Chemical Weapons Destruction

The most feasible technological alternatives to the incineration of chemical weapons are in the initial stages of development and are more than a decade away from becoming fully operational. It is unlikely that any of these technologies will be ready in time to destroy the entire U.S. chemical weapons stockpile by the December 2204 deadline. Any of these alternative technologies could not, by itself, dispose of an entire chemical weapon. As a result, multiple technologies would have to be developed and tested. Because the alternative technologies are in the earliest stages of development, cost estimates are either nonexistent or unreliable. Similarly, their performance cannot be compared with that of incineration. GAO did, however, identify advantages and disadvantages to each technology. This report also discusses the operational safety of the Army's incineration facility on Johnston Atoll and the cryofracture process, which involves soaking munitions in liquid oxygen to make them brittle. The munitions are then crushed in a large hydraulic press before being incinerated. GAO summarized this report in testimony before Congress; see Chemical Weapons: Issues Involving Destruction Technologies, by David R. Warren, Associate Director for Defense Management and NASA Issues, before the Subcommittee on Nuclear Deterrence, Arms Control, and Defense Intelligence, Senate Committee on Armed Services. GAO/T-NSIAD-94-159, Apr. 26, 1994 (23 pages).

GAO found that: (1) the most feasible alternative disposal technologies are in the initial stages of development and over a decade away from full-rate operations; (2) the National Research Council advocates concurrent development of alternative technologies for destroying bulk agents and predicts that this approach could reach full-rate operations by the congressional deadline of December 31, 2004; (3) government experience with concurrent development shows that it carries inherent risks in terms of technical performance, permit delays, testing delays, and increased cost; (4) any alternative technology would have to undergo rigorous Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analysis and evaluation; (5) cost and performance estimates for alternative technologies cannot be determined, since the technologies are in the earliest stages of development; (6) alternative technologies need to be combined to be effective, since any one would not be sufficient, by itself, to destroy an entire chemical weapon; (7) EPA has testified that the Army's current disposal program fully complies with or surpasses EPA environmental and public health protection requirements; and (8) although the Johnston Atoll facility has had mechanical and training problems which have slowed its destruction rates, there have been no reported problems associated with destroying the chemical agent within EPA requirements.