Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
INTRODUCTION 27 TABLE 1-1 Schedule for the Construction and Operation of Chemical Stockpile Disposal Facilities Installation Construction Systemizationa Operations Johnston Atoll (JACADS) Nov. 1985 Aug. 1988 July 1990-Oct. 1995 Tooele Army Depot (TEAD) Sept. 1989 Aug. 1993 Feb. 1995-Apr. 2000 Anniston Army Depot June 1993 Apr. 1996 Oct. 1997-Nov. 2000 Pine Bluff Arsenal Jan. 1994 Sept. 1996 Mar. 1998-Nov. 2000 Umatilla Depot Activity Jan. 1994 Nov. 1996 May 1998-Dec. 2000 Lexington-Blue Grass Army Depot May 1994 Mar. 1997 Sept. 1998-Feb. 2000 Pueblo Depot Activity May 1994 Mar. 1997 Sept. 1998-May 2000 Newport Army Ammunition Plant Jan. 1995 June 1997 June 1998-Apr. 1999 Aberdeen Proving Ground Jan. 1995 June 1997 June 1998-June 1999 a Testing the facility before operations begin. Source: Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization, U.S. Army, Aberdeen, Maryland. RISK AND COMMUNITY CONCERNS Risks associated with the storage and disposal of the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile can be classified as follows: ⢠health risks to individuals in surrounding communities; ⢠risks to workers at military sites in storing or destroying weapons; and ⢠risks of the failure of the chosen destruction technology to perform satisfactorily, resulting in shutdowns and delays.
INTRODUCTION 28 The first type of risk is critical in the choice of technology. Such risk can itself be broken into several components: ⢠risks of agent release from continued storage (from deterioration, sabotage, or accidents); ⢠risks of agent release from accidents while transporting agent from storage to destruction site; ⢠risks of agent release from unpacking and disassembly operations; ⢠risks of agent release during the destruction operation; and ⢠health risks related to the discharge of waste streams. This study focuses on the last two specific kinds of risk and the choice of technologies to best address related concerns. Air quality and the health effects of air contaminants are closely related to the choice of destruction technology. The ability of the baseline incineration technology to provide adequate safeguards against air contamination is frequently questioned, which is a principal impetus for this study (OTA, 1992; PEIS, 1988).5 These same concerns might be expressed for any continuous destruction system that produces a large stream of flue gas and in which outlet monitoring cannot ensure against short periods of unacceptable operations. The closed-loop concept, in which all waste streams are stored until chemical analyses have established satisfactory purity, is commonly mentioned as a way of addressing such concerns (OTA, 1992; Picardi et al., 1991). This particular approach, referred to as storage and certification, can be applied to all waste streams, and will be discussed in some detail later in this report. Technologies that greatly reduce or eliminate waste gas discharge from the destruction system offer another way to minimize concern about this potential source of air quality degradation. Risk analyses presented in the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) focused on catastrophic releases of agent from continued storage or transportation and on the effects of earthquakes and fires on agent storage in the unpack, disassembly, and destruction facilities. In general, this last kind of risk was judged to be less than the risks of transport or long-term storage. These analyses are not directly applicable to assessment of the smaller releases that might occur during disassembly and destruction (PEIS, 1988). Such releases would usually enter the ventilation air streams and could be captured by a properly sized charcoal scrubbing system. Use of charcoal bed adsorption to purify ventilation air is part of the baseline design and, as an 5 A compilation of several hundred statements regarding citizens concerns can be found in the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS, 1988).
