Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies

Panel on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies

Board on Army Science and Technology

Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems

National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
WASHINGTON, D.C.
1996



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 R1
--> Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies Panel on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies Board on Army Science and Technology Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS WASHINGTON, D.C. 1996

OCR for page R1
--> NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is interim president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and interim vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. This is a report of work supported by Contract DAAH04-95-C-0049 between the U.S. Army and the National Academy of Sciences. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 96-61747 International Standard Book Number 0-309-05525-3 Copies available from the: National Academy Press 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Box 285 Washington, DC 20418 800-624-6242, 202-334-3313 (in the Washington Metropolitan Area) Copyright 1996 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.

OCR for page R1
--> PANEL ON REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE CHEMICAL DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES RICHARD S. MAGEE, Chair, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark JOAN B. BERKOWITZ, Farkas Berkowitz & Company, Washington D.C. GENE H. DYER, Consultant, San Rafael, California FREDERICK T. HARPER, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico JOSEPH A. HEINTZ, Consultant, Schererville, Indiana DAVID A. HOECKE, Enercon Systems Inc., Elyria, Ohio DAVID S. KOSSON, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Piscataway WALTER G. MAY, University of Illinois, Urbana ALVIN H. MUSHKATEL, Arizona State University, Tempe LAURANCE ODEN, U.S. Bureau of Mines (retired), Albany, Oregon GEORGE W. PARSHALL, Dupont Company (retired), Wilmington, Delaware L. DAVID PYE, Alfred University, Alfred, New York ROGER W. STAEHLE, Consultant, North Oaks, Minnesota WILLIAM TUMAS, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico Board on Army Science and Technology Liaison ROBERT A. BEAUDET, University of Southern California, Los Angeles Staff BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director, Division of Military Science and Technology MICHAEL A. CLARKE, Study Director ROBERT J. KATT, Technical Writer/Consultant MARGO L. FRANCESCO, Administrative Associate DEBORAH B. RANDALL, Senior Secretary/Project Assistant

OCR for page R1
--> BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY GLENN K. OTIS, Chair, U.S. Army (retired), Newport News, Virginia CHRISTOPHER C. GREEN, Vice Chair, General Motors Corporation, Warren, Michigan ROBERT A. BEAUDET, University of Southern California, Los Angeles GARY L. BORMAN, University of Wisconsin, Madison ALBERTO COLL, U.S. Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island LAWRENCE J. DELANEY, BDM Europe, Munich, Germany WILLIAM H. FORSTER, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland ROBERT J. HEASTON, Guidance and Control Information Analysis Center, Chicago THOMAS L. MCNAUGHER, RAND, Washington, D.C. NORMAN F. PARKER, Varian Associates (retired), Cardiff by the Sea, California STEWART D. PERSONICK, Bell Communications Research, Inc., Morristown, New Jersey KATHLEEN J. ROBERTSON, Booz · Allen and Hamilton, McLean, Virginia JAY P. SANFORD, University of Southwestern Health Sciences Center, Dallas, Texas HARVEY W. SCHADLER, General Electric (retired), Schenectady, New York JOYCE L. SHIELDS, Hay Management Consultants, Arlington, Virginia CLARENCE G. THORNTON, Army Research Laboratories (retired), Colts Neck, New Jersey JOHN D. VENABLES, Martin Marietta Laboratories (retired), Towson, Maryland ALLEN C. WARD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Staff BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director MICHAEL A. CLARKE, Senior Program Officer ROBERT J. LOVE, Senior Program Officer ERIC T. SHIMOMURA, Senior Program Officer DONALD L. SIEBENALER, Senior Program Officer MARGO L. FRANCESCO, Administrative Associate ALVERA GIRCYS, Financial Associate JACQUELINE CAMPBELL-JOHNSON, Senior Project Assistant CECELIA L. RAY, Senior Project Assistant SHIREL R. SMITH, Senior Project Assistant DEBORAH B. RANDALL, Senior Secretary/Project Assistant

OCR for page R1
--> Preface In 1985, Public Law 99-145 mandated an "expedited" effort to dispose of M55 rockets containing unitary chemical warfare agents because of the potential for self-ignition of these particularly hazardous munitions during storage. This program soon expanded into the Army Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program (CSDP), whose mission was to eliminate the entire stockpile of unitary chemical weapons. The CSDP developed the current baseline incineration system. In 1992, after setting several intermediate goals and dates, Congress enacted Public Law 102-484, which directed the Army to dispose of the entire stockpile of unitary chemical warfare agents and munitions by December 31, 2004. Since 1987, the Committee on Review and Evaluation of the Army Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program (the Stockpile Committee) of the National Research Council (NRC) has overseen the Army's disposal program and has endorsed the baseline incineration process as an adequate technology for destroying the stockpile. Growing public concerns about and opposition to incineration, coupled with the rising cost of the CSDP, have raised interest in alternatives. The Stockpile Committee, which has been following the state of alternative technologies, reviewed a NRC study of alternative technologies by a separate NRC committee and in 1994 recommended that the Army continue research on neutralization. In the summer of 1995, the assistant secretary of the Army for research, development and acquisition informally explored the issue of examining alternative chemical disposal technologies with the Stockpile Committee. Following numerous discussions between the Army and the NRC, a decision was made to conduct a new NRC study to reexamine the status of a limited number of maturing alternative chemical disposal technologies (including the two neutralization-based processes on which the Army was currently conducting research) for possible implementation at the two bulk-storage sites at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, and the Newport Chemical Activity, Indiana. The NRC established the Panel on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Disposal Technologies (the AltTech Panel) to conduct the new study. The panel includes six members of the Stockpile Committee, who have accumulated experience in dealing with the complex issues involved in monitoring the destruction of the unitary chemical agent stockpile, and eight new members who possess specific expertise for thoroughly evaluating the alternative technologies. The panel received detailed briefings from the Army and the three companies that had proposed alternative technologies for the Army's consideration (hereafter, the technology proponent companies, or TPCs). Before the briefings on individual technologies, the panel compiled a questionnaire to elicit information needed to evaluate the technologies on a range of factors. The questionnaire was sent to the TPCs and to the Army team for neutralization-based technologies. The responses to the questionnaires and subsequent follow-up conversations were supplemented with site visits by teams of panel members to inspect each TPC's technology. In addition to gathering technical information on the alternative technologies, the AltTech Panel met with members of the public from the communities near the Aberdeen and Newport sites. These meetings included public forums, which were open to all, and meetings with the Citizens Advisory Commissions for Maryland and Indiana. (These commissions are formal groups established as a channel of communication with communities near stockpile sites.) The panel also met with regulators from the state agencies responsible for review and approval of permits required by agent destruction facilities and for implementing other relevant regulations and state laws. Parallel with the AltTech Panel activities and under Army supervision, the TPCs conducted small-scale tests of their technologies on actual chemical agent. The Army also contracted with MitreTek Systems, Inc., to perform a preliminary accident hazard assessment for

OCR for page R1
--> each technology. The test results and the contractor's report were provided to the panel for consideration. The activities described above formed the basis for the findings and recommendations in this report. To the members of the Stockpile Committee who agreed to perform double duty by serving on the AltTech Panel, I owe a great deal of gratitude. To the new members, I want to express my appreciation for the fresh insights they provided. Without their help, the evaluations would have suffered. I thank all these volunteers for the time and energy they contributed at the expense of other responsibilities. The travel and inconvenience of conducting a fast-track study were considerable; each member spent a great deal of time analyzing information, arriving at consensus evaluations and judgments, and capturing the results in writing. On behalf of the National Research Council, I thank each of them. The AltTech panel recognizes and appreciates the substantial support provided by the Army staff and the program office for chemical demilitarization. The panel also recognizes the efforts of the TPCs. You were all cordial, responsive, forthcoming, and generous with your time. Thank you. The panel greatly appreciates the support of panel activities and the timely production of the report by NRC staff members Michael Clarke, Margo Francesco, and Deborah Randall as well as the services of the reports officer of the Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, Carol Arenberg, the consulting technical writer, Robert Katt, the electronic composition by Mary Beth Mason and Sally Naas and the graphics by consultant James Butler. RICHARD S. MAGEE, CHAIR PANEL ON REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE CHEMICAL DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

OCR for page R1
--> Contents     Executive Summary   1 1   Introduction   6     The Call for Disposal   6     Description of the Stockpile   6     Agents   6     Containers and Munitions   7     Geographical Distribution   7     Role of the National Research Council   9     Scope and Organization of the Study   11     Report Organization   14 2   Evaluation Factors   15     Process Efficacy   15     Technology Status   16     Capacity to Detoxify Agent   16     Satisfaction of Treaty Requirements   17     Satisfaction of Environmental and Other Regulatory Requirements   17     Management of Process Residuals   17     Process Stability, Reliability, and Robustness   18     Process Monitoring   18     Energy and Natural Resource Requirements   18     Scale-Up Requirements   18     Applicability for Treating Other Wastes   18     Process Safety   19     In-Plant Safety and Health Risks   19     Risk to Community Safety, Health, and the Environment   19     Risk Assessments prior to the Pilot-Testing Decision   20     Schedule   20     Role of Evaluation Factors in the Study   21 3   Framework for Assessing Alternative Technologies   22     Framework for the Questionnaires   22     Off-Site Transport, Storage, and Processing of Process Residuals   23 4   Catalytic Extraction Process Technology   25     Process Description   25     Technology Overview   25     Chemical Demilitarization Process   26

OCR for page R1
-->     Scientific Principles   28     Dissociation and Reaction of Tuyere-Injected Materials   29     Catalysis by the Bath and the Formation of Intermediates   30     Partitioning of Products among Metal, Slag, and Gas Phases   32     Process Modeling   32     Conclusions on the Underlying Science   33     Technology Status   33     Fall River Demonstration Unit   33     Oak Ridge Facilities   34     Agent Testing   35     Summary of Technology Status   35     Panel Summary of Technology Status   35     Process Operation   35     Process Description   35     Agent Detoxification   35     Operational Modes   40     Feed Streams   43     Residual Streams   46     Instrumentation and Control   51     Bath Temperature Control   52     Bath Composition Control   52     Monitoring Bath Level   53     Monitoring Containment   53     Monitoring Residual Streams   53     Monitoring Synthesis Gas prior to Combustion   53     Air in the Containment Building   54     Stability, Reliability, and Robustness   54     Stability   54     Reliability   55     Robustness   55     Materials of Construction   55     Systems and Materials   55     Environmental Chemistry and Conditions   56     Qualification and Testing of Materials of Construction   60     Potential Failure Modes for Materials and Components   60     Monitoring and Inspection   60     Operations and Maintenance   61     Operational Safeguards   61     Failure and Hazards Analysis   61     Maintenance   62     Utility Requirements   63     Scale-Up Requirements   63     Equipment Scale-Up   63     Performance Scale-Up   65     Unit Operations   66     Process Safety   66     Safety Issues Related to Off-Site Releases   68     Worker Safety Issues   68     Specific Characteristics that Reduce Risk Inherent in the Design   68     Schedule   68

OCR for page R1
--> 5   Mediated Electrochemical Oxidation Silver II   72     Process Description   72     Scientific Principles   78     Technology Status   79     Operational Requirements and Considerations   79     Process Operations   79     Compositional Changes during Normal Operation   82     Water Management System   84     NOx Reformer   84     Catholyte Silver Nitrate Recovery Circuit   84     Anolyte Offgas Condenser   85     Combined Offgas Treatment Circuit   85     Silver Management System   85     Energy Requirements   86     Startup and Shutdown   88     Feed Streams   88     Process Effluent Streams   89     Process Instrumentation and Control   93     Process Stability, Reliability, and Robustness   94     Stability   94     Reliability   96     Robustness   97     Materials of Construction   97     Systems and Materials   97     Environmental Conditions and Chemistry   98     Startup and Shutdown   98     Failure Definition   98     Operations and Maintenance   98     Operational Experience   99     Maintenance   100     Scale-Up Requirements   100     Process Safety   100     Plant Safety and Health Risks   100     Community Safety, Health, and Environmental Risks   101     Schedule   101 6   Gas-Phase Chemical Reduction Technology   102     Process Description   102     Scientific Principles   103     Feed-Destruction Chemistry   103     Reactor Effluent Scrubbing   107     Technology Status   108     Operational Requirements and Considerations   109     Process Operations   109     Materials and Energy Balance   110     Feed Streams   111     Process Residual Streams   111     Process Instrumentation and Controls   112     Process Stability, Reliability, and Robustness   113

OCR for page R1
-->     Stability   113     Reliability   113     Robustness   114     Materials of Construction   114     Environmental Definition   114     Materials to be Used   115     Design Features   115     Modes of Degradation   115     Failure Modes   115     Operations and Maintenance   116     Operations   116     Startup and Shutdown Procedures   116     Maintenance   116     Utility Requirements   117     Scale-Up Requirements   117     Process Safety   118     Off-Site Safety Issues   118     Worker Safety Issues   119     Specific Characteristics that Reduce Risk Inherent in the Design   119     Schedule   119 7   Neutralization Technology for Mustard Agent HD   120     Background to Process Configurations   120     Process Description   123     Scientific Principles   125     Technology Status   127     Hydrolysis of HD   127     Biodegradation of Hydrolysate   128     Treatment of VOCs   129     Operational Requirements and Considerations   130     Process Operations   130     Agent Detoxification and Consistency of Standards   133     Process Flow Diagrams and Overall Mass and Energy Balances   134     Operational Modes   136     Reagents and Feed Streams   138     Process Stability, Reliability, and Robustness   138     Neutralization   138     Biotreatment   139     Waste Solidification   139     Water Recycling   139     Materials of Construction   139     Operations and Maintenance   140     Operational Experience   140     Maintenance   140     Utility Requirements   140     Scale-Up Requirements   140     Bench Scale to Pilot Plant   140     Pilot Plant to Full-Scale Facility   141     Process Safety   141

OCR for page R1
-->     Worker Safety Issues   141     Specific Characteristics that Reduce Inherent Risk of Design   141     Schedule   141 8   Neutralization Technology for Nerve Agent VX   143     Process Description   143     Scientific Principles   146     Technology Status   147     Alkaline Hydrolysis   147     In Situ Neutralization   148     Operational Requirements and Considerations   149     Process Operations   149     Agent Detoxification   150     Operational Modes   151     Emergency Startup and Shutdown   151     Feed Streams   151     Residual Streams   152     Process Stability, Reliability, and Robustness   152     Stability   152     Reliability and Robustness   152     Operations and Maintenance   152     Operational Experience   152     Maintenance   153     Scale-Up Requirements   153     Bench Scale to Pilot Plant   153     Pilot Plant to Full-Scale Facility   153     Process Safety   153     Schedule   154 9   Community and Environmental Regulator Views Concerning the Alternative Technologies   155     Background and Approach   155     Public Forums   156     Context   156     Issues Common to Communities at Both Sites   157     Specific Concerns of the Newport Community   161     Specific Concerns of the Aberdeen Community   162     Panel Meetings with the CACs   162     Meeting with the Chair of the Indiana CAC   162     Meeting with and Comments from the Maryland CAC   162     Environmental Regulators   163     Permitting Requirements under RCRA   164     Time to Obtain Permits   164     Off-Site Shipping of Process Residuals   164     Treatment of Synthesis Gas Combustion   164     Pilot Demonstration of an Alternative Technology   165     Emergency Management   165     TPC Experience with Public Involvement and Environmental Regulators   165

OCR for page R1
--> 10   Technology Comparisons   167     How the Comparison Criteria Were Derived   167     The Comparison Criteria   167     Process Performance and Engineering   167     Technology Status   168     Stability, Reliability, and Robustness   168     Safety, Health, and the Environment   168     Safety Interlocking   168     Hazard Inventory   168     Test prior to Release   168     Environmental Burden   170     Worker Safety   170     Implementation Schedule   170     Technical Development   170     Processing Schedule   170     Permitting Requirements   170     Public Acceptance   170     Summary of Key Comparative Differences   170     Catalytic Extraction Processing   171     Process Performance and Engineering   171     Safety, Health, and the Environment   171     Implementation Schedule   174     Electrochemical Oxidation   175     Process Performance and Engineering   175     Safety, Health, and the Environment   175     Implementation Schedule   176     Gas-Phase Chemical Reduction   177     Process Performance and Engineering   177     Safety, Health, and the Environment   177     Implementation Schedule   178     Neutralization of HD   179     Process Performance and Engineering   179     Safety, Health, and the Environment   179     Implementation Schedule   180     Neutralization of VX   180     Process Performance and Engineering   180     Safety, Health, and the Environment   181     Implementation Schedule   181 11   Findings and Recommendations   183     General Findings   183     Findings and Recommendations for the Aberdeen and Newport Sites   184     Technology Selection   185     HD at Aberdeen   185     VX at Newport   186     References   189

OCR for page R1
-->     Appendices         A Commerce Business Daily Announcement   195     B Input from the Public   198     C Meetings and Site Visits   201     D Modification to Statement of Task   204     E Electrochemical Oxidation   205     F Gas-Phase Reduction   208     G Mass Balances for HD Neutralization   213     H Mass Balances for VX Neutralization   236     I Biographical Sketches of Panel Members   241     J Questionnaires Sent to Technology Proponent Companies and Environmental Regulators   245

OCR for page R1
--> Tables and Figures Tables 1-1   Physical Properties of Chemical Warfare Agents   7 1-2   Chemical Munitions Stored in the Continental United States   9 1-3   Composition of VX from Ton Containers Stored at Newport   10 1-4   Composition of HD from Ton Containers Stored at Aberdeen   11 4-1   Calculated Solubility of VX and Cofeed Elements in Iron at 1600°C and Time to Saturate the Iron Bath at Processing Conditions   31 4-2   Status of CEP Units from Bench Scale to Commercial- Scale   34 4-3   CEP Heat and Material Balances for VX Gas Handling   50 4-4   Expected Composition of CEP Gas Streams prior to and after Combustion in a Gas Turbine Generator   51 4-5   Nominal Composition of CPU-2 Metal Phase   57 4-6   Flow Rates in the Gas Handling Train for HD Processing   57 4-7   Summary of Utility Requirements for a CEP Facility   64 4-8   Specific Processing Rates of Bench Tests Relative to Full-Scale Design Rates   66 4-9   CEP Unit Operations by Process Area   67 4-10   Critical Activities in the Program Schedule   70 5-1   Feed Stream Compositions and Quantities   89 5-2   Mass Balance for HD Destruction   92 5-3   Mass Balance for VX Destruction   93 5-4   Elements of a Supervisory Control and Data System for Silver II   95 5-5   Hazard and Operability Challenges   98 6-1   Composition of Reformer Gas   111 6-2   Daily Energy Requirements to Process HD at 9 Metric Tons Per Day   117 7-1   Aquatic Toxicity of Bioreactor Feed and Effluent from Laboratory and Bench-Scale SBR Testing   134 7-2   Summary of Unit Operations and Inputs Required for Each Process Configuration   135 7-3   Summary of Waste Streams and Quantities for Each Process Configuration   136 7-4   Summary of Energy Requirements for Each Process Configuration   137 8-1   Toxicity of VX and VX Hydrolysates as Measured by 24-Hour Intravenous LD50 in Mice   151 9-1   Summary of Community Issues Raised in Public Meetings with the AltTech Panel   158 10-1   Process Engineering Data for Alternative Technologies   169 10-2   Summary of Comparison Criteria for VX at Newport and HD at Aberdeen   172 E-1   Elemental Breakdown of Mass Balances for VX Destruction   206 E-2   Elemental Breakdown of Mass Balances for HD Destruction   207 F-1   Material Flows to and from GPCR Reactor   210 F-2   Material Balance for HD in the ECO LOGIC Process   211 G-1   Process Inputs for HD Neutralization, Configuration 1   216

OCR for page R1
--> G-2   Process Outputs for HD Neutralization, Configuration 1   218 G-3   Process Inputs for HD Neutralization, Configuration 2   222 G-4   Process Outputs for HD Neutralization, Configuration 2   224 G-5   Process Inputs for HD Neutralization, Configuration 3   228 G-6   Process Outputs for HD Neutralization, Configuration 3   230 G-7   Process Inputs for HD Neutralization, Configuration 4   234 G-8   Process Outputs for HD Neutralization, Configuration 4   235 H-1   Process Inputs for VX Neutralization   237 H-2   Process Outputs for VX Neutralization   240 Figures 1-1   Types of agent and munitions and percentage of total agent stockpile at each storage site   8 4-1   Primary agent and residue process flows for a chemical demilitarization CEP facility   27 4-2   High level block diagram for the destruction of HD by CEP   28 4-3   High level block diagram for the destruction of VX by CEP   29 4-4   Block flow diagram for CEP facility   36 4-5   CEP process flow diagram for VX feed injection system into CPU-2, with premelting chamber for ton containers   38 4-6   CEP process flow diagram for VX CPU-2 offgas treatment   40 4-7   CEP process flow diagram for VX CPU-1 gas handling train   42 4-8   CEP process flow diagram for VX relief system   44 4-9a   CPU block diagram and material balances for HD treatment   46 4-9b   CPU block diagram and material balances for HD treatment   47 4-10a   CPU block diagram and material balances for VX treatment   48 4-10b   CPU block diagram and material balances for VX treatment   49 4-11   CEP program schedule and phasing concept   69 5-1   Schematic diagram of the basic cell module for mediated electrochemical oxidation   72 5-2   Exploded view of the FM21 electrochemical cell   73 5-3   Block flow diagram of the Silver II process total system   74 5-4   Process flow diagram for a single Silver II cell   76 5-5   Anolyte offgas condenser, NOx reformer, silver nitrate recovery circuit, and combined offgas treatment circuit   80 5-6   Silver management system   82 5-7   Silver chloride treatment system   86 5-8   Process flow diagram for services and utilities   90 5-9   Schematic flow diagram of the FM01 test rig   99 6-1   Schematic diagram of commercial-scale process   104 6-2   Main reactor in the gas-phase chemical reduction process   106 7-1   Process Configuration 1: Neutralization followed by on-site biodegradation, including water recycling and photochemical oxidation of VOCs   121 7-2   Process Configuration 2: Neutralization followed by on-site biodegradation. VOCs are treated by photochemical oxidation. Biodegradation process effluent is discharged to a FOTW   122

OCR for page R1
--> 7-3   Process Configuration 3: Neutralization followed by on-site biodegradation. VOCs are shipped to an off-site TSDF. Biodegradation process effluent is discharged to a FOTW   123 7-4   Process Configuration 4: Neutralization followed by off-site biodegradation of the hydrolysate at a TSDF. VOCs remain in the hydrolysate   124 7-5   Chemical reactions during the hydrolysis of HD   126 8-1   Block flow diagram of VX neutralization with sodium hydroxide and sodium hypochlorite   144 8-2   Reaction scheme for neutralization of VX with sodium hydroxide   147 G-1   HD neutralization, configuration 1. Neutralization followed by on-site biodegradation, including water recycling and photochemical oxidation of VOCs   214 G-2   HD neutralization, configuration 2. Neutralization followed by on-site biodegradation. VOCs are treated by photochemical oxidation. Biodegradation process effluent is discharged to a FOTW   220 G-3   HD neutralization, configuration 3. Neutralization followed by on-site biodegradation. VOCs are shipped to an off-site TSDF. Biodegradation process effluent is discharged to a FOTW   226 G-4   HD neutralization, configuration 4. Neutralization followed by off-site biodegradation of hydrolysate at a TSDF. VOCs remain in the hydrolysate   232 H-1   VX neutralization and treatment with oxidizing agent, followed by off-site treatment of oxidized hydrolysate   238

OCR for page R1
--> Abbreviations and Acronyms ACAMS automatic continuous air monitoring system APG Aberdeen Proving Ground ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ALTTECH Panel on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies BDAT best demonstrated available technology CAC Citizens Advisory Commission CAIN Citizen Against Incineration at Newport CEPTM catalytic extraction processing CFR Code of Federal Regulations CPU catalytic processing unit CSDP Army Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program CSEPP Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program CWC Chemical Weapons Convention CWWG Chemical Weapons Working Group DAAMS depot area agent monitoring system DC direct current DCS distributed control system DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane DRE destruction removal efficiency EMPA ethylmethylphosphonic acid EPA Environmental Protection Agency FMEA failure modes and effects analysis FOTW federally owned treatment works GB sarin (a nerve agent, o-isopropylmethylphosphonofluoridate) GC/MS gas chromatography followed by mass spectrometry HD distilled mustard agent, bis(2-chloroethyl sulfide) HLE high level exposure (a statutory standard for exposure to an airborne hazardous substance) HRT hydraulic residence time HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning IDLH immediately dangerous to life and health (a statutory standard for exposure to an airborne hazardous substance JACADS Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System LD50 lethal dose to 50 percent of a test population MEA monolethanolamine MLSS mixed liquors suspended solids MPA methylphosphonic acid MPL maximum permissible limit (a statutory standard for exposure to an airborne hazardous substance)

OCR for page R1
--> NPDES national pollutant discharge elimination system NRC National Research Council OPMAT&A Office of the Product Manager for Alternative Technologies and Approaches PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PMCD program manager for chemical demilitarization POTW publicly owned treatment works PPB parts per billion PPE personal protective equipment RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RPU radioactive processing unit SBR sequencing batch reactor SBV sequential batch vaporizer SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition SRT solid residence time TAGA trace atmospheric Gas Analyzer TPC technology proponent company TSDF treatment, storage, and disposal facility TWA time-weighted average TOCDF Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility VOC volatile organic compound VX a nerve agent (O-ethyl-S[2-diisopropyl amino)ethyl] methylphosphonothiolate