Review Criteria for
Successful Treatment of Hydrolysate at the
Blue Grass 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
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, DC
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS • 500 Fifth Street, NW • Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by Contract No. W911NF-14-1-0280 with the U.S. Department of Defense. 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: 978-0-309-37640-2
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-37640-8
Additional copies of this report are available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2015 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Review Criteria for Successful Treatment of Hydrolysate at the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at 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
TODD A. KIMMELL, Argonne National Laboratory, Washington D.C. Office, Chair
EDWARD J. BOUWER, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
JUDITH A. BRADBURY, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (retired), Knoxville, Tennessee
REBECCA A. HAFFENDEN, Argonne National Laboratory, Santa Fe, New Mexico
KIMBERLY L. JONES, Howard University, Washington, D.C.
MURRAY GLENN LORD, Dow Chemical Company, Freeport, Texas
DOUGLAS M. MEDVILLE, The MITRE Corporation (retired), Highlands Ranch, Colorado
TRISHA H. MILLER, Sandia National Laboratories, Shoreview, Minnesota
ROBERT B. PUYEAR, Union Carbide (retired), Chesterfield, Missouri
WILLIAM R. RHYNE, ABS Consulting, Inc. (retired), Kingston, Tennessee
PHILLIP E. SAVAGE, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania
PHILIP C. SINGER, NAE, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (retired)
SETH TULER, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Massachusetts
Staff
JAMES C. MYSKA, Study Director
NIA D. JOHNSON, Senior Research Associate
DEANNA P. SPARGER, Program Administrative Coordinator
BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
DAVID M. MADDOX, Chair (GEN, U.S. Army, retired), Independent Consultant, Arlington, Virginia
JEAN D. REED, Vice Chair, National Defense University, Arlington, Virginia
SCOTT BADENOCH, Badenoch, LLC, Southfield, Michigan
STEVEN W. BOUTELLE (LTG, U.S. Army, retired), CISCO Consulting Services, Herndon, Virginia
EDWARD C. BRADY, Strategic Perspectives, Inc., McLean, Virginia
CARL A. CASTRO, Center for Innovation and Research and Military Families, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
DAVID E. CROW, University of Connecticut, Glastonbury
REGINALD DesROCHES, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
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 (MG, U.S. Army, retired), Cypress International, Springfield, Virginia
W. HARVEY GRAY, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (retired), Oak Ridge, Tennessee
RANDALL W. HILL, JR., University of Southern California Institute for Creative Technologies, Playa Vista
J. SEAN HUMBERT, University of Maryland, College Park
JOHN W. HUTCHINSON, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
JENNIE HWANG, H-Technologies Group, Cleveland, Ohio
BRUCE D. JETTE, Synovision Solutions, LLC, Burke, Virginia
JOHN JOANNOPOULOS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
ROBIN L. KEESEE, Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (retired), Fairfax, Virginia
ROGER L. McCARTHY, McCarthy Engineering, Palo Alto, California
MICHAEL McGRATH, McGrath Analytics, LLC, Reston, Virginia
WILLIAM L. MELVIN, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Smyrna
ALLAN T. MENSE, Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Arizona
WALTER F. MORRISON, Booz, Allen and Hamilton (retired), Alexandria, Virginia
SCOTT PARAZYNSKI, Arizona State University, Tempe
DANIEL PODOLSKY, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas
KENNETH M. ROSEN, General Aero-Science Consultants, LLC, Guilford, Connecticut
LEON E. SALOMON (GEN, U.S. Army, retired), Independent Consultant, Gulfport, Florida
ALBERT A. SCIARRETTA, CNS Technologies, Inc., Springfield, Virginia
NEIL SIEGEL, North Grumman Information Systems, Carson, California
MICHAEL A. VANE (LTG, U.S. Army, retired), Independent Consultant, Shaver Lake, California
Staff
BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director
CHRIS JONES, Financial Manager
DEANNA P. SPARGER, Program Administrative Coordinator
Preface
The Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant (BGCAPP) is being constructed under the direction of the Program Executive Officer for Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (PEO ACWA). BGCAPP is scheduled to begin its operations to destroy chemical munitions in 2018. Following munitions access and hydrolysis of nerve agents and energetics, BGCAPP will use a first-of-a-kind (FOAK) technology known as supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) to treat the hydrolysate and a water recovery system (WRS) to recover water for reuse as quench water in the SCWO reactors. Except for scheduled maintenance, the SCWO and WRS systems are intended to operate continuously for over 3 years.
In an attempt to address potential issues with the systems that will be used to treat hydrolysate, BGCAPP will conduct preoperational testing. This testing will take place concurrent with plant systemization and will address process and equipment problems that were identified during and after FOAK testing. These measures should help to address anticipated problems as BGCAPP begins the actual munitions destruction process. The SCWO and WRS systems should be able to be operated successfully.
Yet there remain a number of factors that could cause the SCWO and WRS to underperform. For example, the agent and energetic hydrolysates to be generated at BGCAPP constitute a very complex matrix. As another example, the actual SCWO system that will be used at BGCAPP has never processed actual agent or energetic hydrolysates. Further, the SCWO and the WRS have never been operated together. These and other factors could lead to the SCWO and WRS underperforming and possibly delay the destruction of the chemical munitions stored at the Blue Grass Army Depot. These munitions have now been stored for over five decades. Many of them have leaked and, although the chemical munitions are stored in a protective manner, continued storage of these munitions represents an ongoing risk to the local community. These munitions must be destroyed safely and efficiently, and it is therefore important to ensure that problems with the SCWO and WRS do not delay this process. All the more so since there will be long lead times associated with implementing any alternatives to processing hydrolysates through the SCWO and WRS. The Army needs a backup plan for treating the BGCAPP hydrolysate and needs to be in a position to implement it expeditiously if necessary.
I would like to thank the PEO ACWA and BGCAPP staff and systems contractors who provided input to the committee’s deliberations and accommodated its numerous inquiries. I also want to thank the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection and the local Citizens’ Advisory Commission and the Chemical Destruction Community Advisory Board for offering their perspectives on the issues. I must also thank the staff of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine for their tireless and outstanding support, especially Jim Myska, Deanna Sparger, and Nia Johnson. Lastly, I thank the committee members for putting up with my onerous demands, challenging schedule, and my dry and only sometimes witty sense of humor.
Todd A. Kimmell, 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 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:
Martin A. Abraham, Youngstown State University,
Cheryl Burke, The Dow Chemical Company,
Edward L. Cussler, Jr. (NAE), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
Julius Rebek, Jr. (NAS), The Scripps Research Institute,
Bruce E. Rittmann (NAE), Arizona State University
Leonard M. Siegel, Center for Public Environmental Oversight,
Vernon L. Snoeyink (NAE), University of Illinois,
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 (NAE), who 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
Overview of the Committee’s Work and the Factors Impacting on It
Introduction to BGCAPP Hydrolysate Treatment Technologies
Criteria for Successfully Treating Hydrolysate
Consideration of Alternative Technologies
Brief Description of the BGCAPP Process
Characterization of Agent and Energetics Hydrolysates
Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty Chemicals in Agent Hydrolysate
Energetics Hydrolysate Composition
General Description of Supercritical Water Oxidation
Supercritical Water Oxidation at BGCAPP
Description of the BGCAPP Water Recovery System
3 STAKEHOLDER INTERESTS AND ISSUES
Current Public Involvement Process
Committee Approach to Gathering Information
Past Experience as It Affects the Context for Assessing Contingency Options
Development of Meaningful Public Involvement
Key Concerns Expressed by the CAC/CDCAB
Opposition to Offsite Shipment
CAC/CDCAB Expectations for Public Involvement
Concerns about the Impacts of Offsite Shipment on Receiving Communities
4 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFSITE HYDROLYSATE SHIPMENT AND TREATMENT
Hazardous Waste Listings and Characteristics
RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions
Structure of RCRA Permit at BGCAPP
Other Environmental Requirements
Water Withdrawal Requirements under State Law
National Environmental Policy Act Requirements
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
5 TRANSPORTATION OF CHEMICAL MATERIALS
Department of Transportation Regulations
The Historical Transportation of Chemical Munition Materials
Identification of the Risks of Transporting Hydrolysate
Risks Due to a Heavy Truck Crash, Independent of Cargo
Additional Risks from Carrying Hazardous Materials
Additional Risks Posed by Transporting Hydrolysate
Related Prior Findings and Recommendations from National Research Council Reports
6 HYDROLYSATE TREATMENT CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS AND DECISION FRAMEWORK
Criteria for Successful Hydrolysate Treatment
A Decision Framework for Determining Successful SCWO and WRS Operation
Factors Affecting a Decision to Move to Offsite Treatment
Preoperational Testing Factoring Into the Decision Process
7 UNDERPERFORMANCE AND FAILURE RISKS, SYSTEMIZATION, AND CONTINGENCY OPTIONS
Technical Factors That May Lead to Insufficient SCWO Treatment
SCWO Systemization and Likelihood of Insufficient Treatment
Impacts If the SCWO System Underperforms or Does Not Perform
Technical Factors That May Lead to Insufficient Treatment
WRS Systemization and Likelihood of Insufficient Treatment
Impacts If WRS Underperforms or Does Not Perform
Offsite Shipment as a Contingency Option
This page intentionally left blank.
Tables, Figures, and Boxes
TABLES
2-1 Simulated GB Agent Hydrolysate Used in FOAK Testing
2-2 Simulated Energetics Hydrolysate Used in GB FOAK Testing
2-3 Simulated Blended Hydrolysate Used in FOAK Testing for GB
2-4 Simulated VX Agent Hydrolysate Used in FOAK Testing
2-5 Simulated Energetics Hydrolysate Used in VX FOAK Testing
2-6 Simulated Blended Hydrolysate Used in VX FOAK Testing
5-1 Historical Data on the Shipment of Hydrolysates and Neutralent
5-2 Comparison of Historical Hydrolysate and Neutralent Contents
5-3 Highway Hazardous Material Incident Summary by Transportation Phase in 2014
6-1 Graded Success Scale for Use in Evaluating Overall Operation and Individual Treatment Processes
7-3 Combined SCWO and WRS Failure Scenarios
FIGURES
2-1 Schematic diagram of SCWO Reactors
2-2 Flow of material from hydrolysis, through SCWO, and up until the pretreatment step in the WRS
2-3 Process flow diagram for the WRS, including the pretreatment and RO system
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACWA |
Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives |
AFS |
aluminum filtration system |
APG |
Aberdeen Proving Ground |
APS |
aluminum precipitation system |
atm |
atmosphere (unit of pressure) |
BGAD |
Blue Grass Army Depot |
BGCAPP |
Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant |
CAC |
Citizens’ Advisory Commission |
CATT |
Citizens’ Advisory Technical Team |
CDCAB |
Chemical Destruction Community Advisory Board |
CWC |
Chemical Weapons Convention |
CWWG |
Chemical Weapons Working Group |
DoT |
U.S. Department of Transportation |
DSCM |
dry standard cubic meter |
EBH |
energetics batch hydrolyzer |
EIS |
environmental impact statement |
EPA |
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency |
FEIS |
final environmental impact statement |
FOAK |
first-of-a-kind |
GB |
nerve agent (sarin) |
gpm |
gallons per minute |
HPGLS |
high-pressure gas–liquid separator |
HSA |
hydrolysate storage area |
HVAC |
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning |
KAR |
Kentucky Administrative Regulations |
KDEP |
Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection |
KEF |
Kentucky Environmental Foundation |
LDR |
Land Disposal Restriction |
LPGLS |
low-pressure gas–liquid separator |
mil |
one one-thousandth of an inch |
NECD |
Newport Chemical Depot |
NECDF |
Newport Chemical Agent Disposal Facility |
NEPA |
National Environmental Policy Act |
NRC |
National Research Council |
OPCW |
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons |
OWS |
oil–water separator |
PCAPP |
Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant |
PCB |
polychlorinated biphenyl |
PCD |
Pueblo Chemical Depot |
PEO |
Program Executive Office |
ppm |
parts per million |
psig |
pounds per square inch gauge |
QTRA |
quantitative transportation risk analysis |
RCRA |
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act |
RD&D |
Research, Development, and Demonstration |
REC |
record of environmental consideration |
RMA |
Rocky Mountain Arsenal |
RO |
reverse osmosis |
SCWO |
supercritical water oxidation |
SDC |
static detonation chamber |
SDS |
spent decontamination solution |
SFT |
shipping and firing tube |
TDS |
total dissolved solids |
TOC |
total organic carbon |
TSCA |
Toxic Substances Control Act |
TSDF |
treatment, storage, and disposal facility |
VX |
nerve agent |
WRS |
water recovery system |
wt % |
percentage by weight, or weight percent |