Assessment of the Army Plan for the Pine Bluff Non-Stockpile Facility (2004)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

ASSESSMENT OF THE ARMY PLAN FOR THE PINE BLUFF NON-STOCKPILE FACILITY Committee on Review and Assessment of the Army Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Demilitarization Program: Pine Bluff Board on Army Science and Technology Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

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 study was supported by Contract/Grant No. DAAD19-03-C-0046, between the National Acad- emy of Sciences and the Department of the Army. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recom- mendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number 0-309-09138-1 (Book) International Standard Book Number 0-309-52989-1 (PDF) Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washing- ton metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2004 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distin- guished 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 re- search, 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 further- ing knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general poli- cies 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 admin- istered 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

COMMITTEE ON REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF THE ARMY NON-STOCKPILE CHEMICAL MATERIEL DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM: PINE BLUFF JOHN B. CARBERRY, Chair, DuPont Company, Wilmington, Delaware RICHARD J. AYEN, Vice Chair, Waste Management, Inc. (retired), Wakefield, Rhode Island JUDITH A. BRADBURY, Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Alexandria, Virginia MARTIN GOLLIN, St. Davids, Pennsylvania FREDERICK T. HARPER, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico PAUL F. KAVANAUGH, BG, USA (retired), Fairfax, Virginia TODD A. KIMMELL, Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, D.C. DOUGLAS M. MEDVILLE, MITRE (retired), Reston, Virginia GEORGE W. PARSHALL, DuPont Company (retired), Wilmington, Delaware JAMES P. PASTORICK, Geophex UXO, Ltd., Alexandria, Virginia LEONARD M. SIEGEL, Center for Public Environmental Oversight, Mountain View, California WILLIAM J. WALSH, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Washington, D.C. Liaison Board on Army Science and Technology HENRY J. HATCH, Army Chief of Engineers (retired), Oakton, Virginia Staff BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director, Board on Army Science and Technology NANCY T. SCHULTE, Study Director HARRISON T. PANNELLA, Program Officer JAMES C. MYSKA, Research Associate TOMEKA N. GILBERT, Senior Project Assistant iv

v 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 NORVAL L. BROOME, MITRE Corporation (retired), Suffolk, Virginia ROBERT L. CATTOI, Rockwell International (retired), Dallas RICHARD A. CONWAY, Union Carbide Corporation (retired), Charleston, West Virginia GILBERT F. DECKER, Walt Disney Imagineering (retired), Glendale, California ALAN H. EPSTEIN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge ROBERT R. EVERETT, MITRE (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, Hicks and Associates, Inc., McLean, Virginia ROGER A. KRONE, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems, Philadelphia SHIRLEY A. LIEBMAN, CECON Group (retired), Holtwood, Pennsylvania KATHRYN V. LOGAN, Georgia Institute of Technology (professor emeritus), 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 MILLARD F. ROSE, Radiance Technologies, Huntsville, Alabama WALTER D. SINCOSKIE, Telcordia Technologies, Inc., Morristown, New Jersey JOSEPH J. VERVIER, ENSCO, Inc., Melbourne, Florida Staff BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director WILLIAM E. CAMPBELL, Administrative Officer CHRIS JONES, Financial Associate DEANNA P. SPARGER, Administrative Associate DANIEL E.J. TALMAGE, JR., Research Associate

Preface vii The Committee on Review and Assessment of the Army Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Demilitarization Program: Pine Bluff (see Appendix A for committee members’ biog- raphies) was appointed by the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct studies on the technical, regulatory, and public involvement aspects of the U.S. Army Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Disposal Program. In accordance with its statement of task, the committee reviewed engineering design plans for the construction of the Pine Bluff Non-Stockpile Facility (PBNSF) and plans for its operation. STATEMENT OF TASK The Committee on Review and Assessment of the Army Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Demilitarization Program: Pine Bluff, convened in February 2003 by the NRC, was charged with the following task: The NRC, on behalf of the National Academies, will conduct studies to review and assess Army initiatives in the opera- tional phase of the Non-Stockpile Chemical Demilitarization Program pertaining to facility engineering design planning, technology assessment and insertion, and strategic planning for system deployment. The committee will be composed to address study requests that require expertise in design engi- neering, strategic planning, government acquisition, materials of construction, and process engineering. The committee will start by reviewing engineering design plans for the non-stock- pile facility being planned for the disposal of chemical war- fare materiel located at the Pine Bluff, Arkansas, depot. Fu- ture reports are, at present, yet to be determined but will be produced as requested by the product manager. The National Research Council will: • Establish a committee to review and assess Product Man- ager for Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel (PMNSCM) initiatives for the destruction of non-stockpile chemical warfare materiel. • As an initial task, review, assess, and provide recommen- dations on the Army concept of operation of, and on the contractor-submitted engineering design plans for the con- struction of, the Pine Bluff Non-Stockpile Facility. COMMITTEE APPROACH In conducting its review, the committee examined the ini- tial design documents for the facility, the permit applica- tions submitted to the Arkansas Department of Environmen- tal Management, the environmental assessments for the vari- ous components of the proposed PBNSF, and the contract for management of secondary wastes. The committee re- ceived briefings and updates from the Army. A committee subgroup and staff attended public meetings in Pine Bluff at which non-stockpile issues were presented to the commu- nity. A subgroup also participated in a conference call with regulators from the state of Arkansas Department of Envi- ronmental Quality. Additionally, the committee received extensive written answers to approximately 200 written questions it had submitted to the Army and its contractors. The committee also conducted follow-up meetings with the Army and its design contractors and had numerous technical discussions among themselves; the committee members had relevant experience in a wide range of technical disciplines.

viii PREFACE At its meetings, the committee received a number of brief- ings (see Appendix B) and held subsequent deliberations. The committee is grateful to the many individuals, particu- larly Lt. Col. Paul Fletcher, Product Manager for Non-Stock- pile Chemical Materiel, and his staff, who provided techni- cal information and insights during these briefings. This in- formation provided a sound foundation for the committee’s deliberations. This study was conducted under the auspices of the NRC’s Board on Army Science and Technology (BAST). The chair and vice chair acknowledge the continued superb support of the BAST director, Bruce A. Braun, as well as of NRC staff and committee members, who all worked dili- gently on a demanding schedule to produce this report. John B. Carberry, Chair Richard J. Ayen, Vice Chair Committee on Review and Assessment of the Army Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Demilitarizaion Program: Pine Bluff

Acknowledgment of Reviewers ix This report has been reviewed in draft form by individu- als chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical exper- tise, 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 delibera- tive process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Robert J. Eagan, Sandia National Laboratories, Jeff Edson, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Clair F. Gill, Smithsonian Institution, Deborah L. Grubbe, E.I. du Pont Nemours and Company, Thom J. Hodgson, North Carolina State University, Charles E. Kolb, Aerodyne Research, Inc., Richard S. Magee, Carmagan Engineering, and Howard Margolis, University of Chicago. 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 John C. Bailar III, Professor Emeritus, University of Chicago, and James F. Mathis, Exxon Corporation (retired). Appointed by the NRC, they were responsible for making certain that an independent ex- amination 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 xi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW 10 The Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Disposal Program, 10 The Pine Bluff Arsenal Non-Stockpile Inventory, 10 Systems for Assessment and Destruction of Non-Stockpile Chemical Weapons Materiel at the Pine Bluff Arsenal, 14 Scope of This Report, 15 Committee Approach, 16 Structure of This Report, 16 2 THE PINE BLUFF NON-STOCKPILE FACILITY 17 Building and Site Layout, 17 Confirmation of Munition Contents, 19 Characterization in the Pine Bluff Munitions Assessment System, 19 Characterization in the Pine Bluff Non-Stockpile Facility, 19 Process Description, 20 Accessing the Chemical Agent, 20 Neutralizing the Agents, 23 Rinsing the Munition Bodies, 25 Solids Handling, 25 Process Integration, 26 Material Flow, 26 Pine Bluff Non-Stockpile Facility Design Status, Operability, Reliability, and Accessibility by Humans, 28 3 WORKER PROTECTION AND POTENTIAL FOR OFFSITE RELEASE 34 Protecting Pine Bluff Non-Stockpile Facility Personnel from Exposure to Chemical Warfare Agents, 34 Pine Bluff Non-Stockpile Facility Personal Protective Equipment and Characterization of Process Area Hazards, 34 Pine Bluff Non-Stockpile Facility Chemical Agent Monitoring Devices, 34 Protection of Pine Bluff Non-Stockpile Facility Personnel from Accidental Detonations, 36 Protection of the Public and the Environment, 37 External Monitoring, 37 Sampling and Analysis of Liquid and Solid Secondary Wastes at the Pine Bluff Non-Stockpile Facility, 37

xii CONTENTS 4 MANAGEMENT OF PROCESS AND NONPROCESS PINE BLUFF 40 NON-STOCKPILE FACILITY SECONDARY WASTES 5 REGULATORY APPROVAL AND PERMITTING AND PUBLIC 44 INVOLVEMENT Regulatory Approval and Permitting, 44 Scope of Committee’s Regulatory Approval and Permitting Review, 44 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Regulations, 44 Pine Bluff Non-Stockpile Operations and the Regulatory Approval and Permitting Approach, 44 Waste Management Requirements and Treatment Goals, 45 Permitting Approach for the Pine Bluff Non-Stockpile Facility, 46 The Anticipated Need for Frequent Permit Modifications, 46 Permit Schedule and Chemical Weapons Convention Schedule, 46 Public Involvement, 47 Legal Basis for Public Involvement under the National Environmental Policy Act, 47 Background to the National Environmental Policy Act, 48 Involvement of Local Area Stakeholders, 49 Involvement of Nonlocal Stakeholders, 52 Public Involvement Findings and Recommendations, 53 6 A GREATER ROLE FOR THE EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION SYSTEM IN 54 DESTRUCTION OF THE PINE BLUFF INVENTORY OF RECOVERED CHEMICAL WARFARE MATERIEL Concerns About the Design of the Pine Bluff Non-Stockpile Facility, 54 Complexity, 54 Safety, 55 Robustness, 55 Potential EDS-Based Systems, 55 Option 1, 59 Option 2, 59 Factors for Consideration, 59 Factors in Implementing a Multiple-EDS Design, 60 Need for Early Decisions and Testing, 60 Schedule Factors, 61 Cost Factors, 63 Finding and Recommendation, 63 REFERENCES 65 APPENDIXES A Committee Member Biographical Sketches 69 B Committee Meetings and Other Activities 72 C Analysis of the Pine Bluff Non-Stockpile Facility Schedule 75

xiii Figures and Tables FIGURES ES–1 Process flow diagram of the PBNSF, 2 1-1 Diagram of the 4.2-in. mortar cartridge, 11 1-2 Diagram of the 15-cm German Traktor rocket, 13 1-3 Flow chart for the disposition of RCWM at PBA, 14 1-4 X-ray of 85-gal drum containing eight German Traktor rockets, 15 2-1 Diagram of the PBNSF processing area layout, 18 2-2 Auxiliary processing vessel removed from explosive containment chamber, 21 2-3 Internal layout of the chemical process trailer, 22 2-4 Reactor vessel in the chemical process trailer, 24 C-1 Gantt chart for the entire PBNSF project. Based on using only the ECCs and processing two agents when necessary, 76 C-2 Gantt chart for the PBNSF operations only. Based on using only the ECCs and processing two agents when necessary, 78 C-3 Gantt chart for the PBNSF operations only. Based on using only the ECCs and being able to process only one agent at a time, 78 C-4 Gantt chart for the PBNSF operations only. Based on using only the EDSs, having demon- strated an alternative method to separate GTRs from their motors and processing two agents when necessary, 80 C-5 Gantt chart for the PBNSF operations only. Based on using the EDSs for all but the GTRs and processing two agents when necessary, 80 TABLES ES-1 Detailed Comparison of PBNSF and Multi-EDS Options, 7 1-1 Inventory of Non-Stockpile Items at the Pine Bluff Arsenal, 12 3-1 Hazard Categorization of PBNSF Process Areas, 35 4-1 Major Liquid Secondary Waste Streams from the Treatment Process, 41 4-2 Major Solid Secondary Waste Streams from the Treatment Process, 41

xiv FIGURES AND TABLES 6-1 Detailed Comparison of PBNSF and Multi-EDS Options, 56 6-2 Usage Data for the EDS, 59 6-3 Summary Comparison of PBNSF and Multi-EDS Options, 64 C-1 Major Milestones in the Overall PBNSF Schedule, 75 C-2 PBNSF Base Case Processing Schedule Parameters, 77 C-3 PBNSF Base Case with GTR Campaign at Least Partially in Parallel with Campaigns for Mortars, Bombs, and Projectiles, 77 C-4 PBNSF Base Case with GTR Campaign Necessarily Following Campaigns for Mortars, Bombs, and Projectiles, 79 C-5 Option 1 Processing Schedule Parameters, 79 C-6 Option 1: Use of Only One EDS-2 Unit at High Capacity and Two EDS-1 Units at Low Capacity, 79 C-7 Option 2 Processing Schedule Parameters, 81 C-8 Option 2: Use of Multiple EDS Units at Low EDS-2 Capacity with All GTRs Processed in the ECC-2, 82

Acronyms and Definitions xv ACWA Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment ADEQ Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality APV auxiliary processing vessel CAIS chemical agent identification set(s) CFR Code of Federal Regulations CG phosgene CK cyanogen chloride CPT chemical process trailer CWC Chemical Weapons Convention CWM chemical warfare materiel DA diphenylchloroarsine DAAMS depot area air monitoring system DET detonation chamber DF binary chemical agent precursor (methylphos-phonic difluoride) DM adamsite ECC explosive containment chamber EDS explosive destruction system EIS environmental impact statement GA tabun (a nerve agent) GB sarin (a nerve agent) GD soman (a nerve agent) GDL gross detection level GS diethyl malonate GTR German Traktor rocket H sulfur mustard HD sulfur mustard (distilled) HN nitrogen mustard HS sulfur mustard HT sulfur mustard, T-mustard combination HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning L lewisite MCE maximum credible event MDU metal decontamination units MEA monoethanolamine mg milligram MINICAMS minatiure chemical agent monitoring system mm millimeter MMD Munitions Management Device MPL maximum permissible limit NaOH sodium hydroxide NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NRC National Research Council NSCM Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel NSCMP Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Product NSCWCC Non-Stockpile Chemical Weapons Citizens’ Coalition PBA Pine Bluff Arsenal PBCDF Pine Bluff Chemical Disposal Facility PBMAS Pine Bluff munitions assessment system PBNSF Pine Bluff Non-Stockpile Facility PD phenyldichloroarsine PINS portable isotopic neutron spectroscopy PMNSCM Product Manager for Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel ppb parts per billion PPE personal protective equipment ppm parts per million PS chloropicrin psig pounds per square inch gauge PWS projectile washout system QL a binary chemical agent precursor (ethyl-2- diisopropylaminoethyl methylphosphonite)

xvi ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS RAB Restoration Advisory Board RAP regulatory approval and permitting RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCWM recovered chemical warfare materiel RD&D research, development, and demonstration RRS rapid response system SDS spent decontamination solution TP triphosgene TPA triphenylarsine TSDF treatment, storage, and disposal facility TWA time-weighted average U.S.C. United States Code VX a nerve agent 3X level of decontamination (suitable for transport for further processing) 5X level of decontamination (suitable for commercial release)