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 189
--> References Bowles, A. 1996. Personal communication from Alvin Bowles, Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Administration, Maryland Department of the Environment, to the AltTech Panel. April 8, 1996. Bradbury, J., K. Branch, J. Heerwagen, and E. Liebow. 1994. Community Viewpoints of the Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program. Washington, D.C.: Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories. Brenner, A., R. Chozick, and R.L. Irvine. 1992. Treatment of a high-strength mixed phenolic waste in an SBR. Water and Environmental Resources. 64: 128-133. Bretherick, L. 1985. Handbook of Reactive Chemical Hazards. Third Edition. London: Butterworths. Pp. 1,100-1,124. Brubaker, J., C. Maggio, G. Young, J. Henson, D. Grieder, L.L. Szafraniec, and W.T. Beaudry. 1995. Proceedings, ERDEC [Edgewood Research Development and Engineering Center] Scientific Conference on Chemical Defense Research, November 14, 1995, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland. Clinton Herald. 1994. The Clinton Herald. Clinton, Indiana. January 26, 1994. Douglass, J.J. 1996. Personal communication from J.J. Douglass, Dupont Environmental Treatment, Deepwater, New Jersey, to NRC Panel on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Technologies. August 1, 1996. ECO LOGIC. 1996a. System Safety Program and System Hazard Analysis. The ECO LOGIC Gas-Phase Chemical Reduction Process for the Destruction of Bulk HD and VX Chemical Agent and Decontamination of Their Containers and Associated Materiel. March 27, 1996. Prepared for U.S. Army product manager for alternative technologies and approaches, Aberdeen, Maryland. Rockwood, Ontario: ECO LOGIC. ECO LOGIC. 1996b. Report by ECO LOGIC, Inc., on Public Consultation Activities. April 4, 1996. Submitted to National Research Council, Panel on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Rockwood, Ontario: ECO LOGIC. Farmer, J.C., F.T. Wang, R.A. Hawley-Fedder, P.R. Lewis, L.J. Summers, and L. Foiles. 1992. Journal of the Electrochemical Society 139(3): 654-662. Flamm, K.J., Q. Kwan, and W.B. McNulty. 1987. Chemical Agent and Munition Disposal: Summary of the U. S. Army's Experience. Report SAPEO-CDE-IS-87005. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: U.S. Army Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization. Gibbs, K. 1996. Personal correspondence to the panel from Kathy Gibbs, CSEPP Public Affairs Office. April 3, 1996. Gill, D.M. 1996. Letter from D.M. Gill, business development manager, Defense Land, AEA Technology, U.S. DOD Chemical Demilitarization Project-Alternative Technology Program. April 4, 1996. Haley, M.V. 1996. Toxicity Testing by ERDEC [Edgewood Research, Development and Engineering Center]: HD Neutralization and Biodegradation Products. October. (Informal results presented to the AltTech panel, April 1996) Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: Edgewood Arsenal. Harvey, S.P. 1994. Report to the U.S. Army Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization, Agent Neutralization. I. Hydrolysis of Sulfur Mustard. March 1994. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: Edgewood Research, Development and Engineering Center and Geo-Centers, Inc. Harvey, S.P., T.A. Blades, L.L. Szafraniec, W.T. Beaudry, M.V. Haley, T. Rosso, G.P. Young, J.P. Earley, and R.L. Irvine. 1996. Kinetics and toxicological parameters of HD hydrolysis and biodegradation. Presented at NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Chemical Problems Associated with Old Arsenical and Mustard Munitions, March 17-19, 1996. Lodz, Poland. Harvey, S.P., ERDEC Research Biologist, 1995. Oral communication to G.W. Parshall. May 5, 1995. Hosseinzadeh, K. and N. Sachdeva. 1996. Personal communication from Kaveh Hosseinzadeh and Nand Sachdeva to Harold "Butch" Dye, and Alvin Bowles,
OCR for page 190
--> all from Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Administration of the Maryland Department of the Environment. March 15, 1996. Indiana, 1992a. Indiana Code, Section 13-7-8.5-3(b). Indiana, 1992b. Indiana Code, Section 13-7-8.5-13(b). Irvine, D.A., J.P. Earley, D.P. Cassidy, and S.P. Harvey. In press. Biodegradation of sulfur mustard hydrolysate in the sequencing batch reactor. To be published in Proceedings of the First International Water Quality Specialized Conference on Sequencing Batch Reactor Technology. Irvine, R.L., and L.H. Ketchum. 1988. Sequencing batch reactors for biological wastewater treatment. Critical Reviews in Environmental Control. 18: 255-294. Keane, P. 1996. Verbal communication from Patrick Keane, Illinois CSEPP, during an AltTech Panel meeting, March 13, 1996, Indianapolis, Indiana. Koch, M., and Z. Wertejuk. 1995. Scientific advances in alternative demilitarization technologies. Presentation at the NATO Advanced Research Workshop, April 25, 1995, Warsaw, Poland. Kosson, D.S., T.T. Kosson, and H. van der Sloot. 1993. Evaluation of Solidification/Stabilization Treatment Processes for Municipal Waste Combustion Residues. Springfield, Virgina: National Technical Information Service. (NTIS) Report PB93-229 870/AS. Lehmani, A., P.Turq, and J.P Simonin. 1996. Oxidation kinetics of water and organic compounds by Silver (II) using a potentiometric method. Journal of the Electrochemical Society 143(6): 1860-1866. Lovrich, J.W. 1996. Personal communication from J.W. Lovrich, coordinator for VX research, Office of the Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization, to G. W. Parshall , NRC Panel on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Technologies. July 22, 1996. Mackay, D., and W.Y. Shui. 1981. Critical review of Henry's Law constants for chemicals of environmental interest. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data 10(4): 1175-1198. Maryland. 1996. Annotated Code of the Public General Laws of Maryland, Environment, 7-239.3 (1987, as amended 1996). Maryland Citizens Advisory Commission (CAC). 1994. Comments on the Recommendations for the Disposal of Chemical Agents and Munitions. Report issued February 21, 1994. Maryland CAC. 1996. Meeting of the Maryland Citizens Advisory Commission with the NRC Panel on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies, March 15, 1996, Chestertown, Maryland. Massalski, T.B. 1986. Binary Alloy Phase Diagrams. Metals Park, Ohio: American Society for Metals. Mentasti, E., C. Baiocchi, and J.S. Coe. 1984. Mechanical aspects of reactions involving AG (II) as an oxidant. Coordination Chemistry Reviews 54: 131-157. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1979. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment/Disposal/Reuse. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Morales, M. 1996. Personal correspondence from Mickey Morales, public affairs specialist, Office of the Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization, Alternative Technology. May 10, 1996. M4 Environmental L.P. 1996a. News Release for Immediate Release, March 20, 1996. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. M4 Environmental L.P. 1996b. Alternative Technologies for Chemical Demilitarization. Response to NRC Questions and Conceptual Design Baseline Updates. Submitted to National Research Council. Panel on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: M4 Environmental L.P. April 4, 1996. M4 Environmental L.P. 1996c. Correspondence to Michael Clarke, study director, from T.J. Abraham, M4 Environmental L.P. May 10, 1966. M4 Environmental L.P. 1996d. Alternative Technologies for Chemical Demilitarization: National Program Plan. Submitted to U.S. Army Chemical, Biological and Defense Command. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: M4 Environmental L.P. May 31, 1996. M4 Environmental L.P. 1996e. Chemical Demilitarization Utilizing Catalytic Extraction Processing: Hazard Analysis. Prepared by H&R Technical Associates, Inc., Oak Ridge Tennessee. Submitted to U.S. Army Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: M4 Environmental L.P. March 1996. M4 Environmental L.P. 1996f. Public Participation Document. Submitted to National Research Council Panel on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: M4 Environmental L.P. April 4, 1996. Nagel, C.J., C.A. Chanenchuk, E.W. Wong, and R.D. Bach. 1996. Catalytic extraction processing: an elemental recycling technology. Environmental Science and Technology 30(7): 2155-2167. Novad, J. 1996. Personal communication from J. Novad, coordinator for HD neutralization studies, U.S. Army Alternative Technology Program, Aberdeen
OCR for page 191
--> Proving Ground, Maryland, to G. W. Parshall, NRC Panel on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Technologies. July 23, 1996. NRC (National Research Council). 1984. Disposal of chemical Munitions and Agents. National Research Council. Committee on Demilitarizing Chemical Munitions and Agents. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NRC. 1993. Alternative Technologies for the Destruction of Chemical Agents and Munitions. National Research Council. Committee on Alternative Chemical Demilitarization Technologies, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NRC. 1994a. Evaluation of the Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System Operational Verification Testing, Part II. National Research Council. Committee on the Review and Evaluation of the Army Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NRC. 1994b. Recommendations for the Disposal of Chemical Agents and Munitions. National Research Council. Committee on the Review and Evaluation of the Army Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NRC. 1995. Evaluation of the Army's Draft Assessment Criteria to Aid in the Selection of Alternative Technologies for Chemical Demilitarization. National Research Council . Committee on Review and Evaluation of the Army Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NRC. 1996. Review of Systemization of the Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility. National Research Council. Committee on Review and Evaluation of the Army Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Nunn, J. 1996a. Letter from John E. Nunn, III, cochair of the Maryland CAC, to the AltTech Panel. March 15, 1996. Nunn, J. 1996b. Letter from John E. Nunn, III, cochair of the Maryland CAC, to the AltTech Panel. April 11, 1996. O'Brien, G.J. and E.W. Teather. 1995. A dynamic model for predicting effluent concentrations for organic priority pollutants from an industrial wastewater treatment plant. Water Environment Research 67(6): 935-942. OTA (Office of Technology Assessment). U.S. Congress. 1992. Disposal of Chemical Weapons: An Analysis of Alternatives to Incineration. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Po, H.N., J.H. Swinehart, and T.L. Allen. 1968. Kinetics and mechanism of the oxidation of water by Silver II in concentrted nitric acid solution. Inorganic Chemistry 7: 244-249. Rao, Y. K. 1985. Stoichiometry and Thermodynamics of Metallurgical Processes. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ray, A. 1996. Letter from A. Ray to W. McGowan, M4 Environmental L.P. April 1, 1996. Satterfield, C.N. 1991. Heterogeneous Catalysis in Industrial Practice. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. SBR Technologies. 1996. Laboratory Feasibility Studies: Biodegradation of HD Hydrolysate in Sequencing Batch Reactors. Prepared for Edgewood Research, Development, and Engineering Center, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland. Contract DAAL03-91-0034. TCN No. 94353. South Bend, Indiana: SBR Technologies, Inc. Solarchem Environmental Systems. 1996. Report on the Rayox® design test to mineralize organic by-products in HD-caustic hydrolysate. Markham, Ontario. March 13, 1996. Steele, D.F. 1990. Electrochemical destruction of toxic organic industrial waste platinum. Metal Review 34: 10-14. U.S. Army. 1988. Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: U.S. Army Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization. U.S. Army. 1994. U.S. Army's Alternative Demilitarization Technology Report to Congress. 11 April 94. Department of the Army. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: U.S. Army Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization. U.S. Army. 1995a. Assessment Criteria to Aid in Selection of Alternative Technologies for Chemical Demilitarization. 26 April 95. Department of the Army, Alternative Technology Branch. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: U.S. Army Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization. U.S. Army. 1995b. Concept Design Package: Stand-Alone Neutralization. 21 November 1995. Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland: U.S. Army Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization. U.S. Army. 1996a. Alternative Technology Program Summary Status Report, Period 1 October 1995 through 31 December 1995. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: U.S. Army Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization.
OCR for page 192
--> U.S. Army. 1996b. Concept Design Package for HD Neutralization Followed by Biodegradation, 4 April 1996. Product Manager for Alternative Technologies and Approaches. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: U.S. Army Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization. U.S. Army. 1996c. HD and VX Effluent Management Interim Summary Report. 5 April 1996. (Draft version made available to the NRC.) Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland: U.S. Army Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization. U.S. Army. 1996d. Memorandum from Robert B. Perry, chief, Risk Management and Quality Assurance Office, Chemical Demilitarization Program, for the chief of staff, ATTN: DACS-SF. March 18. Memorandum from James A. Gibson, senior safety manager, Army Safety Office, Office of the Chief of Staff, to the program manager for chemical demilitarization. March 29, 1996. U.S. Army. 1996e. Mustard Agent, Neutralization Followed by Biodegradation: Findings Since 4 April 1996. May 31, 1996. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: U.S. Army Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization. U.S. Army. 1996f. Newport Chemical Activity Concept Design Package for VX Neutralization Followed by Off-Site Biodegradation. April 4, 1996. Product Manager for Alternative Technologies and Approaches. Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland: U.S. Army Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization. U.S. Army. 1996g. Cumulative Sample Analysis Data Report, HD Ton Container Survey Results. Dated March 14, 1996. Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland: U.S. Army Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization. U.S. Army. 1996h. U.S. Chemical Weapons Stockpile Information Declassified, News Release, Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs). Washington, D.C. January 22, 1996. U.S. Army. 1996i. Summary Report on Laboratory- and Bench-Scale Biodegradation Testing of Neutralized HD Mustard. Prelease draft dated March 13, 1996. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: U.S. Army Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization. U.S. Army. 1996j. Alternative Technologies Public Information Sessions. [undated white paper summarizing public sessions from January 25-27, 1966. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: Office of the Product Manager for Alternative Technologies and Approaches. U.S. Army. 1996k. Nerve Agent VX: Neutralization Followed by Offsite Biodegradation. Concept Design Package Supplement: Findings since 4 April 1996. May 31, 1996. Product Manager for Alternative Technologies and Approaches. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: U.S. Army Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization. Valenti, M. 1996. Ironing out industrial wastes. Mechanical Engineering 118 (March): 106-110. Yang, Y-C. 1995. Chemical reactions for neutralizing chemical warfare agents. Chemistry and Industry, n.9 (May 1): 334-337. Yang, Y-C., J.A. Baker, and J.R. Ward. 1992. Decontamination of chemical warfare agents. Chemical Reviews 92: 1729-1743. Yang, Y-C., L.L. Szafraniec, W.T. Beaudry, D.K. Rohrbaugh, L.R. Procell, and J.B. Samuel. 1995. Proceedings, ERDEC Scientific Conference on Chemical Defense Research, November 14, 1995. Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland. Zulty, J.J., J.J. DeFrank, and S.P. Harvey. 1994. Abstract 130, Scientific Conference on Chemical and Biological Defense Research, November 16, 1994. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.
OCR for page 193
OCR for page 194
This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page 195
--> Appendix A Commerce Business Daily Announcement August 14, 1995 Alternative Technologies for Chemical Demilitarization The U.S. Army, through the Office of the Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization is responsible for the demilitarization and disposal of chemical agents and munitions. Eight demilitarization facilities are proposed for construction and operation in the continental United States. The Army has demonstrated the operational effectiveness of incineration at its Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System facility. The first demilitarization facility for the continental United States has been constructed at Tooele Army Depot and is scheduled to be operational in 1995. In the spring of 1981, the Army began testing at the Chemical Agent Munitions Disposal System (CAMDS) at Tooele, Utah. The mission of CAMDS is to test and evaluate equipment and processes proposed for chemical agent munitions demilitarization facilities. The National Research Council's (NRC) Committee on Review and Evaluation of the Army Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program (Stockpile Committee) was formed in 1987 at the request of the Undersecretary of the Army to monitor the disposal program and to review and comment on relevant technical issues. The Stockpile Committee is a standing committee which remains in service with rotating membership until the demilitarization program is completed. As a consequence of public concern over the use of incineration for chemical warfare agent disposal, the Army commissioned in November 1991, the National Research Council to conduct a study to evaluate alternatives to the reverse assembly (baseline) incineration process for use in destroying the U.S. chemical stockpile. In January 1992, the National Research Council established the Committee on Alternative Chemical Demilitarization Technologies (Alternatives Committee) to develop a comprehensive list of alternative technologies and to review their capabilities and potential as agent and munitions disposal technologies. The Defense Authorization Act for FY93 directed the Army to submit to Congress a report on potential alternative technologies. The NRC report on recommendations for the disposal of chemical agents and munitions was published in 1994. The NRC recommended that the Army continue the current baseline incineration program, since, at that time, no other technologies were mature enough to meet the Army's requirements. However, the NRC did recommend that the Army investigate alternative technologies based on chemical neutralization for the bulk-only sites. In August 1994, the Army initiated an aggressive RDT&E program to investigate, develop, and support testing of two technologies based on chemical neutralization for the destruction of mustard (agent HD) at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, and nerve agent VX at the Newport Chemical Activity at Newport, IN. The two alternative technologies are stand-alone chemical neutralization and neutralization followed by biodegradation. The purpose of the RDT&E program is to determine whether an alternative technology warrants pursuing a pilot-scale facility based on one or both technologies. The decision to proceed to pilot-testing will be made by the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) in October 1996. The NRC also was aware that there would be ongoing development of the various research programs involving
OCR for page 196
--> potential alternatives subsequent to the publication of the NRC report in 1993 on alternative technologies. Thus, the NRC recommended that the Army continue to monitor research developments. The Army agrees with this NRC recommendation, and the Army has been exploring developments in technologies with potential application to chemical demilitarization as part of the RDT&E program. The Army will be conducting a survey to determine if there are any technologies other than the two already being evaluated by the Army as part of the Alternative Technology Program which are capable, within the Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program (CSDP) schedule of meeting chemical demilitarization requirements for the HD (mustard) and VX (nerve) agents stored at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, and Newport Chemical Activity, IN storage sites, respectively. This announcement requests information from industry on any alternative technology that a firm believes is mature enough to meet the needs of the Army program. The Army will conduct a preliminary 30 day screening to determine whether any of the technologies identified pursuant to this announcement warrant further review by the NRC. The Army will identify up to a maximum of three of the most promising technologies in addition to neutralization and neutralization followed by biodegradation. The evaluators will determine whether the technology meets the following screening criteria. Any proposed alternative technology should not resemble incineration (high temperature oxidation) or produce effluents characteristic of incineration; The technology must utilize processes and equipment that are developed or capable of being developed in time to meet the requirements of the Chemical Weapons Convention; Laboratory-scale testing must have been completed with agent or chemicals with similar properties to agent. Data must be available to provide an initial indication of performance characteristics and destruction efficiency. Interested firms are asked to provide information in the form of a conceptual design package within 60 days from the date of this announcement. The purpose of the conceptual design package is to demonstrate the feasibility of using an alternative set of process unit operations to conduct the total activities that are required to complete the program, and to provide a basis for its comparison with the baseline system. At a minimum, it should include the following: Process description. The information package should include a description of the total process, detailing how actual experience or test results have been used to project equipment performance, and how the various agent destruction, decontamination, and waste processing steps are conducted. The description should also provide an adequate basis for establishing that the process has a high probability of success, after pilot-testing, to perform the necessary agent destruction and waste disposal functions. Process data. Chemical and physical properties of all process materials should be provided to the extent that data is needed to design each unit operation in the overall process. Flow sheets, showing all proposed equipment, piping, and general control methods, including: Material and energy balances, projections showing all material flow rates, and energy requirements, such as heat generation and removal rates for each step of the process Process monitoring and control, showing all proposed process monitoring instrumentation and describing the methods used to control the process A description and characterization of all process waste streams. A description of storage facilities for all feed materials and all wastes prior to the final disposition. A description of facilities for packaging and handling wastes prior to off-site shipping. Utility requirements, including process requirements for both fuel and electricity. Also include need for backup requirements to allow for emergency shutdown of the process and related pollution control systems. Feed materials requirements, including both quantities and qualities of all chemicals that are required, and the need for any special feed preparation. Equipment lists for all major pieces of equipment for the destruction process, secondary treatment systems, and pollution control systems.
OCR for page 197
--> Any data generated from agent or simulant tests or data resulting from destruction of similar chemicals by the proposed processes. Equipment designs, including design sketches, sizing calculations and materials of construction for all major pieces of process equipment. Plant layout. The design should show the layout and working space for the major pieces of equipment, plot plans for the current storage facilities, and planned means for transport of agent containers from the storage area to the destruction facilities. On written request, firms will be provided with information on: the baseline incineration system; the chemical stockpile disposal program schedule; and the current program for developing neutralization and neutralization followed by biodegradation. Firms may write or fax their requests to Dr. Francis W. Holm, Science Applications International Corporation, 9 Aberdeen Shopping Plaza, Aberdeen, MD 21001. Fax: (410) 273-1001. The NRC will review those promising alternative technologies, if any, identified by the Army as well as neutralization and neutralization-biodegradation. Concurrently, proponents of technologies identified by the Army will be asked to furnish a notional program plan including: a rough, order of magnitude estimate of the projected cost and schedule and chemical agent destruction test data. Firms must perform testing to obtain actual chemical agent test data at an Army approved surety laboratory at the firm's expense. The test data must be available to the NRC for review by 31 May 1996. As a note of caution, those considering participation should understand that chemical agents and munitions are significantly more toxic than many substances normally referred to as "hazardous and toxic material." Therefore, high standards of employee, public, and environmental protection are required. This announcement is meant to offer industry the opportunity to make the Army aware of potential alternative technologies which can meet the needs of the chemical demilitarization program. The process outlined herein will not necessarily lead to any request for proposals (RFP) or contract awards. The government does not intend to reimburse firms for the cost of providing data originally submitted pursuant to this request. Mr. Eric W. Braerman, Procurement Directorate, CBDCOM, is the point of contact for this announcement, (410) 671-4469. ROBERT D. ORTON MAJOR GENERAL, U.S. ARMY PROGRAM MANAGER FOR CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION
OCR for page 198
--> Appendix B Input from the Public Chapter 9 discusses the rationale for public involvement in the panel's deliberations and describes interactions with the communities neighboring the Newport and Aberdeen sites and meetings with regulators. This appendix includes samples of the letters of invitation sent to individuals and organizations in Indiana and Maryland prior to the public forums and summarizes the categories of stakeholders contacted. The Army Program Office, located in Maryland with established communications links to stakeholders interested in the chemical demilitarization process, assisted with the notification process within Maryland. Because of the independent notification by the Army, the panel sent fewer letters to Maryland stakeholders than to Indiana stakeholders. Indiana Letters to government officials (federal, state, and city) 85 Letters to Indiana Citizens Advisory Commission (CAC) members 2 Letters to other citizens, media, companies, etc. 254 Maryland Letters to government officials (federal, state, and city) 7 Letters to Maryland Citizens Advisory Commission (CAC) members 9 Letters to other citizens, media, companies, etc. 95
OCR for page 199
--> Letter of Invitation to the Citizens of Newport, Indiana March 4, 1996 The National Research Council (NRC) has been asked by the Army to evaluate alternative technologies (alternatives to the Army's baseline incineration process) for the destruction of bulk chemical warfare agents stored at facilities near Aberdeen, Maryland and Newport, Indiana. In August through October, 1995, the Army conducted an evaluation of chemical destruction processes that resulted in the selection of three technologies, plus the Army's two neutralization technologies, to be evaluated by the NRC. A Panel on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies, called the AltTech Panel, was formed by the NRC. The AltTech panel will provide a report to the Army in August, 1996 that will make recommendations on whether any of the five technologies is suitable for pilot plant demonstration. In the Fall of 1996, the Army will present its recommendations to the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) on which, if any, of the technologies should move forward to the pilot plant demonstration phase. On Tuesday, March 12 at 7:00 p.m. representatives of the AltTech Panel will be present at North Vermillion High School, RR 1, Cayuga, Indiana, to solicit the public's views on these technologies. As Chairman of the AltTech Panel, I am writing to inform you of this information-gathering meeting. In the past, public meetings like this have added greatly to the knowledge base of other NRC committees and have ensured views of all interested parties are heard and considered. At the meeting you will be provided an opportunity to state your views about the five technologies. The AltTech panel has been informed that the Army provided information on the alternatives during its earlier meeting, and that you have also had the opportunity to review vendor-provided information and information placed by the Army in libraries. Therefore, the panel will not spend valuable time describing the technologies again at this meeting so that the time can be applied to the most important objective, hearing your input. I will begin the public meeting by making a short presentation that describes the NRC panel schedule and data gathering methodology. After my presentation, you may make your statements. To enable as many as possible with an opportunity to speak, you will be asked to limit your remarks to five minutes or less. If you intend to speak, please ensure you have signed in prior to the meeting. You are also encouraged to submit your statements in written form at the meeting, whether you speak or not. If you cannot attend the meeting, and you wish the AltTech panel to consider your views, please provide a written statement to the National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20418, Attn.: Mr. Michael A. Clarke, HA258, by March 31, 1996 The sole purpose of this meeting is to provide the public an opportunity to state its insights, observations, concerns, and feelings about the various technologies under consideration. You should also know that the panel will not share its assessment of the technologies with you at this meeting. That would be premature and is reserved for the panel's final report in August. Therefore, it is very important that you state only your views when you address the panel. Please do not address questions to vendor or Army personnel present. This meeting is intended to be a dialog between the NRC and the public. Conversations with the Army or vendors present should take place in other locations than the formal meeting. Your opinions on these important local and national issues are important to us. The panel members and I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Richard S. Magee, Chair AltTech Panel
OCR for page 244
--> Technology Group at Los Alamos National Laboratory. He is a senior chemist known primarily for his science and engineering research on waste treatment and minimization. His work has included research and development technology, industrial waste applications, and environmental restoration for DOE. At Los Alamos he has studied supercritical fluids, oxidation, and organic transformations. Dr. Tumas has written numerous papers and is a member of several professional organizations.
OCR for page 245
--> Appendix J Questionnaires Sent to Technology Proponent Companies and Environmental Regulators The AltTech Panel developed a questionnaire to guide panel members as they gathered information during visits and subsequent interactions with the three TPCs (technology proponent companies) and the Army's Alternative Technology Program, which was treated as the proponent for the neutralization technologies. This appendix includes samples of the cover memo sent to the TPCs and the memo sent to the Army, as well as the questionnaire.
OCR for page 246
--> December 15, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: Technology Firms FROM: Mike Clarke, AltTech Panel, Study Director As currently planned, representatives of the NRC's AltTech Panel will be visiting each of you during the month of January. These visits will necessarily be brief and to the point, as the assessment team's time is limited. Thank you all for the support you have already provided. The list of questions that follows is provided to each of you to facilitate discussion and to ensure that you have the opportunity to plan for the requisite company representation at the meetings. I make no assertion that the list is all-inclusive, that there are no redundancies, or that some of the information is included in your submissions; only that these represent the body of data sought. The assessment teams are free to range over a wide spectrum of pertinent subjects, but, clearly, if they receive clear and concise answers to this list, they will have achieved most of their data gathering goals. In preparing an agenda for this visit, please allow adequate time for this purpose, even if it is at the expense of other important activities such as tours or company briefings. Thanks in advance for your help. Recognizing that the holidays are rapidly approaching, and I'd like to take this opportunity to wish you "Happy Holidays" and a safe and prosperous New Year, if you choose to answer some or all of these questions in writing either in advance or for delivery at the meetings, that would be very much appreciated. It might help you with your responses and reduce the amount of note taking the assessment teams will have to do. There are, of course, other areas that will be investigated that do not involve the companies, including meetings with the Army, state and federal regulators, and the interested public. This process should be completed by March. Attachment: Questionnaire
OCR for page 247
--> December 15, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: LTC Steve Landry, Chief Applied Technology Branch FROM: Mike Clarke, AltTech Panel, Study Director As currently planned, representatives of the NRC's AltTech Panel will be visiting you during the month of January. For review of the Army's neutralization technologies, this visit is scheduled for 18 and 19 January at Aberdeen. The visit will necessarily be brief and to the point, as the assessment team's time is limited. Thank you all for the support you have already provided. The list of questions that follows is provided to each technology proponent to facilitate discussion and to ensure that you have the opportunity to plan for the requisite representation at the meeting. I make no assertion that the list is all-inclusive, that there are no redundancies, or that some of the information is included in your submissions; only that these represent the body of data sought. The assessment team is free to range over a wide spectrum of pertinent subjects, but, clearly, if it receives clear and concise answers to this list, it will have achieved most of its data gathering goals. In preparing an agenda for this visit, please allow adequate time for this purpose, even if it is at the expense of other important activities such as tours or technology briefings. Thanks in advance for your help. Recognizing that the holidays are rapidly approaching, and I'd like to take this opportunity to wish you "Happy Holidays" and a safe and prosperous New Year, if you choose to answer some or all of these questions in writing either in advance or for delivery at the meetings, that would be very much appreciated. It might help you with your responses and reduce the amount of note taking the assessment team will have to do. Attachment: Questionnaire
OCR for page 248
--> Questionnaire for Technology Assessment 1. Operational Requirements and Considerations 1.1 Feed Streams Has waste handling received attention so that one can be confident that there will be no surprises? What equipment is necessary for waste feeding and handling? At what scale has it been demonstrated? Is any pretreatment required? How are gels, solids, and other inhomogeneities handled and fed? How are the ton containers handled and what are the feed requirements to clean them? 1.2 Process Operation For agent detoxification: What is the maximum residual concentration of agent in each process effluent? Materials and Energy Balance: What is the quantity (per unit of agent), physical state (gas, liquid, solid, slurry) and chemical composition (major components, unreacted reactants, organic reaction products, inorganic reaction products) for each process effluent? Specify for each agent type to be processed. What are the analytical detection limits for each species in each phase? Are any of the process reactions reversible to the extent that agent can be reformed? What type of toxicity evaluation, if any, has been carried out on process residuals? For ton container cleanout: What is the proposed method for removal and detoxification of residual agent in bulk containers? How is detoxification/cleaning of ton containers ensured to 3X? 5X? What analytical methods will be necessary? How will the ton containers be managed (recycled, landfilled, etc.) after cleanout? Materials and Energy Balance: What is the quantity (per unit of agent), physical state (gas, liquid, solid, slurry) and chemical composition (major components, unreacted reactants, organic reaction products, inorganic reaction products) for each process effluent (e.g. decontamination fluid)? Specify for each agent type to be processed. What are the analytical detection limits for each species in each phase? 1.3 Process Effluent Streams For bulk agent and ton container cleanout: What is total amount of solid, liquid, aqueous, slurry and gaseous waste products produced from treatment? What is the proposed management scenario (e.g. aqueous discharge to wastewater treatment facility, solidification/stabilization, landfill, atmospheric emission, recycling) for each process effluent? What additional treatment will be required to achieve disposal requirements under the proposed management scenario? What testing has been carried out for these treatment requirements and at what scale and on what wastes? What commercial facilities have been identified as potential recipients for each effluent waste stream? What are the permit requirements for the proposed management option? For nonprocess wastes: How will nonprocess wastes (e.g. entry suits, dunnage, facility decontamination fluids) be managed? What additional treatment will be required to achieve disposal requirements under the proposed management scenario? What testing has been carried out for these treatment requirements? What commercial facilities have been identified as potential recipients for each nonprocess waste type? 1.4 Process Instrumentation and Controls What are the process monitoring requirements, e.g. detection limits for the feed and product streams? For process control? For effluents?
OCR for page 249
--> How stringent are the process monitoring and control requirements? Does proven monitoring technology exist to meet process control and effluent discharge requirements? What is the operational experience with these monitoring systems? If new monitoring technology is required, what is the status of its development? 2. Materials of Construction 2.1 System and Materials What is the overall system diagram of piping and components? What are the materials of construction of the piping and components? Alloys, specifications. Where are the welds and what is the state of their stress relief? What kinds of inspections of welds and joints are being made? 2.2 Environmental Chemistry What are the nominal chemical environments, temperatures, pressures, residual stresses, and flow rates in each of the pipes and components? What are the exterior environments for the piping and components, i.e., the environments on the side opposite the process side? E.g., insulation, relative humidity, atmospheric contamination, and leached chemicals? What is the major environment and its nominal composition? What impurities are in the environment? What kinds of crevices are there in the piping and components in terms of gaskets, tight geometries, thermal sleeves, weld under penetrations, surface deposits, and/or bottom deposits? Where are heat transfer surfaces? What are the heat fluxes? Is there any heat flux in crevice geometries such as at tube supports? What are the startup and shutdown procedures? What are the procedures for deoxygenating or similar steps on startup? What is the temperature change rate on startup? What is the design life of the system and materials? 2.3 Qualification of Materials in the Application • What work has been done to qualify materials of construction for the design life in the way of corrosion and mechanical testing? If no laboratory work has been done, what literature references support the application of the materials? 2.4 Failure Definition What modes of failure have you considered for the various materials and components in your total system? What are the bases for considering the various failure modes? 2.5 Monitoring and Inspection What factors are you planning to monitor in the operating system? E.g., chemistry (what species?), temperature, pressure? Is the monitoring continuous or batch? How frequently will the system be inspected, and what locations are inspected for what observations? 2.6 Previous Experience What similar engineering or field experience is available on this or similar systems? What failures have occurred? What have been the results of inspections? What prototype facilities or laboratory systems have been operated using your system? What is their experience, operation time, failures, inspections? 3. Process Stability, Reliability and Robustness 3.1 Stability Can deviation from "normal" operation lead to an out-of-control situation where the system will find another operating regime that is quite different from the one desired? Are there process mechanisms, e.g. uncontrolled reactions, that could lead to a catastrophic facility failure? What are the safeguards against such events?
OCR for page 250
--> How does the system respond/adjust to modest reaction condition changes, e.g. will a temperature rise lead to uncontrolled temperature increases. What is the total amount of stored energy in the system at any one time? 3.2 Reliability Does the mechanical equipment have a good record of performance? Are there backup systems to rescue the operation in case of failure of a component? How quickly will the backup system respond? 3.3 Robustness Will the process operate satisfactorily over a wide and varying range of operating conditions: temperature, pressure, energy input (mechanical, electrical, thermal) and composition of feed. How does the system respond to upsets in feed, reaction conditions or energy input? What control mechanisms are necessary to ensure operation with varying conditions and feeds? Will operation be continuous (days?, weeks?, months?) or intermittent? Which is better? Can other modes be employed? 4. Operations and Maintenance 4.1 Operations: What are the staffing requirements for normal operation? for normal shutdown/restart? for emergency shutdown/restart? What are the training requirements for staff (e.g. Ph.D electrical engineering vs. chemical plant operator vs. municipal sewage treatment operator)? What is the operational experience (documented) of the technology? On what kinds of wastes has the operational experience been obtained? What operational safeguards are built into the system? What control systems are necessary? What control systems have previously been demonstrated/employed? What does the control room look like? What experience is available on downtime vs. operational time? on what types of waste streams and at what scale? 4.2 8 hour versus 24 hour operation: Can the operation be reasonably run 8 hours a day? continuously for 24 hours a day? Does the system work better continuously or in an 8 hour operation shift? What are the requirements for shutdown/ready mode? 4.3 Startup/Shutdown: What is the procedure and can the system be shutdown and restarted with minimal upsets during normal operations? What are the procedures for emergency shutdown? What is the procedure for restarting after emergency shutdown? 4.4 Maintenance: What routine maintenance is required for normal operation? What documented record of performance is available concerning operation and maintenance of equipment? How much downtime is typical for normal operation? What is the operation/maintenance history of the technology? Are maintenance manuals and documented procedures available? What is the lifetime of equipment and what are the main consumables? What is the documented record of performance of equipment? How is the equipment replaced or maintained? What measures are taken to assure worker safety/exposure during routine maintenance? What staffing is required for normal maintenance? 5. Utility requirements What are the electrical, water and fuel requirements for the process?
OCR for page 251
--> 6. Scale-Up Requirements What is the state of development of the process? How novel is the process? What scale of operation has been demonstrated and on what types of waste? To what extent will the plant be modified from the largest operation demonstrated? To what extent is the process, or parts of it, demonstrated commercial technology? Has the process been demonstrated with agent, i.e. feedstock and range of feedstock anticipated for the plant? To what extent have processes that would be used for ton container cleanout been demonstrated and on what types of waste? Very high conversions, e.g. 6 nines, will be required. How does the reactor design allow for this, e.g. batch reaction, staged reactors, etc. Will it change with scale-up? How does the system scale with mass, volume? What are the economic scaling factors? How much is understood about mass and energy transfer and will there be differences in "mixing" and "heat transfer" between small and large scale equipment (e.g. impellers and vessel size/shape, flow Reynolds number, Froude number (2-phase))? Has any catalysis been adequately demonstrated over reasonable time of operation with the range of feeds and possible poisons that will be encountered? How is system regenerated after poisoning? How well are the reaction mechanisms and intermediates understood for the destruction process? Frequently a reaction requires an "intermediate" that is built up during the reaction itself; the reaction may exhibit an "induction period" as a consequence. Is the reaction mechanism understood well enough to anticipate this? How many unit operations are involved in the entire treatment process, including treatment of secondary wastes? 7. Facility Decommissioning How will the disposal facility be decommissioned? What wastes (type and quantity) will be generated from facility decommissioning and how will they be managed? 8. Process Safety 8.1 Plant Safety and Health Risks Risk of catastrophic failure and agent release: What are the possible modes of failure in feed systems, equipment, process operations, and monitoring systems that could give rise to a sudden release of agent? What influence could external factors have on the possibility of agent release (e.g. earthquake, vibration, ambient temperature, humidity, electrostatic discharge)? What measures can be taken to prevent the sudden release of agent and/or processing products? What is the proposal for secondary containment? What measures can be taken to mitigate the effects of an agent release on base personnel and the surrounding population if an agent release does occur? Risk of exposing plant workers to agent: What are the possible modes of exposure of workers to agent over the duration of the disposal program? What is the expected level and duration of exposure for each of the identified modes? What are the known human and health effects of such exposures? What can be done to prevent worker exposure? Risk of plant worker exposure to other hazardous chemicals: What other hazardous chemicals could workers be exposed to? What are the associated human health effects at the possible levels and duration of exposure? What can be done to prevent worker exposure, and to mitigate the effects of exposure if it does occur?
OCR for page 252
--> 8.2 Community Safety, Health and Environmental Risks Risks of agent release and exposure due to normal operations: What are the possible sources and duration of agent release during normal operations? Following release, what are the pathways of agent migration outside of plant boundaries? What are the possible routes, levels and duration of exposure? What are the health effects that might result? What damages might result to natural resources and man-made structures? Other risks due to normal operations: What other hazardous chemicals could be released during normal operations? What are the possible sources and duration of such releases? What are the pathways of migration outside of plant boundaries? What are the possible routes, levels and duration of exposure? What are the health effects that might result? What damages might result to natural resources and man-made structures? Risks due to abnormal events: What is the largest possible release of agent? What is the largest possible release of other hazardous chemicals? How large an area would be affected? What are the possible adverse effects on human health and the environment? What emergency preparedness and emergency response measures can be taken to mitigate adverse effects? Accident risk assessment: Has an accident risk assessment been done? If so, what were the results? Health and environmental risk assessment: Has a health and environmental risk assessment been done? If so, what were the results? Liability insurance: What type of liability insurance, if any, covers the use of the proposed technology? Has a risk assessment been conducted in support of an application for insurance? If so, what were the results? 9. Schedule What is the schedule for pilot-scale design and construction? What is the schedule for pilot-scale testing and evaluation? What is the effect on facility construction of scale-up requirements from pilot plant to commercial operations? What is the time required for facility construction? What is the time required for facility systemization? What is the effect on facility construction imposed by regulatory requirements? Permitting requirements? What is the effect of public acceptance on technology implementation? What is the expected duration of operations? What is the schedule for facility closure and site remediation?
OCR for page 253
--> Regulatory Review and Permitting Impacts The following questions were solicited from the AltTech panel members as those they would most like to discuss in meetings with state environmental officials in Maryland and Indiana. There are redundancies, but to avoid the omission of any subtleties, the questions are included as written. The general intent is to determine the extent to which regulatory and permitting impacts may affect the eventual use of the five alternative technologies under consideration by the Army and being evaluated by the NRC. There is no prioritization to the questions. What are the primary restrictions on quantity, composition and toxicity for aqueous waste disposal? What are the primary restrictions on quantity, composition and toxicity for solid waste disposal from a chemical agent destruction facility at a land disposal facility? What testing is required to verify attainment of requirements? What are the primary restrictions on quantity, composition and toxicity for atmospheric emissions from a chemical agent destruction process (combustion and non-combustion emissions)? What testing is required to verify attainment of requirements? What information will the regulatory agencies require to approve the use of these technologies? What are the permitting requirements and schedule for treatment technology systems? Have these systems been permitted on other wastes and at what scale? How can the AltTech Panel obtain a copy of the state or federal regulations governing the management of hazardous wastes, water effluents, and air emissions? Has your state been granted authority to administer: the RCRA program? NPDES permits? Air permits? What role does the EPA play? Are mustard and/or VX listed as hazardous under state regulations? If not, what would each state need to know to determine whether they are characteristically hazardous under state regulations? Would a state RCRA permit be required to treat mustard (Maryland) or VX (Indiana) for each of the following processes: neutralization high temperature/high pressure hydrogen reduction low temperature/ambient pressure electrochemical oxidation molten metal bath agent destruction with recoverable by-products What specific regulatory subtitles would apply to each of the above treatment processes? If any of the treatment processes would have to be permitted under the state equivalent of RCRA Subtitle X, what experience has the state had in Subtitle X permitting? What are the steps involved in applying for a RCRA permit? How long does the process typically take from submission of an application to final approval? Are there different regulatory requirements for full-scale treatment and for bench or pilot-scale treatment for purposes of R&D? If so, what are the limitations on throughput under an R&D permit? What are the steps involved in applying for an air, NPDES or SPDES permit? How long does the process typically take from application submission to final approval? What are the steps involved in applying for a construction permit? What additional permits or approvals would be required prior to startup of operations? M4 Environmental asserts that its technology is a recycling process. Do the states of Maryland and
OCR for page 254
--> Indiana concur with this characterization, or is a RCRA permit required? What about the other technologies? What air permits are required for a gas turbine/power generator fired with syngas (from agent)? Would it allay concerns if the agents were neutralized before being treated by the alternative technologies? Are there reasons to believe that any of these technologies would be prohibited in Maryland or Indiana? Would your state permit shipment of hydrolysate produced by agent neutralization to a toxic waste treatment facility? How does the Clean Water Act provision restricting disposal of agent-derived waste into navigable waters affect the disposal of agent hydrolysate in your state? How will the combustion of offgases from the Eco Logic process be regulated? What restrictions will be placed on the NOx emissions from the AEA process?
Representative terms from entire chapter: