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 22 1 Introduction The focus of this study is the alternative technologies that might be used to partly or wholly replace or to supplement the U.S. Army's currently planned system to destroy the U.S. unitary chemical weapons stockpile (see Appendix A for the study's full statement of task).1 This chapter briefly reviews the current U.S. program to destroy its unitary chemical weapons stockpile by incineration, current interest in the alternatives to incineration that might be used, general strategies for disposal of the stockpile, and the scope of the present study and report. THE U.S. CHEMICAL STOCKPILE DISPOSAL PROGRAM The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is now engaged in a program to destroy the nation's stockpile of unitary chemical weapons through its executive agent for the program, the U.S. Department of Army. The Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program was initiated in 1985, when Public Law (P.L) 99-145 directed that DOD destroy at least 90 percent of this stockpile by September 30, 1994. As the program moved forward, its pace was slower than anticipated, and its date for completion has been revised several times. In 1988, Congress extended the completion date to 1997, and in 1990, P.L. 101-510 extended this date to July, 1999. The United States and the former Soviet Union (now the Commonwealth of Independent States, CIS) signed a memorandum of agreement on June 1, 1990, to cease chemical weapons production, dispose of inventories, share disposal technology, and develop inspection procedures. In addition, on September 3, 1992, the Conference on Disarmament approved 1 Unitary chemical weapons contain agents that, by virtue of their molecular composition and structure, are highly toxic and lethal in themselves. Processes to destroy these agents, such as incineration, break down the compounds and convert them into simpler chemical structures that are nonlethal. Binary chemical agents consist of two nonlethal chemicals that, upon mixing, form a lethal chemical agent.
INTRODUCTION 23 the Chemical Weapons Convention, signed on January 13-15, 1993, by the United States and several other nations, forbidding the development, production, stockpiling, or use of chemical weapons (Gordon, 1992). Language in the convention does not restrict the destruction technology used so long as it converts chemical agents irreversibly to a form unsuitable for production of chemical weapons and so long as it renders munitions and other devices unusable. The convention also stipulates that ''such destruction shall begin not later than two years after this convention enters into force for it and should finish not later than 10 years after entry into force of this convention'' (it does include provisions for individual countries to request a 5 year extension if technical problems are encountered). Upon ratification, the deadline (which supersedes previous deadlines) for stockpile destruction will be December 31, 2004 or later.2 The U.S. chemical weapons stockpile contains two classes of agents, namely, organophosphate nerve agents (sometimes called nerve gas) and blister (or mustard) agents. The nerve agents are usually referred to by their Army code designations: VX, GB (Satin), and GA (Tabun). The blister agents are H, HD, and HT. These agents are contained in a variety of munitions as well as in bulk containers stored at eight continental U.S. sites and at Johnston Island in the Pacific Ocean. As discussed in more detail in Chapter 2, there are about 25,000 total tons of agent in the stockpile (Ember, 1992; Picardi et al., 1991). To put the scale of operations into perspective, about 30,000 tons/year of hazardous waste are incinerated in a typical U.S. hazardous waste incinerator (Vogel, 1989). After testing different disposal technologies in the 1970s, in 1982 the Army chose the approach of component disassembly of the munitions (so-called reverse assembly), followed by incineration and treatment of the off-gases by a pollution abatement system. The bulk storage containers are drained of agent, the agent is destroyed by incineration, and the containers are thermally decontaminated. The NRC's Committee on Demilitarizing Chemical Munitions and Agents reviewed a number of alternative disposal technologies in 1984 and endorsed the Army's choice 2 The 1993 National Defense Authorization Act stipulated a change in the stockpile disposal deadline: "Section 1412(b)(5) of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521(b)(5)), is amended by striking out 'July 31, 1999' and inserting in lieu thereof 'December 31, 204'."
INTRODUCTION 24 (NRC, 1984).3 Recent environmental concerns have prompted the Army and Congress to revisit the topic of alternative technologies (OTA, 1992). The Army's process (hereafter, the baseline technology) is designed as a four-stream incineration process (Figure 1-1). At any given storage site, munitions or bulk containers are transported from storage (in igloos or open storage) to the destruction facility, where they are received in an unpack area. Unpacking munitions, draining agent, and disassembling weapons produces four primary waste streams, namely, dunnage (packing materials), energetics (explosives and propellants), metal parts, and liquid agent. These streams are processed, respectively, in separate incinerators: a dunnage incinerator, a deactivation furnace system (rotary kiln), a metal parts furnace, and a liquid incinerator (see Chapter 4 for details). Because dunnage can be sent to hazardous waste landfills, alternatives to dunnage incineration are not a major focus here. Each of the four furnaces is equipped with an afterburner and a pollution abatement system to dean exhaust gases, which then exit through a common stack. Ventilation air moves from areas of lower to higher potential contamination and, after passing through the disassembly and furnace rooms, is exhausted to the environment after passing through charcoal adsorption beds. The Army's program includes the pilot demonstration of disposal technologies. The Chemical Agent Munitions Disposal System at Tooele Army Depot (TEAD) in western Utah is a pilot plant for production facilities and a prototype of the baseline technology. Research facilities are also located at Edgewood Research, Development and Engineering Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. In the mid-1980s, the Army began constructing its pioneering full-scale facility, the Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System (JACADS). JACADS recently completed operational verification testing (OVT), conducted to demonstrate that the baseline technology can safely and effectively destroy the different agents and munitions in the U.S. stockpile while meeting all environmental requirements. OVT is also intended to help identify design improvements to the prototype baseline technology so that appropriate modifications can be introduced before construction and operations begin at the eight mainland sites. P.L. 100456 requires the Army to complete OVT at JACADS before proceeding with equipment tests at 3 A second method, known as the cryofracture process, has also been under development by the Army. In this approach non-bulk munitions are submerged in a liquid nitrogen bath, and fractured in a hydraulic press, and frozen agent and fractured parts are then thermally treated in a single rotary kiln. Both the baseline technology and the cryofracture process end with incineration followed by cleanup of final waste streams. Cryofracture is not reviewed in this report but was the subject of a previous NRC study (NRC, 1991).
INTRODUCTION FIGURE 1-1 Schematic of the baseline technology. Source: PEIS (1988). 25
INTRODUCTION 26 other U.S. sites. Construction of full-scale facilities at TEAD is now underway and scheduled to begin operations in 1995 (OTA, 1992; U.S. Department of the Army, 1991). OVT had four campaigns (tests). The first, from July 1990 to February 1991, resulted in the successful destruction of approximately 7,500 M55 rockets containing GB, 77,200 pounds of agent, and 81,600 gallons of spent decontamination solution (Menke et al., 1991; U.S. Army, 1991). Engineering modifications were made during a subsequent shutdown to improve the throughput processing rate. In the second campaign, from October 1991 to February 1992, 13,900 M55 rockets filled with VX were successfully destroyed. In the third, from September to October 1992, 68 ton containers were processed and 113,031 pounds of HD were destroyed. The fourth and final campaign, from September 1992 to March 1993, resulted in the destruction of 105-ram mustard- filled artillery projectiles. Environmental test burns to support the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) permits were also required for all four furnace systems (U.S. Department of the Army, 1991).4 After the completion of OVT and the receipt of all required permits, JACADS will also dispose of remaining munitions on the island. After each of the four OVT campaigns, the MITRE Corporation prepared separate evaluation reports. A summary report is also available (MITRE Corporation, 1993). The NRC's Committee on Review and Evaluation of the Army Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program will review MITRE's final evaluation of OVT for the Army as part of its ongoing role to provide scientific and technical advice to the Army in carrying out the disposal program. Construction and operation of the disposal facilities at the eight continental sites are scheduled to begin at different times (Table 1-1 shows the schedule as of October 1992). Construction is more than 90 percent complete for most planned facilities at TEAD in Utah. There are uncertainties at some sites. For example, construction at the Newport Army Ammunition Plant in Indiana, scheduled for early 1995, may be delayed pending decisions by the Army and Congress about disposal technologies. Similarly, duration of operations will depend on the amount of agent and types of munitions that have to be destroyed and these vary greatly among sites (see Chapter 2). The greatest duration of operations expected is about 5 years, a relatively short time compared with commercial industrial facilities, which may operate for many decades. 4 RCRA trial bums in the liquid incinerator showed a destruction removal efficiency (DRE) of greater than 99.999999 and 99.99999 percent for VX and GB, respectively, as compared with RCRA requirements of 99.99 percent (SRI, 1992a, b).
