Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
500 FIFTH STREET, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
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 study was supported by Contract No. W911NF-05-C-0078 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of Defense. 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-10: 0-309-10203-0
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-10203-2
Cover: Images courtesy of the public affairs office of the Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Project, U.S. Army, Chemical Materials Agency. The munitions shown illustrate the condition in which such items are often found when they are recovered from munitions burial sites.
Limited copies of this report are available from:
Board on Army Science and Technology
National Research Council
500 Fifth Street, N.W., Room 940
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 334-3118
Additional copies are available from:
The National Academies Press
500 Fifth Street, N.W. Lockbox 285 Washington, DC 20055 (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area) Internet, http://www.nap.edu
Copyright 2006 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Adivers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
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. Ralph J. Cicerone 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. Harvey V. Fineberg 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. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
COMMITTEE ON REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF NON-STOCKPILE CHEMICAL MATERIEL
RICHARD J. AYEN, Chair,
Waste Management, Inc. (retired), Jamestown, Rhode Island
ROBIN L. AUTENRIETH,
Texas A&M University, College Station
ADRIENNE T. COOPER,
Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
MARTIN GOLLIN,
St. Davids, Pennsylvania
GARY S. GROENEWOLD,
Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls
PAUL F. KAVANAUGH, BG, U.S. Army (retired),
Fairfax, Virginia
TODD A. KIMMELL,
Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, D.C.
LOREN D. KOLLER,
Oregon State University (retired), Corvallis
DOUGLAS M. MEDVILLE, MITRE
Corporation (retired), Reston, Virginia
GEORGE W. PARSHALL, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company (retired),
Wilmington, Delaware
JAMES P. PASTORICK,
Geophex UXO, Ltd., Alexandria, Virginia
LEONARD M. SIEGEL,
Center for Public Environmental Oversight, Mountain View, California
WILLIAM J. WALSH,
Pepper Hamilton LLP, Washington, D.C.
Staff
HARRISON T. PANNELLA, Study Director
JAMES C. MYSKA, Senior Research Associate
ALEXANDER R. REPACE, Senior Program Assistant (from March 2006)
LaTANYA CLEMENCIA, Senior Program Assistant (until March 2006)
BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
MALCOLM R. O’NEILL, Chair,
Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired), Vienna, Virginia
HENRY J. HATCH, Vice Chair,
Army Chief of Engineers (retired), Oakton, Virginia
RAJ AGGARWAL,
Rockwell Collins, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
SETH BONDER,
The Bonder Group, Ann Arbor, Michigan
NORVAL L. BROOME,
MITRE Corporation (retired), Suffolk, Virginia
JAMES CARAFANO,
The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C.
ROBERT L. CATTOI,
Rockwell International Corporation (retired), Dallas, Texas
DARRELL W. COLLIER,
U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command (retired), Leander, Texas
ALAN H. EPSTEIN,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
ROBERT R. EVERETT,
MITRE Corporation (retired), New Seabury, Massachusetts
WILLIAM R. GRAHAM,
National Security Research, Inc., Arlington, Virginia
PETER F. GREEN,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
CARL GUERRERI,
Electronic Warfare Associates, Inc., Herndon, Virginia
M. FREDERICK HAWTHORNE,
University of California, Los Angeles
CLARENCE W. KITCHENS,
Science Applications International Corporation, Vienna, Virginia
LARRY LEHOWICZ,
Quantum Research International, Arlington, Virginia
JOHN W. LYONS, U.S.
Army Research Laboratory (retired), Ellicott City, Maryland
EDWARD K. REEDY,
Georgia Tech Research Institute (retired), Atlanta
DENNIS J. REIMER,
DFI International, Washington, D.C.
WALTER D. SINCOSKIE,
Telcordia Technologies, Inc., Morristown, New Jersey
JUDITH L. SWAIN,
University of California, San Diego
WILLIAM R. SWARTOUT,
Institute for Creative Technologies, Marina del Rey, California
EDWIN L. THOMAS,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
BARRY M. TROST,
Stanford University, Stanford, California
Staff
BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director
DETRA BODRICK-SHORTER, Administrative Coordinator
CHRIS JONES, Financial Associate
DEANNA P. SPARGER, Program Administrative Coordinator
Preface
The Committee on Review and Evaluation of International Technologies for the Destruction of Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel was appointed by the National Research Council (NRC) in response to a request by the U.S. Army’s Project Manager for Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel.
The committee’s focus was on destruction technologies for recovered chemical weapons that are not now a part of the repertoire of the Project Manager for Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel but that could prove to be useful additions or replacements. To that end, countries using or considering the use of technologies for the destruction of old and abandoned chemical weapons to meet requirements of the international Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) treaty, along with the developers of such technologies, were contacted. This report summarizes the acquired information, evaluates the technologies to the extent possible, and presents the results. Consideration was given to technologies that might offer advantages over those now in use by the U.S. Army or those that might otherwise prove useful, especially for situations not now adequately covered, such as destruction operations where large numbers of recovered munitions must be treated. A limited effort was expended on the assessment and storage of recovered chemical weapons.
Several individuals met with visiting committee members in Europe and provided helpful information on the status of international technologies in other countries. The committee offers its thanks for their assistance:
-
Richard Soilleux, Technical Leader, Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, U.K. Ministry of Defence, Porton Down, England;
-
Hans-Joachim Grimsel, Managing Director, Gesellschaft zur Entsorgung von chemischen Kampfstoffe und Rüstungs-Altlasten (GEKA), Munster, Germany;
-
Ralf Trapp, Senior Planning Officer, Office of the Deputy Director-General, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, The Hague, The Netherlands;
-
Jerzy Mazur, Head, Chemical Demilitarisation Branch (CDB), Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, The Hague, Netherlands;
-
Jeff Osborne, Senior Substantive Officer, CDB, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, The Hague, Netherlands;
-
Herbert De Bischopp, Professor, Royal Military Academy, Brussels, Belgium; and
-
Michel Lefebvre, Professor, Royal Military Academy, Brussels, Belgium.
The committee would also like to thank vendor representatives and others who assisted in information gathering for this report. See Appendix D for the names of these individuals.
The study was conducted under the auspices of the NRC’s Board on Army Science and Technology (BAST). The BAST was established in 1982 as a unit of the National Research Council at the request of the U.S. Army. The BAST brings to bear broad military, industrial, and academic scientific, engineering, and management expertise on Army technical challenges and other issues of importance to senior Army leaders. The board discusses potential studies of interest; develops and frames study tasks; ensures proper project planning; suggests potential committee members and reviewers for reports produced by fully independent ad hoc study committees; and convenes meetings to examine strategic issues. The board members listed on p. vi were not asked to endorse the committee’s conclusions or recommendations, nor did they review the final draft of this report before its release. However, board members with appropriate expertise may be nominated to serve as formal members of study committees, or as report reviewers.
The chair acknowledges the superb support of the BAST director, Bruce A. Braun, and the study director, Harrison T. Pannella. Valuable assistance was provided by James C. Myska, Alexander R. Repace, and LaTanya Clemencia
of the NRC staff. In view of the international nature of the necessary information gathering, committee members were faced with considerably more challenges than is typical for a National Research Council study in the area of chemical demilitarization, and the chair is grateful for their hard work and diligence in carrying out this study.
Richard J. Ayen, Chair
Committee on Review and Evaluation of International Technologies for the Destruction of Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
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 National Research Council’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:
William B. Bacon, Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure,
Ruth M. Doherty, Naval Surface Warfare Center,
Gene Dyer, consultant,
Jeff Edson, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,
Mario H. Fontana, University of Tennessee (Knoxville),
Dan Luss, University of Houston,
James F. Mathis, Exxon Corporation (retired),
Hyla S. Napadensky, Napadensky Energetics Inc.,
William R. Rhyne, ABS Consulting, Inc. (retired), and
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 Richard A. Conway, Union Carbide Corporation (retired). 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.
Tables and Figures
TABLES
ES-1 |
Evaluation Factor Rating Comparison of Tier 1 Munitions Processing Technologies with U.S. EDS, |
|||
ES-2 |
Specific Engineering Parameters for Existing Munitions Processing Technologies, |
|||
1-1 |
Examples of Known or Potential Large Sites of Buried CWM Identified by the U.S. Army, |
|||
1-2 |
Agent Neutralization Parameters for the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant, |
|||
3-1 |
Process Maturity Subfactors, |
|||
3-2 |
Process Efficacy/Throughput Subfactors, |
|||
3-3 |
Process Safety Subfactors, |
|||
3-4 |
Public and Regulatory Acceptability in a U.S. Context Subfactors, |
|||
3-5 |
Secondary Waste Issues Subfactors, |
|||
3-6 |
Statement of Task Directives and Corresponding Technology Evaluation Factors, |
|||
4-1 |
Dimensions of the Pressure Chambers in Three CDC Models Designed for Destroying Chemical Warfare Agents, |
|||
4-2 |
Estimated Throughput Rates for CDC TC-60, |
|||
4-3 |
DAVINCH Experience in Destroying Japanese WW II-Era Bombs Containing Lewisite, Mustard Agent, and Agents Clark I and Clark II (Vomiting Agents), |
|||
4-4 |
Estimated DAVINCH DV65 Throughput Rates, |
|||
4-5 |
Agent Quantities Destroyed per DAVINCH DV65 Cycle, |
|||
4-6 |
Size Specifications for Two Dynasafe Static Kiln Models, |
|||
4-7 |
Estimated Dynasafe SK2000 Throughput Rates, |
|||
4-8 |
Agent Quantities Destroyed per Dynasafe SK2000 Cycle, |
|||
4-9 |
Evaluation Factor Rating Comparison of Tier 1 Munitions Processing Technologies with U.S. EDS, |
|||
4-10 |
Specific Engineering Parameters for Existing Munitions Processing Technologies, |
|||
4-11 |
Estimated Daily Throughput Rates for Three Detonation Technologies (10-hr day), |
|||
5-1 |
Destruction of Chemical Agents, 1958-1993, |
|||
5-2 |
Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility Waste Streams, |
|||
5-3 |
Evaluation Factor Rating Comparison of Tier 1 Agent-Only Processing Technologies with U.S. RRS/SCANS, |
6-1 |
Energetic Materials and Chemical Warfare Fills Treatable by the Acid Digestion Process, |
|||
A-1 |
Inventory of Non-Stockpile Items at the Pine Bluff Arsenal, |
|||
A-2 |
Inventory of Non-Stockpile Items at Dugway Proving Ground (DPG) and Deseret Chemical Depot (DCD), Utah, |
|||
A-3 |
Inventory of Non-Stockpile Items at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, |
|||
A-4 |
Inventory of Non-Stockpile Items at Anniston Chemical Activity, Alabama, |
|||
B-1 |
Process Maturity Subfactor Evaluations for Tier 1 Munitions Processing Technologies, |
|||
B-2 |
Process Efficacy/Throughput Subfactor Evaluations for Tier 1 Munitions Processing Technologies, |
|||
B-3 |
Process Safety Subfactor Evaluations for Tier 1 Munitions Processing Technologies, |
|||
B-4 |
Public and Regulatory Acceptability in a U.S. Context Subfactor Evaluations for Tier 1 Munitions Processing Technologies, |
|||
B-5 |
Secondary Waste Issues Subfactor Evaluations for Tier 1 Munitions Processing Technologies, |
|||
C-1 |
Process Maturity Subfactor Evaluations for Tier 1 Agent-Only Processing Technologies, |
|||
C-2 |
Process Efficacy/Throughput Subfactor Evaluations for Tier 1 Agent-Only Processing Technologies, |
|||
C-3 |
Process Safety Subfactor Evaluations for Tier 1 Agent-Only Processing Technologies, |
|||
C-4 |
Public and Regulatory Acceptability Subfactor Evaluations for Tier 1 Agent-Only Processing Technologies, |
|||
C-5 |
Secondary Waste Issues Subfactor Evaluations for Tier 1 Agent-Only Processing Technologies, |
FIGURES
1-1 |
Diagram of EDS-2, |
|||
1-2 |
Diagram of RRS operations trailer, |
|||
1-3 |
Photograph of SCANS, |
|||
4-1 |
TC-25 CDC system layout, |
|||
4-2 |
DAVINCH three-stage destruction mechanism, |
|||
4-3 |
Outline of the Kanda project, |
|||
4-4 |
Dynasafe static destruction kiln process flow, |
|||
5-1 |
Reaction of Russian VX and potassium isobutylate, |
|||
5-2 |
Reaction of VX and potassium isobutylate, |
|||
5-3 |
Notional reaction scheme for the addition of G-type agent to aqueous monoethanolamine (MEA), |
|||
5-4 |
Block diagram of U.S. baseline incineration system, |
Acronyms
ACWA Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment/Alternatives
ADP acid digestion process
AEL airborne exposure limit
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
CAA Clean Air Act
CAIS chemical agent identification set(s)
CAMDS Chemical Agent Munitions Disposal System
CATOX catalytic oxidation (unit)
CDC controlled detonation chamber
CEB Centre d’Etudes du Bouchet
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CG phosgene
CK cyanogen chloride
CO carbon monoxide
CS orthochlorobenzylidene malononitrile (tear gas)
CWC Chemical Weapons Convention
CWM chemical warfare materiel
DA diphenylchloroarsine (Clark I)
DAVINCH detonation of ammunition in vacuum integrated chamber
DC diphenylcyanoarsine (Clark II)
DCD Deseret Chemical Depot
DE destruction efficiency
DF a binary precursor (methylphosphonic difluoride)
DFS deactivation furnace system
DM adamsite
DOD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
DOT Department of Transportation
DPG Dugway Proving Ground
DRE destruction and removal efficiency
DRES Defence Research Establishment Suffield
DSTL Defence Science and Technology Laboratory
DUN dunnage furnace
EDS explosive destruction system
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESTCP Environmental Security Technology Certification Program
GA a nerve agent (tabun)
GB a nerve agent (sarin)
GD a nerve agent (soman)
GEKA German testing facility, Gesellschaft zur Entsorgung von chemischen Kampfstoffe und Rüstungs-Altlasten
GPL general population limit
H sulfur mustard
HCl hydrogen chloride
HD sulfur mustard (distilled)
HEPA high efficiency particulate air
HMX an explosive
HN nitrogen mustard
HS sulfur mustard
HT sulfur mustard, T-mustard combination
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
ICV In-Container Vitrification
IDLH immediately dangerous to life and health
IUPAC International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry
L lewisite or liter
LIC liquid incinerator
LITANS large item transportable access and neutralization system
MEC munitions and explosives of concern mg milligram
MPF metal parts furnace
NaOH sodium hydroxide
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act nm nanometer
NRC National Research Council
NSCMP Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Project
NSCWM Non-Stockpile Chemical Warfare Materiel
OPCW Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
PBA Pine Bluff Arsenal
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PD phenyldichloroarsine
PINS portable isotopic neutron spectroscopy
PMNSCM Project Manager for Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel
PPE personal protective equipment
RAP regulatory approval and permitting
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCWM recovered chemical warfare materiel
RDX an explosive
RMA Rocky Mountain Arsenal
ROD record of decision
RRS Rapid Response System
SCANS single CAIS accessing and neutralization system
SERDP Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
SIPRI Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
SNPE Société Nationale des Poudres et Explosifs
SOT statement of task
STEL short-term exposure limit
TNT an explosive
TPA triphenylarsine
TSDF treatment, storage, and disposal facility
UV ultraviolet
VR Russian version of VX
VX a nerve agent
3X level of agent decontamination (suitable for transport for further processing)
5X level of agent decontamination (suitable for commercial release)