DUMPING OF NERVE GAS ROCKETS IN THE OCEAN WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1970 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m. in room 6202, New Senate Office Building, Hon. Ernest F. Hollings (Chairman of the subcommittee), presiding. Present: Senators Hollings, Spong, and Cook. OPENING STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN Senator HOLLINGS. Gentlemen, the committee will come to order. Today's hearings open Senate consideration of a Department of the Army decision to dump into the Atlantic 418 steel-encased concrete vaults containing over 12,500 rockets, with more than 65 tons of liquid nerve agent called GB. Public concern about the dumping is very real. It is concern for public safety as the nerve gas is moved overland. It is concern for the ocean environment when the gas is released into the surrounding waters. We want to explore the reasons for encasing the rockets in concrete, a decision that has precluded use of several other means of demilitarizing the rockets. We shall look at the problems of overland transportation from Anniston, Ala., and Blue Grass, Ky., to Sunny Point, N.C. We shall look at the capabilities of the Sunny Point facility to load the vaults safely aboard a hulk out of the Reserve Fleet. The scuttling of the hulk, the possible catastrophic release of the nerve gas, and the environmental impact of the nerve gas when it is released into sea water, will all be explored. We particularly want to discuss possible alternatives to dumping this material in the ocean, and to determine what military plans and facilities will be used for demilitarization of such munitions in the future. Many other questions' of course, will arise during the hearing. We shall first hear from the Honorable Thaddeus R. Beal, Under Secretary of the Army, who is accompanied by several people whom I would appreciate your introducing at the appropriate time. The Honorable Russell E. Train, Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality will discuss with us the environmental considerations involved in this dumping operation. Dr. Jesse Steinfeld, Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and Charles Meacham, Commissioner of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, will discuss their respective departments' involvement. Staff member assigned to this hearing: H. Crane Miller. (1) The Deputy Legal Adviser of the Department of State, John B. Rhinelander, accompanied by Herman Pollack, Director of International Scientific and Technical Affairs, is here to discuss international legal considerations. Dr. Martin A. Paul, who served as the National Academy of Sciences staff member to the Kistiakowsky committee, will testify on the role played by the Academy. We also welcome Dr. Howard L. Sanders, senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and noted benthic ecologist, who will describe the environment into which the nerve gas is proposed to be dumped, and some of the ecological impacts of the dumping. Since Dr. Sanders must catch a flight back to Woods Hole early this afternoon, I shall ask him to testify after Under Secretary Beal has made his presentation. Secretary Beal, I think you have an illustrious group accompanying you. If you will introduce them, we will be glad to hear from you at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. THADDEUS R. BEAL, UNDER SECRETARY OF THE ARMY; ACCOMPANIED BY BRIG. GEN. JOHN E. MURRAY, DIRECTOR OF ARMY TRANSPORTATION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF; BRIG. GEN. WILLIAM STONE, DIRECTOR OF CHEMICAL AND NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT CHIEF OF STAFF; R. KENLEY WEBSTER, DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE ARMY; DR. CONRAD CHEEK, CHEMICAL OCEANOGRAPHER, OCEAN SCIENCE DIVISION, NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY Mr. BEAL. Thank you. The four people with me at this table are, beginning on my right, your left, Brig. Gen. John E. Murray, who is Director of Army Transportation; from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, Brig. Gen. William Stone, Director of Chemical and Nuclear Operations of the Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff. On my left, R. Kenley Webster, Deputy General Counsel of the Army; then Dr. Conrad Cheek, chemical oceanographer of the Ocean Science Division of the Naval Research Laboratory. Senator HOLLINGS. Glad to have them with us. Mr. BEAL. May I, sir, read the fairly brief opening statement on our position in the matter? I think the context in which you can then ask questions will be clear. Senator HOLLINGS. We shall also include at the end of your testimony your personal biography in the record. Thank your, sir. Mr. BEAL. Mr. Chairman, you have asked me to appear before you to explain the background, the plan, and the necessity for the disposal at sea of certain unserviceable chemical munitions sealed in concrete vaults overlaid with steel plates welded at the seams. We welcome this opportunity to present the reasons why we believe there is no practically feasible alternative to the course of action we are following. Throughout consideration of this difficult problem, the two criteria have been to avoid hazard to people and to minimize damage to the environment. This operation disposes, at sea, of 418 vaults about 250 statute miles off the Continental Shelf, and about 280 miles from our coast in an established munitions disposal site at a depth of about 16,000 feet, which is almost 3 miles down. The vaults will be transported by special trains, which will be escorted from their place of storage at Anniston, Ala., and Blue Grass, Ky. Army depots to the Military Ocean Terminal at Sunny Point, N.C. They will then be loaded on a surplus hulk, which will be towed to the disposal site and scuttled. During the first half of 1968, a number of nerve agent-filled rockets were determined to be unserviceable and, thus, should be marked for elimination from our deterrent stockpile of chemical munitions. Consequently, they were placed in concrete vaults for disposal at sea in accordance with then-standard procedures. They were included in a disposition plan, developed last spring, which contemplated a much larger disposal operation. It was anticipated that this original plan would proceed promptly, as had the chemical munitions disposal plans, which were carried out in 1967 and 1968. We encased the munitions in concrete and steel vaults to assure that they would sink to the bottom of the ocean, to minimize the hazards of transportation and to eliminate the danger of leakage of the toxic chemicals they contained. Because of the public concern over the proposed transportation contemplated in the original plan, we requested the advice of the National Academy of Sciences in May of last year. The Academy recommended detoxification on land of all the chemical warfare munitions, except for the vaults, which from the outset presented the most intractable problem. With respect to rail transportation of the vaults, the Academy noted that the "probability of a catastrophic accident is essentially nil." The Academy added that the probability of a catastrophic accident during the towing of the hulk containing the vaults is vanishingly small. However, the Academy recommended that the Army convene a group of technically qualified experts to determine if there was any practically feasible alternative to sea disposal, and, if not, to dump them at sea. According to the Academy, any alternate method had to be safe to neighboring population and positive in the sense that toxic and explosive contents of the vaults could be destroyed within a predictable time. We have followed the recommendations of the Academy, and now, over a year later, after numerous studies by experts and tests for alternatives, we find that all study groups and agencies, which have reviewed this matter, support the conclusion that there is no practically feasible alternative to dumping the vaults at sea-other than by nuclear explosion, which is unsatisfactory to the Atomic Energy Commission. Furthermore, time is of the essence. In the followup study to the Academy report, a group of qualified munitions experts, headed up by Dr. Paul M. Gross, professor emeritus of chemistry at Duke University, noted it is necessary to assume that the hazard of storing the vaults is increasing because of the possible deterioration of the propellant inside the rockets and the interaction of the nerve agent with the propellants and explosives, which are sealed in the concrete and steel vaults. Accordingly, the Gross committee recommended disposal of the vaults without delay. We know of no way to detoxify these encased munitions safely on land under the circumstances. It is agreed that immersing them in sea water will dilute and detoxify the chemical agent when it escapes from the vaults. While we cannot guarantee that there will be absolutely no effect on the environment at the disposal site, which is about 3 miles below the surface, based on the best scientific data available, we believe this effect will be inconsequential. Therefore, it seems clear to us that this disposal operation is the only reasonably feasible course of action to dispose of these vaults. Last July, we gave orders to insure that no more chemical munitions will be placed in concrete. We have taken every precaution to avoid the necessity of future sea disposal of chemical munitions. Apart from this one disposal, which we believe is unavoidable, we do not anticipate any future sea disposal of such items. We believe that we have the technology to implement methods of detoxification on land which will meet the highest standards of safety to people without danger to the environment. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce into the record a series of papers which are very relevant to our considerations of this matter, and I would ask Mr. Webster to offer them while I describe them. Senator HOLLINGS. Yes, sir; go ahead and introduce them into the record. They will be accepted, and you can refer to them as you wish. Mr. BEAL. The first report, No. 1, would be the report of the ad hoc advisory committee of the National Academy of Sciences, which we received June 25 of last year. In light of public opposition to the original operation, the Academy was requested, on May 14, 1969, by the Department of Defense, to review the Army's plan for sea disposal of various items, mostly chemical warfare munitions. The Academy convened a committee of 12 who, over a 2-day period, received a series of 10 briefings concerning all facets of the proposed operation. On June 25, 1969, the Academy filed its report, which recommended the detoxification on land of all chemical warfare munitions except for the M-55 rockets encased in concrete overlaid with steel. With respect to the vaults as noted above, the committee recommended that the Army convene a committee of munitions experts to determine whether there is any practically feasible alternative to sea disposal, and if not, to sink them in the ocean, either at the site off the coast of New Jersey or at the site which will be used under the current plan. 1 That is our first paper, 1 sir. No. 2, we would like to submit at this time the initial report of the Gross committee, 2 dated July 25, 1969. Following the recommendations of the Academy, the Army appointed a commission of experts headed by Dr. Gross, who is professor emeritus of chemistry at Duke University. The committee's initial report recommended that the vaults be disposed of by nuclear destruction, and if this could not be accomplished, that they be dumped in the ocean in as deep water as possible. The committee noted the disposal of the vaults must be completed no later than August 1, 1970. 1 See p. 97. 2 See p. 102. The committee also recommended that the Army conduct experiments to explore alternate disposal methods on land. The committee recommended the consideration be given to several alternative suggestions to nuclear detonation. These suggestions included: (a) Immerse the vaults in a solution to disintegrate the concrete; (b) Construct a remote-controlled facility, drill holes through the concrete into each rocket, and drain out the liquid agent; (c) Utilize ionizing radiation to decompose the nerve agent and dispose of the vaults by above-ground detonation; (d) Incinerate the vaults; (e) Explode the vaults by utilizing diamond drills to penetrate the rocket's fuzes; (f) Expose the rockets for extraction by cutting through the concrete with a diamond-edged saw; (g) Expose the rockets to extraction by utilizing a high pressure water jet to broach the concrete; (h) Expose the rockets for extraction by utilizing charges to penetrate the end of the vault; (i) House the vaults in a suitable enclosure capable of containing the explosions and immerse the vaults in a suitable solution which can chemically neutralize the agent. 3 This first Gross committee report, sir, is our No. 2 submission. No. 3 document is the Atomic Energy Commission's feasibility study dated September 15, 1969, updated July 10, this year. This study concluded that although the chemical munitions in the vaults could be reliably destroyed by an underground nuclear explosion, the estimated time for execution was 15 months, which was not considered desirable with the August 1 disposal date recommended by the Gross committee. Our fourth document for submission at this time is the Department of Interior study dated November 13, 1969. The working group of the Department of Interior preparing this study considered the original Operation CHASE and in general recommended against ocean disposal of chemical munitions. With respect to the vaults, the only remaining item for sea disposal, the working group concluded that because of the present hazard to human safety and the unavailability of a feasible alternative method of disposal, ocean disposal of these hazardous materials is necessary. With respect to the proposed dumping site suggested by the Academy, the working group concurred in its selection, noting that the site is on the seaward side of the Gulf Stream in a less productive area; the bottom currents are minimal so that toxic material leaking from the containers would be confined in a rather small area; there is no evidence of any upheaval at the site; and the site is already marked on navigation charts as a chemicals, munitions, and explosives dumping area. 5 The fifth document is the followup report of the Gross committee which is also called the second Gross committee report. This is dated May 15 of this year. After the committee's first alternative of underground detonation of a nuclear device to destroy the vaults was found to be unsatisfactory, the committee reviewed the Army's studies of their alternative land disposal suggestions. They concluded that these tests revealed no feasible alternative and recommended sea disposal "without delay." And our sixth and final paper for submission is the "Environmental Impact Statement" submitted July 30 of this year in accordance 3 See p. 106. 4 See p. 117. 5 See p. 119. 6 See p. 126. |