ANALYSIS OF ENGINEERING DESIGN STUDIES FOR DEMILITARIZATION OF ASSEMBLED CHEMICAL WEAPONS AT PUEBLO CHEMICAL DEPOT

Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: Phase II

Board on Army Science and Technology

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot ANALYSIS OF ENGINEERING DESIGN STUDIES FOR DEMILITARIZATION OF ASSEMBLED CHEMICAL WEAPONS AT PUEBLO CHEMICAL DEPOT Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: Phase II Board on Army Science and Technology Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C.

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418 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 is a report of work supported by Contract DAAD19-00-C-0009 between the U.S. Army and the National Academy of Sciences. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number 0-309-07607-2 Limited copies are available from: Board on Army Science and Technology National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418 (202) 334–3118 Additional copies are available from: National Academy Press 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Lockbox 285 Washington, DC 20055 (800) 624–6242 or (202) 334–3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area) http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES National Academy of Sciences National Academy of Engineering Institute of Medicine National Research Council 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 M.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. Wm. A.Wulf 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. 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. Wm. A.Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot COMMITTEE ON REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR DEMILITARIZATION OF ASSEMBLED CHEMICAL WEAPONS: PHASE II ROBERT A.BEAUDET, Chair, University of Southern California, Los Angeles RICHARD J.AYEN, Waste Management, Inc. (retired), Wakefield, Rhode Island JOAN B.BERKOWITZ, Farces Berkowitz and Company, Washington, D.C. RUTH M.DOHERTY, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head, Maryland WILLARD C.GEKLER, EQE International/PLG, Irvine, California SHELDON E.ISAKOFF, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (retired), Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania HANK C.JENKINS-SMITH, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque DAVID S.KOSSON, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee FREDERICK J.KRAMBECK, Exxon Mobil Research and Engineering Company, Fairfax,Virginia JOHN A.MERSON, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico WILLIAM R.RHYNE, H&R Technical Associates, Inc., Oak Ridge, Tennessee STANLEY I.SANDLER, University of Delaware, Newark WILLIAM R.SEEKER, General Electric Energy and Environmental Research Corporation, Irvine, California LEO WEITZMAN, LVW Associates, Inc., West Lafayette, Indiana Board on Army Science and Technology Liaison JOSEPH J.VERVIER, ENSCO, Inc., Indiatlantic, Florida Staff PATRICIA P.PAULETTE, Study Director HARRISON T.PANNELLA, Program Officer JACQUELINE CAMPBELL-JOHNSON, Senior Project Assistant GWEN ROBY, Senior Project Assistant JAMES C.MYSKA, Research Associate

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY WILLIAM H.FORSTER, Chair, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland JOHN E.MILLER, Vice Chair, Oracle Corporation, Reston, Virginia ROBERT L.CATTOI, Rockwell International (retired), Dallas, Texas RICHARD A.CONWAY, Union Carbide Corporation (retired), Charleston, West Virginia GILBERT F.DECKER, Walt Disney Imagineering, Glendale, California PATRICK F.FLYNN, Cummins Engine Company, Inc. (retired), Columbus, Indiana HENRY J.HATCH, Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army (retired), Oakton, Virginia EDWARD J.HAUG, University of Iowa, Iowa City GERALD J.IAFRATE, North Carolina State University, Raleigh MIRIAM E.JOHN, California Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, California DONALD R.KEITH, Cypress International (retired), Alexandria, Virginia CLARENCE W.KITCHENS, IIT Research Institute, Alexandria, Virginia KATHRYN V.LOGAN, Georgia Institute of Technology (professor emerita), Roswell, Georgia JOHN W.LYONS, U.S. Army Research Laboratory (retired), Ellicott City, Maryland JOHN H.MOXLEY III, Korn/Ferry International, Los Angeles, California STEWART D.PERSONICK, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania MILLARD F.ROSE, Radiance Technologies, Huntsville, Alabama GEORGE T.SINGLEY III, Hicks and Associates, Inc., McLean, Virginia CLARENCE G.THORNTON, Army Research Laboratories (retired), Colts Neck, New Jersey JOHN D.VENABLES, Venables and Associates, Towson, Maryland JOSEPH J.VERVIER, ENSCO, Inc., Indiatlantic, Florida Staff BRUCE A.BRAUN, Director MICHAEL A.CLARKE, Associate Director WILLIAM E.CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator CHRIS JONES, Financial Associate GWEN ROBY, Administrative Assistant DEANNA P.SPARGER, Senior Project Assistant

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot Preface The United States has been in the process of destroying its chemical munitions for well over a decade. Initially, the U.S. Army, with recommendations from the National Research Council (NRC), decided to use incineration as its destruction method at all sites. However, citizens in some states with stockpile storage sites have opposed incineration on the grounds that it is impossible to determine the exact nature of the effluents escaping from the stacks. Although the Army has continued to pursue incineration at four of the eight storage sites in the continental United States, in response to growing public opposition to incineration in Maryland and Indiana and a 1996 report by the NRC, Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies, the Army is developing alternative processes to neutralize chemical agents using hydrolysis. These processes will be used to destroy the VX nerve agent at Newport, Indiana, and the mustard agent at Aberdeen, Maryland, both of which are stored in bulk one-ton containers. In 1996, persuaded by the public opposition in Lexington, Kentucky, and Pueblo, Colorado, Congress enacted Public Law 104–201, which instructed the Department of Defense (DOD) to “conduct an assessment of the chemical demilitarization program for destruction of assembled chemical munitions and of the alternative demilitarization technologies and processes (other than incineration) that could be used for the destruction of the lethal chemical agents that are associated with these munitions.” The Army established a Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (PMACWA) to respond to Congress. In Public Law 104–208, the PMACWA was required to “identify and demonstrate not less than two alternatives to the baseline incineration process for the demilitarization of assembled chemical munitions.” Following the demonstration of six technologies, the PMACWA selected two as candidates for destroying the weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. The two packages have since progressed to the engineering design phase of the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) program. In contrast with prior chemical weapons demilitarization programs, the PMACWA has involved citizen stakeholders in every aspect of the program, including the procurement process. A nonprofit organization, the Keystone Center, was hired to facilitate public involvement through a process known as the Dialogue. The Dialogue group, whose 35 members represent the Army and various community stakeholders, developed the criteria for selecting the technologies and were involved in all other aspects of the selection process. The Dialogue process has become a model for public involvement in matters of public concern. Indeed, the Department of Energy and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration have also adopted this approach. Congress mandated that the Army coordinate with the NRC during the ACWA program. In response, the NRC established the Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons (ACW I Committee) in 1997 to oversee this program. The issue before the committee was not whether incineration is an adequate technology but whether, given that some citizens are strongly opposed to that method, other chemical methods, acceptable to the stakeholders, could be used. The Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: Phase II (ACW II Committee) was established in the spring of 2000 for the engineering design phase of the ACWA program. One goal of this study is to provide an independent technical evaluation of the engineering-design packages of the two candidate processes being considered for use at the Pueblo Chemical Depot. This evaluation is expected to contribute to DOD’s Record of Decision (ROD) for the selection of a technology for the Pueblo site. The ROD was scheduled to be released on August 30, 2001. Therefore, to be of value in the selections, this report had to be published by mid-July 2001. Unfortunately, not all of the tests associated with the two packages, which address all aspects of demilitarization from disassembly of the weapons to the disposal of waste

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot streams, were completed at the time that data gathering for this report had to be terminated to meet the mid-July deadline. I wish to express my gratitude to the members of the ACW II Committee, all of whom served as volunteers and many of whom served with me on the ACW I Committee. They have all given unselfishly of their time and knowledge. Committee members’ areas of expertise include chemical processing, biological remediation, environmental regulations and permitting, energetic materials, and public acceptance. Each member attended plenary meetings, visited the headquarters of technology providers and test sites, observed design-review sessions, and studied the extensive literature, including engineering charts and diagrams, provided by the technology providers. The committee recognizes and appreciates the extensive support of the Army ACWA team and its interactions with stakeholders and the Dialogue group, particularly the four members of the Dialogue known as the Citizens Advisory Technical Team (CATT). Members of the CATT attended all open meetings of the committee and shared information and their views with us. The committee also appreciates the openness and cordiality of the representatives of the technology providers. They and the Army provided us with early drafts of their test reports and other documentation to facilitate the development of this report. A study like this always requires extensive logistic support, and we are all indebted to the NRC staff for their assistance. I would like to acknowledge particularly the close working relationship I had with the NRC study director for this study, Dr. Patricia P.Paulette. Working as a team in leading this study, she and I spoke on the phone daily and e-mailed each other incessantly. Invaluable contributions were also made by Harrison T.Pannella, who took extensive notes at all of our meetings, edited draft text for the report, and provided suggestions for organizing the report. In addition, Jacqueline Johnson and Gwen Roby provided the logistic support that freed us to concentrate on our task. Assistance was also provided by James C.Myska. The report was edited by Carol R.Arenberg, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences. I am also indebted to colleagues in the Chemistry Department at the University of Southern California, who willingly substituted for me in my teaching duties while I traveled on behalf of this study. Robert A.Beaudet, Chair Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: Phase II

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot Acknowledgments 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 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: Milton Beychok, independent consultant Digby McDonald, Pennsylvania State University Alvin Mushkatel, Arizona State University Kirk Newman, Naval Surface Warfare Center Robert Olson, independent consultant George Parshall, Chemical Science (retired) Carl Peterson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Janice Phillips, Centocor 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), Napadensky Energetics, Inc. (retired), appointed by the NRC’s Report Review Committee, 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.

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot Contents     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   1 1   INTRODUCTION   9     Background,   9     Description of the Pueblo Stockpile,   12     Agents,   12     Weapon Types,   14     Role of the National Research Council,   14     Statement of Task,   14     Scope of This Report,   15     Organization of This Report,   15 2   HYDROLYSIS TESTS OF ENERGETIC MATERIALS   17     Current Practices for the Disposal of Energetic Materials,   17     Caustic Hydrolysis of Energetic Materials,   18     Overview of the Test Program,   19     Testing at the Holston Army Ammunition Plant,   19     Bench-scale Tests at Los Alamos National Laboratory,   20     Bench-scale Tests at the Pantex Plant,   21     Bench-scale Tests at the Naval Surface Warfare Center,   21     Hydrolysate Production at the Radford Army Ammunition Plant,   21     Program Status,   21     Results of Tests at the Holston Army Ammunition Plant,   21     Results of Tests at Los Alamos National Laboratory,   22     Results of Tests at the Naval Surface Warfare Center,   22     Analysis of an Incident at Radford Army Ammunition Plant,   22     Summary Assessment,   24     Previous Findings and Recommendations of the ACW I Committee,   24     New Findings and Recommendations,   25

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot 3   GENERAL ATOMICS TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE   27     Description of the Process,   27     Disassembly of Munitions (Steps 1 to 4),   27     Hydrolysis of Energetic Materials (Steps 5 and 6),   27     Separation of Agent from Munition Bodies and Agent Hydrolysis (Steps 7 to 10),   30     Treatment of Agent Hydrolysate by Supercritical Water Oxidation (Step 11),   31     Processing and Treatment of Dunnage and Energetics Hydrolysate (Steps 12 to 15),   32     Water Recovery and Salt Disposal (Step 16),   33     Information Used in the Development of the Assessment,   33     Engineering Design Package,   33     Engineering Design Studies Tests,   33     Assessment of Process Component Design,   38     Disassembly of Munitions (Steps 1 to 6),   38     Separation of Agent from Munition Bodies and Agent Hydrolysis (Step 7),   39     Agent Hydrolysis and Metal Parts Treatment (Steps 8 to 10),   40     Treatment of Hydrolysates and Dunnage by Supercritical Water Oxidation (Steps 11 and 15),   40     Processing and Treatment of Dunnage and Energetics Hydrolysate (Steps 12 to 16),   41     Assessment of Integration Issues,   42     Component Integration,   42     Process Operability,   42     Monitoring and Control Strategy,   42     Maintenance Issues,   43     Process Safety,   43     Worker Health and Safety,   44     Public Safety,   44     Human Health and the Environment,   44     Assessment of Overarching Technical Issues,   45     Overall Engineering Design Package,   45     Steps Required Before Implementation,   45     Previous Findings and Recommendations,   46     New Findings and Recommendations,   48 4   PARSONS/HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE   49     Description of the Process,   49     Introduction and Overview,   49     Disassembly of Munitions and Removal of Agent and Energetics,   49     Hydrolysis of Agent and Energetics,   52     Biological Treatment,   54     Metal Parts Treaters,   55     Continuous Steam Treater for Dunnage,   56     Treatment of Off-gases and Disposal of Wastes,   56     Changes to Process,   58     Information Used in the Development of the Assessment,   58     Engineering Design-Related Documents,   58     Engineering Design Studies Tests,   59     Assessment of Process Component Design,   59     Disassembly of Munitions and Removal of Agent and Energetics,   59     Hydrolysis of Agent,   60     Hydrolysis of Energetics,   60     Biological Treatment,   61     Metal Parts Treatment,   62     Treatment of Dunnage in the Continuous Steam Treater,   62     Off-gas Treatment and Disposal of Wastes,   63

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot     Assessment of Integration Issues,   63     Component Integration,   63     Process Operability,   63     Monitoring and Control Strategy,   64     Process Safety,   64     Worker Health and Safety,   64     Public Safety,   65     Human Health and the Environment,   66     Assessment of Overarching Technical Issues,   67     Steps Required Before Implementation,   67     Previous Findings and Recommendations,   67     New Findings and Recommendations,   68 5   GENERAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS   71     Engineering Design Studies,   71     Update on General Findings and Recommendations of the ACW I Committee,   73     General Findings from the 1999 Inital ACW I Committee Report,   73     General Recommendations from the 1999 Initial ACW I Committee Report,   75     General Findings from the 2000 Supplemental ACW I Committee Report,   75     REFERENCES   76     APPENDIXES         A Description of Munitions in the Pueblo Chemical Depot Stockpile   81     B SCWO Reliability and Maintenance (RAM) Log for 500-Hour HD Hydrolysate Run   83     C Committee Meetings and Site Visits   88     D Biographical Sketches of Committee Members   93

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot Figures and Tables FIGURES ES-1   Simplified block diagram of GATS process components,   4 ES-2   Parsons/Honeywell WHEAT block flow diagram,   5 3–1   Simplified schematic flow diagram for GATS,   28 3–2   Simplified block diagram of GATS process components,   29 4–1   Parsons/Honeywell WHEAT block flow diagram,   50 4–2   Agent hydrolysis process,   53 4–3   Energetics hydrolysis process,   54 4–4   Biotreatment process,   55 4–5   Off-gas treatment systems,   57 A-1   105-mm howitzer projectile,   81 A-2   155-mm howitzer projectile,   82 A-3   4.2-inch mortar cartridge,   82 TABLES 1–1   Descriptions of the Seven Technology Packages That Passed the Go/No-Go Evaluation,   11 1–2   Munitions Containing HD and HT in the Pueblo Chemical Depot Stockpile,   13 1–3   Physical Properties of Mustard Agents at Pueblo Chemical Depot,   13 1–4   Original Nominal Composition of HD Mustard,   14 1–5   Original Composition of HT Mustard,   14 2–1   Nominal Composition of Energetic Materials Used in Chemical Munitions,   17 3–1   Design Parameters for GATS ERH and PRH,   29 3–2   Key Design Parameters for GATS Cryofracture Systems (Two Trains),   30 3–3   Key Design Parameters for the GATS Projectile Agent Hydrolysis System,   31 3–4   Equipment Sizes for the Full-scale SCWO System,   31 3–5   Design Parameters for the GATS DSHS,   32 3–6   Feeds and Duration of Planned SCWO Tests,   35 3–7   Corrosion of Titanium Liners During GATS EDS Work-up Tests,   36 4–1   Changes to the Parsons/Honeywell Process Since Demonstration I,   58 B-1   SCWO Reliability and Maintenance (RAM) Log for 500-Hour HD Hydrolysate Run,   84

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot Acronyms and Abbreviations ACAMS automatic continuous air monitoring system ACWA Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment ARDEC Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center BPCS basic process control system BWM burster washout machine CAMDS Chemical Agent Munitions Disposal System CATOX catalytic oxidation CATT Citizens Advisory Technical Team CSDP Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program CST continuous steam treater CWC Chemical Weapons Convention DOD U.S. Department of Defense DPE demilitarization protective ensemble DRE destruction and removal efficiency DSHS dunnage-shredder hydrolysis system ECR explosion containment room EDP engineering design package EDS engineering design study EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERD energetics rotary deactivator ERH energetics rotary hydrolyzer ESS emergency shutdown system EST engineering-scale test GATS General Atomics Total Solution (technology package) GB a nerve agent H undistilled mustard agent HAAP Holston Army Ammunition Plant HD distilled mustard agent HDC heated discharge conveyor HEPA high-efficiency particulate air HMX cyclotetramethylene-tetranitramine (an energetic material) HRA health risk assessment HT a type of mustard agent containing mustard-T HVAC heating, ventilating, and air conditioning ICB immobilized-cell bioreactor IITRI Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute JACADS Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System kW kilowatt LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory M molar concentration MAV modified ammunition van MDB munitions demilitarization building MDM munitions demilitarization machine MPT metal parts treater MSB munitions storage building NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NRC National Research Council NSWC Naval Surface Warfare Center OB/OD open burn/open detonation PHA preliminary hazards analysis PLC programmable logic control/controller PMACWA Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment PMCD Program Manger for Chemical Demilitarization PMD projectile mortar demilitarization (machine) PRH projectile rotary hydrolyzer PRR propellant removal room

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot psi pounds per square inch psig pounds per square inch gauge QRA quantitative risk assessment R3 resource reclamation and recycling (process) R&D research and development RAAP Radford Army Ammunition Plant RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RDX an energetic material RFP Request for Proposals ROD Record of Decision RWM rotary washout machine scfm standard cubic feet per minute SCWO supercritical water oxidation T a mustard ether TACOM Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command TCLP toxicity characteristic leaching procedure TNT trinitrotoluene (an energetic material) TOC total organic carbon UPA unpack area VX a nerve agent WHEAT water hydrolysis of explosives and agent technology WMDM WHEAT multipurpose demilitarization machine WPMD WHEAT projectile/mortar disassembly (machine) 3X At the 3X decontamination level, solids are decontaminated to the point that agent concentration in the headspace above the encapsulated solid does not exceed the health-based, eight-hour, time-weighted average limit for worker exposure. The level for mustard agent is 3.0 µg per cubic meter in air. Materials classified as 3X may be handled by qualified plant workers using appropriate procedures but are not releasable to the environment or for general public reuse. In specific cases in which approval has been granted, a 3X material may be shipped to an approved hazardous waste treatment facility for disposal in a landfill or for further treatment. 5X Treatment of solids to a 5X decontamination level is accomplished by holding a material at 1,000°F for 15 minutes. This treatment results in completely decontaminated material that can be released for general use or sold (e.g., as scrap metal) to the general public in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.