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 89
Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel Appendix B Tier 1 Munitions Processing Evaluation Subfactor Comparative Tables
OCR for page 90
Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel TABLE B-1 Process Maturity Subfactor Evaluations for Tier 1 Munitions Processing Technologies Maturity Subfactors Tier 1 International Munitions Processing Technologies U.S. EDS CDC DAVINCH Dynasafe Is the technology in use for any type of material, even one not related to CWM in the U.S.? Yes. Has been used extensively to destroy conventional munitions including smokes, WP, and CS. No. Dynasafe explosive containment chambers are in use in the U.S., but chemical munition processing and agent destruction has not been demonstrated in the United States. Yes, the EDS has been used extensively to destroy a variety of old munitions and agents, including GB nerve agent. Is the technology in use for any type of material, even non-CWM related internationally? Yes. Used in Belgium to destroy over 2,000 projectiles containing Clark II agent. Yes. Used in Japan to destroy 500 bombs containing Clark I and II and 100 bombs containing a 50:50 mix of L and H. Yes. Static kilns have been used in several countries to destroy conventional munitions. Yes, it has destroyed several types of munition in testing at Porton Down, U.K. Has the technology been permitted or otherwise approved in the U.S. for CWM or energetics? Yes. Permitted to destroy high explosive munitions. No. Yes, for energetics (e.g., the burster detonation vessel at MAPS). No for chemical munitions. Yes. Has the technology been permitted or otherwise approved in the U.S. for industrial wastes? No, not intended for use with such wastes. No. No, not intended for use with such wastes. N/A How much, if any, additional R&D is required in order to implement the technology? Little, if any. Process appears to be mature. Testing may be required to demonstrate productivity and ability to destroy nerve agents. None. Process appears to be mature. Testing may be required to demonstrate ability to access agents in U.S. non-stockpile munitions and to destroy nerve agents. Proven technology for destroying conventional munitions containing energetics. Additional R&D not needed for this purpose. Testing required to demonstrate ability to destroy chemical warfare materiel. None. What, if any, are the scale-up requirements needed to implement the technology? None. Available models can destroy projectiles up to 210 mm in diameter. None. DAVINCH has destroyed large Japanese recovered CWM (1 meter long, 0.2 meters diameter, 19 kg mustard agent/ lewisite agent mix). Volume of inner vessel is 30 times that of EDS-2 and explosive containment is 20 times EDS-2. None. May want to increase explosive containment capability beyond 5.1-lb TNT equivalent or increase physical size of detonation chamber beyond 2-meter diameter if need exists for greater capability. None, although there are size limitations on the types of munitions that can be destroyed. Can the technology be implemented within 3 to 5 years? Yes. Already has been implemented in Belgium. Yes. Already has been implemented in Japan. Yes. Being implemented at German government chemical weapon destruction facility. Yes, in full use now. Overall Employed routinely in Belgium for recovered CWM; tested extensively at Porton Down. Mature process has been used but only for one application in Japan. Very well engineered; designed specifically for chemical munition destruction. Mature, well-engineered process for conventional munitions; has demonstrated ability to destroy agent and is acquiring experience with chemical weapons, both inert and containing explosives. Fully mature.
OCR for page 91
Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel TABLE B-2 Process Efficacy/Throughput Subfactor Evaluations for Tier 1 Munitions Processing Technologies Process Efficacy Subfactors Tier 1 International Munitions Processing Technologies U.S. EDS CDC DAVINCH Dynasafe What is the DRE? DRE not published, but likely exceeds six 9s. In U.S./U.K. tests with current operating procedures, destruction in detonation chamber is 99.99 percent. 99.9999 percent claimed for agent removal in primary destruction in vessel. 99.9 percent claimed removal of any remaining agent in offgas in secondary treatment. 99.99 percent removal of arsenic from metal surfaces and dust also is claimed. Claimed to be 99.9999 percent. Need test data from past agent destruction and operating results from munition destruction in Germany for confirmation. DRE after neutralization step is 99.9999 percent (six 9s) or better. Does agent destruction meet the terms of the CWC (irreversible and verifiable)? Irreversible: yes. Verifiable: yes. Irreversible: yes. Verifiable: yes. Yes, if agent in munition bodies can be accessed and destroyed. Need to be able to confirm agent destruction if deflagration occurs, agent escapes through weak point in the munition, and munition emerges intact from the detonation chamber. Yes, irreversible and verifiable. What is the DRE for energetics? DRE not published, but should approach 100 percent under confined detonation conditions. Claimed to be 100 percent in fireball in vessel. Test results not seen but no reason to doubt nearly complete energetics destruction under temperature and overpressure conditions in vessel. Claimed to be 100 percent; no reason to doubt nearly complete destruction given high temperature in the detonation chamber. Essentially complete. Is the process reliable and robust? Appears to be both. Cause of two misfires in an early test has been corrected. Appears to be both. Successful destruction of 600 chemical bombs without needing to replace inner vessel. All munitions and agent appear to have been destroyed on first attempt, but independent verification needed. Very robust and reliable for conventional munitions; being demonstrated for chemical munitions. Yes, has performed reliably under field conditions with a variety of agents, munition types, degrees of corrosion. Is the process highly complex or relatively simple? Basic process is simple. Software and hardware for automated handling of munitions and for control of emissions add complexity. Moderately complex operation involving placement of slurry explosive around munition, use of donor charges, and robotic handling to bring munitions into vessel. Agent and energetics are destroyed in a three-step process. Secondary treatment of metal parts is not required. Offgas treatment appears to be straightforward but reprocessing of offgas may be needed if agent is detected prior to release. Front end is simple (thermal destruction of munition energetics and agent) although some material handling is involved. Back end for offgas processing can be complex—e.g., particulate removal, combustion, offgas scrubbing, and filtration; depending on agent being processed and regulatory requirements for offgas treatment. Relatively simple, but requires multiple operational steps.
OCR for page 92
Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel Process Efficacy Subfactors Tier 1 International Munitions Processing Technologies U.S. EDS CDC DAVINCH Dynasafe What are the personnel/ staffing requirements for the technology? Usually 18 staff needed for deployment of larger models. Total staff requirements appear to be 20-25 people. Number of operators and supervisory personnel not kno wn. Staff needed to operate Dynasafe: 2-4 people plus control room and support staff. Total staff requirements should be 4-8 people. EDS operators, air monitoring system operators, and analytical support staff. What is the process throughput? Potentially 40 projectiles per shift in T-60 model, but needs to be demonstrated. Five munitions per hour achieved in Belgian tests. Moderate throughput; 3 shots/day with 3 Yellow bombs/shot demonstrated; 5 shots/day with 3 Yellow bombs/shot claimed. Also, 5 shots/day with 8 75-mm and 90-mm shells = 40 shells/day are claimed but not demonstrated. Throughput varies greatly with the munitions and ho w the Dynasafe is operated. Estimated to be as low as 20 items/ 10-hour day for large munitions, e.g., 8-in. projectile and as high as 480/10-hour day for small items, e.g., M139 bomblets. One detonation per 2 days, but each detonation may destroy three small weapons (EDS-) or up to six (EDS-2). Is the process scalable so that it can address small, medium, and large munition finds? Yes. Three sizes appear to provide appropriate capability for small, medium, and large quantities. All are transportable to the site. Yes. There are two DAVINCH sizes a vailable and multiple units can be deployed. Large size (70 tons) of smaller DAVINCH (DV45) may mak e it impractical for small quantity finds, however . Yes. Three detonation chamber sizes are available and several units can be used together to meet throughput requirements. The EDS seems appropriate for small or medium caches. At Pine Bluff Non-Stockpile Facility , several EDSs could have destroyed ca. 1,000 munitions in an acceptable time period. Is the process capable of handling multiple munition types? Yes. Has handled chemical projectiles up to 155-mm. Has destroyed wide range of conventional munitions. Has handled only two types of Japanese bombs so far. Needs to demonstrate ability to destroy other munition types. Yes. Has been used for a large variety of conventional items, e.g., grenades, cartridges, mortar rounds, projectiles, mines, fuzes. Yes, but size-limited. Is the process capable of handling multiple agent types? Has destroyed CG, PS, blister agents, and riot control agents but not nerve agents. Has destroyed vomiting agents and blister agent mix (mustard agent/le wisite) but not nerve or other agents. Will be demonstrated during operations with German chemical munitions (e.g., mustard agent, lewisite, Clark agent). Yes. Is the process transportable? Three CDC models can be moved on flatbed trucks (1 to 8 trailers depending on model). ADAVINCH that can be moved on a flatbed trailer is under development but not yet built. Yes. A mobile version of the SK1200 can be transported in eight containers on three flatbed trailers. Yes. Overall Effective for several munition and agent types; not tested for nerve agents. Well-engineered technology designed specifically for chemical munition destruction. Has performed reliably and effectively , but needs more operational experience with additional munition and agent types. Well-engineered unit that is reliable and effective for many conventional munitions and ammunition. Is expected to be effective in destroying chemical munitions present in Germany and has destroyed mustard-filled grenades. Broadly efficacious.
OCR for page 93
Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel TABLE B-3 Process Safety Subfactor Evaluations for Tier 1 Munitions Processing Technologies Process Safety Subfactors Tier 1 International Munitions Processing Technologies U.S. EDS CDC DAVINCH Dynasafe What are the worker safety and health risks? Low risk. Most operations are conducted remotely other than encasing the munition in precast explosive and attaching and detaching the firing wires. Safety interlocks minimize risk of premature explosion of “donor” explosive. Workers are in level C PPE except during maintenance, when level B is worn. Low risk. All operations are conducted remotely other than munition loading in boxes and injection of slurry explosives around munition. Workers are in level D PPE. Low. Level D PPE used for munition loading. Once munitions are in boxes, process is automated with no worker exposure under normal conditions. Primarily manual handling of a munition during preparation and loading. What are the community safety and health risks? Apparently low. Detonation chamber is double-walled. Improvements in ventilation and offgas cleanup minimize potential emissions. Solid wastes reported suitable for transport under government control. Apparently low. DAVINCH is double-walled pressure vessel inside a larger structure. Low to none. Munition destruction is in double-walled detonation chamber in an external shell. Technology has track record of destroying conventional munitions safely. Ability to contain offgases following munition and agent destruction expected to be demonstrated during operation in Germany. Minimal. Possible agent release during handling of a weapon before loading is complete. What are the process monitoring requirements? Agent monitors (MINICAMS) are located before and after the carbon filter beds before releasing offgas to the atmosphere. Agent monitors (MINICAMS) are used to test offgases for residual agent; gas can be returned to vessel for additional destruction if needed. Monitors are also located between the two carbon filter beds before releasing combustion gas to atmosphere. In operation at Munster, Germany, very few. Design philosophy is that all hardware provides total containment and that all offgases are extensively treated; thus extensive monitoring using MINICAMS or other hardware is not necessary. The contents of the chamber/reactor are monitored before liquid and vapor are released. To what extent have engineering controls been developed to ensure process safety? Engineering controls (hardware, software, safety interlocks) have been added to control automated loading, firing, and product gas cleanup. Extensive design and testing conducted on the DAVINCH vessels; monitoring of fatigue damage and crack initiation; remote operation using robotic arm to transport munition into vessel; very heavy dual-walled construction of vessel and door. Extensive engineering controls, process monitoring, and data acquisition are used. Steel plates surrounding munition protect the 2-in. thick stainless-steel vessel which operates in a vapor containment structure. Detonation and reagent introduction are conducted remotely. Air and liquid effluents are monitored for presence of agent. Overall Appears to be a safe process for workers and the public. Appears to be a safe process for workers and the public. Appears to be a safe process for workers and the public. Appears to be a safe process for workers and the public.
OCR for page 94
Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel TABLE B-4 Public and Regulatory Acceptability in a U.S. Context Subfactor Evaluations for Tier 1 Munitions Processing Technologies Public and Regulatory Acceptability in a U.S. Context Subfactors Tier 1 International Munitions Processing Technologies U.S. EDS CDC DAVINCH Dynasafe Is the process inherently incineration-like? Agent destruction by fireball and shock wave in vessel. Offgas treatment involves catalytic oxidation. Agent destruction by fireball and shock wave in vessel, but offgas treatment in combustion chamber is incineration. Use of a cold plasma to treat offgas is less incineration-like since gas molecules are being ionized rather than combusted. Thermal destruction of agent in detonation chamber may be considered to be incineration-like, although heating is indirect and there is no contact with a flame. Offgas treatment in combustion chamber is incineration. No. Does the process break key chemical bonds (e.g., C-P bond for nerve agents)? Yes, for various agents tested. Has not processed nerve agents. Yes, for agents tested: mustard agent, lewisite, vomiting agents. Has not processed nerve agents. Yes, for agents tested (vomiting agents, As Cl3, mustard agent). Not known for nerve agents. Yes, those bonds related to toxicity that are not broken during detonation are broken during neutralization. Could the process produce dioxins or other notable by-products? Proponent says no, but independent confirmation is needed. Proponent says no, but independent confirmation is needed. Not known. Depends on offgas treatment. Not detectably. Does the process allow holding and testing of process residuals prior to release? No. Offgases go through adsorption, oxidation, and carbon filtration but are not held for retreatment. Yes. Offgases go to a holding tank for storage, testing, and re-treatment if necessary. Offgas can be retreated in either the DAVINCH vessel or in a cold plasma unit to ensure agent destruction. Not when operated as an open system. If operated as a closed system, detonation offgas can be held in detonation chamber, tested for agent, and heated until agent in gas is reduced to acceptable level. Yes. Does the process result in excessive noise, odors, or other nuisances? No, based on extensive U.S. use with high explosives munitions. No. Implosion in a vacuum in double-walled chamber reduces noise and vibration. No odors. No. No. Would the process be able to satisfy environmental regulatory requirements under RCRA? Likely. Has been approved by regulators at least once under RCRA for destruction of conventional munitions. Likely. Likely. Yes. The EDS has already received regulatory approval in several different states. Would the process be able to satisfy environmental regulatory requirements under the Clean Air Act? Likely. Likely. Likely. Yes. The EDS has already received regulatory approval in several different states. Would the process be able to satisfy other applicable environmental regulatory requirements? N/A. No other environmental regulatory requirements apply. N/A. No other environmental regulatory requirements apply. N/A. No other environmental regulatory requirements apply. N/A. No other environmental regulatory requirements apply.
OCR for page 95
Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel Public and Regulatory Acceptability in a U.S. Context Subfactors Tier 1 International Munitions Processing Technologies U.S. EDS CDC DAVINCH Dynasafe Does the process satisfy the principles of pollution prevention and waste minimization? On the basis of the information provided by the vendor, scrubbed gases and solids are the only wastes produced other than arsenic. On the basis of the information provided by the vendor, scrubbed gases and metal are the only wastes produced other than arsenic. Yes. Wastes are metal, scrubbed offgases, arsenic residues, and contaminated filter media. The process satisfies the principles of pollution prevention. Although the process results in a large amount, relatively speaking, of secondary wastes, the amount is not excessive. Overall Has been used in U.S. for conventional munitions but not for CWM. Ability to hold, analyze, and, if necessary, retreat offgases before release should increase acceptability to public and regulators. Too early to tell since offgas treatment system may be viewed as being incineration-like. Good record of acceptance.
OCR for page 96
Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel TABLE B-5 Secondary Waste Issues Subfactor Evaluations for Tier 1 Munitions Processing Technologies Secondary Waste Issues Subfactors Tier 1 International Munitions Processing Technologies U.S. EDS CDC DAVINCH Dynasafe What is the character of secondary wastes? Form (e.g., liquid, solid, gas) Volume Toxicity (e.g., agent, degradation products, metals, other contaminants) Form: solids and gases. Solids include metal fragments, pea gravel and its dust, soot, spent lime, and filter carbon. The solids are to be decontaminated for release by hot air treatment. Form: solids and gases. Gas volume is about 20,000 L/shot (volume of the inner vessel). Solids: 60 kg/shot for two Yellow bombs and 90 kg/shot if three Yellow bombs destroyed. Metal fragments claimed to meet GPL values for agents. Arsenic and arsenic oxides can remain on metal surfaces and on inner vessel walls. Form: offgas from detonation and agent/ energetic destruction. Solid metal scrap. Volume: gas volumes not known. Scrap volume depends on weight of munitions. Toxicity: metal claimed to be releasable as scrap. Offgas toxicity will vary with agent fill in munitions, but offgas can be extensively treated. Solids: munition fragments. Liquids: neutralents and rinsates. Gases: carbon filter and vented after analysis. Do secondary wastes initially meet: General population limits (GPLs) or short-term exposure limits (STELs)? CWC requirements? Environmental regulatory requirements? Solids claimed to meet STELs. CWC requirements and environmental requirements were met in Belgium. Offgases and metals claimed to meet GPLs for agents. CWC requirements and environmental requirements were met in Japan. To be determined in U.S. Not known for secondary wastes. Scrap metal cleaned to meet GPL requirements. Neat chemical agents (mustard agent, Clark agents) have been destroyed in chamber, but these were not in chemical munitions. DRE of 99.9999 percent demonstrated. Ability to meet GPL, STEL, CWC, and environmental regulations not yet known. Yes. Solid secondary wastes meet GPLs or STELS. With respect to CWC requirements, it is possible that neutralent could contain CWC Schedule 2 compounds above levels of concern to the CWC. Solid and gaseous secondary wastes meet CWC requirements. With respect to environmental requirements, liquids would likely require additional treatment to address hazardous waste characteristics of toxicity and corrosivity. Neutralent may also be deep-well injected. Gases and solids meet regulatory requirements.
OCR for page 97
Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel Secondary Waste Issues Subfactors Tier 1 International Munitions Processing Technologies U.S. EDS CDC DAVINCH Dynasafe For each secondary waste, will subsequent treatment be required: Yes, for offgases. No, for CWC. Solids may be recycled but may require additional treatment if contaminated with arsenic. Yes, for offgases. Solids may be recycled but may require additional treatment if contaminated with arsenic. Yes, for offgas. Solids may be recycled, but may require additional treatment if contaminated with arsenic. Secondary waste treatment is unlikely to be necessary to reduce concentrations to GPLs or STELs for any of the EDS secondary wastes. With respect to CWC requirements, neutralent could contain CWC Schedule 2 compounds above levels of concern to the CWC, and in this case subsequent treatment would be required. Solid and gaseous secondary wastes meet CWC requirements. Solids, mainly munition fragments, would likely be able to be recycled, meeting regulatory requirements. Liquid wastes, if not otherwise disposed of (e.g., deep well injected), will require treatment at a TSDF to address the RCRA characteristics of reactivity and corrosivity. To meet GPLs or STELs? To satisfy CWC requirements? To satisfy environmental regulatory requirements? For each secondary waste, if subsequent treatment is needed, are treatment methods established and available? Yes. Well-established back end: gas scrubbing, catalytic oxidation, and carbon filtration. Solids are suitable for standard TSDF treatments or landfilling. Yes. Well-established back end: gas scrubbing, combustion, and carbon filtration. Cold plasma is an alternative to offgas combustion, but track record is not known. Yes for offgas standard cleanup process: cyclone, combustion chamber, carbon filtration used. Yes, for both solids and liquids.
OCR for page 98
Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel Secondary Waste Issues Subfactors Tier 1 International Munitions Processing Technologies U.S. EDS CDC DAVINCH Dynasafe Will residuals from treatment of secondary waste require subsequent treatment: Not likely unless arsenic is present in the waste residuals. Not likely unless arsenic is present in the waste residuals. Not likely unless arsenic is present in the waste residuals. Residuals will not require additional treatment to address GPLs or STELs or to meet CWC requirements. Residuals from treatment of spent carbon may require regeneration or treatment to remove absorbed chemicals to satisfy environmental requirements. Also, residuals from treatment of neutralent may require further treatment, depending on the applied technology. To meet GPLs or STELs? To satisfy CWC requirements? To satisfy environmental regulatory requirements? What is the disposition of final treatment residuals: Metals can be recycled. Treated gases go to atmosphere. Other solids are likely to require disposal in a hazardous waste landfill. Arsenic may require final treatment and disposal. Metals can be recycled. Treated gases released to atmosphere. Other solids are likely to require disposal in a hazardous waste landfill. Arsenic may require final treatment and disposal. Metals can be recycled. Treated gases released to atmosphere. Other solids are likely to require disposal in a hazardous waste landfill. Fate of metallic arsenic and compounds not known. Gaseous materials absorbed on spent carbon would be either regenerated or incinerated. Solids, primarily munition fragments, may be recycled or landfilled. If landfilled, the choice of hazardous or nonhazardous waste landfill would be dependent on state regulations. Final treatment for neutralent may include disposal of residual solids (e.g., incinerator ash) in a hazardous or nonhazardous waste landfill, depending on waste characteristics and state requirements. These liquids may also be treated using other technologies, such as solidification. Final treatment residuals may also be released under a Clean Water Act permit. Recycle? Hazardous waste landfill? Nonhazardous waste landfill? Other? Overall Some posttreatment of solid wastes may be needed before disposal. No apparent secondary waste issues other than for arsenic cleanup and processing. Standard offgas treatment required, and arsenic must be disposed of. Wastes are handled by standard TSDF procedures.
Representative terms from entire chapter: