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.
This is a report of work supported by Contract DAAM01-97-C-0015 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 view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-06897-5
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 of this report 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 2000 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. 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.
COMMITTEE ON REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR DEMILITARIZATION OF ASSEMBLED CHEMICAL WEAPONS
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.
NOSA O. EGIEBOR,
Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, Alabama
WILLARD C. GEKLER,
EQE International/PLG, Irvine, 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. 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
WILLIAM H. FORSTER, chair,
Northrop Grumman Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland
Staff
BRUCE A. BRAUN, Study Director
HARRISON T. PANNELLA, Research Associate
JACQUELINE CAMPBELL-JOHNSON, Senior Project Assistant
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.
ELIOT A. COHEN,
School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Washington, D.C.
RICHARD A. CONWAY,
Union Carbide Corporation (retired), Charleston, West Virginia
GILBERT F. DECKER,
Walt Disney Imagineering, Glendale, California
PATRICK F. FLYNN,
Cummins Engine Company, Inc., Columbus, Indiana
EDWARD J. HAUG,
NADS and Simulation Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City
ROBERT J. HEASTON,
Guidance and Control Information Analysis Center (retired), Naperville, Illinois
ELVIN R. HEIBERG,
Heiberg and Associates, Inc., Mason Neck, Virginia
GERALD J. IAFRATE,
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana
DONALD R. KEITH,
Cypress International, Alexandria, Virginia
KATHRYN V. LOGAN,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
JOHN E. MILLER,
Oracle Corporation, Reston, Virginia
JOHN H. MOXLEY,
Korn/Ferry International, Los Angeles, California
STEWART D. PERSONICK,
Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
MILLARD F. ROSE,
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, 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. BRAUN. Director
MICHAEL A. CLARKE, Associate Director
MARGO L. FRANCESCO, Staff Associate
CHRIS JONES, Financial Associate
DEANNA SPARGER, Senior Project Assistant
Preface
The United States has been in the process of destroying its chemical munitions for over a decade. The U.S. Army, with expertise from numerous bodies including the National Research Council (NRC), originally decided to use incineration as the method of destruction at all storage sites. However, citizens in states with storage sites have opposed incineration on the grounds that it is impossible to determine the exact nature of the effluents, in particular, effluents from the stacks. Nevertheless, the Army has continued to pursue incineration at most sites. In the last few years, influenced by growing public opposition to incineration and after numerous studies, including a 1996 study by the NRC entitled Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies, the Army is developing a chemical neutralization process to destroy chemical agents stored only in bulk ton containers at two sites: VX at Newport, Indiana, and mustard (HD) at Aberdeen Maryland.
Pursuaded by public opposition to incineration at the Lexington, Kentucky, and Pueblo, Colorado, sites, Congress in 1996 enacted Public Law 104-201 instructing 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.” The Army established a Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Munitions Assessment (PMACWA) to respond to this instruction. Unlike prior activities, the PMACWA involved the public in every aspect of the program including the procurement process. A nonprofit organization, the Keystone Center, was hired to facilitate public involvement.
After requesting and receiving proposals from industry for complete technology packages to destroy stored assembled chemical weapons, the Army initially selected seven industry teams, denoted as technology providers in this report. In later selections, these seven were reduced to six, and then three to proceed to the demonstration phase of the assessment program. When the NRC’s Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons (ACW Committee) first report was written, the committee did not have the benefit of evaluating the results of the demonstrations.
Subsequently, the PMACWA requested that the committee evaluate both the technology providers’ test reports and the Army’s evaluations to determine if the demonstrations changed the committee’s earlier findings or recommendations. This report is a supplemental review evaluating the impact of the three demonstration tests on the committee’s original findings and recommendations.
I wish to acknowledge with great gratitude the members of the ACW Committee who have continued to serve as volunteers throughout this extended study and who completed this supplemental study in the relatively short time allocated by the PMACWA. They provided the necessary expertise in chemical processing, permitting and regulations, energetic materials and public acceptance to continue this task. I remain, by far, the least capable of this group.
The committee recognizes and appreciates the assistance of the Army ACWA team, which provided support and the necessary reports. We also appreciate the openness and the cordiality of the technology providers.
A study such as this requires extensive support. We are all indebted to the NRC staff for their logistic support. I would particularly like to acknowledge the close working relationship between the committee and Bruce Braun, who undertook the task of acting study director along with his other duties as director of the NRC Board on Army Science and Technology. Mr. Braun also provided the resources and staff to complete this study in record time for an NRC report. The efforts of Harrison Pannella, who acted as assistant study director, were invaluable. He put in long hours on evenings and weekends to prepare, edit, and format this report. In addition, Rebecca Lucchese and Jacqueline Johnson
provided logistic support to the committee, allowing us to concentrate on our task. Also, an acknowledgement is due for Carol Arenberg, who edited the final draft of the report. Everyone worked under a short deadline and great stress during a period that included a holiday season.
I gratefully acknowledge the support of my colleagues in the Chemistry Department at the University of Southern California, who willingly assumed 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
Acknowledgment
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 NRC 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 contents 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:
Richard Magee, New Jersey Institute of Technology
Raymond McGuire, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Royce Murray, University of North Carolina
Robert Olson, consultant
George Parshall, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company
Janice Phillips, Lehigh University
Martin Sherwin, ChemVen Group, Inc.
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 NRC.
Acronyms
ACWA
Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (program)
ARAR
appropriate, relevant, and applicable rule
BOD
biological oxygen demand
CAA
Clean Air Act
CAMDS
Chemical Agent Munitions Disposal System
CATOX
catalytic oxidation
CFM
cubic feet per minute
COD
chemical oxygen demand
CSTR
continuously stirred tank reactor
DAAMS
depot area air monitoring system
DMMP
dimethyl methyl phosphonate
DOD
U.S. Department of Defense
DPE
demilitarization protective ensemble (suit)
DRE
destruction and removal efficiency
DSHS
dunnage shredding/hydropulping system
EDC
energetics deactivation chamber
EMPA
ethyl methylphosphonic acid
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
ERH
energetics rotary hydrolyzer
GB
type of nerve agent
GC
gas chromatography
GC/MS
gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
HD
distilled mustard agent
HEPA
high-efficiency particulate air
HRA
health risk assessment
ICB
immobilized cell biotreatment
IMPA
isopropyl methylphosphonic acid
M
molar concentration
MPT
metal parts treater
NRC
National Research Council
PCG
plasma converted gas
PMACWA
Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment
ppmv
parts per million (volumetric)
PWC
plasma waste converter
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RDX
cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine
RFP
request for proposal
scf
standard cubic feet
SCWO
supercritical water oxidation
TCLP
toxicity characteristic leachate procedure
TNT
trinitrotoluene
TWA
time weighted average
UV
ultraviolet
VOC
volatile organic compound
VX
type of nerve agent
WHEAT
water hydrolysis of explosives and agent technology
3X
level of decontamination (suitable for transport for further processing)
5X
level of decontamination (suitable for commercial release)