ANALYSIS OF ENGINEERING DESIGN STUDIES FOR DEMILITARIZATION OF ASSEMBLED CHEMICAL WEAPONS AT BLUE GRASS ARMY 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 OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



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 Blue Grass Army Depot ANALYSIS OF ENGINEERING DESIGN STUDIES FOR DEMILITARIZATION OF ASSEMBLED CHEMICAL WEAPONS AT BLUE GRASS ARMY 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 OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. 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 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 0-309-08528-4 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 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Lockbox 285 Washington, DC 20055 (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2002 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 Blue Grass Army Depot 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. 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. Harvey V. Fineberg 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 chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army 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, Farkas Berkowitz and Company, Washington, D.C. RUTH M. DOHERTY, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head, Maryland WILLARD C. GEKLER, ABS Consulting/PLG (retired), Irvine, California SHELDON E. ISAKOFF, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (retired), Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania HANK C. JENKINS-SMITH, Texas A&M University, College Station DAVID S. KOSSON, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee FREDERICK J. KRAMBECK, Consultant, Alexandria, Virginia JOHN A. MERSON, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico WILLIAM R. RHYNE, Consultant, 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., Melbourne, Florida Staff PATRICIA P. PAULETTE, Study Director HARRISON T. PANNELLA, Program Officer GWEN ROBY, Senior Project Assistant (through July 2002) JAMES C. MYSKA, Research Associate

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY JOHN E. MILLER, Chair, Oracle Corporation, Reston, Virginia GEORGE T. SINGLEY III, Vice Chair, Hicks and Associates, Inc., McLean, 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 (retired), Glendale, California ROBERT R. EVERETT, MITRE Corporation (retired), New Seabury, Massachusetts PATRICK F. FLYNN, Cummins Engine Company, Inc. (retired), Columbus, Indiana HENRY J. HATCH, Army Chief of Engineers (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 DONALD R. KEITH, Cypress International (retired), Alexandria, Virginia CLARENCE W. KITCHENS, IIT Research Institute, Alexandria, Virginia SHIRLEY A. LIEBMAN, CECON Group (retired), Holtwood, Pennsylvania KATHRYN V. LOGAN, Georgia Institute of Technology (professor emerita), Roswell STEPHEN C. LUBARD, S-L Technology, Woodland Hills, California JOHN W. LYONS, U.S. Army Research Laboratory (retired), Ellicott City, Maryland JOHN H. MOXLEY, Korn/Ferry International, Los Angeles, California STEWART D. PERSONICK, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania MILLARD F. ROSE, Radiance Technologies, Huntsville, Alabama JOSEPH J. VERVIER, ENSCO, Inc., Melbourne, Florida Staff BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director MICHAEL A. CLARKE, Associate Director WILLIAM E. CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator CHRIS JONES, Financial Associate GWEN ROBY, Administrative Assistant (through July 2002) DEANNA P. SPARGER, Senior Project Assistant DANIEL E.J. TALMAGE, JR., Research Associate

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

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot Preface The United States has been 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 by 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, 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 an elaborate selection process and the demonstration of six technologies, PMACWA selected three as candidates for destroying the weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. The three technologies—AEA SILVER II™, Eco Logic, and General Atomics Total Solution—have since progressed to the engineering design phase of DoD’s Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) program. This report evaluates the engineering design studies for these three candidates. 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, given that some citizens are strongly opposed to incineration, whether other disposal methods acceptable to the stakeholders could be used. A second committee, 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

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot 2000 for the engineering design phase of the ACWA program. This report provides an independent technical evaluation of the engineering-design packages of the three candidate processes being considered for use at the Blue Grass Army Depot. A separate chapter is devoted to each technology package that addresses all aspects of demilitarization, from disassembly of the weapons to disposal of the waste streams. Specific recommendations related to the technology are found in these chapters but are not repeated in the Executive Summary. The committee’s evaluation is expected to contribute to DoD’s record of decision (ROD) for the selection of a technology for the Lexington Blue Grass site. The ROD was scheduled to be released in September 2002. Therefore, to be of value in the selection process, this report had to be published by August 2002. Unfortunately, not all of the tests associated with the three packages were completed at the time that data gathering for this report was terminated to meet the mid-July deadline. This report documents the ACW II Committee’s completion of its final task. Since 1997, the ACW I and ACW II Committees have produced four full reports and one letter report (NRC, 1999, 2000a, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c). Usually, NRC study committees are constituted to produce only a single report during their tenure. The aim of the ACW I and ACW II Committees has been to provide constructive advice to PMACWA. Questions that committee members asked at meetings attended by the ACWA team and its support contractors have supplemented the advice contained in the reports. The environment in which the ACW II Committee works has changed since the events of September 11, 2001. Destruction of the stockpile has become more urgent, and this has made the general findings in this report more pertinent than ever. The committee confirms its belief that technologies using hydrolysis to destroy both agent and energetics are now mature, safe, straightforward, and effective. Moreover, the products from the hydrolysis no longer exhibit the acute toxicity of the agents and could be treated at commercial toxic or hazardous waste facilities if the states permit it. A precedent was established at Aberdeen Proving Ground: The mustard in bulk containers is being destroyed by hydrolysis, using mostly the facilities that already exist on site and sending the products to a commercial treatment facility. I wish to express my gratitude to the members of the ACW II Committee, all of whom served as volunteers and most of whom served with me on the ACW I Committee. They have all given unselfishly of their time and knowledge. These technology packages are complex and voluminous, and it required extensive work to properly evaluate them. The committee members’ areas of expertise include chemical processing, biological remediation, environmental regulations and permitting, energetic materials, public involvement, 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, given by the technology providers. Fortunately for me, the members are all brighter and more experienced in chemical processing than am I, a physical chemist. The committee recognizes and appreciates the extensive support of the Army ACWA team and the committee 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. I believe our relationship with the sponsor, PMACWA, and his team and support contractors has been effective and constructive and that the committee has been given the best available information to conduct this evaluation of the three technologies. The committee also appreciates the openness and cordiality of the representatives of the technology providers. They and the Army provided it with early drafts of test reports and other documentation to facilitate the writing of this report while work was still in progress. A study like this always requires extensive logistic support, and the committee is 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, 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, Gwen Roby provided the logistic support that freed us to concentrate on our task. Assistance was also pro-

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot vided by James C. Myska. The report was edited by Liz Fikre of the 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 Blue Grass Army Depot Acknowledgment of Reviewers This report has been reviewed by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’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: Ronald Ballinger, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Steven Konkel, Eastern Kentucky University, Richard S. Magee, Carmagen Consulting, Walter May (NAE), Consultant, Urbana, Illinois, Digby McDonald, Pennsylvania State University, Ray McGuire, Consultant, Livermore, California, George Parshall (NAS), Chemical Science (retired), and Bruce E. Watkins, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 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), Napadersky Energetics, Inc. (retired). Appointed by the National Research Council, 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.

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot Contents     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   1 1   INTRODUCTION   14     Background,   14     Role of the National Research Council,   17     Description of the Stockpile at Blue Grass Army Depot,   18     Agents,   18     Containers and Munitions,   18     Statement of Task,   20     Scope and Approach of This Study,   21     Organization of This Report,   21 2   HYDROLYSIS TESTS OF ENERGETIC MATERIALS   22     Overview of the Test Program,   23     Testing at the Holston Army Ammunition Plant,   23     Bench-scale Tests at Los Alamos National Laboratory,   25     Results of the Test Program at the Holston Army Ammunition Plant,   26     Process Controls,   26     Gaseous Products of Hydrolysis,   26     Hyrolysate Analyses,   28     Results of the Test Program at Los Alamos National Laboratory,   29     Composition B-4 and Tetrytol Hydrolysis,   29     Propellant Hydrolysis,   29     Rayon Cloth Treatment with Caustic,   30     The Possible Formation of Lead Picrate,   30     Summary Assessment,   31     Findings and Recommendations,   32     Findings,   32     Recommendations,   32

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot 3   AEA SILVER II™ TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE   33     Description of the Process,   33     Disassembly of Munitions,   36     Preparation of Energetic Materials for SILVER II™ Process,   37     Preparation of Agent for SILVER II™ Treatment,   38     Treatment of Agent and Energetics by the SILVER II™ Process,   38     Processing and Treatment of Metal Parts, Dunnage, and Other Solid Waste,   42     Processing and Treatment of Gaseous Effluent Streams,   43     Effluent Management,   44     Information Used in Developing the Assessment,   45     Engineering Design Package,   45     Overview of Engineering Design Studies and Tests,   45     Engineering Tests,   46     Laboratory-Scale Testing,   49     Desktop Studies,   54     CST/CATOX Unit Testing,   55     Assessment of Process Component Design,   57     Disassembly of Munitions,   57     Preparing Energetics for Destruction,   57     Agent and Energetics Destruction,   57     Separation of Agent from Munition Bodies,   59     Agent Preparation for Destruction,   59     Metal Parts Treatment,   59     Dunnage Preparation and Treatment,   59     Catalytic Oxidation Units,   60     Assessment of Integration Issues,   60     Component Integration,   60     Process Operability,   60     Materials of Construction,   60     Maintenance Issues,   61     Process Safety,   62     Worker Health and Safety,   63     Public Safety,   63     Human Health and the Environment,   63     Environmental Compliance and Permitting,   64     Assessment of Overarching Technical Issues,   65     Overall Engineering Design Package,   65     Reevaluation of Steps Required for Implementation,   67     Findings and Recommendations,   69     Findings,   69     Recommendation,   70 4   ECO LOGIC TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE   71     Introduction and Overview,   71     Description of the Process,   71     Area 100—Reverse Assembly/Munitions Access,   71     Area 200—Hydrolysis of Agent and Energetics,   77     Area 300—Supercritical Water Oxidation,   78     Area 400—Gas-Phase Chemical Reduction,   81

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot     Area 500—Utilities,   83     Area 600—Materials Handling,   84     Information Used in Developing the Assessment,   84     Engineering-Design-Related Documents,   84     Overview of Engineering Design Studies and Tests,   84     Engineering Tests,   85     Assessment of Process Component Design,   89     Disassembly of Munitions and Removal of Agent and Energetics (Area 100),   89     Hydrolysis of Agent and Energetics (Area 200),   90     Supercritical Water Oxidation (Area 300),   90     Gas-Phase Chemical Reduction (Area 400),   92     Utilities (Area 500),   93     Materials Handling (Area 600),   93     Assessment of Integration Issues,   93     Component Integration,   93     Process Operability,   93     Maintenance Issues,   93     Monitoring and Control Strategy,   94     Process Safety,   95     Worker Health and Safety,   95     Public Safety,   96     Human Health and the Environment,   96     Environmental Compliance and Monitoring,   97     Assessment of Overarching Technical Issues,   97     Steps Required Before Implementation,   97     Findings and Recommendations,   97     Findings,   97     Recommendations,   98 5   GENERAL ATOMICS TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE   99     Description of the Process,   99     Disassembly of Munitions,   99     Hydrolysis of Energetic Materials,   101     Cryofracture of Munitions,   103     Aluminum Precipitate Filtration,   104     Projectile Rotary Hydrolyzer,   104     Dunnage Hydropulping,   104     Completion of Agent Hydrolysis,   104     Treatment by Supercritical Water Oxidation,   104     Treatment of Metal Parts,   107     Water Recovery and Salt Disposal,   107     Design and Throughput Basis for the GATS,   108     Information Used in Developing the Assessment,   109     Engineering-Design-Related Documents,   109     Overview of Engineering Design Studies and Tests,   110     Engineering Tests,   110     Assessment of Process Component Design,   113     Disassembly of Munitions (Steps 1, 3, 4, 6),   114     Hydrolysis of Energetic Materials (Steps 5, 7, and 15),   114

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot     Processing and Treatment of Dunnage and Energetics Hydrolysate (Steps 2 and 9),   115     Agent Hydrolysis and Treatment of Metal Parts (Steps 8, 10, 13, and 16),   115     Treatment of Hydrolysates and Dunnage by Supercritical Water Oxidation (Steps 11, 12, and 14),   116     Assessment of Integration Issues,   118     Component Integration,   118     Process Operability,   119     Monitoring and Control Strategy,   119     Maintenance Issues,   119     Process Safety,   120     Worker Health and Safety,   121     Public Safety,   121     Human Health and the Environment,   122     Assessment of Overarching Technical Issues,   123     Overall Engineering Design Package,   123     Steps Required Before Implementation,   124     Findings and Recommendations,   125     Findings,   125     Recommendations,   126 6   GENERAL FINDINGS   127     REFERENCES   131     APPENDIXES         A Description of Munitions in the Blue Grass Army Depot Stockpile   137     B Committee Meetings, Site Visits, and Information-Gathering Activities   141     C Biographical Sketches of Committee Members   150

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot Figures and Tables FIGURES ES-1   AEA SILVER II™ demilitarization process,   4 ES-2   Schematic flow diagram of the Eco Logic technology package,   6 ES-3   GATS Blue Grass block flow diagram,   8 3-1   AEA SILVER II™ demilitarization process,   34-35 3-2   SILVER II™ process system for agent or energetic destruction,   39 3-3   AEA 12-kW SILVER II™ test setup for EDS II,   47 4-1   Schematic flow diagram of the Eco Logic technology package,   72 4-2   Schematic diagram of Foster Wheeler transpiring-wall SCWO reactor,   79 4-3   CO and HC spiking profiles during transpiring-wall SCWO operation,   91 5-1   GATS Blue Grass block flow diagram,   100 5-2   GATS SCWO liner materials and configuration,   106 A-1   A 155-mm projectile, M110, H/HD; M121A1, VX,   138 A-2   An 8-inch howitzer projectile, M426, GB,   139 A-3   A 115-mm rocket, M55, GB, VX,   140 TABLES ES-1   Description of the Chemical Weapons in the Blue Grass Army Depot Stockpile,   5 1-1   The Original Seven Candidate Technologies Under Consideration for the ACWA Program,   16 1-2   Physical Properties of Chemical Warfare Agents,   19 1-3   Description of the Chemical Weapons in the Blue Grass Army Depot Stockpile,   19

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot 1-4   Composition of M28 Propellant,   20 2-1   Nominal Composition of Energetic Materials Used in Chemical Munitions,   22 2-2   Conditions Used in the Commissioning Runs at HAAP,   24 2-3   Test Matrix for the Army Hydrolysis Study at HAAP,   25 2-4   Residual Energetic Material in End-of-Run Hydrolysate Samples,   28 2-5   Picrate Formation in the Hydrolysis of Energetics,   31 3-1   Key Plant Performance Requirements for SILVER II™ Technology at Blue Grass Army Depot,   36 3-2   Summary of SILVER II™ Plant Electrochemical Cells,   41 3-3   EDS Tests and Studies Used for SILVER II™,   45 3-4   AEA 12-kW SILVER II™ Tests,   46 3-5   Typical Transfer Rates for Concentrations of 0.5 Moles/L of Feed,   51 3-6   Materials Selection for Key Sections of a SILVER II™ Full-Scale Plant,   61 4-1   Summary of the Eco Logic Technology,   73 5-1   Key Design Parameters for GATS ERH and PRH,   102 5-2   Key Design Parameters for Each GATS Cryofracture Train,   103 5-3   Key Design Parameters for the GATS Projectile Agent Hydrolysis System,   105 5-4   SCWO System Design Parameters,   107 5-5   Waste Materials to Be Processed per Munition,   108 5-6   Munition Processing Rates and Durations,   109 5-7   Major SCWO System Test Campaigns Conducted in Support of GATS Design Considered by the Committee,   111 5-8   Corrosion of Titanium Liners During GATS EDS Workup Tests with HD Hydrolysate,   117 5-9   Liner Lifetime and Replacement Calculations for Blue Grass Facility SCWO Reactors,   118 5-10   500-hr Test Effluent Quality,   122 5-11   Status of Recent Developments on Treatment of Various Waste Streams by SCWO,   125

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Chemical Symbols ACAMS automatic continuous air monitoring system ACW I Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons ACW II Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: Phase II ACWA Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment Ag2+ silver ion having a valence of 2 AgCl silver chloride a-HAX solution containing potassium hydroxide and humic acid AHSV agent hydrolysate surge vessel ANR agent neutralization reactor AQS agent quantification system ARDEC Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center BIF boiler and industrial furnace BPCS basic process control system BWM burster washout machine CAMDS chemical agent munitions disposal system CATOX catalytic oxidation CEES chloroethyl ethyl sulfide CEMS continuous emission monitoring system CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide COINS continuous indexing neutralization system Composition B an energetic material that contains (nominally) 59.5 percent RDX, 39.5 percent TNT, and 1.0 percent wax CSDP Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program CST continuous steam treater CWC Chemical Weapons Convention DAAMS depot area air monitoring system Demo I Demonstration I (demonstration testing of the initial three technologies selected for the first phase of ACWA technology testing)

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot Demo II Demonstration II (demonstration testing of the second set of three technologies selected for the first phase of ACWA technology testing) DMMP dimethyl methylphosphonate DoD U.S. Department of Defense DPE demilitarization protective ensemble DRE destruction and removal efficiency DSHS dunnage shredding and handling system DTS dunnage treatment system ECR explosion containment room EDP engineering design package EDS engineering design study EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPDM ethylene propylene dimer EPDR energetics/propellant deactivation reactor 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 GC/MS gas chromatography/mass spectrometry GPCR gas-phase chemical reduction H undistilled mustard agent H2 hydrogen HAAP Holston Army Ammunition Plant HD distilled mustard agent HDC heated discharge conveyor HEPA high-efficiency particulate air (filter) HF hydrofluoric acid HMX cyclotetramethylene-tetranitramine (an energetic material) HNO3 nitric acid HPLC high-performance liquid chromatography HRA health risk assessment HT a mixture of H and T mustard agents HVAC heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning ICB immobilized-cell bioreactor ICI Imperial Chemical Industries IITRI Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute IMPA isopropyl methylphosphonic acid IRS impurities removal system JACADS Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System KOH potassium hydroxide kPa kilopascal (unit of pressure; 6.895 kPa equals 1 pound per square inch) kPag kilopascals gauge

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot kW kilowatt LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory LMIDS Lockheed Martin Integrated Demilitarization System M molar concentration M28 energetic material used for propulsion of certain assembled chemical weapons MACT maximum achievable control technology MAV modified ammunition van MDB munitions demilitarization building MDM munitions demilitarization machine MEO mediated electrochemical oxidation MPA methylphosphonic acid MPa megapascals MPT metal parts treater MSB munitions storage building N2 nitrogen N2O nitrous oxide NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NOx nitrogen oxides NRC National Research Council NSWC Naval Surface Warfare Center O2 oxygen OB/OD open burn/open detonation PA picric acid PCP pentachlorophenol PCR propellant collection reactor PFA perfluoroalkoxy PGB product gas burner PHA preliminary hazards analysis PID proportional integral differential controller PLC programmable logic control PMACWA Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment PMD projectile mortar demilitarization (machine) POTW publicly owned treatment works ppm parts per million PRH projectile rotary hydrolyzer PRR propellant removal room psi pounds per square inch psig pounds per square inch gauge PTFE polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon) PVDF polyvinylidene fluoride PWS projectile washout system QRA quantitative risk assessment R3 resource, recovery, and recycling (process) R&D research and development

OCR for page R1
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot RAAP Radford Army Ammunition Plant RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RDM rocket dismantling machine RDX cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine (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 SET™ solvated electron technology SILVER II™ electrochemical oxidation using Ag2+ in nitric acid SOx sulfur oxides SO2 sulfur dioxide SVOC semivolatile organic compound TACOM Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command TBA tributylamine TCLP toxicity characteristic leaching procedure THC total hydrocarbons TNB trinitrobenzene TNBA trinitrobenzoic acid TNT trinitrotoluene (an energetic material) TOC total organic carbon TRBP thermal reduction batch processor TW-SCWO transpiring-wall supercritical water oxidation UPA unpack area VOC volatile organic compound 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, 8-hour, time-weighted average limit for worker exposure. The level for mustard agent is 3.0 mg/m3 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.