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 R2
-->
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 R3
-->
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 R4
-->
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 R5
-->
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 R6
-->
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 R7
-->
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 R8
-->
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 R9
-->
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 R10
-->
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 R11
-->
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 R12
-->
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 R13
-->
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 R14
-->
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 R15
-->
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 R16
-->
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 R17
-->
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 R18
-->
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
