dod tactical herbicide sites - United States Department of Defense

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(TCDD) was complete, and preliminary toxicology tests of the recovered carbontetrachloride on rabbits show no evidence of TCDD contamination, i.e., the rabbit ear testfor chloracne was negative.Owing to the uncertainties associated with developing this technique to a full-scale plantcapable of safely processing 2.3 million gallons of Herbicide Orange in a timely andeconomic manner, chlorinolysis was not accepted as the method of disposal even thoughit was shown to be satisfactory from an environmental point of view. The EPA FinalReport did not provide any information on the personnel involved in the laboratoryresearch, nor on the fate of any remaining Herbicide Orange or subsequent products fromthe chlorinolysis process.Sources: US Environmental Protection Agency (1974): Study of Feasibility ofHerbicide Orange Chlorinolysis. Technical Report EPA-600/2-74-006, July 1974, USEnvironmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Unclassified, available for publicdistribution.Department of the Air Force (1974): Final Environmental Statement on the Disposition ofOrange Herbicide by Incineration. November 1974, Department of the Air Force,Washington, DC. Unclassified, available for public distribution.Miller RA, Shafts PA, Stieritz SF, Termena BJ (1980): The Disposal of HerbicideOrange, 1971-1979. Office of History, Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-PattersonAir Force Base, Ohio.62
DOD TACTICAL HERBICIDE SITESSite 27Location: Fractionation of Herbicide Orange for CommercialUse, Jacksonville, ArkansasDate →14 March 1972 – January 1973Activity 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 fractionation (chemical distillation). Fractionation was the proposed process ofconverting Herbicide Orange into its acid ingredients by means of high temperaturedistillation. The concept was to separate the normal butyl esters of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-Therbicides from the dioxin (TCDD) contaminant. The 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T was then to bereformulated for commercial use. The dioxin (TCDD) would then be destroyed bychemical, biological, or incineration techniques. Actual distillation efficienciestheoretically could approach 90% to 95%. In February 1972, Transvaal, Inc., a chemicalcompany in Jacksonville, Arkansas approached the Air Force Logistic Command (AFLC)with a proposal to dispose of Herbicide Orange through a process of fractionaldistillation. On 3 March 1972, a team of Bio-environmental Engineers from the AFLC’sUnited States Air Force Environmental Health Laboratory, Kelly Air Force Base, Texasvisited the Transvaal Facilities in Jacksonville, Arkansas. On 14 March 1972, AFLCshipped one drum (55 gallons) of Herbicide Orange from the inventory at the NavalConstruction Battalion Center, Gulfport, Mississippi to the Transvaal Inc. laboratory inJacksonville, Arkansas.Assessment: Immediately after the visit by personnel from Kelly AFB, Transvaal,Inc. undertook a small-scale feasibility study funded by AFLC and with the HerbicideOrange from Gulfport. The Kelly AFB personnel had informed Transvaal that theirHerbicide Orange disposal option must contain a feasible monitoring capability thatwould establish what concentrations of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T esters, and the TCDDcontaminant would be released to the environment during the re-distillation process.Although the Transvaal research laboratory was very limited in instrumentation, theywere able to separate Herbicide Orange into its original ingredients. The TransvaalEngineers stated that the TCDD residue would be isolated and destroyed during thefractionation process. However, subsequent research did not demonstrate adequately thefate of the TCDD. In addition, standards to control and monitor vapor and fluid emissionsinto the environment were not adequately identified. In January 1973, the Air ForceScientific Advisory Board recommended that further research into fractionation not besupported, and that this option not be considered for the disposal of Herbicide Orange.63
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 64 and 65: discussion, the United States Air F
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?