C
Letter from Charles Baronian, Dated August 7, 1992

This appendix contains a letter dated August 7, 1992 from Charles Baronian, Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen, Maryland and provides the following information to the committee:

  • A paper (enclosure 1) providing estimates for the times and testing required for development and implementation of an alternate technology.

  • An information paper (enclosure 2) that discusses chemical agent monitoring limits.

  • An information paper (enclosure 3) that summarizes the criteria and costs for disposition of hazardous waste from Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System (to include material designated as ''3X").



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 213
Alternative Technologies for the Destruction of Chemical Agents and Munitions C Letter from Charles Baronian, Dated August 7, 1992 This appendix contains a letter dated August 7, 1992 from Charles Baronian, Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen, Maryland and provides the following information to the committee: A paper (enclosure 1) providing estimates for the times and testing required for development and implementation of an alternate technology. An information paper (enclosure 2) that discusses chemical agent monitoring limits. An information paper (enclosure 3) that summarizes the criteria and costs for disposition of hazardous waste from Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System (to include material designated as ''3X").

OCR for page 213
Alternative Technologies for the Destruction of Chemical Agents and Munitions DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PROGRAM MANAGER FOR CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION (PROVISIONAL) ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND 21010-5401 -7 AUG 1992. Office of the Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization Dr. John P. Longwell Professor, Chemical Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Room 66-456 Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 Dear Dr. Longwell: Enclosed are material requested by the Alternatives Chemical Demilitarization Technologies Committee. Specifically, the following information is included: A paper (enclosure 1) providing estimates for the times and testing required for development and implementation of an alternate technology. Time estimates are provided for taking a technology from lab scale to full scale and for a more mature technology (one which has been demonstrated at the pilot plant scale). An information paper discussing chemical agent monitoring limits is included at enclosure 2. An information paper summarizing the criteria and costs for disposition of hazardous waste from Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System (to include material designated as "3X") is included at enclosure 3. Please let me know if you request additional information on any of these topics. Sincerely, Enclosures Copies Furnished: Mr. Donald Siebenaler, Board on Army Science and Technology, 2101 Constitution Avenue NW MH294, Washington, DC 20418

OCR for page 213
Alternative Technologies for the Destruction of Chemical Agents and Munitions ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENTAL COST AND SCHEDULE ESTIMATES 1. Purpose. This paper addresses the impacts on the program in the event the McMillen amendment is adopted by Congress. Basically, the amendment mandates stoppage of all work at the Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), Newport Army Ammunition Plant (NAAP), and Lexington-Blue Grass Army Depot (LBAD) sites until a Congressionally-established commission reviews alternative technologies and provides a report to Congress and the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense then would have to submit to Congress a program plan implementing the alternative technology into a demilitarization program based on his determinations. The commission study is required to be available I January 1994, and the Department of Defense plan six months later, or 1 July 1994. 2. Discussion. Two results can ensue from the commission. The first is that they recommend an alternative technology (probable). The second is that they conclude there is no alternative technology (relatively improbable). In the event of no new technology the increase in the costs would be limited to the delay caused by deferring all work on the three sites including design and environmental documentation until January 1994 when the report is received and design is restarted. In the event of new technology recommendation, however, the delay would be much more severe as a developmental program must be created to confirm the technology in a laboratory as well as a pilot plant facility. It would be irresponsible of the Army to not confirm the commercially available data base by running actual agent and energetic operations in these two steps. In order to project a schedule and costs with any degree of validity one should know the technology, the maturity of the technology, and the data base associated with the particular technology. Obviously, there is no technology selection at this time. Therefore, one can only conceptualize generic schedule and cost estimates that are somewhat independent of the technology. Thus the schedules and costs must be considered rough order of magnitude projections which cannot be utilized for any purpose other than conceptual cost and schedule impacts. Currently there is on-going activity at all three of the affected sites in terms of design, Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

OCR for page 213
Alternative Technologies for the Destruction of Chemical Agents and Munitions (RCRA) permitting work. Based on the McMillen amendment, if enacted, all this work would stop immediately. To further complicate this exercise, it is known that the alternate technology is specific to the purpose of eliminating incinerators. Yet the baseline incorporates four types of incinerators each with a separate and distinct requirement: (1) to destroy agent; (2) to destroy energetics; (3) to provide 5X decontamination; and (4) to process dunnage. Obviously, a developmental program that addresses one or two of these incinerators would take less time than a program addressing all four. Alternate technologies which have been postulated do not appear to address the 5X or dunnage requirements. This paper limits the new technology program to the first two incinerator processes, agent and energetic destruction, and is consistent with the current National Research Council (NRC) review of alternative technology. If indeed a developmental program for all incinerators becomes a requirement, then it is possible that a significant increase in time and costs may have to be added to this proposed program. At this time, however, there is no valid basis to include these costs. In summary, the following depicts generic costs and schedules based on a set of assumptions. The actual program costs and schedules could be significantly less or greater, depending on the selected technology and the scope of the effort. 3. Assumptions. Complete commercial laboratory data are available and laboratory equipment for use by the Government is available from the technology developer. The laboratory program will be accomplished in a Government laboratory which has been approved for agent operations. The laboratory program will address all three agents and energetics. Complete commercial data are available, and this data base coupled with the laboratory program is sufficient to design and procure a pilot plant capability with minimum actual agent and energetic laboratory data. No pilot plant capability exists in industry which can operate with agent.

OCR for page 213
Alternative Technologies for the Destruction of Chemical Agents and Munitions The process is applicable to agent and energetic destruction but not to current 5X decontamination and dunnage processing. The equipment utilized in the process has no unusual characteristics, i.e., exotic metals, special patents, etc. Funding will be available. Permitting and other environmental requirements will not present unusual obstacles. The process is capable of being operated remotely and can be maintained by a normal chemical process maintenance workforce. Pilot operations will be required but no significant new construction for a pilot facility is required. Modification of the Chemical Agent Munitions Disposal System (CAMDS) facility can be implemented for the required pilot plant operations. The three applicable plants will be built simultaneously. The schedule does not include operational testing of the first new technology plant prior to construction of the last two. No new special procedures are required to access the explosives or agent. The chemical materials utilized in the new technology are compatible with current Demilitarization Protective Ensemble, monitoring, and safety procedures. It is assumed that only one alternative technology will be pursued in both the laboratory and pilot phases. 4. Schedule. a. Case 1: Based upon the assumptions cited above, the following activities are required for a developmental program in the event that an alternate technology is recommended by the commission and accepted the Secretary of Defense. (1) LABORATORY VERIFICATION WITH AGENTS AND EXPLOSIVES. Schedule Assumptions: Existing surety laboratory is available.

OCR for page 213
Alternative Technologies for the Destruction of Chemical Agents and Munitions Laboratory-scale equipment is available. (2) PILOT-SCALE PROGRAM. Schedule Assumptions: CAMDS will be modified for new process; no significant new construction. Normal equipment leadtimes (1 year). RCRA permit can be obtained in 24 months. Sufficient laboratory data is available for design of pilot plant. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processing will not cause unusual delays. Pilot test program will not result in a "smoking gun" process problem. (3) FULL-SCALE PROGRAM. Schedule Assumptions: (The schedules for each of the activities are detailed in Enclosure 1. In essence the schedules depict APG agent operations being completed in March 2007; NAAP being completed in January 2007; and LBAD in July 2008.) Sufficient design information is available from pilot program. RCRA permit can be obtained in 24 months. Normal equipment leadtime (1 year). NEPA processing will not cause unusual delays. Systemization or testing program will not cause unusual delays. b. Case 2: In this particular alternative, it is assumed that the commission cannot recommend an alternative technology. Thus the work on the three involved sites begins in January 1994. This primarily consists of design, EIS, and RCRA restarts. The delay attributed to this scenario and the revised schedules are depicted in Enclosure 2. In essence the delay causes completion of APG agent operations from June 1999 to July 2000; NAAP from April 1999 to May 2000; and LBAD from February 2000 to November 2001. Enclosure 2 provides a detailed schedule.

OCR for page 213
Alternative Technologies for the Destruction of Chemical Agents and Munitions 5. Cost Discussion. a. Case 1. Again, the viability of cost projections on an unspecified technology mandates that at best the costs represent rough order of magnitude estimates which cannot be utilized meaningfully for any purpose but rough approximations. (1) Laboratory Phase: Assumption is that the work will be done in a Government laboratory and by Government personnel, i.e., Chemical Research, Development and Engineering Center where agent-approved laboratory capability exists. The work to be done incorporates laboratory studies on both agent and explosives materials. Approximately four months could be reduced if the work was limited to agent studies. Basis of Estimate: Duration: 1 Year   Labor Costs: 4 people @ $100,000 per man-year $400,000 Equipment, Supplies, Material 100,000 Consultant Services 100,000 Total $600,000 (2) Pilot Phase: It is postulated that the pilot studies will be performed at CAMDS, located at Tooele Army Depot, Utah. Current plans call for the CAMDS pilot facility to be closed and decontaminated by September 1995. However, the Army would have to retain this capability. This results in a limited core staff to maintain the facility in a ready condition for 36 months. The labor costs for the operations and environmental activities can be reasonably estimated. However, the design and capital costs for an undefined technology represent gross approximations with no major Military Construction, Army (MCA) costs in the estimate. However, the process may require MCA construction to safely house a supercritical water oxidation process which operates at or above 3,000 psi. This would not only represent a major cost, but obviously would also affect schedules. Conversely, the modifications could be less than what is estimated based on availability of equipment from the commercial developers of the process.

OCR for page 213
Alternative Technologies for the Destruction of Chemical Agents and Munitions Activity Duration Cost Estimate ($000) Design 12 mos 2,000 Environmental 24 mos 1,000 Modifications & Equipment Procurement/Installation 15 mos 15,000 Core Staffing  36 mos 35,000 (75 people -24 mos)     (115 people -12 mos)     Operations 24 mos 42,000 (150 people)     Closure 12 mos 12,000 (75 people)     Consultation Services N/A 1,000   Total 108,000 (3) Full-Scale Production Phase: Estimating the full-scale phase of a new undefined technology is considered to be an exercise in futility. Therefore, this study assumes that the current baseline technology costs for facilitization, systemization, and operations are valid for the alternative technology plan. This makes even more sense as the incinerators, which the new technology would replace, account for less than 10% of the capital costs. A substantial increase in design costs, however, is included as the current program bases its design costs on cloning of presently completed baseline designs, while the new or alternative technology designs must be developed from "scratch." The same applies to the environmental work. Therefore, the information presented below for facilitization, systemization, operations, and closure costs represent merely the inflation factors of moving the program into downstream years to incorporate the alternative technology.

OCR for page 213
Alternative Technologies for the Destruction of Chemical Agents and Munitions Site Current Costs ($000) Revised Costs ($000) ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND Design 8,000 10,000* Environmental 800 1,000 Facilitization 248,000 311,000 Systemization 37,000 46,000 Operations 111,200 140,000 Consultants N/A 1,000 Closure 33,000 41,000 Total 438,000 550,000 * Includes Title II Services NEWPORT ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT Design 12,000 15,000* Environmental 800 1,000 Facilitization 230,000 287,000 Systemization 37,000 46,000 Operations 88,200 112,000 Consultants N/A 1,000 Closure 28,000 35,000 Total 396,000 497,000 * Includes Title II Services; Provides Inforamtion to APG Design

OCR for page 213
Alternative Technologies for the Destruction of Chemical Agents and Munitions Site Current Costs($000) Revised Costs ($000) LEXINGTON-BLUE GRASS ARMY DEPOT Design 9,000 18,000* Environmental 800 1,000 Facilitization 374,000 476,000 Systemization 65,000 82,000 Operations 164,200 210,000 Consultants N/A 1,000 Closure 44,000 55,000 Total 657,000 843,000 * Includes Title II Services 5. Program Costs. In addition to the above, additional program costs can be expected. These costs are calculated on a 7.8 year program extension for APG and NAAP, and 8.4 years for the LBAD site. Activity Estimated Costs ($000) Internal Operating Budget 80,000 Support Contracts 40,000 Emergency Response 125,000 Continued Storage 125,000 For Case 2, the costs reflect inflation from stopping work when the amendment is passed (October 1992) and restarting in January 1994 as well as the associated inefficiencies involved with stoppage and restart of work. In essence, therefore, the costs of delaying the three sites by 13 months for both APG and NAAP, and 21 months for LBAD, are reflected for this case.

OCR for page 213
Alternative Technologies for the Destruction of Chemical Agents and Munitions 5. Summary. CASE 1. (1) Schedule: Site Current Schedule Revised Schedule Change APG Jun 1999 Mar 2007 93 mos NAAP Apr 1999 Jan 2007 93 mos LBAD Feb 2000 Jul 2008 101 mos (2) Costs: Site Current Costs ($000) Revised Costs ($000) Change APG 438,000 550,000 112,000 NAAP 396,000 497,000 101,000 LBAD 657,000 843,000 186,000 (3) Programmatic Costs Addition: Activity Costs ($000)   Internal Operating Budget 80,000   Support Contracts 40,000   Emergency Response 125,000   Continued Storage 125,000  

OCR for page 213
Alternative Technologies for the Destruction of Chemical Agents and Munitions

OCR for page 213
Alternative Technologies for the Destruction of Chemical Agents and Munitions

OCR for page 213
Alternative Technologies for the Destruction of Chemical Agents and Munitions

OCR for page 213
Alternative Technologies for the Destruction of Chemical Agents and Munitions CASE 2 PROCEED WITH BASELINE TECHNOLOGY AFTER DELAY FOR ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY REVIEW

OCR for page 213
Alternative Technologies for the Destruction of Chemical Agents and Munitions

OCR for page 213
Alternative Technologies for the Destruction of Chemical Agents and Munitions

OCR for page 213
Alternative Technologies for the Destruction of Chemical Agents and Munitions

OCR for page 213
Alternative Technologies for the Destruction of Chemical Agents and Munitions SFIL-CME-M (50q) 29 July 1992 INFORMATION PAPER SUBJECT: Chemical Agent Monitoring Limits 1. Purpose: To provide information to the National Research Council's Committee on Alternative Technology Committee relative to air monitors detection limits for lethal Chemical agents. 2. Facts. a. Agent monitoring standards are targeted to achieve a reliable of agent concentrations limits in air. The airborne agent standards are based on analyses and extrapolations of agent toxicological data. This applies to General Population Levels (GPL), Time Weighted Average (TWA) exposures of unprotected workers (long term) and High Level Exposure (HLE) of unprotected workers (short term). The latter is equivalent to the immediately-dangerous-to-life-and-health (IDLH) concentration. The Allowable Stack Concentration (ASC) is based on an achievable level of agent in incinerator exhausts from a well-designed and well-operated incinerator. Worst case air modelling of ASC emission from the plant exhaust stacks results in air concentrations well below the GPL at all detail installation boundaries. The ASC is the only one of the four critical standards which is not based on toxicological analyses. A fifth plant air control standard, described as the maximum allowable concentration of agent in air to which workers in protective clothing (the demilitarization protective ensemble or DPE) can be exposed, is based simply on the test limits of the DPE. b. Minimum detection limits (MDL) for GB, VX and HD using the Automatic Chemical Agent Monitoring System (ACAMS) and the Depot Area Air Monitoring System (DAAMS) are derived from precision and accuracy studies and are updated monthly based on responses from quality control challenges. Statistical analyses of instrument responses to a range of challenges are used to produce a regression curve with 95% confidence bounds. The MDL is defined as the lowest true agent concentration that, 50% of the time, results in 97.5% confidence that the agent will be detected. Current operational data from JACADS and CAMDS produced the following MDL for the ACAMS and the DAAMS for each of the three lethal chemical agents. MINIMUM DETECTION LIMITS FOR ACAMS (mg/m3) Agent ASC TWA HLE GB 0.000030 0.000010 0.020 VX 0.000039 0.0000013 0.0026 HD 0.006 0. 0006 0. 0006

OCR for page 213
Alternative Technologies for the Destruction of Chemical Agents and Munitions MINIMUM DETECTION LIMITS FOR DAAMS (mg/m3) Aent ASC TWA HLE GB 0.000009 0.000003 0.006 VX 0.00012 0.00004 0.0008 HD 0.003 0.0003 0.0003

OCR for page 213
Alternative Technologies for the Destruction of Chemical Agents and Munitions 1 June 1992 INFORMATION PAPER SUBJECT: Disposal of Wastes from the JACADS Facility 1. Purpose: To respond to four questions raised by the National Research Council's Alternative Technology Committee. 2. Responses to the NRC Committee's questions were prepared by the operating contractor for the Army's Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization. Questions and responses are as follows: a. Question. What are the costs, permits, etc. related to waste shipments from Johnston Island? Response. JACADS hazardous wastes are classified into two categories-process wastes and non-process wastes. Process wastes are generated as a direct result of the incineration processes. wastes are generated from general maintenance of the facility. Process wastes (hazardous or non-hazardous) are normally shipped to (Chem-Waste Management Inc. 's Kettleman Hills Facility to California. In the case where the Brine Reduction Area (BRA) cannot be operated, then brines may be sent to them-Waste Management's Corpus Christi, Texas, deep well injection disposal facility. Non-process wastes are shipped to the defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) facility in Hawaii. JACADS wastes are accepted by these Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) after the wastes have been Characterized (''profiled'') by JACADS Environmental personnel and verified by the TSDF laboratory personnel. profiling involves sampling, analyses, and data reporting of the wastes to be disposed. Waste permits are called profiles. Every waste is profiled before it gets accepted for disposal by the TSDFs. The cummulative cost of JACADS process wastes disposed through the Chem-Waste contract through April, 1992 is approximately $1,015,000. The cost for JACADS non-process waste disposed through January, 1992 is approximately $124,000. The total cost for JACADS wastes from the start to now is approximately $1,139,000. This total reflects only the cost of disposal at the TSDFs. It does not include the water shipment transportation incurred by Matson Navigation Company. b. Question. What are the transportation criteria and any restrictions placed upon these shipments? Response. Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (Department of Transportation) are followed for shipment of the wastes through water and over

OCR for page 213
Alternative Technologies for the Destruction of Chemical Agents and Munitions land. The only restrictions pertain to weight limitations and section of incompatible wastes in sea nets or conexes. c. Question. What are the rules for shipment and landfill disposition of 3X material? Response. Before any 3X materials are shipped off-island, the U.S. Army Safety Department Headquarters must approve release. specific existing procedures or to-be-generated procedures followed for all 3X items to be disposed. All 3X materials approved for disposal are sent to Chem-Waste at Kettleman Hills. d. Question. What are landfill costs currently being Response. costs differ for each type of JACADS waste. This is dependent on what type of pre-treatment is necessary before actual landfilling or deep-well injecting of the particular JACADS waste. Listed below are current examples of process and non-process wastes and their disposal costs. Process Wastes   DFS Ash and Metal Residue $367/ton BRA Salts $130/drum 3X DPE Suits $50/drum Brines $.60/gallon Non-Process Wastes   Corrosives (Acids/Caustics) $2/pound Contaminated oil $1/pound Glycols $l/pound Paint, solids $.50/pound Detailed breakdown of the costs are provided for each type of waste in the contracts with (hem-Waste and with DRMO-Hawaii. ACTION OFFICER: JOSEPH S. STANG OFFICER: DONALD L. PUGH