Review Criteria for Successful Treatment of Hydrolysate at the Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant (2015)

Review Criteria for
Successful Treatment of Hydrolysate at the
Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant

Committee on Review Criteria for Successful Treatment of Hydrolysate at the
Pueblo and Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants

Board on Army Science and Technology

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
                     OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.

www.nap.edu

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS • 500 Fifth Street, NW • Washington, DC 20001

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 competences and with regard for appropriate balance.

This study was supported by Contract No. W911NF-14-1-0280 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Army. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-31788-7
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-31788-6

Limited copies of this report are available from the Board on Army Science and Technology, National Research Council, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Room 940, Washington, DC 20001; (202) 334-3118.

Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); http://www.nap.edu.

Copyright 2015 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and 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. Ralph J. Cicerone 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. C. D. Mote, Jr., is 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. Victor J. Dzau 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. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

www.national-academies.org

This page intentionally left blank.

COMMITTEE ON REVIEW CRITERIA FOR SUCCESSFUL TREATMENT OF HYDROLYSATE AT THE PUEBLO AND BLUE GRASS CHEMICAL AGENT DESTRUCTION PILOT PLANTS

ROBERT A. BEAUDET, University of Southern California, Pasadena (retired), Co-Chair

TODD A. KIMMELL, Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, D.C., Office, Co-Chair

EDWARD J. BOUWER, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

JUDITH A. BRADBURY, Independent Consultant, Knoxville, Tennessee

REBECCA A. HAFFENDEN, Argonne National Laboratory, Santa Fe, New Mexico

HANK C. JENKINS-SMITH, University of Oklahoma, Norman

KIMBERLY L. JONES, Howard University, Washington, D.C.

MURRAY G. LORD, Dow Chemical Company, Freeport, Texas

TRISHA H. MILLER, Sandia National Laboratories, Shoreview, Minnesota

ROBERT PUYEAR, Independent Consultant, Chesterfield, Missouri

WILLIAM R. RHYNE, Independent Consultant, Kingston, Tennessee

PHILLIP E. SAVAGE, Pennsylvania State University, State College

PHILIP C. SINGER, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (retired)

Staff

NANCY T. SCHULTE, Study Director

NIA D. JOHNSON, Senior Research Associate

DEANNA P. SPARGER, Program Administrative Coordinator

BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

DAVID M. MADDOX, Independent Consultant, Arlington, Virginia, Chair

JEAN D. REED, Independent Consultant, Arlington, Virginia, Vice Chair

DUANE ADAMS, Independent Consultant, Arlington, Virginia

ILESANMI ADESIDA, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

STEVEN W. BOUTELLE, Cisco Consulting Services, Herndon, Virginia

EDWARD C. BRADY, Strategic Perspectives, Inc., McLean, Virginia

W. PETER CHERRY, Independent Consultant, Ann Arbor, Michigan

EARL H. DOWELL, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina

JULIA D. ERDLEY, Pennsylvania State University, State College

LESTER A. FOSTER, Electronic Warfare Associates, Herndon, Virginia

JAMES A. FREEBERSYSER, BBN Technology, St. Louis Park, Minnesota

PETER N. FULLER, Cypress International, Springfield, Virginia

W. HARVEY GRAY, Independent Consultant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

JOHN J. HAMMOND, Independent Consultant, Fairfax, Virginia

RANDALL W. HILL, JR., University of Southern California, Institute for Creative Technologies, Playa Vista

JOHN W. HUTCHINSON, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

BRUCE D. JETTE, Synovision Solutions, Burke, Virginia

ROBIN L. KEESEE, Independent Consultant, Fairfax, Virginia

WILLIAM L. MELVIN, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Smyrna

WALTER F. MORRISON, Independent Consultant, Alexandria, Virginia

ROBIN MURPHY, Texas A&M University, College Station

SCOTT PARAZYNSKI, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston

RICHARD R. PAUL, Independent Consultant, Bellevue, Washington

DANIEL PODOLSKY, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas

LEON E. SALOMON, Independent Consultant, Gulfport, Florida

ALBERT A. SCIARRETTA, CNS Technologies, Inc., Springfield, Virginia

JONATHAN M. SMITH, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

DAVID A. TIRRELL, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

MICHAEL A. VANE, DynCorp International, Lorton, Virginia

JOSEPH YAKOVAC, JVM LLC, Hampton, Virginia

Staff

BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director

CHRIS JONES, Financial Manager

DEANNA P. SPARGER, Program Administrative Coordinator

Preface

When I had to rotate off the Board on Army Science and Technology in 1995, the program director asked me if I would like to chair the first Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) Committee. The U.S. Congress had just passed Public Laws 104-201 and 104-208 establishing ACWA. Of course I said I would be happy to. From that time on, I have been involved with ACWA in one way or another.

Finally, after all these years, the Army is preparing to destroy the chemical stockpile at the Pueblo Chemical Depot. The facility, called, in full, the Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant (PCAPP), will destroy its stockpile of 155-mm and 105-mm artillery shells and 4.2-in. mortars, all of which contain one form or another of the chemical agent mustard. The munitions are robotically opened and the mustard collected. The next step in the destruction process is the neutralization of the mustard with lye to produce a product called the hydrolysate. The second step, biotreatment of the hydrolysate, is a first-of-a-kind system that has not been extensively tested with the hydrolysate. The concerns noted by the earlier committee are held by this committee as well and are summarized in this report. Thus, there is some concern that this biotreatment will not mineralize the hydrolysate to water, carbon dioxide, and salts. In that case, the Army wants to hedge its bets by considering offsite transportation and disposal of the hydrolysate. Thus, it asked the National Research Council (NRC) to form an ad hoc committee to recommend when the hydrolysate could be sent offsite. The committee has bent over backward to include and interact with the public, the stakeholders, and the Citizens’ Advisory Commissions in Pueblo and Blue Grass. This report presents the committee’s findings and a recommendation.

Unfortunately, during the course of this study, I developed a medical problem that prevented me from traveling and being further involved with the study. And fortunately, Todd Kimmell came to my rescue and took over the chairing of this committee. Like me, Todd has also been involved with the ACWA since the beginning of the program, but from a different perspective. He was part of the team that developed the initial environmental impact studies that supported the selection of the ACWA alternative technologies. He also has a great deal of experience with NRC committees, having been a member since 2001 of nonstockpile, stockpile, and ACWA committees. I am greatly indebted to Todd for continuing this work, and I know I leave the committee in good hands.

Todd and I and the committee thank all the PCAPP staff, including Rick Holmes, the PCAPP Project Manager; George Lecakes, the PCAPP Chief Scientist; Bruce Huenefeld, the PCAPP site manager; Paul Usinowicz, the PCAPP technical advisor; and Irene Kornelly and Ross Vincent, both members of the Colorado Citizens’ Advisory Commission, for having patience with us and for answering our numerous and sometimes naïve questions.

Also, we thank the NRC staff, including the study director, Nancy Schulte; the program administrative coordinator, Deanna Sparger; and the senior research associate, Nia Johnson, for their continuous support, patience, and assistance in producing this report.

Robert A. Beaudet, Co-Chair
Todd A. Kimmell, Co-Chair

Committee on Review Criteria for Successful Treatment of Hydrolysate at the Pueblo and Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants

Acknowledgment of Reviewers

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:

Cheryl A. Burke, Dow Chemical Company,

Charles R. Cantor, Sequenom, Inc.,

Raymond M. Hozalski, University of Minnesota,

Douglas M. Medville, MITRE Corporation (retired),

Leonard M. Siegel, Center for Public Environmental Oversight,

Vernon L. Snoeyink, University of Illinois, and

William J. Walsh, Pepper Hamilton LLP.

Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Hyla S. Napadensky, Napadensky Energetics, Inc. Appointed by the NRC, she was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

Contents

SUMMARY

1 INTRODUCTION

Related NRC 2013 Report

Need for the Present NRC Study

Organization of This Report

Reference

2 BACKGROUND

Brief Description of the PCAPP Process

Production and Characterization of Hydrolysate

Description of the Immobilized Cell Bioreactors

Description of the Brine Reduction System

References

3 STAKEHOLDER INTERESTS AND ISSUES

Background

Methodology

Summary

Findings and Recommendations

References

4 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFSITE HYDROLYSATE SHIPMENT AND TREATMENT

Introduction

RCRA Permitting

NEPA Requirements

Pueblo County Certificate of Designation

Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

References

5 TRANSPORTATION OF CHEMICAL MATERIALS

Regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation

Historical Transportation of Chemical Munition Materials

Identification of Hydrolysate Transportation Risks

Related Prior NRC Findings and Recommendations

References

6 HYDROLYSATE TREATMENT PERFORMANCE GOALS

Decision Framework for Determining Successful Plant Operation

Performance Criteria for Hydrolysate

Preoperational Testing Data That Factor into the Decision Process

References

7 FAILURE RISKS, SYSTEMIZATION, AND CONTINGENCY OPTIONS

Failure Risks, Systemization, and Contingency Options in the Immobilized Cell Bioreactor

Failure Risks, Systemization, and Contingency Options in the Water Recovery and Brine Reduction Systems

Offsite Shipment as a Contingency Option

References

APPENDIXES

A Statement of Task

B Public Interest and Input Documents

C Biographical Sketches of Committee Members

D Committee Meetings

Tables, Figures, and Box

TABLES

S-1     Graded Success Scale for Use in Evaluating Overall Operation and Individual Treatment Processes (ICBs, WRS, BRS)

S-2     Summary of Potential Technical Factors Leading to System Failure in the Immobilized Cell Bioreactor Units, and Contingency Options

S-3     Summary of Potential Technical Factors Leading to System Failure in the Brine Reduction System, and Contingency Options

1-1     Inventory of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot

2-1     HD Hydrolysate Characterization from 2003 Biotreatment Testing and RCRA RD&D Permit Waste Analysis Plan

2-2     Key Design Operating and Feed Characteristics for the Immobilized Cell Bioreactor Units

2-3     Issues Identified in a Review of the Immobilized Cell Bioreactors and Biotreatment of the Hydrolysate

2-4     Issues Identified in a Review of the Brine Reduction System

5-1     Comparison of Chemical Agent Liquid Treatment Content

5-2     Historical Shipment Data

5-3     Estimated PCAPP Truck Shipments

5-4     Highway Hazmat Incident Summary by Transportation Phase in 2013

6-1     Graded Success Scale for Use in Evaluating Overall Operation and Individual Treatment Processes (ICBs, WRS, and BRS)

6-2     Description of How Data Generated During Systemization Could Be Used to Reduce the Risk of Ineffective Operation or System Failure, and Possible Alternatives to Reduce These Risks

7-1     Summary of Potential Technical Factors Leading to System Failure in the Immobilized Cell Bioreactor Units, and Contingency Options

7-2     Summary of Potential Technical Factors Leading to System Failure in the Brine Reduction System, and Contingency Options

FIGURES

2-1     PCAPP biotreatment area process diagram

4-1     Transitioning of RCRA permit

6-1     Decision framework

7-1     PCAPP BTA process diagram

BOX

6-1     Performance Criteria for Hydrolysate

Acronyms and Abbreviations

________________

¹ Before June 2003, Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment.