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 31 based on the baseline technology (with some exceptions noted in the act). The present report provides one basis for the national evaluation of possible alternatives to the baseline chemical weapons destruction technology. TRANSPORTATION OF UNTREATED WEAPONS AND AGENTS The Army previously decided against the transport of the existing untreated stockpiles to one or more central facilities, as documented in the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS, 1988). There are also legal and political considerations behind this decision, with states and communities prohibiting transport through their territories. The studies reported in the Army' s environmental assessment recognize that safety hazards and potential environmental impacts would differ for transporting bulk liquid chemical agent and weapons containing chemical agent. The assessment included a feasibility study of shipping ton containers of bulk mustard by sea from Aberdeen, Maryland, to the JACADS facility for destruction in lieu of constructing an incineration facility at Aberdeen. However, this study was never completed, as indicated by a 1987 letter from James R. Ambrose, Under Secretary of the Army, which was included as an appendix to the PEIS (see PEIS, 1988, Volume 3, Appendix S; see also Appendix B of this report). Reasons for not completing this study included the desire to avoid 'further delay in the program, envisioning that the ocean transport alternative would entail lengthy and extensive studies, and the belief that studies of rail transportation would provide a reasonable comparison of the alternatives. However, the letter concluded, "a national programmatic decision does not foreclose subsequent consideration of site-specific alternatives at a later date." Although not convinced that transportation of agents and munitions to one or two major disposal facilities should be excluded from consideration, the committee has not considered such options because they are not within the scope of its study. The alternative of substantially decontaminating chemical weapons and transporting the detoxified material to another site for further destruction is addressed in the next section on strategies for demilitarization. PRIMARY GOALS AND STRATEGIES FOR DEMILITARIZATION The committee believes that in destroying the stockpile safely and expeditiously, the following should be the primary goals of the U.S. Army Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program:
INTRODUCTION 32 ⢠meet congressionally mandated and international treaty demilitarization and schedule requirements; ⢠reduce the risk to nearby communities of agent release from either continued storage or demilitarization operations; ⢠ensure acceptable concentration of toxic chemicals in gas waste streams resulting from demilitarization operations; ⢠minimize liquid waste disposal problems by minimizing water discharges; and ⢠minimize solid waste disposal problems by oxidation or conversion of organic compounds to innocuous forms. At all demilitarization sites, after agents and munitions are removed from storage igloos, transported to the treatment site, unpacked, and disassembled into components, final disposal is necessary. To meet the goals outlined above, the committee delineates two strategies for final disposal, briefly reviewed below. Chapter 8 considers the use of different alternative technologies in these strategies. Strategy 1. On-site disassembly and agent detoxification to a level that meets treaty demilitarization requirements and permits transportation to another site or continued local storage of residues. The Army's current demilitarization program is based on thermal decontamination by incineration to a specified 5X level, that is, treatment at 1000°F for 15 minutes (see Chapter 4 for further discussion), and the release of the dry, solid incineration wastes to commerce for potential metal recovery. An alternative is to disassemble weapons and treat the drained agent to meet demilitarization treaty requirements and to reduce the toxicity for ease of handling, without further oxidation or full mineralization of organic residues.6 Agent could also be fully oxidized with an alternative process. For the first strategy, low-temperature and low-pressure liquid- phase detoxification processes, such as chemical hydrolysis, or liquid-phase processes that completely oxidize the agent could be used. International treaty obligations for demilitarization would be met and the risk from continued agent storage eliminated. Metal parts would be initially decontaminated, to the same end, 6 Mineralization refers to complete oxidation, that is, the breakdown of chemical compounds into basic minerals or inorganic compounds, such as carbon dioxide, water, nitrogen, oxygen, and other gases. For example, the complete combustion of an organic compound, such as agent, results in these primary compounds. If it was desirable to minimize gas emissions, the gaseous carbon dioxide could be captured and converted to solid carbonates.
INTRODUCTION 33 with decontamination fluid,7 fluid which is also used to manage spills and dean up work areas, such as the disassembly rooms. Such decontamination fluid contains organic residues, and waste streams generated would be managed according to appropriate regulations. Depending on the process used, this option could entail the storage or shipment of large quantifies of water or the installation of facilities for water removal and purification. Shipment of detoxified material within the existing transportation rules and regulations seems quite feasible, although no specific analysis has been conducted. Sealed shipping containers would be required to prevent the release of any toxic agent that might remain and to conform with the rules for the shipping of toxic chemicals. The risk of transporting detoxified material would be substantially less than the risk of transporting agent. Such liquid-phase detoxification and storage or transport would increase both the volume and mass of the resultant material that requires handling. Transportation costs would probably be high, but they might be offset by decreased facility construction costs (see Appendix C for some discussion of landfill disposal costs). The implications of transport and the disposal rules for the transport of larger quantities of materials should be studied before such an approach is recommended. For some alternatives to agent incineration, such as hydrolysis, very little fixed gas or carbon dioxide would be generated. Gas exhausted to the atmosphere would be reduced or eliminated for this phase of the operation by using these alternatives. Explosives and propellants (energetics), which are present at seven of the nine sites, present special problems. Particularly with the M55 rockets, it is difficult to separate the energetics from agents. Although their temporary storage is feasible and their transportation to another site is possible, local destruction will probably be required. In this process, some evolution of carbon dioxide and fixed nitrogen compounds can be expected. Under Strategy 1, the ventilation air volume for work areas will not substantially differ from that in Strategy 2. Strategy 2. Conversion of agent and disassembled weapons to salts, carbon dioxide, water, and decontarninated metal (mineralization). 7 Initial decontamination is the rapid removal of most of the agent from contaminated surfaces. A decontamination solution used, DS2, is a general-purpose reactive decontaminant composed of 70 percent diethylenetriamine, 28 percent ethylene glycol monomethyl ether, and 2 percent sodium hydroxide, by weight. Final decontamination, to a level allowing release of decontaminated parts to the public, requires a thermal process to the 5X level, as discussed above.
