NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
2101 CONSTITUTION AVE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20055
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 competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This is a report of work supported by Contract DAAD19-00-C-0009 between the U.S. Army and the National Academy of Sciences. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-07634-X
Limited copies are available from:
Board on Army Science and Technology
National Research Council
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20418
(202) 334–3118
Additional copies are available from:
National Academy Press
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Lockbox 285 Washington, DC 20055 (800) 624–6242 or (202) 334–3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area) http://www.nap.edu
Copyright 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Engineering
Institute of Medicine
National Research Council
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science 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 M.Alberts is president of the National Academy 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 sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm.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. Wm.A.Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
COMMITTEE ON REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR DEMILITARIZATION OF ASSEMBLED CHEMICAL WEAPONS: PHASE II
ROBERT A.BEAUDET, Chair,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles
RICHARD J.AYEN,
Waste Management, Inc. (retired), Jamestown, Rhode Island
JOAN B.BERKOWITZ,
Farkas Berkowitz and Company, Washington, D.C.
RUTH M.DOHERTY,
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head, Maryland
WILLARD C.GEKLER,
EQE International/PLG, Irvine, California
SHELDON E.ISAKOFF,
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (retired), Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania
HANK C.JENKINS-SMITH,
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
DAVID S.KOSSON,
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
FREDERICK J.KRAMBECK,
Mobil Technology Company, Paulsboro, New Jersey
JOHN A.MERSON,
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
WILLIAM R.RHYNE,
H&R Technical Associates, Inc., Oak Ridge, Tennessee
STANLEY I.SANDLER,
University of Delaware, Newark
WILLIAM R.SEEKER,
General Electric Energy and Environmental Research Corporation, Irvine, California
LEO WEITZMAN,
LVW Associates, Inc., West Lafayette, Indiana
Board on Army Science and Technology Liaison
JOSEPH J.VERVIER,
ENSCO, Inc., Indiatlantic, Florida
Staff
PATRICIA P.PAULETTE, Study Director
HARRISON T.PANNELLA, Program Officer
JAMES C.MYSKA, Research Associate
WILLIAM E.CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator
GWEN ROBY, Senior Project Assistant
BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
WILLIAM H.FORSTER, Chair,
Northrop Grumman Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland
JOHN E.MILLER, Vice Chair,
Oracle Corporation, Reston, Virginia
ROBERT L.CATTOI,
Rockwell International (retired), Dallas, Texas
RICHARD A.CONWAY,
Union Carbide Corporation (retired), Charleston, West Virginia
GILBERT F.DECKER,
Walt Disney Imagineering (retired), Glendale, California
PATRICK F.FLYNN,
Cummins Engine Company, Inc. (retired), Columbus, Indiana
HENRY J.HATCH, Army, Chief of Engineers (retired),
Oakton, Virginia
EDWARD J.HAUG,
University of Iowa, Iowa City
GERALD J.IAFRATE,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh
MIRIAM E.JOHN,
Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, California
DONALD R.KEITH,
Cypress International (retired), Alexandria, Virginia
CLARENCE W.KITCHENS,
IIT Research Institute, Alexandria, Virginia
KATHRYN V.LOGAN,
Georgia Institute of Technology (professor emerita), Roswell
JOHN W.LYONS,
Army Research Laboratory (retired), Ellicott City, Maryland
JOHN H.MOXLEY,
Korn/Ferry International, Los Angeles, California
STEWART D.PERSONICK,
Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
MILLARD F.ROSE,
Radiance Technologies, Huntsville, Alabama
GEORGE T.SINGLEY III,
Hicks and Associates, Inc., McLean, Virginia
CLARENCE G.THORNTON,
Army Research Laboratory (retired), Colts Neck, New Jersey
JOHN D.VENABLES,
Venables and Associates, Towson, Maryland
JOSEPH J.VERVIER,
ENSCO, Inc., Indiatlantic, Florida
Staff
BRUCE A.BRAUN, Director
MICHAEL A.CLARKE, Associate Director
WILLIAM E.CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator
CHRIS JONES, Financial Associate
GWEN ROBY, Administrative Assistant
DEANNA P.SPARGER, Senior Project Assistant
DANIEL E.TALMAGE, JR., Research Associate
Preface
The United States has been in the process of destroying its chemical munitions for well over a decade. Initially, the U.S. Army, guided by recommendations from the National Research Council (NRC), decided to use incineration as its destruction method at all sites. However, citizens in some states with stockpile storage sites oppose incineration on the grounds that the exact nature of the effluents escaping from the stacks cannot be determined. The Army has continued to pursue incineration at four of the eight storage sites in the continental United States where that process seemed appropriate. Nevertheless, influenced by growing public opposition to incineration and the 1996 NRC report Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies, the Army has also been developing technologies based on chemical hydrolysis for the remaining sites. These processes will be used to destroy the VX nerve agent stored at Newport, Indiana, and the mustard agent stored at Aberdeen, Maryland, both of which are stored only in bulk one-ton containers and not in assembled munitions.
In 1996, persuaded by public opposition in Lexington, Kentucky, and Pueblo, Colorado, Congress enacted Public Law 104–201, which instructed the U.S. 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.” In response, the Army established the program manager for the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (PMACWA). In Public Law 104–208, the PMACWA was required to “identify and demonstrate not less than two alternatives to the baseline incineration process for the demilitarization of assembled chemical weapons.” During the first phase of the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) program, seven technologies were evaluated. Three of them proceeded to demonstration testing (Demo I) and one was dropped completely. In August 1999, the PMACWA selected two of the Demo I technologies as candidates for the destruction of the assembled munitions weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. The two packages, General Atomics Total Solution (GATS) and Parsons/Honeywell (formerly Parsons-Allied Signal) water hydrolysis of explosives and agent technology (WHEAT), were advanced to the engineering design study phase of the ACWA program.
The PMACWA has involved the citizen stakeholders in every aspect of the program, including the procurement process. The Keystone Center, a nonprofit organization, was hired to facilitate public involvement through a process known as the Dialogue, which has become a model for public involvement in matters of public concern.1
The Congress mandated that the Army coordinate with the NRC during the ACWA program. In response, the NRC established the Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons (ACW I committee) in 1997 to oversee this program. The question before the committee was not whether incineration was an adequate technology for destroying assembled chemical weapons but whether other chemical processes acceptable to the stakeholders could be
used. The second NRC committee (ACW II committee) was established in the spring of 2000 to evaluate the two engineering design studies for the destruction facilities at Pueblo, Colorado, and Richmond, Kentucky, and to evaluate the demonstration testing of the three technology packages that had not been selected for those sites or for previous demonstration testing.
Although the PMACWA had no intention of demonstrating these three technologies, Public Law 106–79 (2000) mandated that the PMACWA “conduct evaluations of [the] three additional alternative technologies under the ACWA program.” Furthermore, the PMACWA was directed to “proceed under the same guidelines as contained in Public Law 104–208 and continue to use the Dialogue process and Citizens’ Advisory Technical Team and their consultants.” Accordingly, the PMACWA initiated a program commonly referred to as Demo II to demonstrate the three technologies (AEA SILVER II™, the Foster Wheeler/Eco Logic/ Kvaerner integrated demilitarization process, and Teledyne-Commodore’s solvated electron process) that had not been selected during the first phase. The ACW II committee was asked to determine if and how the Demo II results affected its commentary, findings, and recommendations and the steps that were suggested for implementation in the ACW I report. This report presents the committee’s evaluation of the second set of demonstration tests.
I wish to gratefully acknowledge the hard work of members of the ACW II committee, all of whom served as volunteers and provided the expertise necessary to carry out this enormous task. They gave relentlessly and unselfishly of their time and effort throughout the study. Their areas of expertise included chemical processing, biological remediation, environmental regulations and permitting, energetic materials, and public acceptance. Committee members attended plenary meetings, visited the technology providers’ headquarters and test sites, observed design-review sessions, and studied the extensive literature, including engineering charts and diagrams, provided by the technology providers.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to also express appreciation for the extensive support of the Army ACWA team and its interactions with stakeholders and the Dialogue, particularly the group’s Citizens Advisory Technical Team, whose members attended all open meetings of the committee and shared information and views with it. The committee also appreciated the openness and cordiality of the representatives of the technology providers. They and the Army provided early drafts of their test reports and other documentation to facilitate the committee’s evaluation.
A study such as this requires extensive logistic support; the committee is indebted to the NRC staff for their assistance. I would particularly like to acknowledge the close working relationship I had with the NRC study director, Patricia Paulette. We worked as a team in leading this study. We spoke on the phone daily and e-mailed each other incessantly. The efforts of William Campbell, who took extensive notes and provided real-time report corrections at all our meetings as well as suggestions on how to best organize the report, were invaluable to the committee and to me. Gwen Roby provided the logistic support that enabled us to concentrate on our task. I am also indebted to my colleagues 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: Phase II
Acknowledgments
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its 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 review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Steven Konkel, Eastern Kentucky University
Richard Magee, New Jersey Institute of Technology
Walter May, Consultant
Ray McGuire, Consultant
Vernon Myers, Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters
George Parshall, E.I. du Pont de Nemours (retired)
Robert Olson, Consultant
Donald Sadoway, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Martin B.Sherwin, Chemical Engineer (retired)
William Tumas, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Royce Murray, University of North Carolina, appointed by the National Research Council. He was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
List of Figures and Tables
FIGURES
2–1 |
AEA SILVER II™ total system solution, |
|||
2–2 |
Process flow diagram of the AEA 2 kW demilitarization process, |
|||
2–3 |
Process flow diagram of the AEA 12 kW demilitarization plant, |
|||
2–4 |
Revised process flow diagram of the AEA SILVER II™ demilitarization process, |
|||
3–1 |
Schematic diagram of the FW/EL/K demilitarization process, |
|||
4–1 |
Schematic diagram of the Teledyne-Commodore SET™ process, |
TABLES
ES–1 |
Summary Evaluation of the Maturity of Demo II Unit Operations and Processes, |
|||
1–1 |
Description of the Seven Technology Packages That Passed DoD’s Initial Evaluation, |
|||
2–1 |
Destruction Efficiency in the 2 kW Test Unit, |
|||
2–2 |
Anolyte Coupon Weights Before and After Testing, |
|||
5–1 |
Summary Evaluation of the Maturity of Demo II Unit Operations and Processes, |
Acronyms, Chemical Symbols, and Abbreviations
ACWA
Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (program)
ACW I
Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons
ACW II
Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: Phase II
AEA
AEA Technologies Corporation
Ag2+
silver II ions
AgCl
silver chloride
a-HAX
solution containing potassium hydroxide and humic acid
BIF
boiler and industrial furnace
CATOX
catalytic oxidation
CEES
chloroethyl ethyl sulfide
CEM
continuous emission monitor
CO
carbon monoxide
CO2
carbon dioxide
Composition B
an energetic material that contains (nominally) 59.5 percent RDX, 39.5 percent TNT, and 1.0 percent wax
CWC
Chemical Weapons Convention
DAAMS
depot area air monitoring system
Demo I
Demonstration I (demonstration testing of three technologies selected for the first phase of ACWA technology testing)
DMMP
dimethyl methylphosphonate
DoD
U.S. Department of Defense
DPE
demilitarization protective ensemble
DRE
destruction and removal efficiency
ECBC
Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center
EDP
engineering design package
EDS
engineering design study
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
FEK or FW/EL/K
Foster Wheeler/Eco Logic/Kvaerner
GATS
General Atomics Total Solution
GB
a nerve agent
GC/MS
gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
GPCR™
gas-phase chemical reduction
H2
hydrogen
HD
distilled mustard agent
HF
hydrofluoric acid
HNO3
nitric acid
HPLC
high-performance liquid chromatography
HRA
health risk assessment
ICI
Imperial Chemical IndustriesIMPA
isopropyl methylphosphonic acid
IRS
impurities removal system
KOH
potassium hydroxide
LMIDS
Lockheed Martin Integrated Demilitarization System
MACT
maximum achievable control technology
MDM
multipurpose demilitarization machine
MPA
methylphosphonic acid
M28
energetic material used for propulsion of certain assembled chemical weapons
N2
nitrogen
NOx
nitrogen oxides
N2O
nitrous oxide
NRC
National Research Council
O2
oxygen
PA
picric acid
PCP
pentachlorophenol
PGB
product gas burner
PMACWA
program manager for the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment
PMD
projectile mortar demilitarization (machine)
POTW
publicly owned treatment works
ppm
parts per million
PTFE
polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon)
QRA
quantitative risk assessment
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RDX
cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine
RFP
request for proposals
SCWO
supercritical water oxidation
SET™
solvated electron technology
SILVER II™
electrochemical oxidation using silver II ions in nitric acid
SOx
sulfur oxides
SO2
sulfur dioxide
SVOC
semivolatile organic compound
TBA
tributylamine
TC
Teledyne-Commodore
TCLP
toxicity characteristic leachate procedure
TNB
trinitrobenzene
TNBA
trinitrobenzoic acid
TNT
trinitrotoluene, an energetic material
TOC
total organic carbon
TRBP
thermal reduction batch processor
TW-SCWO
transpiring-wall supercritical water oxidation
VOC
volatile organic compound
VX
a nerve agent
WHEAT
water hydrolysis of explosives and agent technology
3X
At the 3X decontamination level, solids are decontaminated to the point that agent concentration in the headspace above the encapsulated solid does not exceed the health-based, eight-hour, time-weighted average limit for worker exposure. The level for mustard agent is 3.0 mg per cubic meter in air. Materials classified as 3X may be handled by qualified plant workers using appropriate procedures but are not releasable to the environment or for general public reuse. In specific cases in which approval has been granted, a 3X material may be shipped to an approved hazardous waste treatment facility for disposal in a landfill or for further treatment.
5X level
Treatment of solids to a 5X decontamination level is accomplished by holding a material at 1,000°F for 15 minutes. This treatment results in completely decontaminated material that can be released for general use or sold (e.g., as scrap metal) to the general public in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.
5X treatment unit
This unit is used to heat chemical solid waste materials to a level of decontamination where no residual contamination is detectable.