Free PDF AccessFree Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 1
Board on Army Science and Technology Mailing Address:
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
www.nationalacademies.org
July 3, 2006
Mr. Michael A. Parker
Director
Chemical Materials Agency
5183 Blackhawk Road
Edgewood Area
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5424
Re: Review and Assessment of the Proposals for Design and Operation of Designated
Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants (DCAPPBlue Grass)
Dear Mr. Parker:
As requested by the Program Manager, Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives
(PMACWA), the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies has established
two committees to review and assess proposals related to two different chemical agent
destruction pilot plants. The first committee, the Committee to Review and Assess the Proposals
for Design and Operation of Designated Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants (DCAPPBlue
Grass), now provides this letter report on the intermediate design for the supercritical water
oxidation (SCWO) process design at the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant
(BGCAPP) in Richmond, Kentucky (see Attachment A for the statement of task). A second
committee will address the modified design of the Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot
Plant in Pueblo, Colorado.
This study was initiated on April 3, 2006, and had to be completed within 60 days to
support the sponsor's accelerated Defense Acquisition Board process. In view of the short study
schedule and the detailed nature of the task, the NRC selected committee members with
extensive past experience in SCWO, the treatment of secondary wastes, and the destruction of
chemical weapons. The DCAPPBlue Grass Committee (see Attachment B for committee
composition and expertise) has reviewed and assessed the proposal submitted by the Bechtel
Parsons Blue Grass Team (BPBGT) and General Atomics Advanced Process Systems (GA) for
the design and operation of the SCWO process at the BGCAPP (see Attachment C for
references). The committee's findings are set forth in this letter. Attachment D contains the full
assessment, which is not accessible to the public under the provisions of Subsection 15(b)(3) of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., as amended by the Federal Advisory
OCR for page 2
Committee Act Amendments of 1997, P.L. 105-153, December 17, 1997, 111 Stat. 2689. The
National Research Council has determined that release of this information to the public would
disclose information described in 5 U.S.C. 552(b).
BACKGROUND
In 2003, the Army issued a request for a proposal to design, build, operate, and close a
full-scale pilot plant facility for the destruction of chemical weapons at the Blue Grass Army
Depot (BGAD). A system contract was awarded to the BPBGT, a joint venture formed by
Bechtel Corporation and Parsons Corporation. The teaming subcontractors are Battelle, General
Physics Corporation, General Atomics Advanced Process Systems (GA), and the Washington
Demilitarization Company. Because the life-cycle cost estimate was high, several efforts have
been made to identify alternative design configurations and life-cycle cost options that would
reduce the costs of the Blue Grass facility. Thus, the contractor has proposed a modified design
to comply with DOD's instructions. This letter report focuses only on the technical aspects,
maturity, and schedule of the proposed modified SCWO process design for BGCAPP, the overall
design of which will be considered by the Defense Acquisition Board in August.
The munitions stored at the BGAD contain the nerve agents GB (C4H10FO2P) and VX
(C11H26NO2PS), or Levinstein mustard agent (H) (C4H8Cl2S). After removal from the weapons,
the chemical agents and the energetic materials will be destroyed by neutralization (hydrolysis)1
with a hot caustic (NaOH) solution for GB, VX, and the energetics, and hot water for H. All of
these reactions produce a multicomponent waste stream called hydrolysate, a hazardous material
that must (1) undergo further treatment prior to being released into the environment or (2) be sent
to a disposal facility. The system contractor, BGCAPP, proposes treating it by SCWO. A block
diagram of the entire BGCAPP design is shown in Figure 1-1.
1"Neutralization," as used here, is the Army's term for the chemical destruction of agent. The scientific
term "neutralization" refers to adjustment of pH to a value of 7. The term is used in both senses in various places in
the report.
2
OCR for page 3
1 Agent and Energetics Contaminated Rocket Motors, Drained 3
Access, Rocket Warheads, Bursters from the H Projectiles Energetics
Separation Treatment
(RCM, RSM, PMD, (EBH, ENR, OTE)
EBH solids
MWS) Energetics
2 Hydrolysate
GB / VX / H Agent 5a
Neutralization Aluminum
Precipitation
Munition Bodies (ANS)
and Solid Debris & Filtration
4 Energetics Hydrolysate
Metal Parts Agent
Treatment Hydrolysate 5b SCWO and Water
(MPT, OTM) Recovery
Aluminum
6 (SCWO, RO)
Solids Filtercake
Waste Disposal
Non-Contaminated Motors*, Dunnage. RO Reject (Brine)
RCM Rocket Cutter Machine MPT Metal Parts Treater
RSM Rocket Shear Machine OTM Offgas Treatment System for MPT
PMD Projectile Mortar Disassembly OTE Offgas Treatment System for EBH
MWS Munitions Washout System SCWO Supercritical Water Oxidation
EBH Energetics Batch Hydrolyzer RO Reverse Osmosis
ENR Energetics Neutralization Reactor * - non contaminated rocket motor
ANS Agent Neutralization System (NCRM) disposition still under
review
FIGURE 1-1 Simplified block diagram of the BGCAPP process. SOURCE: Adapted from a
briefing by the BPBGT to the Blue Grass Chemical Destruction Community Advisory Board on
March 15, 2006.
SCWO uses water at a temperature and pressure above its critical point of 374°C (705°F)
and 221 bar (3,205 psi). A SCWO unit operates over a range of temperatures depending on a
variety of factors that include flow rate and composition. The design operating conditions for the
BGCAPP SCWO units are T = 600°-650°C (1112°-1202°F) and 234 bar (3,400 psi). Under these
conditions, the density of supercritical water is about one-tenth that of the normal liquid. The
associated increase in the intermolecular distances produces a great attenuation of the hydrogen
bonding that is so characteristic of water under normal conditions. Thus, organic materials that
are immiscible in water under normal conditions are miscible in supercritical water, but
inorganic salts that normally dissolve in water do not dissolve in supercritical water.
Air or oxygen is introduced into the SCWO reactor with the wastes to be treated. A fuel
is added if the waste has inadequate energy content. Organic feed streams are oxidized to form
carbon dioxide and water. Sulfur, halogens, and phosphorus in the feed streams are oxidized to
sulfates, halides, or phosphates, respectively, because SCWO products containing halogens,
phosphorus, or sulfur could rapidly corrode the reactor walls. After oxidation, the reaction
3
OCR for page 4
products must be brought back to atmospheric pressure through a pressure letdown system
before being released for further processing or disposal.
Historically, SCWO technology has had only limited application in industry, primarily on
organic-rich streams with low concentrations of salt-forming elements. Problems, including
extensive corrosion of the reactor walls and components, plugging by the insoluble salts formed
in the oxidation, and hydriding of replaceable liners, have hampered the development of SCWO
technology for treating feed streams with high salt content.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
The committee was directed to assess the technical aspects of the SCWO system
configuration, its maturity, and its ability to meet the proposed schedule2 for BGCAPP. The
design proposed for the SCWO processing system is an integral part of the overall Blue Grass
design, which is being reviewed separately. For the purpose of this report, it is assumed that the
other elements of the design will adequately support the planned operation of the SCWO system.
This report evaluates only the SCWO process design for PMACWA.
The committee received, reviewed, and assessed numerous documents and their
supporting material. These documents are exempt from public disclosure under Subsection
15(b)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., as cited on page 2. Documents
reviewed include, but are not limited to, the following:
· System design descriptions for the supercritical water oxidation system, the
aluminum precipitation system, and the aluminum filtration system.
· Engineering Design Studies Final Test Report, Volumes II (Supercritical Water
Oxidation) and III (Supercritical Water Oxidation Appendices).
· Throughput and Availability Analysis for the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction
Pilot Plant (BGCAPP) Project.
· Process flow diagrams for the supercritical water oxidation system, the aluminum
precipitation system, and the aluminum filtration system.
· Briefings of the BGCAPP SCWO Intermediate Design Review.
· Mass and energy balance documents for the SCWO, the aluminum precipitation
system, and the aluminum filtration system.
· Preliminary hazard analyses of the SCWO and the aluminum systems.
· Aluminum Filtration System Aluminum Filtration Selection white paper.
· Technical risk reduction reports on supercritical water oxidation accelerated blended
feed tests and blended feed performance tests.
2 Schedule, as normally defined, does not apply to the SCWO process because SCWO is the final unit in the
process and it is only required to treat the hydrolysate at the rate it is generated. In order to comply with the
statement of task, the committee has used the throughput rate in place of schedule.
4
OCR for page 5
· Summary of General Atomics Engineering Design Studies I Energetics Rotary
Hydrolyzer (ERH) and Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) Process Testing
(Hydrolysates of GB, VX, and Comp B/M28), Final Technical Report, Volume 1 of
2.
· Summary of General Atomics Engineering Design Study I Supercritical Water
Oxidation (SCWO) Testing, H and Tetrytol Campaigns, Final Technical Report.
· An evaluation of alternative SCWO configurations.
· An Assessment of the Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) Engineering-Scale Test
(EST).
· A PMACWA Summary of General Atomics ACWA Engineering Design Studies
Testing.
· Materials handling, mechanical multipurpose, architectural drawings, and 3-D
renderings.
· Piping and instrument diagrams.
Two committee meetings were held. During the first, oral presentations by the
PMACWA, the system contractor (BGBPT), and the subcontractor GA were heard, and
considerable discussion took place between the committee and the subject-matter experts.
Follow-on exchanges with the contractor took place electronically in response to additional
questions from the committee. The second meeting was focused on finalizing the written
proposal review.
The committee's evaluation is based on all the design and testing results that were
presented and is focused on the known issues associated with SCWO technology. The committee
members' judgments were based on their combined experience and expertise in SCWO
applications, chemical processing, and risk assessment and safety, and on their participation as
committee members in past NRC evaluations.3
In this regard, the committee focused on the following topics:
· Corrosion, hydriding, and salt transport,
· Feed definition,
· Use of simulants for hydrolysate testing,
· Scale-up,
· Availability and maintainability,
· Safety, and
· Understanding of the chemical and physical processes.
3Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue
Grass Army Depot (2002); Update on the Engineering Design Studies Evaluated in the NRC Report, Analysis of
Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot:
Letter Report (2002); Review and Assessment Program Options for Agent Destruction Pilot Plants at Blue Grass:
Letter Report (2005); Interim Design Assessment for the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant (2005).
All of these reports were published in Washington, D.C., by the National Academies Press.
5
OCR for page 6
FINDINGS
These general findings summarize the conclusions of the committee regarding the design
proposal. The supporting narrative for these findings is given in the body of the report.
Finding 1. The committee believes that although the SCWO technology being designed for the
Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant is not technically mature, it can be used in
the proposed application if adequate testing is performed.
Finding 2. The committee believes that, at the proposed flow rates, the full-size SCWO unit
could have an unacceptably high level of technical risk because there is no mechanistic
understanding of corrosion, hydriding, salt flow, and, in particular, the effect of fluid velocity in
the reaction zone. The committee believes the level of technical risk would be acceptable for the
near-full-scale SCWO unit at the flow rates demonstrated during testing.
Finding 3. The technical risk for the proposed full-size SCWO unit at the proposed flow rates
could become acceptable if adequate additional testing is performed before the unit is used. Such
testing could be performed at the proposed full-scale velocity in existing General Atomics
reactors.
Finding 4. Whether or not the proposed full-scale SCWO design can meet the schedule for the
Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant depends on obtaining satisfactory results in
testing at higher flow rates. This assumes that the other elements of the BGCAPP processes
operate as planned.
Finding 5. Although the experimental evidence presented to the committee for assessment of
the SCWO unit design for the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant is persuasive,
there is a lack of basic understanding of the physical and chemical processes involved in
achieving tolerable corrosion rates and in the corrosion process itself.
6
OCR for page 7
Sincerely,
Robert A. Beaudet, Chair
Committee to Review and Assess the Proposals for Design
and Operation of Designated Chemical Agent Destruction
Pilot Plants (DCAPP BlueGrass)
Attachments:
A, Statement of Task
B, Committee Membership--Roster and Biographies
C, References
D, Assessment (source selection information; not available to the public)
E, Acknowledgment of Reviewers
7
OCR for page 8
Attachment A
Statement of Task
Contractual Statement of Task
The NRC will establish an ad hoc Committee to Review and Assess the Proposals for
Design and Operation of Designated Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants (DCAPP
Committee). This new committee will receive, review, and assess the proposals submitted by the
Bechtel National, Inc. for the Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant in Pueblo,
Colorado, and the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant in Richmond, Kentucky,
to consider the technical aspects of systems configurations, maturity, and schedule. The
committee will provide a review to the Army of these proposals to advise them in their
procurement decisions regarding award of the task order.
Plan of Action
To accomplish the statement of task, the NRC formed two separate committees to review
the proposals for the chemical destruction plants at the Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky, and
at Pueblo Army Depot, Colorado. The first committee's first task was to review the supercritical
oxidation process at Blue Grass, which is the subject of this letter report. The committee will
then be augmented to review the remainder of the Blue Grass plant design in a second letter
report. A second committee was created to review the Pueblo plant design, and that committee
will provide its assessment in still another letter report.
8
OCR for page 9
Attachment B
Roster and Biographies
ROBERT A. BEAUDET, Chair, University of Southern California, Pasadena
JOAN B. BERKOWITZ, Farkas Berkowitz & Company, Washington, D.C.
WILLARD C. GEKLER, Consultant, PLG, Inc., Los Alamitos, California
MARTIN GOLLIN, Carmagen Engineering, Inc., St. Davids, Pennsylvania
KENNETH A. SMITH, NAE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
Staff
BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director, Board on Army Science and Technology
MARGARET N. NOVACK, Study Director
JAMES C. MYSKA, Research Associate
LAVONNE WILLIS, Senior Program Assistant
BIOGRAPHIES
Robert A. Beaudet received his Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Harvard University in 1962.
From 1961 to 1962, he was a U.S. Army officer and served at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory as a
research scientist. He joined the faculty of the University of Southern California in 1962 and has
served continuously in the Department of Chemistry since that time. He also has served on
Department of Defense committees addressing both offensive and defensive considerations
surrounding chemical warfare agents. He was chair of an Army Science Board committee that
addressed chemical detection and trace gas analysis. He also was the chair of an Air Force
technical conference on chemical warfare decontamination and protection. He has participated in
two NRC studies on chemical and biological sensor technologies and energetic materials and
technologies. Most of his career has been devoted to research in molecular structure and
molecular spectroscopy. Currently, Dr. Beaudet is chair of the Committee on Assembled
Chemical Weapons Alternative Program. Previously, Dr. Beaudet served as a member of the
NRC's Board on Army Science and Technology (BAST), as a member of the NRC Committee
on Review of the Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Disposal Program, and as a BAST liaison to
the Committee on Review and Evaluation of the Army Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program
(Stockpile Committee).
Joan B. Berkowitz is currently managing director of Farkas Berkowitz & Company. She
graduated from the University of Illinois with a Ph.D. in physical chemistry. Dr. Berkowitz has
extensive experience in the area of environmental and hazardous waste management, a
knowledge of the technologies available for the cleanup of contaminated soils and groundwater,
and a background in physical and electrochemistry. She has contributed to several of the
Environmental Protection Agency studies, been a consultant on remediation techniques, and
9
OCR for page 10
assessed various destruction technologies. Dr. Berkowitz is the author of numerous publications
on hazardous waste treatment and environmental subjects.
Willard C. Gekler is currently an independent consultant working for his previous employer,
ABS Consulting, Inc. He graduated from the Colorado School of Mines with a B.S. in petroleum
refining engineering and pursued graduate study in nuclear engineering at the University of
California at Los Angeles. His extensive experience includes membership on NRC's ACWA
committee and on the Mitretek Systems expert panel reviewing the quantitative risk assessments
and safety analyses of hazardous materials handling, storage, and waste treatment systems for the
Army's Anniston, Umatilla, Pine Bluff, and Aberdeen chemical agent disposal facilities. He also
participated in a consequence screening assessment for the Newport Chemical Disposal Facility.
Previously he was project engineer for various nuclear test facility designs and for development
of facility design criteria for the Johnston Atoll chemical agent disposal system. His expertise is
in hazard evaluation, quantitative risk analysis, reliability assessment, and database development
for risk and reliability. Mr. Gekler is a certified reliability engineer and a member of the Society
for Risk Analysis, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), and the American
Nuclear Society (ANS).
Martin Gollin graduated from Loughborough University of Technology in England with a B.S.
and an M.S. in chemical engineering. He is currently a consultant affiliated with Carmagen
Engineering, Inc. He has worked for an engineering contractor (Davy McKee), an R&D
company (Dynatech), and an operating company (ARCO Chemical). He has extensive
experience in process engineering, capital projects, commissioning, process safety,
environmental processes, relief system design, and heat transfer. He has held positions in
engineering design and engineering management. He was the EH&S manager for a $1 billion
grass-roots project in the Netherlands and was a member of the panel that wrote the CCPS book
"LOPA--Layer of Protection Analysis." He is a member of the NRC's Non-stockpile
Committee and has also been a member of several other NAS committees. He consulted on
projects for the CDC, petrochemical companies, and pharmaceutical companies and has
presented two courses ("LOPA" and "Process Design for Safe Operations") for the AIChE.
Kenneth A. Smith, NAE, is currently Edwin R. Gilliland Professor of Chemical Engineering at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He received an Sc.D., an S.B., and an S.M. in chemical
engineering from MIT and was a postdoctoral fellow at Cavendish Laboratory, University of
Cambridge. He was elected to the National Academy of Engineering on the basis of his diverse,
creative, and fundamental research in fluid mechanics and rheology, heat and mass transfer, and
for professional and educational leadership. Dr. Smith's research interests are in application of
the principles of fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, heat transfer, and mass transfer to important
engineering problems. Specific applications have included desalination, hemodialysis,
atherogensis, liquefied natural gas, aerosols in the atmosphere, and supercritical water oxidation.
He has particular expertise in supercritical water oxidation.
10
OCR for page 11
Attachment C
References
Bergman, A.G., A.M. Gasanaliev, and A.S. Trunin. 1969. The ternary system NaCl, SO4, PO3.
Russian Journal of Inorganic Chemistry 14: 1675-1676.
BPBGT (Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass Team). 2005a. System Design Description for Supercritical
Water Oxidation System, Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant (BGCAPP)
Project, Revision E, October 29. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.: Program Manager for
Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives.
BPBGT. 2005b. Technical Risk Reduction Project 07 and 09: Report on Supercritical Water
Oxidation Blended Feed Performance Tests, Revision 0, April. Aberdeen Proving Ground,
Md.: Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives.
BPBGT. 2005c. Technical Risk Reduction Project (TRRP) 07 and 08: Report on Supercritical
Water Oxidation Accelerated Blended Feed Tests, Revision 0, January. Aberdeen Proving
Ground, Md.: Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives.
BPBGT. 2005d. Preliminary Hazard Analysis of Supercritical Water Oxidation System: Blue
Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant (BGCAPP) Project, Revision C, October 31.
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.: Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons
Alternatives.
BPBGT. 2006. Evaluation of ACWA EDS SCWO System Availability and Application of Data
to Full-Scale BGCAPP SCWO System, March 30. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.: Program
Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives.
Hodes, M., P.A. Marrone, G.T. Hong, K.A. Smith, and J.W. Tester. 2004. Salt precipitation and
scale control in supercritical water oxidation--Part A: Fundamentals and research. The
Journal of Supercritical Fluids 29(3): 265-288.
Marrone, P.A., M. Hodes, K.A. Smith, and J.W. Tester. 2004. Salt precipitation and scale control
in supercritical water oxidation--Part B: Commercial/full-scale applications. The Journal of
Supercritical Fluids 29(3): 289-312.
11
OCR for page 12
Attachment D
Assessment
The assessments contained in this attachment are not open to the public under Subsection
15(b)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., as amended by the Federal
Advisory Committee Act Amendments of 1997, P.L. 105-153, December 17, 1997, 111 Stat.
2689. The National Research Council has determined that to release this information to the
public would disclose information described in 5 U.S.C. 552(b).
12
OCR for page 13
Attachment E
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 (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:
Joan F. Brennecke, University of Notre Dame
Peter Lederman, Hazardous Substance Management Research Center (retired)
Richard S. Magee, Carmagen Engineering, Inc.
James Mathis, NAE, ExxonMobil Corporation (retired)
Robert B. Puyear, Independent Consultant
Stanley I. Sandler, NAE, University of Delaware
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
Napadensky, Retired, Napadensky Energetics, Inc. Appointed by the NRC, she 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.
13
Representative terms from entire chapter:
supercritical water
