Alternatives to Chemical Weapons Incineration
Incineration fails to protect worker and public health
In the past decade, chemical weapons incinerators have proven one thing: they don't work.
The Army's chemical weapons incinerators in the Pacific and in Utah emit dangerous toxic
chemicals like PCBs, dioxins, heavy metals and thousands of "unknown" elements into the
air. In addition, there have been documented releases of chemical agent from the Army's
incinerator smokestacks, and many more instances where agent has migrated through the
facility and into the environment. The incinerators have also experienced numerous
shutdowns due to technical problems, equipment failures, and other malfunctions.
Toxic chemicals greatly affect worker and public health. Direct exposure to chemical
agents is lethal. Exposure to even extremely low levels of chemical agent may result in
chronic health problems. Persistent chemicals like dioxins and PCBs build up in the food
chain, increasing the risks of cancer, reproductive problems, birth defects, and immune
system dysfunction.
A successful advanced technologies program is in place
In 1996, responding to growing public outcry against incineration, Congress mandated a
program to identify and demonstrate alternatives to incineration for chemical weapons
disposal, called the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA). From more than a
dozen technology proposals, six technologies passed the ACWA's strict viability criteria,
which was developed cooperatively by citizens, state and federal regulators, and the
Department of Defense.
ACWA technologies differ from incineration in that they are each capable of containing
hazardous by-products, so they can be proven safe before they are released into the
environment. By passing the initial criteria threshold, the six technologies were eligible to
move to the demonstration phase. Due to an alleged lack of funding, ACWA was forced to
conduct its technology demonstrations in two separate phases.
The first set of advanced technology demonstrations has been completed...
Three technologies were chosen on July 29, 1998 to move forward to the first round of
demonstrations. One technology, Burns & Roe's "plasma arc," failed demonstration. The
following two technologies, however, successfully passed the demonstration phase.
| Vendor | Process | Process Description | ACWA Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
| General Atomics | Supercritical Water Oxidation | Oxidation of waste material with oxygen in the presence of supercritical water (water around 800°C and at a pressure of approx. 3,500 lbs per sq. inch.) | Could be used for assembled chemical weapons containing nerve or mustard agents. |
| Parsons/Honeywell | Hydrolysis and biological treatment | Chemical agent is reacted with water including sodium hydroxide pH admustments, then exposed to biological treatment. | Could be used for assembled chemical weapons containing mustard agents. |
Beginning in Spring 2000, ACWA will begin formulating "environmental impact statements"
for the construction of pilot facilities for these two technologies at chemical weapons
stockpile sites in Colorado, Alabama, Arkansas and Kentucky. This mandatory process
includes the opportunity for citizens living in chemical weapons communities to obtain
information on the impact these technologies may have on public health and the
environment, and provide comments and input to decision-makers.
...and another set of technology demonstrations will soon begin
In June 2000, ACWA will begin testing three more non-incineration technologies, shown
below.
| Vendor | Process | Process Description |
|---|---|---|
| AEA Technology | Electrochemical Oxidation | Ions are used to oxidize the waste material in solution. An electro-chemical cell is used to maintain a supply of the oxidizing ions. |
| Eco Logic and Foster Wheeler | Gas Phase Chemical Reduction and Supercritical Water Oxication | Chemical reduction of waste molecules takes place using hydrogen gas. |
| Teledyne Commodore | Solvated Electron Technology | Metallic sodium in liquid anhydrous ammonia produces electrons, which are dissolved in the anhydrous ammonia, breaking chemical bonds in the waste. |
Testing of these three technologies is expected to continue through September, and a final
report to Congress will likely be submitted in early 2001. Any or all of these technologies
which successfully pass through the demonstrations could be considered for chemical
weapons disposal in addition to those which have already been successfully demonstrated.
There is time to implement advanced technologies
If meeting a chemical weapons disposal deadline is important, incineration is not the
technology which will get us there. The Army's chemical weapons incineration program is
currently more than 14 years behind schedule, and getting worse. A 1998 independent
analysis of the chemical stockpile disposal program by the accounting firm Arthur Andersen
LLP, shows that a 2007 "deadline" for weapons disposal will not be met. Many more factors
have surfaced which will further delay the program. For example, chronic technical failures
persist; due to the condition of some types of chemical weapons, processing rates at the
have drastically decreased; use of major components of the Utah incinerator have been
abandoned. These problems have already resulted in additional delays in the incineration
program, and will likely be repeated at other weapons incinerators.
In contrast, advanced technology vendors all state that their methods could be ready to
begin pilot plant operations within 2-4 years after successful demonstrations. Even an
existing chemical weapons incinerator can be "retrofitted" with a safer, cleaner non-
incineration technology.
Protection of public health and the environment -- not an arbitrary deadline -- should be
the #1 priority in the chemical weapons disposal program. A "rush to burn" mentality may
result in less environmental compliance and more human error, putting workers and the
public at greater risk.
Say "no" to incineration, and "yes" to safe disposal technologies!
We encourage you to get involved in the chemical weapons disposal issue -- the health of your community depends on it! Share this information with your friends, neighbors and community leaders, and urge your elected officials to support safe, non-incineration disposal of chemical weapons!
For more information on advanced technologies and the Assembled Chemical Weapons
Assessment program, contact the Chemical Weapons Working Group as listed below.
CWWG *
PO Box 467, Berea, KY 40403 *
(606) 986-0868 e-mail: kefcrowe@acs.eku.edu *
www.cwwg.org *
 CWWG Home Page |
Contact us: |