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
February 28, 2012
Mr. Conrad Whyne
Program Executive Officer
U.S. Army Element, Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives
5183 Blackhawk Road
Building E4585, Room 1
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5424
Re: The Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant’s Water Recovery
System
Dear Mr. Whyne:
At your request, the National Research Council of the National Academies
established the Committee to Review the Water Recovery System for the Blue Grass
Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant (BGCAPP). Specifically, the committee’s
purpose was to review the design and materials of construction of the water recovery
system (WRS) that will be used to recycle combined effluents from the supercritical
water oxidation (SCWO) system and from the cooling tower and steam blowdown for
reuse in the facility. The statement of task with its introductory context is provided in
Attachment A, and the study tasks are presented below. Personally, I am very impressed
with the expertise of the members who were recruited for this committee by the National
Research Council. Their names are listed in Attachment C and a short biography of each
member is given in Attachment D.
The committee’s statement of task is as follows:
Obtain information from the equipment vendor on water recovery system
(WRS) installations that treat comparatively similar effluents to those at
BGCAPP.
Contact a representative industrial installation to review its reverse
osmosis (RO) system operational and maintenance history, and
determine the degree to which operability has been acceptable.
Ascertain the likelihood that the quality of the recycled water will meet
requirements for its re-use as quench water in the plant.
Review materials of construction to determine whether adequate
performance can be expected over the anticipated operational life of
BGCAPP, specifically addressing potential concerns for corrosion,
fouling, and stress cracking.
Produce a letter report on determinations resulting from the above
examinations.
-1-
OCR for page 2
Data gathering began at the committee’s first meeting, in July 2011 in Richmond,
Kentucky. The committee received technical information on the BGCAPP WRS and
engaged in extensive discussions with BGCAPP staff. A follow-up teleconference was
held with BGCAPP staff members during the committee’s second meeting, in September
2011. Additionally, BGCAPP staff and their vendor answered several sets of written
questions from the committee.
During discussions with you and your staff, it was agreed that visiting other
vendors of reverse osmosis water treatment systems was not necessary because the
committee membership had adequate experience with water treatment and recovery
systems to complete its work without conducting such visits. Furthermore, the sponsor
and committee agreed that, since no other treatment facilities process effluent streams
with a composition similar to the effluent streams that the BGCAPP WRS will treat, no
useful comparison could be drawn from existing industrial operations. The committee did
not review the SCWO design. It accepted the data on SCWO effluents provided by the
sponsor and evaluated the planned WRS on the basis of those data, although it did note
differences between the parameters used for the calculations made using the ROSA RO
process modeling software and the data from the tests conducted with actual blended
SCWO effluents. The committee also took the following limitations into account during
its work:
The footprint for the RO system in the building is limited by the present design;
The BGCAPP design is complete and construction is underway, making
significant changes to the design challenging;
This RO system will only be operational for 3 to 5 years, until all the munitions
are destroyed and the resulting hydrolysate has been treated; and
Any modifications to the design will necessitate amendments to the present
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act permits, which govern plant operations,
and will require negotiations with the Kentucky Department for Environmental
Protection.
The study’s scope is defined to encompass operations that begin with the arrival
of SCWO effluent and blowdown waters at the WRS for treatment and end with the RO
system effluents leaving the WRS to be stored in tanks. The study is organized to
describe and review the system at a high level as the effluent streams proceed from the
water-softening step through the pretreatment steps and finally to the RO system. The
materials of construction are reviewed in the “Materials of Construction” section of the
report.
The committee commends the decision to reuse process water, reducing the
overall demand for water made by the plant. The committee believes that, as long as the
WRS functions properly and meets its treatment goals, the recovered water will be
suitable for reuse as quench water in the SCWO process. However, on the basis of the
information provided to it, the committee has significant reservations about the WRS
functioning as planned. These reservations fall into three main areas:
Materials of construction. The committee noted a lack of testing of potential
materials of construction for use in the anticipated service environment. The
committee believes that more testing of candidate materials of construction would
-2-
OCR for page 3
be ideal. Another strategy is to select materials using conservative criteria. The
committee discussed some testing that can be performed that, while not
representative of the expected service environment, might give some insight into
the suitability of the selected materials of construction for service in the BGCAPP
WRS. The committee recognizes that the opportunity for representative testing is
limited or non-existent prior to the start of operations, and so it also discusses the
possible use of a duplex alloy, such as 2205, in the WRS to be conservative.
Pretreatment. The committee’s attention and concerns were focused to a large
extent on the operation of the pretreatment system and the RO system. There is no
way of predicting the level of solids that will arrive at the pretreatment system
from the SCWO system, making it difficult to design an adequate pretreatment
system. The hydrolysate and SCWO effluent storage tanks will provide some
opportunity for suspended solids to settle out. The committee discusses the design
of these tanks vis-à-vis providing the maximum opportunity for settling to occur,
and suggests a possible way of compensating for the deletion of the originally
planned clarifier by using the SCWO effluent storage tanks.
Given the uncertainty about the composition of the effluents that will enter the
pretreatment system, and given the results of SCWO tests using blended actual
agent and energetics hydrolysates, the committee is concerned about the planned
media filtration system’s being rapidly overloaded with incoming solids. Any
overload and shutdown of the pretreatment system would have a catastrophic
effect on the reverse osmosis membranes. The committee is concerned about the
choice of coagulant and whether it will perform adequately. In this vein, the
committee discusses risk mitigation for the media filtration system, as well as the
option of using membrane filtration instead of media filtration. Membrane
filtration would present some advantages over media filtration, given the
uncertainty over the actual quality of the water entering the pretreatment system,
and it could also have a smaller footprint in the plant.
If the pretreatment steps are effective in removing suspended solids from the
effluents to be passed through the RO membranes, the committee does not
anticipate that membrane fouling will be a significant problem. Also, if the
pretreatment step operates adequately, the committee believes that recovery may
exceed the target of 70 percent.
RO membranes. The committee’s main concern with the RO system is the length
of time that it will be stored with the membranes in place—3 years. The
committee addresses the option of taking late delivery of the membranes to
alleviate this concern; late delivery would have the additional benefit of allowing
dry system storage, alleviating any concern about microbially influenced
corrosion. The committee also discusses membrane cleaning, as some fouling
over time is inevitable.
The complete details of the committee’s assessment are incorporated in the
findings and recommendations with supporting text in the report that follows.
-3-
OCR for page 4
Sincerely,
Robert A. Beaudet, Chair
Committee to Review the Water
Recovery System for the Blue Grass
Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant
Attachments
A Statement of Task
B Abbreviations and Acronyms
C Committee to Review the Water Recovery System for the Blue Grass Chemical
Agent Destruction Pilot Plant
D Biographies of Committee Members
E Acknowledgment of Reviewers
-4-
