Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons

A Supplemental Review

Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons

Board on Army Science and Technology

Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems

National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, DC



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons A Supplemental Review Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons Board on Army Science and Technology Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, DC

OCR for page R1
Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review 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.

OCR for page R1
Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review 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.

OCR for page R1
Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review 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

OCR for page R1
Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review 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

OCR for page R1
Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review 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

OCR for page R1
Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review 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

OCR for page R1
Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review 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.

OCR for page R1
Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review

OCR for page R1
Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review Contents     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   1  1   INTRODUCTION   4      Background,   4      Role of the National Research Council,   5      Statement of Task,   5      Scope of This Study,   5      Organization of This Report,   5  2   BURNS AND ROE PLASMA ARC PROCESS   6      Plasma Waste Converter,   6      Energetics Campaign,   6      Dunnage and Secondary Waste Campaign,   7      Agent Campaign,   7      Projectile Heel Campaign,   8      Review of Previous Committee Findings,   8      Safety Issues,   10      Reevaluation of Steps Required for Implementation,   11      Supplemental Findings,   11  3   GENERAL ATOMICS TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE   12      Energetics Rotary Hydrolyzer,   12      Dunnage Shredding/Hydropulping System,   13      Supercritical Water Oxidation System,   14      Safety Concerns,   15      Effluent Characterization,   16      Reevaluation of Steps Required for Implementation,   16      Supplemental Findings and Recommendations,   17  4   PARSONS-ALLIEDSIGNAL WHEAT PROCESS   18      Munitions Cutting and Fluid Mining,   18      Biotreatment Systems,   19      Biotreatment System for Mustard Hydrolysate,   19      Biotreatment System for Nerve Agent Hydrolysates,   20      Catalytic Oxidation,   22      Catalytic Oxidation Unit for Mustard,   22      Catalytic Oxidation Unit for Nerve Agent,   22

OCR for page R1
Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review      Metal Parts Treater,   22      Safety Concerns,   23      Reevaluation of Steps Required for Implementation,   23      Review of Previous Committee Findings,   24      Supplemental Findings and Recommendation,   24  5   UPDATE OF GENERAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS   26      Review of Earlier Findings and Recommendations,   26      Supplemental General Findings,   28     REFERENCES   30     APPENDIXES    A   FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE 1998 REPORT ON SUPERCRITICAL WATER OXIDATION   31  B   BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS   34

OCR for page R1
Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review List of Figures and Tables FIGURES  4-1   Demonstration test unit for treatment of HD/tetrytol hydrolysate,   19  4-2   Demonstration test unit for treatment of GB/Comp B hydrolysate,   21 TABLE  ES-1   Summary Evaluation of the Maturity of Demonstrated Unit Operations and Processes,   2  5-1   Summary Evaluation of the Maturity of Demonstrated Unit Operations and Processes,   29

OCR for page R1
Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review 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

OCR for page R1
Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review 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)