National Academies Press: OpenBook

Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Disposal of Liquid Wastes from the Explosive Destruction System (2001)

Chapter: Appendix C: Composition of Liquid Waste Streams from Destruction of Sarin in the EDS

« Previous: Appendix B: Committee Meetings and Site Visit
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Composition of Liquid Waste Streams from Destruction of Sarin in the EDS." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Disposal of Liquid Wastes from the Explosive Destruction System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10646.
×

Appendix C
Composition of Liquid Waste Streams from Destruction of Sarin in the EDS

The destruction of sarin (GB) in the EDS using aqueous MEA (45 percent) as the treatment chemical produces an organic-rich neutralent stream, as described in Chapter 2. The posttreatment of this neutralent stream is the focus of this report, but there are also other liquid waste streams that must be dealt with. The other streams result from the rinsing of the EDS chamber with water after each use to remove residual MEA and solid residues and the cleaning to remove other solid and liquid residues. These waste streams must also be prepared for ultimate disposal unless their compositions meet the feed requirements for an on-site treatment works. The diverse nature of these waste streams is illustrated in Table C-1.

The data in Table C-1 indicate that there are two main types of liquid waste streams from the EDS treatment of GB as produced in the bomblet campaign at Rocky Mountain Arsenal: (1) organic-rich neutralent derived from the MEA treatment and from the MEA rinse step used with the first two bomblets and (2) aqueous streams resulting from water rinses of the EDS chamber and from aqueous acetic acid cleaning of the chamber.

Most of the MEA reagent and most of the GB and energetic degradation products appear in the organic-rich neutralent stream. The concentration of isopropyl methylphosphonic acid (IMPA), the major product of GB decomposition, approximates that expected from 70 to 90 percent hydrolysis of the 1.3 pounds of GB contained in each bomblet (Lucille Forrest, Office of the Product Manager, Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel, communication to the committee, February 2001). It is clear that the neutralents are far too organic-rich for direct treatment in a water treatment works. Some further treatment such as oxidation is needed to mineralize the organic components for disposal through a treatment works or by deposition in a hazardous waste landfill. A further complication is the high concentrations of some metal ions such as aluminum, copper, and zinc. These metals presumably were present as materials of construction for the bomblets and were washed or extracted from the bomblet fragments by the MEA solutions.

The water rinsates contain small quantities of MEA and GB degradation products that clung to the bomblet fragments and to the interior surfaces of the EDS apparatus. The metal ion concentrations are generally much lower than in the neutralents. The rinsates may be suitable for disposal through FOTW or POTW, depending on the regulations and permit requirements applying to the particular treatment facility.

The spent cleaning solutions are primarily water-based and acidic. The acidity appears to have played a major role in extracting metal ions, of which mercury may be the most problematic. The protocol for cleaning liquid flow lines on the EDS appears to have been a work in progress during the RMA campaign. The concentrations of chloroform and dichloromethane in this waste stream appear to arise from a commercial lubricant used as a sealant on the EDS (Lucille Forrest, Office of the Product Manager, Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel, memorandum to the committee, May 10, 2001). The appropriate disposal of the spent cleaning solutions requires careful analysis. It may be possible to combine them with the aqueous rinsates, but care must be taken to be sure that the mixture can be handled in accordance with regulatory standards for the treatment works.

There are no established treatment standards (e.g., RCRA land disposal restrictions) for the agent or degradation/hydrolysis products that may be of concern. Whether to establish numerical treatment standards for agents and degradation products has been the subject of intense discussions between the Army and the states.

The numerical pretreatment standards listed in EPA’s Clean Water Act (CWA) are a minimum requirement. The sewerage agency must make a case-by-case determination to ensure that (1) the POTWs permit limits are not exceeded by the influent, (2) the water quality standards are not exceeded as a result of the discharge, (3) the toxic pollutants entering the POTW are adequately treated, and (4) the influent does not cause the POTW’s sludge to exceed any applicable

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Composition of Liquid Waste Streams from Destruction of Sarin in the EDS." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Disposal of Liquid Wastes from the Explosive Destruction System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10646.
×

TABLE C-1 Composition of Liquid Waste Streams from the EDS Treatment of Sarin (GB) Bomblets at RMA

Waste Component from EDS Treatment of Sarin Bomblets at RMA

Neutralenta,b

Water Rinseb

Cleaning Solutionc

POTW Feed Limit for Organic Chemical Industry

LDR Treatment Standards Goal of Treatment Prior to Disposal in Landfill

Monoethanolamine (MEA) (%)

43.8–48.3

0–4.7

0.8–1.1

None

None

Water (%)

51.7–56.2

95.3–100

98.9–99.2

NA

NA

Isopropyl methylphosphonic acid (IMPA) (ppm)

3,400–5,000

24–78

 

NA

Diisopropyl methylphosphonate (DIMP) (μg/L)

18,000–27,400

291–480

ND

 

NA

Explosives in liquids (μg/L)

<1,000

<1,000

<1,000

 

NA

Benzene (μg/L)

1,330–2,850

28.6–40.7

<100

137

140

Chloroform (μg/L)

ND-21.6

ND-4,380

8,360–10,500

325

46

Dichloromethane (μg/L)

ND-97.1

ND-71

377–968

 

NA

Toluene (μg/L)

369–810

ND-23.7

<2

74

80

Mercury (-μg/L)

0.1–1

0.1–2.65

17.9–25

 

150

Aluminum (μg/L)

8,720 to 11,100

876 to 11,800

<876

 

Arsenic (μg/L)

<200

<20

<20

 

1,400

Cadmium (μg/L)

6.81–10

<0.68

2.2–46

 

690

Chromium (μg/L)

445–770

11.5–485

1,070–1,870

 

2,770

Copper (μg/L)

9,030–18,200

486–5,470

3,850–6,200

 

Lead (μg/L)

63–237

3.82–603

128–168

690

690

Zinc (μg/L)

23,100–38,300

72.5–308

4,920–5,680

2,610

NA

pH

12

10.4–11.5

6.5–7.8

 

NOTE: NA, not applicable; ND, none detected. The expected source and collection regime for these wastes are presented in Table 2–1. The term “treatment” is used to describe steps involving addition of reagent or water to the EDS and oscillating for some time period prior to opening the chamber. Note that water treatment and rinse water wastes can be combined. To date, the Army has chosen to segregate the three categories of wastes, so as not to foreclose on the options for treating the waste streams that are primarily water.

aNeutralent consisting of the initial treatment of agent with active reagent (e.g., MEA) and any subsequent chamber washes with chemical reagent (if used).

bRinsate consisting of additional agent treatment with water and chamber washes with water after opening the EDS.

cCleaning solution consisting of washes (water and detergent) made between processing of each munition and final washes (e.g., water and acetic acid), made after completing a munitions campaign.

SOURCE: Lucille Forrest, Office of the Product Manager, Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel, “Interpretation of Waste Results from EDS GB Bomblet Destruction, Rocky Mountain Arsenal,” communication to the committee, February 2001.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Composition of Liquid Waste Streams from Destruction of Sarin in the EDS." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Disposal of Liquid Wastes from the Explosive Destruction System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10646.
×

sludge limits. Clearly, a site-specific determination must be made to ensure that MEA, arsenic, and other significant constituents do not require pretreatment.

Table C-1 also compares the concentration of the nonstockpile chemical constituents in neutralent and rinsate with federal LDR treatment standards. There are no applicable federal LDRs for constituents of state-listed agent waste. But if the neutralent exhibits a RCRA hazardous waste characteristic, the federal LDRs apply. If the neutralent is not hazardous waste, the Army would have broad discretion to determine what constitutes acceptable treatment.

If the neutralent is a RCRA characteristic hazardous waste, it must be treated in accordance with LDRs before being disposed of in a hazardous waste landfill. Thus, constituent levels must be reduced from those shown in Table C-1 to the treatment technology-based limits before disposal in a landfill. Again, nonstockpile agent is not a listed hazardous waste (except for phosgene), and neither EPA nor the states have specified a treatment technology or treatment limits for the disposal of stockpile or nonstockpile agents.

Assuming the waste is determined to meet a RCRA characteristic, there are treatment standards that apply to several constituents of the EDS neutralent. The LDR treatment standards were developed based on the ability of existing technologies to reduce the concentrations of these constituents, which are typical commercial wastes. They are not based on the alternative treatment technologies being studied by the Army. The LDR treatment standard for a given constituent is generally the same regardless of the other constituents in the waste. One would expect the concentration of constituents in the neutralent to at least periodically exceed these treatment standards. Table C-1 suggests that some treatment might be necessary before disposal in a hazardous waste landfill, assuming that the waste is a RCRA characteristic waste. The average percent reduction in the constituent provides a general sense of the order of magnitude of treatment required if regulatory agencies use a treatment technology-based method to set the treatment goals for the alternative treatment technologies being considered by the Army.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Composition of Liquid Waste Streams from Destruction of Sarin in the EDS." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Disposal of Liquid Wastes from the Explosive Destruction System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10646.
×
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Composition of Liquid Waste Streams from Destruction of Sarin in the EDS." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Disposal of Liquid Wastes from the Explosive Destruction System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10646.
×
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Composition of Liquid Waste Streams from Destruction of Sarin in the EDS." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Disposal of Liquid Wastes from the Explosive Destruction System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10646.
×
Page 51
Next: Appendix D: Comparison of MMD and EDS Neutralent Toxicities »
Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Disposal of Liquid Wastes from the Explosive Destruction System Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $29.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Chemical warfare materiel (CWM) encompasses diverse items that were used during 60 years of efforts by the United States to develop a capability for conducting chemical warfare. Non-Stockpile CWM (NSCWM) is materiel not included in the current U.S. inventory of chemical munitions and includes buried materiel, recovered materiel, components of binary chemical weapons, former production facilities, and miscellaneous materiel. Because NSCWM is stored or buried at many locations, the Army is developing transportable treatment systems that can be moved from site to site as needed. Originally, the Army planned to develop three transportable treatment systems for nonstockpile chemical materiel: the rapid response system (RRS), the munitions management device (MMD), and the explosive destruction system (EDS).

This report supplements an earlier report that evaluated eight alternative technologies for destruction of the liquid waste streams from two of the U.S. Army's transportable treatment systems for nonstockpile chemical materiel: the RRS and the MMD. This report evaluates the same technologies for the destruction of liquid waste streams produced by the EDS and discusses the regulatory approval issues and obstacles for the combined use of the EDS and the alternative technologies that treat the EDS secondary waste streams. Although it focuses on the destruction of EDS neutralent, it also takes into consideration the ability of posttreatment technologies to process the more dilute water rinses that are used in the EDS following treatment with a reagent.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!