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.

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.

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:

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.

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

IMPA

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

NO_x

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

SO_x

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.