluoride content of DF may not wish to accept them due to concerns about security, toxicity, and handling hazards.5 Currently, the Army plans to destroy the binary CWM components using a plasma arc system that is being proposed as part of the Pine Bluff Non-Stockpile Facility (PBNSF). Disposal in the PBCDF incinerator would be very attractive if the permit could be modified to include binary CWM destruction. The schedule for operation of the incinerator may not, however, allow its use for non-stockpile purposes before the 2007 CWC schedule date (Appendix C). Neutralization on-site is an attractive alternative for destruction of this materiel if direct destruction by a high-temperature process is not feasible. As described in Chapter 2, neutralization of DF and QL by water hydrolysis was demonstrated in a campaign at APG in 1997. However, this procedure produces neutralents that contain large amounts of CWC Schedule 2 precursor compounds. Therefore, it may be necessary to incinerate the neutralents or to develop an oxidative posttreatment system to destroy these compounds prior to final disposal. The DF neutralent will also contain fluoride, which may limit the number of commercial TSDFs capable of destroying it. However, one TSDF operator has indicated that his facility frequently burns high-fluoride solutions.6 Alternatively, the fluoride content of oxidized neutralent could be immobilized by treatment with calcium hydroxide (slaked lime) in preparation for final disposal. All in all, the committee believes that either the PBCDF incinerator or the proposed PBNSF plasma arc system could be used to efficiently dispose of the binary CWM components, providing the necessary equipment and permit modifications can be made. Destruction of the binary CWM components by the CWC deadline of April 2007 will be a challenge, however; the Army needs to incorporate realistic milestones for destruction of the binary CWM components into the operating schedule for the selected system. Unstable Explosive Munitions That Cannot Be Moved This category of CWM includes all munitions that are not suitable for movement into one of the existing or planned disposal systems because their fuzing has been determined to be extremely shock sensitive or because they are in such a severely deteriorated condition that movement could cause a leak.7 A recovered CWM that is so unstable that it cannot be safely moved into a mobile chamber, such as the EDS, would be classified as an emergency. Historically, open detonation has been used to destroy this type of recovered munition. More recently, however, the public and regulators generally have begun to consider open detonation of CWM unacceptable. One way to deal with such situations is to detonate the object in an enclosure such as the tent-and-foam system described in Chapter 2. The NSCMP has already performed some limited tests on this system to mitigate the environmental impact of open detonation. Use of the tent-and-foam system will require locating the CW munition in an area that can withstand a high-order detonation or constructing engineering controls to mitigate the potential damage of a high-order detonation. However, this disposal scenario is expected to arise relatively infrequently and most likely would occur on a former CWM testing range, where a high-order detonation is more feasible. The committee believes that development and testing of the tent-and-foam system should be completed to fulfill the needs of PMNSCM for this disposal category. In light of the expectation that the tent-and-foam system will reduce the amount of agent contamination released from the in-place disposal of a CW munition by detonation, there is no disposal scenario foreseen that would require conventional open detonation of CW munitions, except for expedient CWM disposal in wartime under battlefield conditions. Secondary Liquid Waste Streams Treatment systems such as the RRS and EDS that rely on chemical neutralization of agents produce secondary liquid waste streams of two types: neutralized agent (neutralent) waste streams consisting largely of organic solvents and agent neutralization by-products aqueous waste streams, including rinsates, washes, and brine solutions The Army’s plan for destroying these wastes involves collection of neutralent, rinsates, and washes, followed by treat 5   Christopher Ross, PMNSCM, briefing to the committee on November 9, 2001. 6   Don Matter, manager of Safety-Kleen facility in Deer Park, Texas, personal communication to Joan Berkowitz, committee member, on January 30, 2002. 7   Because of the possibility of finding CWM in a deteriorated condition, it is assumed by the committee that the recovery of CWM will be done under controlled conditions (e.g., working within protective negative-pressure shelters), by workers outfitted in the appropriate level of personal protective clothing. It is further assumed that the project work plan will provide guidelines to the specially trained workers determining whether or not a munition can be moved and how to handle and process the recovered munitions.

OCR for page 46
ment on-site or shipment to a public or federal treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF) for final disposal. Disposal of these neutralents, rinsates, and washes would typically be by incineration. Off-site shipment could be an expedient option, provided that the Army is able to resolve a number of technical, regulatory, and public perception issues satisfactorily. Input from the interested public on the acceptability of the option must be obtained through open and objective discussion prior to implementation. TSDFs with suitable technologies for treating the neutralents may have to obtain permit modifications before they can accept the materials. Moreover, the Army will need to obtain long-term commitments from suitable TSDFs to accept the wastes. If off-site shipment does not prove to be feasible for any reason, a development program will be required to demonstrate the viability of potential on-site treatment technologies. Plasma arc systems might be adaptable to destruction of secondary wastes from EDS and RRS neutralization. However, use of such high-temperature processes to destroy highly aqueous secondary wastes would be inefficient, although it may be expedient in some cases. If the aqueous waste liquids cannot be disposed of in publicly or federally owned treatment works (POTWs or FOTWs), further development work will be required to demonstrate alternatives. A previous report of this committee (NRC, 2001a) identified chemical oxidation or wet air oxidation as potentially promising, but as of November 2001 neither had been demonstrated for neutralents. A development program would need to address issues such as the following: materials of construction and corrosion DREs of specific by-products salts/solids management safety issues VOC and emission control PMNSCM has undertaken a technology test program to test a large number of alternative technologies for destruction of these secondary waste streams. Some of the alternative technologies appear to be only marginally appropriate for the needs of the program. Previous reports of this committee (NRC, 2001a, 2001b) pointed out the limitations of biological treatments, electrochemical oxidation, gas-phase chemical reduction, solvated electron technology, and continuous SCWO technologies. The committee has recommended no further development of these technologies for treatment of neutralents and rinsates. In addition, the current analysis points out the need for more information on the scope of applicability of UV-catalyzed oxidation and calls into question the need to continue the development of batch SCWO processing. The potential applicability of UV oxidation is not well understood, and batch SCWO, when combined with explosive accessing in an EDS, is technologically immature. The committee believes that the Army’s plan for destruction of secondary NSCWM liquid waste streams (discussed above) is sound, but that further development of plasma arc, chemical oxidation, and wet air oxidation should be conducted to handle cases where incineration of the wastes at a TSDF or disposal at a POTW are inappropriate or unacceptable to the local public (see earlier findings and recommendations 2-12a and 2-12b). Large Quantities of NSCWM Items Currently in Storage Pine Bluff Arsenal has the largest known non-stockpile inventory. It contains almost 70,000 items, including explosive and nonexplosive munitions with diverse chemical fills, binary agent precursors, CAIS, and bulk containers of chemical agent. If no extension of the CWC treaty deadline is sought, these items must be destroyed by April 29, 2007. PMNSCM has plans for construction of a facility (PBNSF) designed to dispose of these items. It may also be used to dispose of other finds of CAIS or CW munitions if transportation and public acceptance issues can be resolved. As discussed previously, if transportation to PBNSF is not allowed, other disposal options, including the deployment of a mobile system with higher throughput than the EDS or the building of more facilities at the sites where NSCWM is discovered, may need to be implemented. While the design for PBNSF that the Army has shared with the committee appears to be technically suitable for the treatment of NSCWM at Pine Bluff (see Appendix C), the task of destroying this quantity of NSCWM by 2007 is daunting given that PBNSF is not expected to be operational until 2006. As far as the committee can ascertain, the Army has not developed a realistic timetable for destruction of this NSCWM that is consistent with current treaty deadlines. The committee is concerned that without clear planning and extraordinary efforts, the treaty deadlines will almost certainly not be met. Large NSCWM Items There is currently no fully developed treatment system capable of handling munitions larger than those that can be processed in the EDS-2 and possibly the DBC. This limits the on-site disposal of CW munitions to 155-mm projectiles or 8-inch World War I chemical projectiles, because the amount of explosives contained in larger munitions exceeds the capability of the EDS and the amount of donor explosives required for destruction in the DBC exceeds its capabilities. Examples of large items include 500- and 1,000-lb chemical bombs. Based on the latest assessment of buried non-stockpile munitions (U.S. Army, 1996), it is likely that this disposal scenario will exist in the United States in the future. Also, large chemical bombs (M-79 1,000-lb bombs and M-78

OCR for page 46
500-lb bombs) are known to exist in Panama (OPCW, 2001). PMNSCM currently does not have a fully developed and field-ready system capable of processing these large chemical bombs. This represents a potentially important gap in Army treatment capabilities. One promising approach is the British-developed drill-through valve (DTV) system (U.S. Army, 2000a). The DTV is designed for large munitions with liquid (nongelled) agent fills (e.g., hydrogen cyanide, CG, or CK). The DTV uses a drill-seal-and-drain system mounted on a saddle that is attached to the munition by epoxy. After drilling, the access hole is used for removal of the chemical fill and the subsequent injection and removal of decontamination liquid to decontaminate the bomb interior. The DTV may prove difficult to use when agent is present in a thickened form, but perhaps it could be modified for this purpose. If a sealed access hole can be obtained, appropriate draining, pumping, and decontaminating procedures might be developed for these agents. However, complete containment and destruction of agent are difficult to achieve by this method, and significant development is necessary before the system could be permitted in the United States. If the necessary permits can be obtained to test the DTV system for the disposal of large CW bombs already discovered in Panama, such testing could provide valuable data on its performance that would facilitate permitting in the United States. Large Quantities of Not-Yet-Recovered Small Munitions A large quantity of small munitions is defined as an amount in excess of the quantity that can be efficiently treated in an EDS. Although the EDS will be technically capable of handling a large number of small CW munitions, its relatively low throughput rate means that a disposal system with a higher throughput may be desirable. Examples of sites where large quantities of not-yet-recovered small munitions are known to be buried include Dugway Proving Ground, Utah; Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Colorado; and Redstone Arsenal, Alabama (U.S. Army, 1996). Treatment options for large quantities of small munitions, in addition to a prolonged campaign in an EDS, are packing the munitions in MRCs and shipping them, perhaps across state lines, to a facility; dedicating multiple EDS units to the task; using a transportable system with a higher throughput; or constructing a dedicated treatment facility. Shipment of large quantities of CW munitions to a facility is not likely to be approved by the receiving state, making this option unlikely. Current Army planning limits EDS procurement to seven units by FY 2007. Unless enough units are procured to allow the flexibility of dispatching several to a given site while keeping on hand adequate units for emergency use or achieving disposal schedules at existing sites, this option will not be possible. Remaining options for this category are construction of a facility or development of another transportable CWM treatment system with a higher throughput than the EDS. If the relatively high cost and large footprint of a facility are judged to be inappropriate for the site, a high-throughput transportable system may be attractive. Assuming that technical and regulatory barriers with the DBC, as discussed previously, can be overcome, its incorporation into the available CW munition treatment systems for large quantities of small munitions would be a valuable addition to the variety of treatment systems currently available to PMNSCM. With this option, secondary waste would require further treatment to destroy residual agent. However, as stated previously, the DBC is not presently in the PMNSCM arsenal of disposal tools, and its evaluation thus far has been underwritten by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Throughout this study, it became apparent that there was a division of responsibility within the Army for accomplishing its remediation mission. The NSCMP is a development program under PMCD and, until recently, within the acquisition organization of the Army. Beyond the responsibilities of PMNSCM exists the responsibilities of the USACE. USACE is responsible for remediation of formerly used defense sites (U.S. Army, 2002a), including both conventional and chemical ordnance. In that role, the USACE is apparently investigating technologies and methodologies for non-stockpile munitions treatment. With the exception of the DBC, the committee restricted itself to evaluating PMNSCM technologies and systems. The committee strongly believes, however, that an integrated approach to the problem of chemical weapons remediation would serve the Army well. NSCWM TREATMENT CATEGORIES FOR WHICH AVAILABLE OR IN-PIPELINE TOOLS ARE ADEQUATE There is at least a sufficient range—and often a wide range—of disposal or destruction options available or under development for the following seven categories of non-stockpile materiel: CAIS PIGs The RRS is a system that was designed and developed by PMNSCM specifically to handle and treat complete CAIS PIGs and large numbers of loose CAIS vials and bottles. The committee finds it an expensive but adequate treatment system for CAIS PIGs and large numbers of CAIS vials (see RRS discussion in Chapter 2). Individual CAIS Vials and Bottles PMNSCM is developing the Single CAIS Accessing and Neutralization System (SCANS) to treat individual CAIS

OCR for page 46
vials and bottles recovered at remote sites. When fully developed, this system should be well suited to this task (see SCANS discussion in Chapter 2 and Finding and Recommendation 2-8). Small Quantities of Small Munitions PMNSCM has developed the transportable Explosive Destruction System (EDS)8 as the workhorse system for destruction of both explosively and nonexplosively configured munitions in the field. The EDS-1 prototype was recently deployed to Rocky Mountain Arsenal, where it successfully destroyed 10 sarin bomblets. Improved versions of the EDS-1, as well as a larger EDS-2, are currently in development. Once these developments are completed, this category appears to be well covered. The EDS appears to be sufficiently flexible that it might also be used in other NSCWM treatment categories (see EDS discussion in Chapter 2 and Recommendation 2-5). Chemical Agents in Bulk Containers The non-stockpile inventory includes numerous containers of chemical agents of various types and sizes that have accumulated over the years. In general, these are stored at stockpile sites. There are many treatment options available for these bulk containers; the most obvious is to use the stockpile chemical disposal facilities (CDFs), although modifications may be required and permit modifications may be difficult to obtain. In addition to the stockpile facilities, two experimental facilities have long been used to destroy a variety of chemical agents by chemical neutralization: the Chemical Transfer Facility (CTF) at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, and the Chemical Agent and Munitions Destruction System (CAMDS) near Dugway Proving Ground, Utah. Although these are R&D facilities and therefore should not be used on a routine basis to destroy NSCWM, they might be considered as an option to destroy limited numbers of non-stockpile items that contain unusual chemical fills or that have a configuration that cannot be handled by other systems. Further treatment options for non-stockpile bulk chemicals include direct destruction in a plasma arc system (see below) or even treatment in the EDS. With all of these options available, this category is well covered. Finding 3-1a. The stockpile chemical disposal facilities (CDFs) are capable of disposing of some of the non-stockpile inventory, although some modification in munition and container accessing equipment, agent monitoring, and pollution abatement equipment may be required. Finding 3-1b. Bulk chemicals stored in ton containers and other sample containers are located at stockpile sites. They can be destroyed in the stockpile facilities, non-stockpile facilities at APG and PBA, or the CAMDS facility at Tooele, Utah. Recommendation 3-1. While recognizing that there are significant regulatory and public acceptability issues to resolve, the committee recommends that non-stockpile chemical materiel in bulk containers located at stockpile sites and suitable for destruction in chemical stockpile disposal facilities be destroyed in those facilities. Binary Chemical Warfare Materiel Components The entire non-stockpile inventory of binary CWM components is stored in canisters and drums at Pine Bluff Arsenal, a stockpile site. Options for treatment include destruction in the Pine Bluff Chemical Disposal Facility, direct destruction in a plasma arc system (see Finding and Recommendation 2-10), or chemical neutralization followed by oxidative posttreatment of the neutralents. The high concentration of fluorine in the binary CWM component DF raises concerns about corrosion in some treatment systems. Finding 3-2. Neutralization of the binary precursors DF and QL is feasible but generates substantial quantities of liquid wastes that contain CWC Schedule 2 precursors subject to oversight and inspection by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Posttreatment to destroy these secondary wastes will be required. Recommendation 3-2. Ideally, the binary precursors methylphosphonic difluoride (DF) and ethyl-2-diisopropylaminoethyl methylphosphonite (QL) stored at Pine Bluff Arsenal should be destroyed directly, either by burning in the Pine Bluff Chemical Destruction Facility incinerator or by plasma treatment. If these facilities cannot handle the fluorine-rich DF destruction products, the committee recommends that on-site neutralization followed by oxidative posttreatment of the neutralents be developed. The easiest posttreatment may be shipment to a commercial incinerator capable of dealing with high levels of fluorine. Unstable Explosive Munitions That Cannot Be Moved Open burning/open detonation (OB/OD) was the traditional method for disposing of unstable munitions, including chemical munitions, but it is no longer considered acceptable by regulators except under emergency circumstances. PMNSCM has been exploring an alternative to OB/OD 8   The EDS was originally developed to destroy non-stockpile items that were deemed to be too unstable for transport or long-term storage; however, it can also be used to treat limited numbers of stable chemical munitions, with or without explosive components.

OCR for page 46
called the tent-and-foam system, which provides for partially contained detonation of unstable munitions. Finding 3-3. Unstable munitions discovered in environmentally sensitive or populated areas present a challenge because current technologies such as open burning/open detonation (OB/OD) are inappropriate. Recommendation 3-3. The Army should complete the development and testing of the tent-and-foam system for controlling on-site detonation of unstable munitions. Secondary Liquid Waste Streams There appear to be a number of viable options for treatment of secondary liquid waste streams from systems such as the RRS, SCANS, and EDS, although further development work will be required (see the discussion of plasma arc systems, chemical oxidation, and wet air oxidation of neutralents and rinsates in Chapter 2 and Finding and Recommendation 2-11). NSCWM TREATMENT CATEGORIES FOR WHICH SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT AND PLANNING ARE NEEDED For the following three categories, the committee judges the treatment options that are available or in the pipeline to be insufficient to permit the non-stockpile program to meet its goals. Additional investment or planning efforts are needed. Large Quantities of NSCWM Items Currently in Storage Some 85 percent of all recovered NSCWM in the United States is stored at Pine Bluff Arsenal. The Army has designed the Pine Bluff Non-Stockpile Facility (PBNSF) to destroy the almost 70,000 items stored there, but the facility is not expected to be operational until 2006. As far as the committee can ascertain, the Army has not developed a realistic timetable for destruction of this quantity of NSCWM that is consistent with current treaty deadlines. The committee is concerned that without clear planning and extraordinary efforts, the 2007 treaty deadline will almost certainly not be met (see PBNSF discussion and Finding and Recommendation 2-2 in Chapter 2). Large NSCWM Items Disposal of chemical projectiles larger than 155-mm and large (500- or 1,000-lb) bombs presents a special challenge for the non-stockpile program. Although such munitions are rarely recovered in the United States, they have been recovered as a result of U.S. activities in at least one foreign country, and it seems likely they will be found on U.S. soil in the future. Finding 3-4. Large munitions, such as some chemical bombs and some chemical projectiles, cannot be treated in any of the planned or existing non-stockpile treatment systems because either the size of the munition or the amount of explosive exceeds the capacity of the treatment system. PMNSCM is investigating the suitability of the British drill-through valve (DTV) system, or some variant of that system, for use in accessing the chemical fill of large munitions. Recommendation 3-4. PMNSCM should develop a strategy for treating chemical bombs and projectiles that are too large for treatment in the EDS, in the DBC (if successfully demonstrated), or in planned facilities. One option is to test the British drill-through valve (DTV) system, modify it if necessary, and prepare it for use on existing large NSCWM items and other such items that may be found in the future. Large Quantities of Not-Yet-Recovered Small Munitions Sites at which thousands of NSCWM items are believed to be buried present a special challenge to the non-stockpile program. Examples of such sites include Deseret Chemical Depot, Utah; Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Colorado; and Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. Use of one or even a few EDS units would be inefficient given their relatively low throughput capacity (currently one munition every 2 days). At present, the Army’s only option for cleaning up such a site would be the construction of a facility, such as MAPS or PBNSF. However, such facilities are expensive and have a large environmental footprint. A transportable treatment system with a high throughput would be highly desirable to treat this category of NSCWM (see discussion of the Donovan blast chamber and Finding and Recommendation 2-9 in Chapter 2).9 DEVELOPING NEW SYSTEMS FOR NEW FINDS There are large numbers of NSCWM items that are presently buried and that are likely to require removal and treat 9   While the committee believes that future non-stockpile facilities at large-quantity sites might utilize multiple mobile units such as the EDS and DBC operated in parallel (e.g., Finding and Recommendation 2-5), this concept is not yet included in facilities such as MAPS and PBNSF, which at this writing were under construction and in final design, respectively.

OCR for page 46
ment in the future (U.S. Army, 1996). The post-2007 period is approaching rapidly, and the transition from the destruction of stored NSCWM to sites that contain buried materiel must be addressed. This section discusses the types of criteria and guidelines the Army might consider in selecting treatment systems and technologies for not-yet-recovered CWM. The committee notes that it does not purport to recommend recovery and treatment of NSCWM items in all cases. In some cases, it may be preferable to leave the munitions buried and to institute institutional and other controls to protect human health and the environment. This section merely discusses treatment options should the decision be made to excavate and treat buried munitions. Since buried CWM is known to exist at many sites (both current and former military facilities), the transition should include an assessment to ensure that these sites have treatment facilities that are adequate to treat the type and volume of buried CWM. Although the pressure of meeting the treaty deadline does not exist for buried NSCWM items, the Army still needs to set a reasonable schedule for the eventual destruction of this buried materiel. It is likely that the removal of buried CWM from the ground prior to destruction will pose the greatest risk, so the Army must have in place sufficient measures to ensure that human health is protected during removal operations. The specific configuration of treatment systems at the existing non-stockpile mobile and planned facilities was based on a set of internal criteria and guidelines set forth by PMNSCM, but the criteria and guidelines were not provided to the public before decisions were made. As a result, some state regulators and some members of the public have indicated that the criteria for selecting technologies and treatment systems have been neither apparent nor documented. Although the committee believes that, overall, the treatment systems selected were reasonable and scientifically supportable, the administrative process might be improved if a general treatment system guidance document were developed and used in selecting the appropriate technology for a given site. The choice of specific technologies or systems for a particular site depends on a range of factors, including the number of items, type of materiel, need for expeditious destruction, and proximity of existing stockpile or commercial treatment systems. No one set of treatment and disposal components can apply to all locations. At a new location, the Army must evaluate the ability of various alternative components to address the unique array of materiel at that particular location. Finding 3-5. The Army has focused primarily on recovered chemical warfare materiel and its responsibilities for destroying this materiel by 2007 in accordance with the CWC. Relatively little emphasis has been placed on sites where significant quantities of NSCWM remain buried. Recommendation 3-5. The Army should address the post-2007 period to ensure the smooth transition from destruction of stored NSCWM to that of buried NSCWM. Care should be taken to ensure the adequacy of treatment facilities for the type and volume of buried NSWM and that measures are in place for the protection of human health during removal operations.