Re: [CPEO-MEF] rocket fuel recycling troubles

[scott j allen <scott.j.allen@juno.com>]

I certainly hope that this report does not provide an excuse for the
military (or any other federal agency) to continue the open burning/open
detonation of rocket motors.  Fully contained burning/blasting units have
been designed, tested and implemented successfully.  These units are
capable of fully containing the harmful environmental impacts of
thermally treating rocket motors, and they should be used instead of
OB/OD.

Scott Allen

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:08:00 -0700 Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>
writes:
> The report, from Westford, Massachusetts, that commercial blasting 
> for
> either highway construction or quarrying may be responsible for 
> local
> perchlorate contamination, is particularly troubling. Instead of
> shifting the responsibility for perchlorate pollution from the 
> military
> and aerospace industry, it suggests that what has been a promising
> solution to that problem may simply shift the hazard elsewhere.
> 
> For fourteen years I have supported the recycling of solid rocket 
> fuel.
> I have repeatedly praised the armed services' development and 
> deployment
> of systems that remove waste rocket fuel, treat it, and make it
> available for reuse. Other industries, such as mining and 
> construction,
> can use propellant that doesn't make the grade necessary for 
> launching
> rockets and missiles.
> 
> Systems to deal with old, scrap, or otherwise unusable rocket fuel 
> are
> essential. In 2001, the Army reported, "The 80 million pounds of
> ammonium perchlorate oxidizer that can be recovered from obsolete
> missile propellants may be recycled back into new military munitions 
> or
> converted into various industrial products ..." By 2020, as many as
> 727,000 missiles and components will require demilitarization.
> 
> Until now, recycling has appeared to be a win-win solution, for it 
> has
> enabled significant reductions in open burning/open detonation and 
> other
> thermal treatment, and it has generated a revenue stream to help pay 
> for
> the cost of demilitarization and disposal.
> 
> But in Westford, reportedly, some of that apparently recycled
> contaminant has leaked free. The Westford reports don't reveal the
> source of the suspect blasting agent, but the implications are 
> clear. If
> current practices for handling and using commercial 
> perchlorate-based
> explosives lead to health-threatening releases, then fuel recycling, 
> in
> itself, is not an adequate solution.
> 
> The potential cumulative national impact needs to be investigated. 
> If
> the Westford story is confirmed and repeated, then either better
> management practices will be needed to prevent pollution from 
> commercial
> blasting, or recycling, itself maybe need to be reconsidered.
> 
> Lenny
> -- 
> 
> 
> Lenny Siegel
> Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
> c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
> Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
> Fax: 650/961-8918
> <lsiegel@cpeo.org>
> http://www.cpeo.org
> _______________________________________________
> Military mailing list
> Military@list.cpeo.org
> http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/military
> 

_______________________________________________
Military mailing list
Military@list.cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/military