|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| [ Top of Page ] [ Home ] [ Contact Us ] [ Help ] [ The National Academies Home ] | ||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Review and Evaluation
of Alternative Technologies
for Demilitarization of
Assembled Chemita. Weapons
Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies
for Demilitarization of Assemblecl Chemical Weapons
Boa rcl on Army Science and Technology
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C. 1999
OCR for page R2
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS · 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. · Washington, DC 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the
National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of
Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the
committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for
appropriate balance.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distin-
guished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of sci-
ence and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted
to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal
government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Acad-
emy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its
administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the
responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also spon-
sors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and
recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National
Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure
the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters
pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National
Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and,
upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I.
Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to
associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering
knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies
determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the
government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The council is administered
jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A.
Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
This is a report of work supported by Contract DAAG55-97-C-0044 between the U.S. Army and
the National Academy of Sciences. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations ex-
pressed in this publication are those of the authorts) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the
organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-06639-5
Limited copies are available from:
Board on Army Science and Technology
National Research Council
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20418
Additional copies are available for sale from:
National Academy Press
Box 285
2101 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20055
800-624-6242 or
202-334-3313 (in the Washington
Metropolitan Area)
http://www.nap.edu
Copyright 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
COM M ITTEE ON REVI EW AN D EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TECH NOLOG I ES
FOR DEMILITARIZATION OF ASSEMBLED CHEMICAL WEAPONS
ROBERT A. BEAUDET, chair, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
RICHARD J. AYEN, Waste Management, Inc.(retired), Geneva, Illinois
JOAN B. BERKOWITZ, Parkas Berkowitz & Company, Washington, D.C.
NOSA O. EGIEB OR, Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, Alabama
WILLARD C. GEKLER, PLG, Inc., Newport Beach, California
HANK C. JENKINS-SMITH, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
JOHN L. MARGRAVE, Rice University, Houston, Texas
WALTER G. MAY, University of Illinois (retired), Urbana
KIRK E. NEWMAN, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Division, Yorktown, Virginia
JIMMIE C. OXLEY, University of Rhode Island, Kingston
WILLIAM R. RHYNE, H&R Technical Associates, Inc., Oak Ridge, Tennessee
STANLEY I. SANDIER, University of Delaware, Newark
WILLIAM R. SEEKER, Energy and Environmental Research Corporation, Irvine, California
LEO WEITZMAN, LVW Associates, Inc., West Lafayette, Indiana
Board on Army Science and Technology Liaison
LAWRENCE J. DELANEY, Delaney Group, Potomac, Maryland
Staff
ROBERT T. BAILEY, Study Director
HARRISON T. PANNELLA, Research Associate
JENIFER M. AUSTIN, Senior Project Assistant
. . .
OCR for page R4
BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
WILLIAM H. FORSTER, chair, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland
THOMAS L. MCNAUGHER, vice chair, RAND Corporation, Washington, D.C.
GARY L. BORMAN, University of Wisconsin, Madison
RICHARD A. CONWAY, Union Carbide Corporation, Charleston, West Virginia
GILBERT S. DECKER, Consultant, Los Gatos, California
LAWRENCE J. DELANEY, Delaney Group, Potomac, Maryland
ROBERT J. HEASTON, Guidance and Control Information Analysis Center (retired), Naperville, Illinois
ELVIN R. HEIBERG, Heiberg Associates, Inc., Mason Neck, Virginia
GERALD J. IAFRATE, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana
KATHRYN V. LOGAN, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
JOHN H. MOXLEY, Korn/Ferry International, Los Angeles, California
STEWART D. PERSONICK, Bell Communications Research, Inc., Morristown, New Jersey
MILLARD F. ROSE, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama
GEORGE T. SINGLEY III, Hicks and Associates, Inc., McLean, Virginia
CLARENCE G. THORNTON, Army Research Laboratories (retired), Colts Neck, New Jersey
JOHN D. VENABLES, Venables and Associates, Towson, Maryland
JOSEPH J. VERVIER, ENSCO, Inc., Melbourne, Florida
ALLEN C. WARD, Ward Synthesis, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan
Staff
BRUCE A. BRAWN, Director
MICHAEL A. CLARKE, Associate Director
MARGO L. FRANCESCO, Staff Associate
ALVERA WILSON, Financial Associate
DEANNA SPARGER, Senior Project Assistant
V
OCR for page R5
Preface
The United States has been in the process of destroy
.
1ng its chemical munitions for more than a
decade. In keeping with recommendations from the National Research Council (NRC), the U.S. Anny
selected incineration as the destruction method at all storage sites. However, some citizens near
those sites are opposed to incineration because they believe that the exact nature of the effluents escap-
ing from the stacks is unknown. Because of public opposition and a report by the NRC on alternatives
to incineration for destroying bulk agent, the Anny has selected chemical hydrolysis for destroying the
VX and mustard stored in one-ton containers at Newport, Indiana, and Aberdeen, Maryland.
In 1996, persuaded by public opposition to incineration in Richmond, Kentucky, and Pueblo,
Colorado, the Congress enacted Public Law 104-201, which instructed the Department of Defense
(DOD) to "conduct an assessment of the chemical demilitarization program for destruction of
assembled chemical munitions and of the alternative demilitarization technologies and processes
(other than incineration) that could be used for the destruction of the lethal chemical agents that are
associated with these munitions." DOD established a program manager for Assembled Chemical
Weapons Assessment (ACWA) to respond to the Congress. Public Law 104-208 required that the
new program manager ''identify and demonstrate not less than two alternatives to the baseline
incineration process for the demilitarization of assembled chemical munitions."
The mandate from Congress included a provision that DOD "coordinate" with the NRC through-
out the program. In response to this mandate, the NRC established the Committee on Review and
Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons to
oversee the ACWA program. I was requested by the NRC to chair this committee. Being aware of
the urgent need to destroy these weapons as soon as possible, I enthusiastically accepted. I have
frequently been asked if I believe that assembled chemical weapons should be destroyed by incin-
eration, but the capabilities of incinerators are not at issue in the ACWA program. Many citizens of
the states where the weapons are stored are strongly opposed to that method, and chemical meth
. . .. .. . .. . .. . . . .. .. . .. .. . . . . .
oafs, potentially more acceptable to the stakeholders, could potentially be used Instead.
Unlike earlier Army chemical demilitarization programs, ACWA has involved citizen stake-
holders in every aspect of the program, including the procurement process. The ACWA program
manager hired a nonprofit organization, the Keystone Center, to institute a unique public involve-
ment process the Dialogue on ACWA. In July 1997, DOD requested proposals from industry for
complete technical packages for destroying assembled chemical munitions and, with assistance
from the Dialogue, selected seven proposals submitted by industrial teams, called technology pro-
viders, for initial consideration. After two additional evaluation steps, three of the seven (those
proposed by Burns and Roe, General Atomics, and Parsons-Alliedsignal) were chosen by DOD to
proceed to demonstration. At the writing of this report, the demonstrations were under way.
v
OCR for page R6
v!
PREFACE
When the committee began meeting and organizing this study, DOD had not selected the three
technology packages for demonstration, and the program manager's stated policy was to demon-
strate as many technologies as he could afford. In addition, the NRC's stringent peer-review pro-
cess prior to publishing its reports usually requires about four months to complete from the time
that the draft report is submitted for review. Thus, to publish this report in time for DOD' s final
report to Congress (September 30, 1999), the committee had to proceed without the test results
from the demonstrations. Therefore, the committee has investigated and evaluated all technologies
that passed DOD's initial screening. Our rationale was that any of these technologies could easily
be resubmitted when requests for proposals for the Kentucky and Colorado sites are issued. This
report provides the results of this NRC study based on the technical information that was available
before March 15, 1999.
I wish to express my gratitude to the members of this committee. They served unselfishly, but
they also provided their expertise in chemical processing, permitting and re~ulationLs- energetic
· . . .. - . ~. . .. . . . .
_ _ a ~ 7 - -- - - a - -- -
materials, and public acceptance. Bach member attended plenary meetings, visited the technology
providers at various sites, visited the sites where the demonstrations were being held, and reviewed
the extensive literature provided by the technology providers in the form of proposals, data-gap
responses, and demonstration plans. We all served as volunteers.
The committee also recognizes and appreciates the assistance of the DOD ACWA team, which
provided the committee with valuable information, and the members of the Dialogue on ACWA,
particularly the Citizens' Advisory Technical Team, who attended all of our meetings and shared their
opinions with us. We also appreciated the openness and the cordiality of the technology providers.
Thanks are also due to the reviewers who provided valuable and constructive comments on the
draft of the report. These individuals, who were not known to the committee at the time of the
review, also served as volunteers.
A study such as this requires extensive logistical, administrative, and technical support. We are
all indebted to the NRC staff for their assistance. I would like to particularly acknowledge the
program director for this study, Dr. Robert Bailey, with whom I developed a close working rela-
tionship. Robert and I worked as a team during this study. We spoke on the phone daily and e-
mailed each other incessantly. Robert provided the technical, writing, and editorial skills that en-
abled us to complete this report. He also provided the organizational skills that I lacked. Harrison
Panella, NRC research associate, also provided the committee and me with invaluable help. He
took extensive minutes at all of our meetings, provided suggestions on how to best organize this
report, and assisted in its development. In addition, Jenifer Austin, NRC senior project assistant,
provided the logistical support that allowed us to concentrate on our task. Special thanks are also
due to Carol Arenberg for her technical editing of the report, and Margo Francesco for her manage
ment of the publication process.
I would also like to acknowledge Sidney Cullipher, a graduate student in the Department of
Political Science and the University of New Mexico, who assisted the committee in the develop-
ment of the public acceptance portions of this report. Finally, I would like to thank one additional
person who was never directly involved with this study, but whose assistance was essential to me.
I am indebted to Professor David A. Dows, my colleague in the Chemistry Department at the
University of Southern California, who willingly took over my teaching duties while I traveled on
behalf of this study.
ROBERT A. BEAUDET, Chair
Committee on Review and Evaluation of
Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of
Assembled Chemical Weapons
OCR for page R7
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
This report has been reviewed by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical
expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council's Report
Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical com-
ments that will assist the authors and the National Research Council in making the published report
as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity,
evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The content of the review comments and draft
manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to
thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report:
David Archer, Westinghouse Electric Company (retired), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Gene Dyer, Bechtel Corporation (retired), San Rafael, California
Richard Magee, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, New Jersey
Raymond McGuire, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California
Alvin Mushkatel, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
Vernon Myers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Robert Olson, Consultant, Clinton, Tennessee
George Parshall, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Wilmington, Delaware
Janice Phillips, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Cesar Pruneda, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California
Martin Sherwin, ChemVen Group, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida
While the individuals listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions,
responsibility for the final content of this report rests solely with the authoring committee and the
National Research Council.
. .
vat
OCR for page R8
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
This report has been reviewed by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives
and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National
Research Council's Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review
is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the authors and the National
Research Council in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that
the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to
the study charge. The content of the review comments and draft manuscript remain
confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the
following individuals for their participation in the review of this report:
David Archer, Westinghouse Electric Company (retired), Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
Richard Magee, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, New Jersey
Raymond McGuire, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore,
California
Alvin Mushkatel, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
Vemon Myers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Robert Olson, Consultant, Clinton, Tennessee
George Parshall, EN DuPont de Nemours & Company, Wilmington, Delaware
Janice Phillips, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Cesar Pruneda, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California
Martin Sherwin, ChemVen Group, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida
While the individuals listed above have provided many constructive comments and
suggestions, responsibility for the final content of this report rests solely with the
authoring committee and the National Research Council.
. . .
vzzz
OCR for page R9
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 INTRODUCTION
The Call for Disposal, 9
The Call for Alternatives to Incineration, 9
Description of the Stockpile, 10
Agents, 10
Containers and Munitions, 10
Geographical Distribution, 11
Historical Role of the NRC in Chemical Demilitarization, 11
Evolution of the ACWA Program, 14
ACWA Program Organization, 14
Phases of the ACWA Program, 15
The Role of the National Research Council, 18
Statement of Task, 18
Scope and Approach of the Study, 20
Sources of Information, 21
Organization of This Report, 22
2 EVALUATION FACTORS
Process Efficacy, 24
Effectiveness, 24
Sampling and Analysis, 27
Process Maturity, 27
Process Robustness, 28
Process Monitoring and Control, 28
Process Applicability, 29
Process Safety, 29
Worker Health and Safety, 29
Public Safety, 30
Transportation Accidents, 30
Human Health and the Environment, 31
Characterization of Effluents and Their Impact on Human Health
and the Environment, 31
Mix
9
23
OCR for page R10
XCONTENTS
Completeness of Effluent Characterization, 32
Effluent-Management Strategy, 32
Resource Requirements, 32
Environmental Compliance and Permitting, 32
Public Acceptance, 33
Closing Remarks, 34
3 AEA SILVER II TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
Introduction and Overview, 36
Description of the Technology Package, 38
SILVER II Process Chemistry, 38
SILVER II Process Arrangement, 39
Disassembly of Munitions and the Removal of
Agent/Energetic, 40
Treatment of Chemical Agent, 42
Treatment of Energetics, 43
Treatment of Metal Parts, 43
Treatment of Dunnage, 44
Process Instrumentation, Monitoring, and Control, 44
Feed Streams, 44
Effluent Streams, 44
Startup and Shutdown, 48
Evaluation of the Technology Package, 48
Process Efficacy, 48
Process Safety, 52
Human Health and the Environment, 54
Steps Required for Implementation, 56
Findings, 57
4 ARCTECH ACTODEMIL TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
Introduction and Overview, 58
Background on Humic Acid, 58
Description of the Technology Package, 59
Disassembly of Munitions and the Removal of
Agent/Energetics, 59
Treatment of Chemical Agent, 60
Treatment of Energetics, 62
Treatment of Metal Parts, 63
Treatment of Dunnage (and Protective Suits), 64
Process Instrumentation, Monitoring, and Control, 64
Feed Streams, 64
Waste Streams, 64
Start-up and Shutdown, 65
Evaluation of the Technology Package, 65
Process Efficacy, 65
Process Safety, 68
Human Health and the Environment, 69
36
58
OCR for page R11
CONTENTS
Xt
Steps Required for Implementation, 70
Findings, 70
5 BURNS AND ROE TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
Introduction and Overview, 71
Background on Plasma, 71
Description of the Technology Package, 71
Disassembly of Munitions and the Removal of
Agent/Energetics, 71
Description of Plasma Waste Converter, 72
Treatment of Chemical Agent, 74
Treatment of Energetics, 74
Treatment of Metal Parts, 74
Treatment of Dunnage, 75
Process Instrumentation, Monitoring, and Control, 75
Feed Streams, 75
Waste Streams, 75
Start-up and Shutdown, 77
Evaluation of the Technology Package, 77
Process Efficacy, 77
Process Safety, 82
Human Health and the Environment, 83
Steps Required for Implementation, 86
Findings, 86
6 GENERAL ATOMICS TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
Introduction and Overview, 88
Description of the Technology Package, 88
Disassembly of Munitions and the Removal of
Agent/Energetics, 88
Treatment of Chemical Agent, 91
Treatment of Energetics, 92
Treatment of Hydrolysate with Supercritical Water
Oxidation, 93
Treatment of Metal Parts, 93
Treatment of Dunnage, 93
Process Instrumentation, Monitoring, and Control, 93
Feed Streams, 93
Waste Streams, 94
Start-up and Shutdown, 94
Evaluation of the Technology Package, 94
Process Efficacy, 94
Process Safety, 98
Human Health and the Environment, 100
Steps Required for Implementation, 100
Findings, 101
71
88
OCR for page R14
xlv
CONTENTS
APPENDICES
A DESCRIPTION OF ASSEMBLED CHEMICAL WEAPONS
B MEETINGS AND SITE VISITS
C BASELINE DISASSEMBLY PROCESS
D AGENT NEUTRALIZATION BY HYDROLYSIS
E NEUTRALIZATION OF ENERGETIC MATERIALS
BY HYDROLYSIS
F SUPERCRITICAL WATER OXIDATION
G FLUID-JET CUTTING OR ORDNANCE AND HIGH-PRESSURE
CLEAN-OUT OF ENERGETIC MATERIALS
H INSIGHTS FROM STATE REGULATORS
I BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
189
192
197
203
213
230
235
240
241
OCR for page R15
Figures and Tables
FIGURES
1-1
1-2
3-1
3-2
3-3
4-1
5-1
5-2
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
7-1
7-2
8-1
Structural formulas for GB, VX, and HD, 11
Types of agent, quantities of agent, types of munitions, and percentage
of total agent stockpile at each storage site, 12
Schedule for the assessment and evaluation phase of DOD's ACWA
Program, 16
Overview of the AEA technology package, 36
SILVER II block flow diagram, 37
SILVER II process flow diagram, 41
Schematic drawing of ARCTECH's ACTODEMIL process, 60
Schematic diagram of the Burns and Roe technology package, 72
Schematic diagram of a typical plasma waste converter (PWC) for
treating agent, 73
Schematic drawing of General Atomic's proposed technology package, 89
Block flow diagram for the treatment of projectiles/mortars, 90
Block flow diagram for the treatment of rockets, 91
Block flow diagram for the treatment of land mines, 92
Process flow for the LMIDS, 103
Transpiring-wall SCWO platelet liner, 106
Process flow diagram for the treatment of assembled chemical weapons
by WHEAT, 120
Block flow diagram of the technology package proposed by Teledyne
Commodore, 135
xv
OCR for page R16
xv!
FIGURES AND TABLES
9-3
9-5
9-6
The sequence of cuts for ammoniajet cutting and wash-out of M55
rockets, 136
The sequence of cuts for ammoniajet cutting and wash-out of
projectiles and mortars, 137
9-4 Schematic diagram of the process proposed for disassembly of M23 land
mines, 138
Formulas for the more complex reaction products from SET/hydrolysis
of GB, 139
Formulas for the more complex reaction products from SET/hydrolysis
of VX, 141
11-1 Schedule for the Aberdeen Chemical Agent Disposal Facility as of
January 6, 1999, 181
11-2 Schedule for the Newport Chemical Agent Disposal Facility as of
January 6, 1999, 181
A-1
A-2
A-5
A-6
105-mm M360 projectile, 190
155-mm M121 projectile, 190
8-inch M426 projectile, 191
A-4 4.2-inch M2 mortar, 191
115-mm M55 rocket, 191
M23 land mine, 191
C-1
C-2
C-3
D-1
E-4
Baseline disassembly of M55 rockets, 199
Baseline disassembly of projectiles/mortars, 199
Baseline disassembly of land mines, 200
Primary reactions involved in VX hydrolysis, 206
Reversible formations of the sulfonium ion aggregates in the hydrolysis
of mustard, 210
Conversion of nitrogen (N) during pressurized alkaline decomposition
of propellant P2, 224
Conversion of carbon (C) during pressurized alkaline decomposition of
propellant P2, 224
Conversion of nitrogen (N) during pressurized alkaline decomposition
of propellant P5 under different alkaline conditions, 225
Conversion of carbon (C) during pressurized alkaline decomposition of
propellant P5 under different alkaline conditions, 225
F-1 Typical flow sheet for supercritical water oxidation, 231
G-1 Waterjet velocity at which explosives will initiate 50 percent of the
time as a function of the fluidjet diameter, 236
OCR for page R17
FIGURES AND TABLES
G-2 Comparison of the AWJ and ASJ (DIAJET) abrasivejet cutting
techniques, 237
TABLES
ES-1 Descriptions of the Seven Technology Packages that Passed DOD's
Initial Evaluation, 3
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-6
1-7
2-1
3-1
3-2
3-4
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-10
3-11
Physical Properties of Chemical Warfare Agents, 11
Chemical Munitions Stored in the Continental United States, 13
Seven Technology Providers Selected in the ACWA GolNo-Go
Evaluation Step, 16
Descriptions of the Seven Technology Packages that Passed DOD's
Initial Evaluation, 17
Technology Demonstrations Performed by Burns and Roe, 19
Technology Demonstrations Performed by General Atomics, 19
Technology Demonstrations Performed by Parsons-AlliedSignal, 20
Throughput Rates Prescribed in the ACWA REP, 34
Summary of the AEA/CH2M HILL Approach, 38
Standard Electrode Potentials of Reactions Related to the SILVER II
Process, 39
Anode Reactions of Ag(II) with Chemical Agent and Energetic
Materials, 39
Energy Required for the Destruction of Chemical Agents and
Energetics, 40
3-5 The Process Effluents and Treatment/Disposal Strategies Proposed by
AEA for the Silver (II) Process, 45
Process Inputs for SILVER II per 155-mm Projectile, 46
Process Outputs for SILVER II per 155-mm Projectile, 46
Process Inputs for SILVER II per M55 Rocket, 47
Process Outputs for SILVER II per M55 Rocket, 47
Estimate of Spent Silver for Mustard-Filled 155-mm Projectiles, 48
Estimate of Spent Silver Sent for Recycling for VX-Filled M55
Rockets, 48
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
5-1
5-2
. .
xv
Summary of the ARCTECH ACTODEMIL Approach, 59
Summary of Experiments Conducted by ARCTECH with Agents
at 90°C, 61
Results of Analysis for Residual Agent during ACTODEMIL
Neutralization Process at 90°C, 62
Materials Required for Processing 100 g of VX Using the
ACTODEMIL Process, 64
Feed and Product Masses and Concentrations for Hydrolysis of 100 g of
VX in the Presence of Humic Acid, 66
Summary of the Burns and Roe Approach, 73
System Inputs for the Burns & Roe Mass Balance, 76
OCR for page R18
. . .
xvit!
FIGURES AND TABLES
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
5-7
5-8
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
7-1
7-2
8-1
8-2
8-3
9-1
9-2
9-3
9-4
9-5
9-6
9-7
9-8
9 9
Mass Outputs for the Burns & Roe System, 76
Predicted Composition of Product Gas from the PWCs (Prior to
Scrubbing), 77
Predicted Composition of Product Gas from the Plasma Waste
Converters after Scrubbing, 77
Theoretical Equilibrium Composition of Product Gas from Plasma
Treatment of Agents, 78
Theoretical Equilibrium Composition of Product Gas from Plasma
Treatment of Energetics, 78
Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Gas Compositions
Subsequent to Plasma Treatment, 79
Summary of the General Atomics Approach, 88
Process Inflow Streams for the General Atomics Technology Package
(80 VX-filled 155-mm projectiles per hour), 94
Potential Air Emission Points for the General Atomics Technology
Package, 95
Process Outflow Streams for the General Atomics Technology Package
(80 VX-filled 155-mm projectiles per hour), 95
Routine Start-up Procedures for the General Atomics Technology
Package, 96
Summary of the LMIDS Approach, 103
Process Inflow Streams (lb/hr) from Outside the Process for Blue Grass
VX Base Case Campaign (14 M55 rockets/hr and 14 M121A1
projectiles/hr), 108
Process Outflow Streams (lb/hr) to the environment for the Blue Grass
VX Base Case Campaign (14 M55 rockets/hr and 14 M121A1
projectiles/hr), 109
Summary of the Parsons-AlliedSignal Technology Package, 119
Mass Balance for Processing HD 4.2-inch Mortars (lbAb HD), 125
Mass Balance for Processing GB 8-inch Projectiles (lb/ lb GB), 125
Summary of the Teledyne-Commodore SET Technology Package, 134
Measured Results for the SET/Hydrolysis Reaction of HD based on
Laboratory Data and Scaled Up to 100 lb of Agent, 138
Measured Results for the SET/Hydrolysis Reaction of GB based on
Laboratory Data and Scaled Up to 100 lb of Agent, 138
Predicted Solid and Aqueous Reaction Products of SETIHydrolysis
of GB, 140
Measured Results for the SET/Hydrolysis Reactions of VX based on
Laboratory Data and Scaled Up to 100 lb of Agent, 140
Predicted Solid and Aqueous Reaction Products of SETIHydrolysis
of VX, 142
Identified SET Reaction Products of Treatment of TNT, 143
Identified SET Reaction Products of Treatment of RDX, 143
Identified SET Reaction Products of Treatment of Comp B. 144
OCR for page R19
FIGURES AND TABLES
9-11
9-12
10-3
9-10 Identified SET Reaction Products of Treatment of M28 Propellant, 144
Process Inputs for the Teledyne-Commodore Technology Package for
VX-filled M55 Rockets Processed at a rate of 20/hr, 146
Process Inputs for the Teledyne-Commodore Technology Package for
HD-filled 155 mm Projectiles Processed at a rate of 100/hr, 146
Process Waste Streams Released to the Environment, 147
Process Outputs for the Teledyne-Commodore Technology Package for
VX-filled M55 Rockets Processed at a rate of 20/hr, 148
Process Outputs for the Teledyne-Commodore Package for HD-Filled
155 mm Projectiles at a rate of 100/hr, 148
10-1 Schedule Slippages of Chemical Weapons Demilitarization, 164
10-2 DOD's Estimated Life-Cycle Costs for Chemical Weapons
Demilitarization (in $ billions), 165
List of Participants in the Dialogue on Assembled Chemical Weapons
Assessment as of July 10, 1998, 166
11-1 Summary of the Key Process-Engineering Data for the Seven
Technology Packages, 174
A-1
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
Assembled Chemical Weapons in the U.S. Stockpile, 190
D-1 Examples of Large-Scale Neutralizations, 204
D-2 Effect of pH on Equilibrium of Remaining GB, 205
Results of the VX Ton Container Survey Program (Organics), 207
Results of the VX Ton Container Survey Program (Metals), 207
Analysis of Homogenized VX Hydrolysate after 240-Minute
Reaction Time, 208
Residual VX and EA 2192 Concentrations from 12-Liter Reactor
Tests, 208
D-7 Typical Composition of HD Agent, 209
D-8 Concentration of Metals in HD Agent, 209
D-9 Complex Organic Compounds in HD Heel by NMR (mole percent), 209
D-10 Content of HD Agent and Volatile Organic Compounds in Initial Ton
Container Vapor, 210
Dell Organic Compounds in HD Hydrolysate (Mole Percent), 211
E-1
E-2
E-3
E-4
E-5
ax
Hydrolysis Rates Obtained at Laboratory Scale, 216
Hydrolysis Using a Bench-Scale Rotary Hydrolyzer, 217
Observed First-Order Rate Constants for Hydrolysis in Excess NaOH
Solution (8.048 x 10-2 M) at 25°C, 218
Second-Order Rate Constants for Hydrolysis of RDX in NaOH
Solutions from 0.02 to 0.25 M, 218
Formation of Nitrite Ion during Hydrolysis of RDX (7.07 x 10-5 M) at
45°C (113°F) with Excess NaOH Solution (6.82 x 10-2M), 219
OCR for page R20
XFIGURES AND TABLES
E-7
E-8
E-9
Analysis of RDX Hydrolysis Products with Different Hydroxide
Concentrations (Mole ratio of product formed per RDX hydrolyzed),
219
Summary of Alkaline Decomposition Experiments for Comp B
Performed by LANE, 219
Anionic Products from the Hydrolysis of Comp B. 220
Product Analysis for Sodium Carbonate Hydrolysis of HMX
Powder, 220
E-10 Alkaline Decomposition of NC (12.2% N) at 30°C (86°F), 222
E-ll Alkaline Decomposition of NC (12.2% N) at 60°C (140°F), 222
E-12 German Propellant Formulations Used in Pressured Alkaline
Decomposition Experiments, 223
E-13 Results for the Pressured Alkaline Decomposition of Propellants
P1-P5, 223
OCR for page R21
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ACAMS automatic continuous air monitoring system
ACFM actual cubic feet per minute
ACTODEMIL process developed by ARCTECH
ACWA Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment
AEA a technology provider
a-MAX solution containing potassium hydroxide base and humic
acid (defined by ARCTECH)
AHR agent hydrolysis reactor
AlTech Panel Panel on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical
Disposal Technologies
BAA broad agency announcement
BATNA best alternative to a negotiated agreement
BIF boiler and industrial furnace
CAA Clean Air Act
CAC Citizens Advisory Committee
CATT Citizens' Advisory Technical Team
CLIN contract line item number
CSDP Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program
CSEPP Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program
CWA Clean Water Act
CWC Chemical Weapons Convention
CWWG Chemical Weapons Working Group
DAAMS depot area air monitoring system
DAD decide, announce, and defend
DOD U.S. Department of Defense
DPA diphenylamine
DPE demilitarization protective ensemble (suits)
DRE destruction and removal efficiency
EMPA ethyl methylphosphonic acid
xx
OCR for page R22
xxt!
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
EPA
ERH
FEMA
FTIR
FY
GAO
GB
GC
GC/MS
GPCR
H
HA
HAZOP
HD
HEPA
HMX
HRA
HT
JACADS
KOH
LCIMS
LMIDS
MACT
MDC
MPF
NEPA
NMR
NRC
PAS
PCB
PETN
PIC
PRH
PWC
QRA
RCRA
Environmental Protection Agency
energetics rotary hydrolyzer
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fourier transform infrared
fiscal year
General Accounting Office
a type of nerve agent
gas chromatography
gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
gas-phase chemical reduction
mustard agent
humic acid
hazards and operability study
distilled mustard agent
high efficiency particulate air
cyclotetramethylene-tetranitramine
health risk assessment
a mix of agents H and T
Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System
potassium hydroxide
liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry
Lockheed Martin Integrated Demilitarization System
maximum achievable control technology
material decontamination chamber
metal parts furnace
National Environmental Policy Act
nuclear magnetic resonance
National Research Council
pollution abatement system
polychlorinated biphenyl~s)
pentaeryhritol tetranitrate
product~s) of incomplete combustion
projectile rotary hydrolyzer
plasma waste converter
quantitative risk assessment
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
OCR for page R23
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
RDX
REP
SCFM
SCWO
SET
TCLP
TNT
TSCA
UTS
VX
WHEAT
. . .
xx
cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine
request for proposal
standard cubic feet per minute
supercritical water oxidation
solvated electron technology
toxicity characteristic leachate procedure
trinitrotoluene
Toxic Substances Control Act
universal treatment standards
type of nerve agent
water hydrolysis of explosives and agent technology
OCR for page R24
