ICE Case Study
Chemical Weapons Disposal Dispute
ICE Case Studies
Case Number: 19
Case Mnemonic: JOHNS
Case Name: Johnston Atoll Chemical Waste
Draft Author: May, 1997
1. Abstract
Arms control experts and environmentalists alike agreed with the
proposition that there should be disarmament by both the United
States and the nations of the former Soviet Union. However, a rift
emerged between these two otherwise allied constituencies.
Greenpeace International has attempted to interrupt the
"demilitarization" of chemical and biological weapons formerly held
by these two superpowers. Their objection rests on the dangerous
transport and incineration of these biological and chemical agents
at the Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System (JACADS) site.
Greenpeace demanded that these weapons be disposed of in such a way
as to prevent the release of any material whatsoever back into the
environment. Disposal experts reject this notion, calling it an
absurdity in its conception, and instead argue that Greenpeace's
objection makes a mockery of the agreement the United States and
the Soviet Union reached regarding the decommissioning of theses
weapons. Arms control experts also suggest that by questioning the
agreement, other countries with the ability to produce and house
chemical weapons will see the accord as merely a
sham.
Greenpeace International is not the one questioning the
manner in which the United States intends to dispose of these
weapons. America Samoa, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the
Federated States of Micronesia, the Cook Islands, New Zealand, the
government of Hawaii and other public interest groups have all
denounced not only the Army's plans to incinerate the chemical
agents but also what they perceive to be a dangerous ocean voyage
to transport the agents to the Johnston facility.
2. Description
The first systematic effort , in modern times, to use poison
on the battlefield occurred during World War I. On April 22nd,
1915, German soldiers released 6,000 canisters of chlorine gas and
killed 5,000 French and Algerian soldiers. By the end of the war,
more than 90,000 casualties were a direct result of poison gas
released. The horror of gas warfare persuaded most of the world's
nations to adopt the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which first outlawed
the usage of chemical weapons.
During World War II, both the Axis and Allied powers were
poised to use the chemical weapons at their disposal but neither
initiated its usage and the world was spared the horror experienced
during World War I. Nevertheless, the production of chemical
weapons continued after the second world war. By the mid 1980s,
the United States arsenal contained millions of weapons and a total
of approximately 30,000 tons of chemical agents. The Soviet
arsenal, though, was even larger. Their stockpile contained more
than 40,000 tons of chemical agents with unknown amounts of
weapons.
In June 1990, the Soviets and the Americans reached an
agreement concerning the disposal of their vast arsenals of
chemical weapons. The accord committed both the United States and
the Soviet Union to verify - by on-site inspection - the
destruction of their stockpiles down to 5,000 agent tons.
Following the bilateral U.S.-Soviet accord reached in 1990, a
Chemical Weapons Convention was convened, chartered and signed by
137 nations in mid-February 1993. It essentially bans the
development, production, stockpiling, transfer and use of chemical
weapons, including the use of tear gas "as a method of warfare".
Signatories must destroy chemical weapon facilities and stockpiles,
including those that have abandoned on another state's
territory.
Russia's difficulties in planning, funding and executing a
destruction program have forced the time lines for this bilateral
accord to slip closer to the Chemical Weapon Convention's 10-year
destruction schedule, which would culminate in 2005.
Unfortunately, this is not the only problem faced by the
signatories of both the bilateral accord and the international
accord.
The United States is being counted on to develop the most
technically advanced and environmentally friendly destruction
process so that other nations may pattern their destruction
facilities after ours. The Johnston facility on Johnston Atoll is
the pilot upon which the U.S. government hopes to pattern other
decommissioning plants. The Johnston facility, though, has not
only run into technical difficulties, increasing costs, and set-
backs; but it has generated protests from public interest groups,
environmental groups and other governments concerning the potential
dangers that chemical weapons represent.
Protest groups have organized against the government's
method of decommissioning, the international oceanic transfer of
waste, the increasing costs that both incineration and adherence to
international conventions has come to represent, and the
destruction of the remainder of weapons in the continental United
States if and when the pilot plant at Johnston Atoll has proven to
be successful.
Although the main focus of this case study is on the site of
the Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System, the trans-
shipment of chemical weapons held in Germany and other sites
exposes other areas to the potential dangers of a chemical weapons
leak or accident. This potentially places the entire globe at risk
since the routes taken by Army vessels carrying these weapons
varies and are highly secretive. The Army maintains tight security
to reduce the risk of terrorist attack or seizure of the chemical
weapons they transport. Johnston Atoll, though, is the central
focus of this study; specifically, the disposal plant.
3. Duration: In Progress (1993 to now)
Although the main focus of this case study is on the site of
the Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System, the trans-
shipment of chemical weapons held in Germany and other sites
exposes other areas to the potential dangers of a chemical weapons
leak or accident. This potentially places the entire globe at risk
since the routes taken by Army vessels carrying these weapons
varies and are highly secretive. The Army maintains tight security
to reduce the risk of terrorist attack or seizure of the chemical
weapons they transport. Johnston Atoll, though, is the central
focus of this study; specifically, the disposal plant.
The Johnston facility, while still in the pilot stage, is
incinerating weapons with the hope that all the kinks in the system
worked out. If that becomes the case, other facilities in the
United States will begin incinerating the rest of the impounded
U.S. chemical weapons. Protests to prevent this are still underway
in cities where the other facilities are located. Other
governments continue to lodge protests against the shipment of
these weapons and environmentalists still question the wisdom of
incineration as the best means of disposal. One question, though,
has been resolved. In April of 1997, the United States Senate
authorized the United States involvement among the more than 140
countries of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
4. Location
Continent: Pacific
Region: Southwest Pacific
Country: USA
5. Actors: USA
6. Type of Environmental Problem: Pollution Sea
Besides the accord signed between the former Soviet Union
and the United States, there are other more pressing reasons to
dispose of the chemicals. For one, most of the chemical weapons
are old. A panel of experts convened by the National Research
Council (NRC) has suggested that the government destroy aging and
obsolete chemical weapons stored at the eight sites around the
country as soon as possible, citing a need to shield nearby
populations from the risk of a potentially serious accident. The
panel concluded that the United States had done a good job in
maintaining the integrity of the weapons but that the age of the
weapons has resulted in their deterioration. Some have begun to
leak, creating a risk to off-site civilian populations and to those
who must work with them. The panel also concluded that the
technology needed to ensure safe destruction is now largely in
hand, and is unlikely to be much improved upon in the near
future.
Others disagree with this sentiment. The issue of
malfunctioning incinerators is also of major concern to
environmental and other public interest groups. The complexity and
variety of the processed involved in the incineration of chemical
agents make the prospect of flawless execution dubious. There have
already been incidents at the JACADS plant which directly call the
plant's execution into question. In January of 1993, a fire broke
out in the Explosive Containment Room there, causing the facility
to shut down. A cursory glance at the project managers' logs
reveals that the JACADS has been plagued by broken meters, clogged
burners, faulty circuit breakers, and blocked pipes. In one
incident, a small amount of a nerve agent was released during a
furnace shutdown, apparently because of improper procedures.
Fortunately, the release was well documented by the plants air
monitors and the system sent alarms blaring, forcing a thousand
workers to don gas masks. In the end, no one was injured and the
release did not even warrant reporting because it was such a small
quantity.
Another troubling facet of chemical weapons destruction is
their international transportation to the Johnston facility.
Governments in the South Pacific, namely America Samoa, the
Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of
Micronesia, the Cook Islands, New Zealand, and the government of
Hawaii have repeatedly lodged official protests (only to see those
protests eventually ignored) with the U.S. government against the
transshipment of chemical weapons from other holding sites
throughout the world. These governments fear an accidental
explosion or leak from these weapons. The prevailng sentiment of
the region has been that shipping nerve gas is a foolish gamble
with the lives of everyone with the lives of everyone living in the
pathway."
Most troubling of all is that even in destroying the
weapons, the incineration process will yield emissions that could
be highly toxic. It matters little that the quantity of pollutants
will be small. The plant will produce significant amounts of
dioxins, highly toxic chemical compounds, that work their way into
the food chain and accumulate in human tissue. Even those within
the federal government, namely the Environmental Protection Agency,
have questioned the wisdom of incineration. They maintain that
incinerators emit harmful by-products and that these emissions
increase when the incinerators malfunction.
7. Type of Habitat: Ocean
8. Act and Harm Sites:
Act Site Harm Site Example
USA Pacific Ocean Chemicals can reach ocean
9. Type of Conflict: Interstate
On one hand, there are protests by environmental groups,
like Greenpeace, who do not want to see the demilitarization of
these weapons by the Army until such a time that the technology is
available to ensure the completely environmentally friendly
disposal of these agents. Greenpeace, usually known for its rather
active protests, has yet to do more than call attention to the
realized and potential environmental degradation that is a result
of the incineration of chemical weapons. The extent of
Greenpeace's protest is condemnation of the incineration process as
unsound environmentally, a conclusion published in a May 1991
report.
10. Level of Conflict: Warharm
Then there are those governments in the South Pacific,
namely America Samoa, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the
Federated States of Micronesia, the Cook Islands, New Zealand, and
the government of Hawaii who repeatedly lodged official protests
(only to see those protests eventually ignored) with the U.S.
government against the transshipment of chemical weapons from other
holding sites throughout the world. Again, these protests have
been of a civil and diplomatic nature. None of these protests has
led to a boycott or other more proactive protestation of American
actions regarding their disposal of chemical weapons.
There are also protests being lodged by American citizens
within the contiguous 48 states, particularly those citizens around
whom a chemical weapons decommissioning facility has been built,
that have fought the government in its attempts to dispose of their
chemical weapons here at home. The weapons to be destroyed at
Johnston are only 7% of the U.S. chemical weapons awaiting
disposal. The other 93% are slated for burning at eight military
facilities in the continental United States-in Alabama, Arkansas,
Colorado, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Oregon, and Utah. In
Kentucky, for instance, the state has passed legislation requiring
the Army to prove that incineration poses less risk than any
alternative method that could be developed - a daunting and most
likely impossible task.
American taxpayers have also lodged protests regarding the
accord signed between the former Soviet Union and the United
States. Because of the economic woes being experienced by the
former Soviet Union, the United States will have to give monetary
and technical assistance to the Russian government to ensure of the
safe disposal of their chemical stockpile. This may ultimately
entail footing the bill for the disposal of Russia's chemical
weapons. The Russians estimate that the total tab will amount to
$10 billion.
The final conflict attempting to be ameliorated by the
Russian government is its citizens' protests against the disposal
of waste near their places of residence. The government has
attempted to offer, as compensation, much needed facility support
in the form of housing and financial aid, hospitals and
laboratories to struggling workers of the former Soviet Union for
assurances that they will accept disposal facilities in their
neighborhoods.
11. Fatality Level of Dispute: 0
12. Environment-Conflict Link and Dynamics: Indirect
Environmentalists contend that the Army has not sufficiently
considered alternatives to incineration. A report issued by the
National Academy of Sciences during the summer of 1993 examined
dozens of alternative technologies for destroying the chemical
weapons arsenal. The group's research concluded that there are
several other technologies that could be used to replace or augment
incineration. Two such possibilities are molten metal pyrolysis,
in which agents are mixed with a molten metal such as iron, and
plasma arc destruction, in which agents are annihilated in the
scorching arc between two electrodes.
The Army maintains that destroying these weapons is best
accomplished through incineration. After evaluating other
techniques, the army opted for high-temperature incineration as the
safest and most-effective destruction method. But this decision
has been questioned by public interest groups and elected officials
of the affected regions, as cost projections for destroying the
U.S. stockpile soared from $1.7 billion in 1985 to $7.9 billion in
1992. Greenpeace has argued that the Army should reevaluate
alternatives and tailor its program to the differing destruction
requirements of the stocks located at different sites - not try to
force a one-size-fits-all solution on such a complex task.
Destroying these weapons will yield emissions that could be
highly toxic. No one, on either side, disputes this. The plant
will produce significant amounts of dioxins, highly toxic chemical
compounds. Other governments who have protested the Johnston
facility fear that smokestack emissions will contaminate the ocean
food chain, thereby working its way into the human food chain as
these island nations cultivate their ocean resources. This has
caused these nations to lash out against the U.S. plans at Johnston
Atoll.
Conflict, though, may also now result because of the
Chemical Weapons Convention's guidelines. The articles of the
convention outline in detail timetables for the destruction of
these weapons. These strict timetables are a consequence of the
deteriorating condition of many of the chemical weapons in the
U.S.'s arsenal; potentially resulting in an accident with
catastrophic consequences. If the United States or the Soviet
Union or one of the other signatories of the Convention do not
decommission these weapons according to the Convention's timetable,
there will be conflict (civil and diplomatic) on a global
scale.
13. Level of Strategic Interest: State
14. Outcome of Dispute: Compromise
15. Related ICE Cases
16. Relevant Websites and Literature
Websites
http://www.susx.ac.u
k/spru/hsp/cwc.html
http://www.clw.
org/pub/clw/clw/cwcchron.html
http://bicc.uni-
bonn.de/weapons/brief3/chap3.html
http://www.dtic.dla.mil/defenselink/news/Jan96/b012496_b
t024-96.html
http://www.sipri.
se/pubs/yb94/!b94ch9.html
http://www-pmcd.apgea.army.mil/csdp/moreinfo/how-
will.html
Literature
Brin, Jay. "Handle With Care: The Destruction of Chemical
Weapons," Technology Review, vol. 96, April 1993: pp. 36-37.
Cambell, Christy and Matthews, Robert. "The Dregs of the
Cold War," World Press Review, vol. 37, September 1990: pp. 16-17.
Gordon, Michael. "Moscow Is Making Little Progress In
Disposal of Chemical Weapons," New York Times (Late Edition),
December 1, 1993: p. A1+.
Grossman, Daniel; Shulman, Seth. "A Case of Nerves,"
Discover, vol. 14, November 1993: pp. 66-75.
Isaacs, John. "Arms controllers v. Greenpeace," Bulletin
of Atomic Scientists, vol. 46, November, 1990: pp. 4-6.
Lord, mary. "A World Away," U.S. News & World Report, vol.
109, November 12, 1990: p. 17.
Meyer, Eugene L. "Toxic Fallout," Audubon, vol. 94,
September 10, 1992: pp. 16-20.
Misrach, Myriam Weisang. "Nerve Gas Unnerves Hawaiians,"
Sierra, vol. 76, March/April 1991: pp. 68-69.
"Nervous About Nerve Gas," Time, vol. 136, August 6, 1990:
p. 28.
Peterson, Ivars. "Chemical Weapons Stockpiles: A Burning
Question," Science News, vol. 126, December 1, 1984: p. 340.
Shulman, Seth. "Bomb Buring in the Pacific," Technology
Review, vol. 93, October 1990: 18-20.
Smith, R. Jeffrey. "NRC Urges Destruction of Chemical
Weapons," Science, vol. 226, December 7, 1984: pp. 1174-1175.
Smithson, Amy. "Chemicals Destruction: The Work Begins,"
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, vol. 49, April 1993: pp.
38-43.
Smithson, Amy. "Conventional wait," The Bulletin of Atomic
Scientists, vol. 49, September 1993: pp. 10-11.