Disposal Options for the Rocket Motors From Nerve Agent Rockets Stored at Blue Grass Army Depot (2012) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix B: Historical Overview of Public Sentiment Surrounding the Blue Grass Army Depot and the Blue Grass Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant Relevant to the Disposal of Separated Rocket Motors
Appendix B: Historical Overview of Public Sentiment Surrounding the Blue Grass Army Depot and the Blue Grass Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant Relevant to the Disposal of Separated Rocket Motors
Pages 69-76
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 69... ...
Indeed, opposition to incineration was a key factor leading to creation of the original Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment program and the choice of a nonincineration technology for the destruction of chemical agent and associated wastes at BGAD and the Pueblo Chemical Depot. Consequently, activist members of the Kentucky Chemical Demilitarization Citizens' Advisory Commission (CAC)
|
From page 70... ...
. In 2006, following the fires experienced during M55 rocket shearing operations at the Umatilla and Pine Bluff Chemical Agent Disposal Facilities, the CDCAB Secondary Waste Working Group met and was briefed by the Non-Contaminated Rocket Motors Integrated Process Team, which presented options on behalf of the Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass Team for the disposal of separated rocket motors.4 Three options were presented: On-site nondeflagration technologiesfor example, (1)
|
From page 71... ...
First, in December 2009, the CAC/CDCAB indicated that they would be willing to consider the use of an EDT to dispose of three categories of munitions, including separated rocket motors that had not been contaminated with chemical agent. They did place a number of caveats on this position, including Reserving the endorsement of any EDT until its capabilities and compliance with Kentucky state environmental regulations had been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the CAC/CDCAB; Insisting on playing an active role in the prioritization of evaluation criteria for selecting an EDT; Using an EDT to dispose of any actual nerve agent, such as contaminated rocket parts, is absolutely opposed, with the possible exception of overpacked nerve agent munitions and nerve agent munitions in a condition that would required significant handling to process through BGCAPP; and 6 This group was originally established in 2009.
|
From page 72... ...
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC SENTIMENT ON THE ISSUE OF ON SITE VERSUS OFF-SITE DISPOSAL Separated rocket motors would be a waste derived from a chemical munition. Public sentiment about where the wastes derived from chemical munitions should be disposed of is closely intertwined with support for the technology selection of hydrolysis 72
|
From page 73... ...
In fact, when Operation Swift Solution9 was implemented to dispose of three leaking ton containers of GB, the shipment of the resulting hydrolysates off-site was approved as a necessary measure for safety reasons. Still, the CAC/CDCAB is on record as stating as follows: Tolerating this one time, off-site shipment of material the CAC/CDCAB does not in any way imply support for, the condoning of, or even consideration of any future similar shipments of similar materials off site associated with the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Pilot Plant (BGCAPP)
|
From page 74... ...
and Chemical Destruction Community Advisory Board (CDCAB) Meeting Summary of Action Items and Discussions.
|
From page 75... ...
2008. Review of Secondary Waste Disposal Planning for the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.