National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×

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

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×

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

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×

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

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×

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

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×

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

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×
   

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

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×

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

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×
   

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

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×
   

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

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×

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

Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×

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

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×

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

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×

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

Page xvii Cite
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×

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)

Page xviii Cite
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×

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

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×
Page R14
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×
Page R15
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×
Page R16
Page xvii Cite
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×
Page R17
Page xviii Cite
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1996. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5274.
×
Page R18
Next: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY »
Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $55.00 Buy Ebook | $43.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

In 1994 the National Research Council published Recommendations for the Disposal of Chemical Agents and Munitions, which assessed the status of various alternative destruction technologies in comparison to the Army's baseline incineration system. The volume's main finding was that no alternative technology was preferable to incineration but that work should continue on the neutralization technologies under Army consideration.

In light of the fact that alternative technologies have evolved since the 1994 study, this new volume evaluates five Army-chosen alternatives to the baseline incineration system for the disposal of the bulk nerve and mustard agent stored in ton containers at Army sites located in Newport, Indiana, and Aberdeen, Maryland, respectively. The committee assessed each technology by conducting site visits to the locations of the technology proponent companies and by meeting with state regulators and citizens of the affected areas. This volume makes recommendations to the Army on which, if any, of the five technologies has reached a level of maturity appropriate for consideration for pilot-scale testing at the two affected sites.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!