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 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 view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-07607-2
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), Wakefield, Rhode Island
JOAN B.BERKOWITZ,
Farces 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,
Exxon Mobil Research and Engineering Company, Fairfax,Virginia
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
JACQUELINE CAMPBELL-JOHNSON, Senior Project Assistant
GWEN ROBY, Senior Project Assistant
JAMES C.MYSKA, Research Associate
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, Glendale, California
PATRICK F.FLYNN,
Cummins Engine Company, Inc. (retired), Columbus, Indiana
HENRY J.HATCH, Chief of Engineers,
U.S. Army (retired), Oakton, Virginia
EDWARD J.HAUG,
University of Iowa, Iowa City
GERALD J.IAFRATE,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh
MIRIAM E.JOHN,
California Laboratory, 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, Georgia
JOHN W.LYONS,
U.S. Army Research Laboratory (retired), Ellicott City, Maryland
JOHN H.MOXLEY III,
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 Laboratories (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
Preface
The United States has been in the process of destroying its chemical munitions for well over a decade. Initially, the U.S. Army, with 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 have opposed incineration on the grounds that it is impossible to determine the exact nature of the effluents escaping from the stacks. Although the Army has continued to pursue incineration at four of the eight storage sites in the continental United States, in response to growing public opposition to incineration in Maryland and Indiana and a 1996 report by the NRC, Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies, the Army is developing alternative processes to neutralize chemical agents using hydrolysis. These processes will be used to destroy the VX nerve agent at Newport, Indiana, and the mustard agent at Aberdeen, Maryland, both of which are stored in bulk one-ton containers.
In 1996, persuaded by the public opposition in Lexington, Kentucky, and Pueblo, Colorado, 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.” The Army established a Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (PMACWA) to respond to Congress. 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 munitions.” Following the demonstration of six technologies, the PMACWA selected two as candidates for destroying the weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. The two packages have since progressed to the engineering design phase of the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) program.
In contrast with prior chemical weapons demilitarization programs, the PMACWA has involved citizen stakeholders in every aspect of the program, including the procurement process. A nonprofit organization, the Keystone Center, was hired to facilitate public involvement through a process known as the Dialogue. The Dialogue group, whose 35 members represent the Army and various community stakeholders, developed the criteria for selecting the technologies and were involved in all other aspects of the selection process. The Dialogue process has become a model for public involvement in matters of public concern. Indeed, the Department of Energy and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration have also adopted this approach.
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 issue before the committee was not whether incineration is an adequate technology but whether, given that some citizens are strongly opposed to that method, other chemical methods, acceptable to the stakeholders, could be used. The Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: Phase II (ACW II Committee) was established in the spring of 2000 for the engineering design phase of the ACWA program.
One goal of this study is to provide an independent technical evaluation of the engineering-design packages of the two candidate processes being considered for use at the Pueblo Chemical Depot. This evaluation is expected to contribute to DOD’s Record of Decision (ROD) for the selection of a technology for the Pueblo site. The ROD was scheduled to be released on August 30, 2001. Therefore, to be of value in the selections, this report had to be published by mid-July 2001. Unfortunately, not all of the tests associated with the two packages, which address all aspects of demilitarization from disassembly of the weapons to the disposal of waste
streams, were completed at the time that data gathering for this report had to be terminated to meet the mid-July deadline.
I wish to express my gratitude to the members of the ACW II Committee, all of whom served as volunteers and many of whom served with me on the ACW I Committee. They have all given unselfishly of their time and knowledge. Committee members’ areas of expertise include chemical processing, biological remediation, environmental regulations and permitting, energetic materials, and public acceptance. Each member attended plenary meetings, visited the headquarters of technology providers and test sites, observed design-review sessions, and studied the extensive literature, including engineering charts and diagrams, provided by the technology providers.
The committee recognizes and appreciates the extensive support of the Army ACWA team and its interactions with stakeholders and the Dialogue group, particularly the four members of the Dialogue known as the Citizens Advisory Technical Team (CATT). Members of the CATT attended all open meetings of the committee and shared information and their views with us.
The committee also appreciates the openness and cordiality of the representatives of the technology providers. They and the Army provided us with early drafts of their test reports and other documentation to facilitate the development of this report.
A study like this always requires extensive logistic support, and we are all indebted to the NRC staff for their assistance. I would like to acknowledge particularly the close working relationship I had with the NRC study director for this study, Dr. Patricia P.Paulette. Working as a team in leading this study, she and I spoke on the phone daily and e-mailed each other incessantly. Invaluable contributions were also made by Harrison T.Pannella, who took extensive notes at all of our meetings, edited draft text for the report, and provided suggestions for organizing the report. In addition, Jacqueline Johnson and Gwen Roby provided the logistic support that freed us to concentrate on our task. Assistance was also provided by James C.Myska. The report was edited by Carol R.Arenberg, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences. I am also indebted to colleagues in the Chemistry Department at the University of Southern California, who willingly substituted for me in 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:
Milton Beychok, independent consultant
Digby McDonald, Pennsylvania State University
Alvin Mushkatel, Arizona State University
Kirk Newman, Naval Surface Warfare Center
Robert Olson, independent consultant
George Parshall, Chemical Science (retired)
Carl Peterson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Janice Phillips, Centocor
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 Hyla S.Napadensky (NAE), Napadensky Energetics, Inc. (retired), appointed by the NRC’s Report Review Committee, who 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.
Figures and Tables
FIGURES
ES-1 |
Simplified block diagram of GATS process components, |
|||
ES-2 |
Parsons/Honeywell WHEAT block flow diagram, |
|||
3–1 |
Simplified schematic flow diagram for GATS, |
|||
3–2 |
Simplified block diagram of GATS process components, |
|||
4–1 |
Parsons/Honeywell WHEAT block flow diagram, |
|||
4–2 |
Agent hydrolysis process, |
|||
4–3 |
Energetics hydrolysis process, |
|||
4–4 |
Biotreatment process, |
|||
4–5 |
Off-gas treatment systems, |
|||
A-1 |
105-mm howitzer projectile, |
|||
A-2 |
155-mm howitzer projectile, |
|||
A-3 |
4.2-inch mortar cartridge, |
TABLES
1–1 |
Descriptions of the Seven Technology Packages That Passed the Go/No-Go Evaluation, |
|||
1–2 |
Munitions Containing HD and HT in the Pueblo Chemical Depot Stockpile, |
|||
1–3 |
Physical Properties of Mustard Agents at Pueblo Chemical Depot, |
|||
1–4 |
Original Nominal Composition of HD Mustard, |
|||
1–5 |
Original Composition of HT Mustard, |
|||
2–1 |
Nominal Composition of Energetic Materials Used in Chemical Munitions, |
|||
3–1 |
Design Parameters for GATS ERH and PRH, |
|||
3–2 |
Key Design Parameters for GATS Cryofracture Systems (Two Trains), |
|||
3–3 |
Key Design Parameters for the GATS Projectile Agent Hydrolysis System, |
|||
3–4 |
Equipment Sizes for the Full-scale SCWO System, |
|||
3–5 |
Design Parameters for the GATS DSHS, |
|||
3–6 |
Feeds and Duration of Planned SCWO Tests, |
|||
3–7 |
Corrosion of Titanium Liners During GATS EDS Work-up Tests, |
|||
4–1 |
Changes to the Parsons/Honeywell Process Since Demonstration I, |
|||
B-1 |
SCWO Reliability and Maintenance (RAM) Log for 500-Hour HD Hydrolysate Run, |
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACAMS
automatic continuous air monitoring system
ACWA
Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment
ARDEC
Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center
BPCS
basic process control system
BWM
burster washout machine
CAMDS
Chemical Agent Munitions Disposal System
CATOX
catalytic oxidation
CATT
Citizens Advisory Technical Team
CSDP
Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program
CST
continuous steam treater
CWC
Chemical Weapons Convention
DOD
U.S. Department of Defense
DPE
demilitarization protective ensemble
DRE
destruction and removal efficiency
DSHS
dunnage-shredder hydrolysis system
ECR
explosion containment room
EDP
engineering design package
EDS
engineering design study
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
ERD
energetics rotary deactivator
ERH
energetics rotary hydrolyzer
ESS
emergency shutdown system
EST
engineering-scale test
GATS
General Atomics Total Solution (technology package)
GB
a nerve agent
H
undistilled mustard agent
HAAP
Holston Army Ammunition Plant
HD
distilled mustard agent
HDC
heated discharge conveyor
HEPA
high-efficiency particulate air
HMX
cyclotetramethylene-tetranitramine (an energetic material)
HRA
health risk assessment
HT
a type of mustard agent containing mustard-T
HVAC
heating, ventilating, and air conditioning
ICB
immobilized-cell bioreactor
IITRI
Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute
JACADS
Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System
kW
kilowatt
LANL
Los Alamos National Laboratory
M
molar concentration
MAV
modified ammunition van
MDB
munitions demilitarization building
MDM
munitions demilitarization machine
MPT
metal parts treater
MSB
munitions storage building
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NRC
National Research Council
NSWC
Naval Surface Warfare Center
OB/OD
open burn/open detonation
PHA
preliminary hazards analysis
PLC
programmable logic control/controller
PMACWA
Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment
PMCD
Program Manger for Chemical Demilitarization
PMD
projectile mortar demilitarization (machine)
PRH
projectile rotary hydrolyzer
PRR
propellant removal room
psi
pounds per square inch
psig
pounds per square inch gauge
QRA
quantitative risk assessment
R3
resource reclamation and recycling (process)
R&D
research and development
RAAP
Radford Army Ammunition Plant
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RDX
an energetic material
RFP
Request for Proposals
ROD
Record of Decision
RWM
rotary washout machine
scfm
standard cubic feet per minute
SCWO
supercritical water oxidation
T
a mustard ether
TACOM
Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command
TCLP
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
TNT
trinitrotoluene (an energetic material)
TOC
total organic carbon
UPA
unpack area
VX
a nerve agent
WHEAT
water hydrolysis of explosives and agent technology
WMDM
WHEAT multipurpose demilitarization machine
WPMD
WHEAT projectile/mortar disassembly (machine)
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 µg 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
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.