dod tactical herbicide sites - United States Department of Defense

More documents

Recommendations

Info

discussion, the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board’s Ad Hoc Committeeon the Disposal of Herbicide Orange rejected this alternative for the following reasons:“Once sold or donated, the United States could not assure that the herbicide would behandled with the proper technical and environmental controls. In addition, thewidespread publicity on the use of the herbicide in Southeast Asia had created an “antipeople”image for the material that would probably result in adverse public opinion andpolitical reactions in the event the herbicide was sold to another country. In view ofthese considerations, the Board felt that the herbicide’s sale or donation to a foreigncountry would be against the best interests of the United States.”No record could be found of how the Blue Spruce Company disposed of the reformulatedherbicide. The use of 2,4,5-T herbicide was not formally suspended until 1978.Sources: Department of the Air Force (1974): Final Environmental Statement on theDisposition of Orange Herbicide by Incineration. November 1974, Department of the AirForce, Washington, DC, Unclassified, available for public distributionAir Force Logistics Command (1976): Historical Records – Project on the Disposition ofHerbicide Orange. Office of History, Air Force Logistics Command Archives, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, Unclassified60
DOD TACTICAL HERBICIDE SITESSite 26Location: Destruction of Herbicide Orange by Chlorinolysis,Painsville, OhioDate → September 1972 – July 1974Activity Description: One method selected for the potential disposal of thesurplus 2.3 million gallons of Herbicide Orange remaining after the Vietnam War was theoption of chlorinolysis. From the theoretical engineering point of view, chlorinolysisoffered an efficient, controlled, and safe method for the disposal of Herbicide Orange.The concept was that the chlorinolysis process would breakdown the molecules ofherbicides and add a chlorine molecule to produce carbon tetrachloride, phosgene, andanhydrous hydrogen chloride, each of which had established commercial value. In July1972, discussions and correspondence with the US Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) committed the Air Force Logistics Command (AFLC) to pursue the testing andresearch necessary to determine the feasibility of converting Herbicide Orange to salableproducts by chlorinolysis. In September 1972 a Memorandum of Agreement between theEPA and AFLC was initiated. The objective of the agreement was the development of alaboratory program to evaluate the practicality of the application of chlorinolysis for thedisposal of Herbicide Orange. It was agreed that the EPA would manage the research andprovide a report containing all data collected, together with conclusions andrecommendations. AFLC agreed to fund the research. Three drums (165 gallons) ofHerbicide Orange containing 14 ppm TCDD were provided to the Diamond ShamrockCorporation Laboratory in Painsville, Ohio.Assessment: Chlorinolysis as a means to dispose of Herbicide Orange was evaluatedover a period of almost two years. Reports received in early 1973 confirmed that nodioxin was detected (sensitivity level of 10 parts-per-trillion). Moreover, the 2,4-D thatwas fractionally distilled from Herbicide Orange by the Diamond Shamrock laboratorycontained less than 1 part-per-billion dioxin. The material remaining after distillation waspredominantly the dioxin-contaminated 2,4,5-T herbicide, which was then subjected tothe chlorinolyis process. EPA estimated that to convert 26.5 millions pounds of HerbicideOrange to carbon tetrachloride, phosgene, and hydrogen chloride would require about170 million pounds of chlorine. To undertake such a large industrial operation, DiamondShamrock estimated that it would take from 36 to 90 months to build and evaluate a plantlarge enough to handle the volume of Herbicide Orange available. In the Final EPAReport, the Diamond Shamrock scientists concluded that chlorinolysis could be aneffective means of disposing of the surplus Herbicide Orange. Destruction of the dioxin61
Page 1 and 2:
The History of the USDepartment of
Page 3 and 4:
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SF 298B
Page 5 and 6:
Table of ContentsPage/sAbstract 3Th
Page 7 and 8:
The History of the US Department of
Page 9 and 10:
eing evaluated, i.e. potential expo
Page 11 and 12:
The Distinction Between Tactical an
Page 13 and 14: highly trained air and ground-suppo
Page 15 and 16: Administration (Tactical Herbicides
Page 17 and 18: Buckingham WA (1982): The Air Force
Page 19 and 20: Tactical Herbicides Deployed in Vie
Page 21 and 22: Search Strategy for Historical Docu
Page 23 and 24: DOD TACTICAL HERBICIDE SITESSite 2L
Page 31 and 32: In support of the test and evaluati
Page 33 and 34: aspen, and vaccinium. The 1963 test
Page 35 and 36: DOD TACTICAL HERBICIDE SITESSite 12
Page 43 and 44: extended to a height of 50 feet wit
Page 45 and 46: DOD TACTICAL HERBICIDE SITESSites 1
Page 49 and 50: Seven tests were also conducted at
Page 51 and 52: species found on the north side of
Page 57: Sources: Buckner JE (2 January 1969
Page 62 and 63: Majka JT, Cheng HH, McNeal BL (1982
Page 66 and 67: (TCDD) was complete, and preliminar
Page 68 and 69: No records could be found of how th
Page 70 and 71: Assessment: A total of 358 acres of
Page 72 and 73: Assessment: On 8 October 1973, test
Page 74 and 75: would require about 1,000 steel cyl
Page 76 and 77: e continually maintained while the
Page 80 and 81: Sources: Department of the Air Forc
Page 82 and 83: and those who participated in Opera
show all

dod tactical herbicide sites - United States Department of Defense

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?