National Academies Press: OpenBook

Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel (2012)

Chapter: Appendix D: Review of Regulatory Programs

« Previous: Appendix C: Final Implementation Plan for the Recovery and Destruction of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel, March 1, 2010
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Review of Regulatory Programs." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×

Appendix D

Review of Regulatory Programs

TWO MAIN PROGRAMS

As indicated in Chapter 3, there are primarily two regulatory programs under which munitions response sites (MRSs), including those containing chemical warfare materiel (CWM), would be assessed, investigated, characterized, and cleaned up: the corrective action program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the cleanup program under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).1 The process leading to cleanup under both is fairly well prescribed, is highly complex, is often influenced by the type of facility (active installation, formerly used defense sites [FUDS], or Base Closure and Realignment Comnmission [BRAC]) and the type of action (emergency vs. nonemergency), and depends somewhat on whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or a state environmental regulator (or both) oversees the cleanup. The process leading to cleanup is also influenced by the level of local government involvement, the landowner (such as military, other federal agency, state or local government, or private sector), adjacent landowners, and the level and intensity of public involvement. The end result, eventual cleanup of the site, is likely to be the same regardless of those factors, but the path to the result can vary widely.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RCRA (PL 94-580), an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act, was enacted in 1976 to address hazardous-waste management. As required by the statute, EPA created a cradle-to-grave system of regulations for the management of hazardous waste. States could receive authorization to administer the RCRA program within their boundaries if they develop a regulatory program deemed by EPA to be substantially equivalent to the federal RCRA program. It is important for this discussion that in adopting the federal RCRA program, states could also choose to develop regulations that are more stringent than the federal program. For example, although EPA did not identify chemical agents as hazardous waste, most of the stockpile states have specifically listed chemical agents as hazardous waste under their RCRA programs.

Once wastes are defined as hazardous, a complicated system of requirements and permits becomes applicable. Permits are required for treatment, storage, and disposal, and, because RCRA is largely state-implemented, the nature and stringency of the permit can differ from state to state. Specific provisions are established in the RCRA regulations for permitting specific types of units, such as landfills, incinerators, and storage facilities. But EPA also established a catch-all category for units that could not meet a standard type, called a miscellaneous unit.2 If a full RCRA permit would be required for an EDT or the EDS, a unit would be defined as a miscellaneous unit. Other types of RCRA permits and mechanisms are also available under RCRA for regulatory approval.

RCRA has been amended by Congress several times to add specific provisions. The most significant RCRA amendment pertinent to the present report is the RCRA corrective action program, which came out of the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA). Similar to CERCLA, RCRA corrective action requires investigation and cleanup of hazardous waste and constituents released from solid-waste management units (SWMUs) at RCRA facilities, either active facilities with current permits or at facilities that close under RCRA in lieu of obtaining permits. Areas at RCRA facilities in which buried CWM would be found would be regarded as SWMUs.

Cleanup under RCRA is intended to be risk-based. After a preliminary assessment (often referred to as a RCRA facility

image

1In rare cases, the Safe Drinking Water Act and other federal and state authorities may be used as well.

2Miscellaneous units are often referred to as Subpart X units because of the designation under 40 CFR 264, Subpart X.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Review of Regulatory Programs." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×

assessment [RFA]), data are collected to define the nature and extent of the release (often referred to as a RCRA facility investigation [RFI]). If the release poses a risk that requires corrective action, a study of alternatives is conducted (often referred to as a corrective measures study [CMS]), and selected measures are then implemented (often referred to as corrective measures implementation [CMI]). In addition, interim measures may be taken at RCRA SWMUs to reduce risk sooner before more comprehensive cleanup approaches are considered. Interim measures can be part of a final corrective measure, but they were intended as a means of stabilizing releases to reduce risk pending more definitive corrective measures (55 FR 30798, July 27, 1990).

An RCRA corrective action is implemented through the permit process. EPA initially proposed the above-described RFA-RFI-CMS-CMI prescriptive process for implementing RCRA corrective actions, but opted instead for a less prescriptive approach that allows for some flexibility. Still, many of the states authorized for RCRA corrective actions require a more structured approach, which, although it has some advantages, can be a deterrent to progress. States differ in how they implement RCRA corrective actions.

Another important RCRA amendment pertinent to recovered CWM (RCWM) involves the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs), which were also mandated by the 1984 HSWA. The LDRs establish requirements for hazardous-waste treatment before land disposal. LDRs include application of specific treatment technologies but also establish numerical treatment standards for a number of constituents. Although no LDRs exist for listed chemical-agent wastes, these wastes may exhibit one or more of the RCRA characteristics. Treatment of RCWM that exhibits RCRA characteristics may need to meet LDRs for the applicable characteristics. In addition, and with some exceptions, remediation wastes, such as munition bodies and contaminated media, may need to meet LDRs for debris and contaminated soil.

Another regulatory development pertinent to this discussion is EPA’s creation of the corrective-action management unit (CAMU) and temporary unit (TU) (EPA, 2002).3 A CAMU is a type of waste-management unit that is designed specifically for the management of waste created during the cleanup of RCRA and CERCLA hazardous-waste sites, known as remediation waste. CAMUs can be used for treatment and storage and for disposal of remediation wastes. They are ideal when facilities will be generating a large amount of remediation waste and when such waste can be managed on site near the area from which the remediation waste was removed and in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment. CAMUs can also be established at off-site locations. For example, if a CAMU is established at Redstone Arsenal, pending regulatory approval, remediation waste generated at Camp Sibert could be accepted. A CAMU can be especially effective when wastes from multiple SWMUs or CERCLA units can be managed in the same location. One important advantage of a CAMU is that management of remediation waste within these units would trigger RCRA LDR requirements tailored for remediation wastes.

TUs are used to either treat or store remediation waste on site. They must be shown to be protective of human health and the environment and have an operating life of 1 year, which may be extended for 1 year if that is determined to be necessary. An ideal application of a TU might be for the IHFs used for storage of RCWM.

Another concept that is important to mention in connection with management of remediation waste is what is known as the Area of Contamination Policy (EPA, 1998). This policy was actually introduced in the original preamble to the National Contingency Plan under CERCLA (55 FR 8758, March 8 1990). An area of contamination is a designated area of an RCRA or CERCLA site where management of remediation waste—including treatment, storage, or disposal—is allowed without triggering LDRs or requirements for design of specific types of hazardous-waste management units (such as liners and leachate-collection systems).

Clearly, management of remediation waste—including consideration of CAMUs, TUs, treatment requirements, and areas of contamination—is a highly complex subject. Also, because RCRA is largely state-implemented, the states often implement these types of requirements differently. Although it is important to mention the various options for management of remediation waste, it is beyond the scope of this report to evaluate the intricacies of the regulatory requirements for remediation wastes that may come out of CWM sites.

Emergency provisions and other enforcement mechanisms are available under RCRA to address releases of hazardous waste and constituents. EPA can issue Section 3008(a) compliance orders; Section 3008(h) interim status corrective-action orders; Section 3013(a) monitoring, analysis, and testing orders; and Section 7003 imminent-hazard orders.4 Many states have incorporated similar emergency provisions and enforcement mechanisms into their state RCRA programs.

Another important RCRA amendment was the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992 (PL 102-386), which required EPA, in consultation with the Department of Defense (DOD), to identify when waste military munitions become subject to RCRA and to provide for their safe transport and storage. The Military Munitions Rule (MR) was promulgated in 1997 (62 FR 6622). It defined when conventional and chemical munitions become subject to RCRA requirements. Although the MR provided many clarifications regarding classification of military munitions

image

367 FR 2961, January 22, 2002. Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2002-01-22/html/02-4.htm. Accessed April 10, 2012.

4http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/rcra/RCRAAdministrativeOrders.html.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Review of Regulatory Programs." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×

in the RCRA context, one of the important provisions for the present report is that it provided an exemption from RCRA procedures (for example, permitting and waste manifesting) for responses to explosives or munitions emergencies. It also provided an exemption for munitions on what have become known as operational ranges. Another related provision pertinent to buried CWM is that these do not become subject to RCRA waste-management requirements unless they are actively managed (for example, exhumed). DOD developed an interim guidance for implementation of the MR, which was published in 1998 (DOD, 1998), and has been working to develop it into an Army regulation.

RCRA also has well-defined and established procedures for public involvement, especially in the corrective-action process. The public has a number of opportunities to influence site-characterization procedures, interim measures, and the selection of cleanup alternatives.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CERCLA is implemented through the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR 300), which provides a structured process for overall responses. CERCLA can be applied at any site at which hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants have been released into the environment, including active installations, FUDS, and BRAC sites. CERCLA can also be applied at permitted RCRA facilities. In both EPA and DOD guidance documents dealing with the cleanup of MRSs, including sites with CWM, there is a clear preference for cleanups that follow the regulatory program under CERCLA (EPA, 2005; U.S. Army, 2006) as opposed to RCRA corrective action.

The CERCLA cleanup process involves a number of steps, initiated through an initial assessment of risk. A preliminary assessment or site investigation is performed to gather data to support a determination of to whether a site qualifies for further action. Sites are scored; if they present a significant risk, they may qualify for placement on the National Priorities List (NPL). Cleanup actions under CERCLA can be required regardless of whether a site is listed on the NPL, but NPL listing places a site in a category that requires a tightly structured process that leads to cleanup. Relatively speaking, few MRSs containing CWM are listed on the NPL. The most prominent examples of CWM sites that are NPL-listed are Aberdeen Proving Ground (Edgewood Area) in Maryland, Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Colorado, and Redstone Arsenal in Alabama. Most of the FUDS and BRAC sites, and active installations that contain buried CWM that are addressed under CERCLA would be in the non-NPL site category.

If it is determined to be necessary to reduce risk in an emergency or immediate timeframe, CERCLA removal actions can be used to mitigate a release or threat of a release. Like RCRA interim measures, removal actions are typically short-term actions intended to reduce risk in an immediate time frame but can also be permanent remedies or parts of more permanent remedies. Regardless of whether a site is NPL-listed, a remedial investigation may be required. A remedial investigation is a detailed site investigation that leads to a determination that a site is sufficiently characterized to support the evaluation of cleanup alternatives. A removal action can be conducted before, during, or even after a remedial investigation is completed.

If a remedial investigation results in a determination that further action is needed to reduce risk, a feasibility study is undertaken to evaluate remedial actions, and alternatives are selected with the goal of permanently reducing “the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants.”5

EPA is responsible for implementing CERCLA at most sites. However, Executive Order 12580, issued in 1987, delegated response authority to DOD and other federal land managers for both NPL and non-NPL sites. In addition, Section 120 of CERCLA contains specific procedures for applying CERCLA at federal facilities. Most notably, if a site is not listed on the NPL, DOD and other federal land managers must conduct removal and remedial actions in accordance with state laws and requirements. If a site is NPL-listed, EPA must develop an interagency agreement, often referred to as a federal facility agreement (FFA). An FFA is a binding agreement between EPA and the federal land manager, in this case DOD. A state can also choose to be a signatory to an agreement, but at NPL sites EPA must concur with the cleanup decision. U.S. Army guidance is clear that regulatory agencies and local governments must be part of the CERCLA planning process and must be consulted in key decisions (U.S. Army, 2004). U.S. Army guidance, in effect, treats NPL and non-NPL sites the same with regard to coordination with regulators and meeting regulatory requirements.6

RCRA corrective action and CERCLA are different, but there are important crossovers. An example important for this discussion is known in the CERCLA program as applicable, relevant, and appropriate requirements (ARARs). Basically, requirements of other federal and state environmental laws that are determined to be either applicable or relevant and appropriate must be complied with. Most RCRA waste-management requirements (for media and debris removed from the site, including RCWM) would be considered either applicable or relevant and appropriate at CERCLA sites. Although RCRA administrative requirements, such as the need to obtain RCRA permits, would not be imposed at

image

5CERCLA remedy-selection factors include threshold criteria, balancing criteria, and modifying criteria and are discussed in many CERCLA guidance documents. (See OSWER Directive 9355.3-01F54, March 1990, available at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/remedy/pdfs/93-55301fs4-s.pdf. Accessed March 21, 2012.)

6Deborah A. Morefield, Environmental Management, Office of the Deputy Undersecretary for Installations and Environment Department of Defense, “Remediation Operations from an OSD Installations and Environment Perspective,” presentation to the committee on November 2, 2011.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Review of Regulatory Programs." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×

federal CERCLA sites, the federal agency implementing a CERCLA action would be required to meet substantive RCRA requirements.7

Summary

Regardless of regulatory authority or type of MRS, cleanup typically follows the same general flow of initial assessment, site investigation, conduct of removal or interim actions to reduce short-term risk, site characterization, evaluation and selection of alternative cleanup approach or technology to reduce long-term risk, conduct of cleanup, and site closeout. There are also requirements for periodic reviews—5 years under CERCLA and typically 5 or 10 years at RCRA facilities. Removal and treatment of RCWM may occur anywhere during the process, but is most likely during the removal or actual cleanup (remedial) phase. And under both RCRA and CERCLA, cleanups may be determined to be complete even if wastes or hazardous materials are left in place. When hazardous materials are left in place, the remedy typically involves mechanisms designed to control further releases of hazardous waste or constituents from the site (for example, an engineered cap) and typically is combined with land-use controls and continued monitoring.

OTHER APPLICABLE REGULATORY PROGRAMS

Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol

As of September 2006, DOD had cataloged over 3,300 sites as potentially eligible for the Military Munitions Response Program, as shown in Table D-1.

With so many sites and limited funding for addressing them, a priority-setting system was needed. Development of the Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol (MRSPP) was mandated by the 2002 Defense Authorization Act (10 USC 2710), wherein Congress directed DOD to develop a protocol for assigning priority to MRSs for response action. In 2005, DOD finalized its MRSPP.8 The rule-making required DOD to use the MRSPP to rank MRSs for response action. Priorities are based on potential risk: the highest priority is assigned to sites that contain or potentially contain CWM.

Relative risk weighs heavily in determining priorities for response, but other factors influence which MRSs are next in sequence for response. Those factors include economic development, environmental justice, and stakeholder concerns. Some non-CWM MRSs may be selected for action before CWM MRSs despite a higher risk ranking.

Defense Environmental Restoration Program

DOD has been conducting cleanups at its hazardous-waste sites since the middle 1970s under its Installation Restoration Program (IRP). The IRP was formalized as the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) with the passage of the Superfund Amendments and Reautho-rization Act in 1986. Congress directed DOD to carry out the DERP in consultation with EPA and with states and tribal authorities; except when situations are determined to constitute emergencies, DOD is required to give state and local governments the opportunity to review and comment on response actions. The DERP also established funding mechanisms for environmental restoration at MRSs; separate accounts are used for active installations, FUDS, and BRAC sites. However, DERP funding cannot be applied at operational ranges.

Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty Requirements

The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction was signed by the United States in 1993 and ratified by Congress in 1997. Treaty requirements are overseen by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Although most of the treaty requirements pertain to destruction of chemical-weapons stockpiles in nations that stockpiled these materials, there are treaty requirements that apply to non-stockpile materials, including RCWM. The treaty requires simply that RCWM be destroyed and provides for oversight of the destruction by the OPCW. There is no treaty requirement to recover buried munitions, and no timeframe is specified in the treaty for destruction of the RCWM. The processes for treaty compliance and OPCW oversight are coordinated by CMA.

DICTATION OF APPLICABLE REGULATORY PROGRAM BY TYPE OF FACILITY OR RESPONSE ACTION

The type of facility or property where a CWM-containing MRS is can influence whether the response action taken to clean up the site is conducted under RCRA or CERCLA. The following sections review the general types of MRSs and discuss regulatory programs applicable to the sites.

Active Installations

Many active installations have RCRA-permitted hazardous-waste management units, such as hazardous-waste storage. Some installations may also have RCRA-permitted treatment units, including, for example, open burn–open detonation (OB/OD) units used for treatment of conventional waste munitions. Other installations may have initially sought RCRA permits for hazardous-waste management activities (like OB/OD) but determined later that a permit

image

7The identification of RCRA requirements that are substantive and included as ARARs can be contentious.

8https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2005/10/05/05-19696/munitions-response-site-prioritization-protocol. Accessed March 21, 2012.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Review of Regulatory Programs." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×

TABLE D-1 Number of Munitions Response Sites


MRSs Active Installations BRAC Installations FUDS Properties

3,309 1,333 318 1,658

SOURCE: http://www.denix.osd.mil/mmrp/upload/MRSPP_Stakeholder_FactSheet_final.pdf. Undated. Accessed March 21, 2012.

was not needed and were required to go through RCRA closure. RCRA-permitted facilities and facilities going through RCRA closure are subject to RCRA corrective action and will probably already be in the process of characterizing or remediating SWMUs on the installation, including SWMUs that are also MRSs.

Nearly all active installations have also been assessed under CERCLA, even those with active RCRA corrective action programs. Some of those installations may have CERCLA non-NPL sites or CERCLA NPL sites. If an active installation with CERCLA units is also an RCRA-permitted facility or is closing under RCRA, RCRA corrective action and CERCLA requirements apply to the same MRS at the same time. Quite often, states with RCRA corrective action authorization will want cleanup of MRSs at active installations that operate under RCRA permit to be conducted under RCRA corrective action so that they can maintain some level of control over cleanup decisions. At the same time, EPA will often want cleanup to be conducted under CERCLA authority so that it can maintain control over cleanup decisions, especially for NPL sites. RCRA vs CERCLA authority is an issue facing active installations, inasmuch as the prospect of being subject to both RCRA and CERCLA cleanup requirements can be problematic. Redstone Arsenal is subject to both RCRA corrective action and CERCLA cleanup requirements; neither EPA nor the state of Alabama has been willing to defer regulatory authority.

Formerly Used Defense Sites

FUDS are locations where the land may have been used for training, research and development, testing, or disposal of military munitions. Property owners are diverse and may include federal and state agencies, local governments, commercial companies, public or private institutions, and even private landowners. Only in rare cases would a landowner be subject to RCRA requirements. For example, a commercial manufacturer that acquired the land that is now a FUDS MRS may also hold an RCRA permit; in this rare case, it is possible that the FUDS could be addressed under RCRA corrective action requirements. In the likely absence of overarching regulatory structure at most FUDS, the vast majority of FUDS will probably be addressed under CERCLA. In that manner, whereas the military, through the Army Corps of Engineers, will conduct the remedial investigation and eventually identify and carry out removal and remedial actions, the FUDS landowner and adjacent landowners, as well as the general public, will be key participants in the decision-making process. The state regulator also will probably be a key player, and if the FUDS is also a CERCLA NPL site, EPA will become a primary decision-maker. It should also be mentioned that even if MRSs are being addressed under CERCLA, states may issue emergency provisions or orders that are available under RCRA to address cleanup actions.

Base Realignment and Closure

BRAC installations are similar to active installations with respect to RCRA corrective action vs CERCLA requirements. Some MRSs at BRAC sites will be addressed under RCRA, some under CERCLA (as either NPL or non-NPL sites), and requirements of both programs may apply at some BRAC installations. Given that most BRAC sites will eventually be turned over to the private sector, cleanup at installations going through BRAC will need to consider that the land will in most cases no longer be managed by the federal government.

The provisions of CERCLA 120(h) allow the transfer of contaminated federal property to nonfederal parties, but there are restrictions. Under CERCLA 120(h), EPA (and in some cases a state regulator) performs additional oversight at federal facilities that transfer to nonfederal ownership. Generally, remedial actions must be in place and operating properly and successfully before a parcel is transferred (EPA, 2010), although remedial actions need not be complete before transfer. However, CWM sites at which the remedial action includes a containment (leave-in-place) option are unlikely to be transferred to nonfederal parties.

Operational Ranges

Another category of MRS where buried CWM may be found is operational ranges. Operational ranges are active ranges where testing, training, and other activities are expected, planned, or going on. The RCRA munitions rule makes it clear that RCRA requirements do not apply to operational ranges themselves but may apply to specific locations on ranges. For example, many RCRA-permitted OB/OD units are on or next to operational ranges. Past disposal units (including RCRA SWMUs) may also be on operational ranges, as is the case at Redstone. In such cases, RCRA or CERCLA cleanup requirements could apply not only to a unit in question but to releases of hazardous waste or constituents from the unit.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Review of Regulatory Programs." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×

As indicated earlier, another limitation with regard to operational ranges is that DERP funding may not be used to fund cleanup at these sites. That limitation can be problematic in that some of the largest locations where CWM is known to be buried are on operational ranges (such as Redstone Arsenal).

Emergency Response

Emergency response to a situation where a CWM or potential CWM is identified either on or off an installation or at an established BRAC or FUDS is generally “a situation in which there is an imminent and substantial threat to human health or the environment and which requires immediate and expeditious action to eliminate the threat” (EPA, 2010). As indicated previously, the RCRA Munitions Rule provides an exemption from permitting requirements for emergency response. However, the preamble to the final rule indicates that a responder should consult with an applicable state regulator if there is time.

Once an emergency is over, however, depending on the potential for additional munition items (including CWM) and location of the site, the site may become a FUDS. The Spring Valley site in Washington, D.C., was initiated as an emergency response in 1993 and has become one of the longest-active FUDS in the nation.

TYPES OF REMEDIES

Two types of remedies may be considered for CWM-containing MRSs. CWMs may be left in place with institutional “land-use controls” (LUCs) and continued monitoring, or they may be actively removed and destroyed. In addition, when CWMs are actively removed and destroyed, RCWM destruction may take place onsite (close to the point of extraction), or they may be transported to a specified offsite location for destruction. The types of remedies for CWM-containing MRS are discussed below.

Leave in Place with Institutional (Land-Use) Controls

Buried CWM can be left in place with LUCs to prevent unauthorized access and with deed restrictions to prevent future uses that are incompatible with buried munitions. Most often, this type of remedy is accompanied by emplacement of an engineered cap and continued monitoring of media (such as groundwater) for an indefinite period to detect migration of contamination or fluctuations in contaminant concentrations. If unexpected migration or contaminant fluctuation is detected, additional remedies may be considered. Sometimes, this type of remedy is accompanied by active treatment, such as pumping and treating of contaminated groundwater.

The leave-in-place remedy is commonly used in both RCRA and CERCLA cleanups. It is used when leaving contamination in place can be shown to be acceptable from a risk perspective and when removal of contamination would be technically impracticable or financially prohibitive. It is also used when the physical removal of contamination and later treatment can be shown to pose a health or environmental risk. That was the case at Old O-Field at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, where, among other concerns, reactivity of energetic materials was thought to pose an unacceptable risk to workers. CWM at Old O-Field was consolidated and buried on the site with a specially designed cap and indefinite monitoring of air and groundwater. As an NPL site, it is reviewed every 5 years as required by the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan.

The leave-in-place remedy is typically far less expensive than removal, but there is a continuing cost and liability and, of course, long-term restrictions on land use and associated loss of economic benefit that may be associated with that long-term use. Implicit in this remedy is the need to maintain ownership and control of the affected land area. For that reason, the remedy is limited to active installations. It may also be used at BRAC sites or at non-BRAC closures, such as Rocky Mountain Arsenal, where a federal land manager retains control over future land use. Although the remedy theoretically could be used at FUDS, it is unlikely to be acceptable to landowners, adjacent landowners, and state and local government.

Active Removal and RCWM Destruction

In accordance with DOD’s interim guidancefor CWM responses (U.S. Army, 2009e), “Munitions with an unknown liquid fill that are determined to be CWM and any CWM recovered during a CWM response will normally be treated (destroyed) on site using approved contained destruction technology.” With the remove-and-destroy approach, buried CWM is eliminated permanently and, assuming that the remainder of the MRS site (including contaminated soil) is remediated to accepted standards, the land may be returned to beneficial use.

Removal and destruction would entail location of the CWM, removal from the burial site, and then contained destruction. Although it would be most efficient, as indicated in an earlier National Research Council report on international technologies (NRC, 2006), to move the RCWM directly from the burial site to the destruction device, interim storage for some period is sometimes required. Most RCWM can be safely stored in an IHF, as described previously. Destruction of the RCMW with a contained destruction technology would involve the EDS or one of the EDTs, as described previously. The IHF and EDS or EDTs could be approved as TUs with the limitation that they would not be able to be operated for longer than 2 years.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Review of Regulatory Programs." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×

Emplacement of a Corrective Action Management Unit, a Temporary Unit, or an Area of Contamination

A CAMU can also be considered for management of remediation waste. Using a CAMU for disposal of remediation waste can be considered a type of leave-in-place remedy, but it does not necessarily need to be in or even near an existing SWMU or disposal site. It would be established at a location where remediation waste could be consolidated and managed; this is similar to use of a landfill. However, in contrast with leave-in-place, remediation waste would be moved from the disposal units onsite to the CAMU. In addition, although the CAMU could receive munition bodies and scrap metal from the site and from the EDS or the EDTs, it would not necessarily need to include these metals. It could be used merely to manage contaminated media such as soil). In addition, in combination with designated areas of contamination, CAMUs used for storage and treatment, and possibly TUs, a cost-effective and efficient means of dealing with remediation waste that is protective of human health and the environment and that is tailored to the site in question could be developed.

On-site Treatment vs Off-site Transportation for Treatment

The DOD interim guidance (U.S. Army, 2009) clearly favors on-site treatment, but it leaves the door open for off-site transportation for treatment:

Under certain circumstances and after coordination with appropriate state, federal and DOD agencies and, when appropriate, with concurrence by Center for Disease Control’s U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS), the DASA (ESOH) may authorize other dispositions (e.g., transport and treatment off-site, open detonation).

Off-site transportation would presumably be considered when space or other limitations prevent an onsite approach or when a military installation with EOD capabilities is a reasonable distance from the burial site. There may be circumstances in which off-site transportation for later destruction will be a good option.

Other Approaches

In the quotation above, DOD leaves open the option of open detonation for RCWM. The DOD interim guidance goes on to say, “When open detonation is authorized, 50 USC, Section 1518 requires Congressional notification.” Clearly, open detonation would be used only in highly unusual circumstances when there is no safer way to deal with the RCWM.

REFERENCES

DOD (U.S. Department of Defense). 1998. Policy to Implement the EPA’s Military Munitions Rule. July 1. http://uxoinfo.com/blogcfc/client/enclosures/1July98mrip.pdf. Accessed February 17, 2012.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1976. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq., as amended through P.L. 107–377, December 31, 2002. Available at http://epw.senate.gov/rcra.pdf. Accessed June 14, 2012.

EPA. 1984. Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. H.R. 2867 (98th). November 8. Available at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/98/hr2867. Accessed May 31, 2012.

EPA. 1990. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“National Contingency Plan”). 40 CFR Part 300; Preamble at 55 FR 8713. March 8. Available at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/remedy/sfremedy/pdfs/ncppreamble61.pdf. Accessed March 29, 2012.

EPA. 1998. Management of Remediation Waste Under RCRA. EPA 530F-98-026. October 14. Available at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/remedy/pdfs/530f-98026-s.pdf. Accessed March 21, 2012.

EPA. 2002. Amendments to the Corrective Action Management Unit Rule; Final Rule. 40 CFR Parts 260, 264, and 27. January 22. Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2002-01-22/html/02-4.htm. Accessed April 11, 2012.

EPA. 2005. Handbook on the Management of Munitions Response Actions. May. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Available at http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P100304J.txt. Accessed March 20, 2012.

EPA. 2010. Munitions Response Guidelines. July. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Available at http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/documents/docs/munitions_response_guidelines.pdf.

NRC. 2006. Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

U.S. Army. 2004. Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel (RCWM) Response Process. EP 75-1-3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. November 30. Washington, D.C.: Headquarters, Department of the Army. Available at http://publications.usace.army.mil/publications/eng-pamphlets/EP_75-1-3/toc.htm. Accessed April 11, 2012.

U.S. Army. 2006. Military Munitions Response Process. EP 1110-1-18. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Engineer Pamphlet. April 3. Washington, D.C.: Headquarters, Department of the Army. Available at http://ww.hnd.usace.army.mil/oew/policy/IntGuidRegs/EP1110-1-18.pdf. Accessed March 29, 2012.

U.S. Army. 2009. Interim Guidance for Chemical Warfare Material (CWM) Responses. Memorandum from Office of the Assistant Secretary, Installations and Environment. April 1.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Review of Regulatory Programs." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Review of Regulatory Programs." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Review of Regulatory Programs." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Review of Regulatory Programs." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Review of Regulatory Programs." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Review of Regulatory Programs." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Review of Regulatory Programs." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×
Page 118
Next: Appendix E: Management Practices for U.S. Army Planned RCWM Recovery and Emergency Response »
Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $45.00 Buy Ebook | $36.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

As the result of disposal practices from the early to mid-twentieth century, approximately 250 sites in 40 states, the District of Columbia, and 3 territories are known or suspected to have buried chemical warfare materiel (CWM). Much of this CWM is likely to occur in the form of small finds that necessitate the continuation of the Army's capability to transport treatment systems to disposal locations for destruction. Of greatest concern for the future are sites in residential areas and large sites on legacy military installations.

The Army mission regarding the remediation of recovered chemical warfare materiel (RCWM) is turning into a program much larger than the existing munition and hazardous substance cleanup programs. The Army asked the Nation Research Council (NRC) to examine this evolving mission in part because this change is significant and becoming even more prominent as the stockpile destruction is nearing completion. One focus in this report is the current and future status of the Non-Stockpile Chemical Material Project (NSCMP), which now plays a central role in the remediation of recovered chemical warfare materiel and which reports to the Chemical Materials Agency.

Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel also reviews current supporting technologies for cleanup of CWM sites and surveys organizations involved with remediation of suspected CWM disposal sites to determine current practices and coordination. In this report, potential deficiencies in operational areas based on the review of current supporting technologies for cleanup of CWM sites and develop options for targeted research and development efforts to mitigate potential problem areas are identified.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!