REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL ISSUES CONCERNING THE METAL PARTS TREATER DESIGN FOR THE BLUE GRASS CHEMICAL AGENT DESTRUCTION PILOT PLANT

Committee to Review and Assess Developmental Issues Concerning the Metal Parts Treater Design for the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant

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
Committee to Review and Assess Developmental Issues Concerning the Metal Parts Treater Design for the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant Board on Army Science and Technology Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

OCR for page R1
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 No. W911NF-06-C-0184 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Army. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number -13: 978-0-309-11515-5 International Standard Book Number -10: 0-309-11515-9 Limited copies of this report are available from: Additional copies are available from: Board on Army Science and Technology The National Academies Press National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, N.W. 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Room 940 Lockbox 285 Washington, DC 20001 Washington, DC 20055 (202) 334-3118 (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area) Internet, http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2008 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest 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 advis- ing the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
commiTTee To reVieW aNd assess deVeloPmeNTal issUes coNcerNiNG The meTal ParTs TreaTer desiGN For The BlUe Grass chemical aGeNT desTrUcTioN PiloT PlaNT ROBERT A. BEAUDET, University of Southern California, Los Angeles (retired), Chair RICHARD J. AYEN, Waste Management Inc. (retired), Jamestown, Rhode Island JOAN B. BERKOWITZ, Farkas Berkowitz and Company, Washington, D.C. WILLARD C. GEKLER, ABS Consulting Inc., Los Alamitos, California DAVID A. HOECKE, Enercon Systems Inc., Elyria, Ohio JOHN R. HOWELL, University of Texas at Austin NELLINE KOWBEL, Malcolm Pirnie Inc., Emeryville, California JOHN E. MORRAL, Ohio State University, Columbus DERRICK K. ROLLINS, Iowa State University, Ames Staff MARGARET N. NOVACK, Study Director NIA JOHNSON, Senior Program Associate JAMES C. MYSKA, Senior Research Associate iv

OCR for page R1
Board oN armY scieNce aNd TechNoloGY MALCOLM R. O’NEILL, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired), Vienna, Virginia, Chair ALAN H. EPSTEIN, Pratt & Whitney, East Hartford, Connecticut, Vice Chair RAJ AGGARWAL, Rockwell Collins, Cedar Rapids, Iowa SETH BONDER, The Bonder Group, Ann Arbor, Michigan JAMES CARAFANO, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C. ROBERT L. CATTOI, Rockwell International Corporation (retired), Dallas, Texas DARRELL W. COLLIER, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command (retired), Leander, Texas JAY C. DAVIS, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (retired), Livermore, California PATRICIA K. FALCONE, Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, California RONALD P. FUCHS, The Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington WILLIAM R. GRAHAM, National Security Research Inc. (retired), San Marino, California PETER F. GREEN, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor CARL GUERRERI, Electronic Warfare Associates Inc., Herndon, Virginia M. FREDERICK HAWTHORNE, University of Missouri, Columbia MARY JANE IRWIN, Pennsylvania State University, University Park ELLIOT D. KIEFF, Channing Laboratory, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts LARRY LEHOWICZ, Quantum Research International, Arlington, Virginia EDWARD K. REEDY, Georgia Tech Research Institute (retired), Atlanta DENNIS J. REIMER, DFI International (retired), Arlington, Virginia WALTER D. SINCOSKIE, Telcordia Technologies Inc., Morristown, New Jersey MARK J.T. SMITH, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana MICHAEL A. STROSCIO, University of Illinois, Chicago JUDITH L. SWAIN, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla WILLIAM R. SWARTOUT, Institute for Creative Technologies, Marina del Rey, California EDWIN L. THOMAS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge ELLEN D. WILLIAMS, University of Maryland, College Park Staff BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director CHRIS JONES, Financial Associate DEANNA P. SPARGER, Program Administrative Coordinator v

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Preface The Committee to Review and Assess Developmental representatives of the committee visited the Abbott Furnace Issues Concerning the Metal Parts Treater Design for the Company in St. Marys, Pennsylvania, to receive presenta- Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant (Appen- tions from the munitions treatment unit (MTU) manufacturer dix A) was appointed by the National Research Council in and to inspect the MTU being constructed and tested for the response to the following request from the Program Manager Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant (PCAPP). for Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives: The second full meeting was held on October 16-18, 2007, at the National Academies’ Beckman Conference Center in Irvine, California. The first half-day was devoted to discus- statement of Task sions with the Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives and the Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass • Review the design and thermal modeling of the metal parts Team to clarify any remaining questions, and the remainder treater (MPT) for BGCAPP; of the 3-day meeting was devoted to discussions and to • Review testing results that have become available in the course of Technical Risk Reduction Program activity 5c for writing the report. At the last meeting, on November 6-8, the metal parts treater; 2007, also at the Beckman Conference Center, the committee • Develop means to address the longer-than-expected heat-up focused on refining the report for peer review. times of munitions casings in the MPT in view of consider- This was a very challenging study, in part because of the ations of the effect this has on the throughput capabilities for short time frame allowed the committee and in part because overall BGCAPP operations; the delivery of sufficiently detailed written information • Review the Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant necessary to inform the committee was delayed owing to (PCAPP) Munitions Treatment Unit (MTU) design and test security vetting. Such vetting, which appears to be an artifact data, compare the MPT and MTU and make any recommen- of the September 11, 2001 attacks, continues to have a nega- dations regarding the MTU’s application to BGCAPP; tive effect on the ability of committees to provide the type • Produce a report with findings and recommendations con- of technically detailed advice that is expected of them. The cerning first-of-a-kind developmental issues and possible options concerning the MPT design for BGCAPP. January 2008 date originally requested for delivery of the report required the committee to complete its data gathering before its third meeting, which took place November 6-8, The committee is the latest in a series of committees 2007. Unfortunately, the Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass Team’s assembled to provide scientific and technical advice to the final report, Technical Risk Reduction Program Metal Parts Army as it seeks alternatives to the existing baseline incin- Treater Final Study Report, Revision B, containing 763 eration programs being used at five of the remaining eight pages of information and describing the testing of the MPT, chemical weapons stockpile locations. was not made available to the committee until November The committee met three times (see Appendix B for 2, 2007, owing to an extensive operational security review. the meeting agendas). At the first meeting, the committee Thus, although the committee did spend considerable time visited the Parsons facility in Kennewick, Washington, to during its final meeting examining this information, it based be briefed on the full Assembled Chemical Weapons Alter- the majority of its deliberations on the oral presentations of natives (ACWA) designs, the specifications for the metal test results and discussions with the Program Manager for parts treater (MPT), and the MPT Technical Risk Reduction Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives and contractor Program (TRRP). The committee members also inspected representatives. the TRRP MPT used in testing. On September 20, 2007, vii

OCR for page R1
viii Preface As the chair of this committee, I commend the diligent they review the final draft of this report before its release, work and the contributions to the preparation of this report although board members with appropriate expertise may be by the writing team leaders, Bill Gekler, John Howell, Joan nominated to serve as formal members of study committees Berkowitz, and Richard Ayen. Their efforts are particularly or as report reviewers. The BAST was established in 1982 appreciated. by the National Research Council at the request of the U.S. The entire committee, in turn, is grateful to the Program Army. It brings broad military, industrial, and academic Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives scientific, engineering, and management expertise to bear Kevin Flamm and his staff, particularly Joseph Novad and on Army technical challenges and other issues of importance Darren Dalton, for their considerable efforts to provide the to senior Army leaders. The BAST also discusses potential needed information. The committee understands the chal- studies of interest; develops and frames study tasks; ensures lenges that these hard-working professionals encountered in proper project planning; suggests potential committee mem- assembling and gaining operational security clearances for bers and reviewers for reports produced by fully independent, the information and test results requested. ad hoc study committees; and convenes meetings to examine The committee also greatly appreciates the support strategic issues. and assistance of National Research Council staff mem- bers Bruce Braun, Margaret Novack, Nia Johnson, and Jim Robert A. Beaudet, chair Myska, who ably assisted the committee in its fact-finding Committee to Review and Assess activities and in the production of the report. Developmental Issues Concerning The members of the Board on Army Science and Tech- the Metal Parts Treater Design for nology (BAST), listed on page v, were not asked to endorse the Blue Grass Chemical Agent the committee’s conclusions or recommendations, nor did Destruction Pilot Plant

OCR for page R1
acknowledgment of reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form by individu- George J. Quarderer, Dow Chemical Company als chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical exper- (retired), tise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National W. Leigh Short, Principal and Vice President of Research Council’s (NRC’s) Report Review Committee. The Woodward-Clyde (retired), and purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and Michael K. Stenstrom, University of California, critical comments that will assist the institution in making its Los Angeles. published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, Although the reviewers listed above have provided and responsiveness to the study charge. The review com- many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not ments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the did they see the final draft of the report before its release. following individuals for their review of this report: The review of this report was overseen by Harold Forsen, NAE. Appointed by the National Research Council, he Martin Gollin, Carmagen Engineering Inc., was responsible for making certain that an independent ex- Gary S. Groenewold, Idaho National Laboratory, amination of this report was carried out in accordance with Elizabeth A. Holm, Sandia National Laboratories, institutional procedures and that all review comments were Peter B. Lederman, New Jersey Institute of Technology carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of (retired), this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and James F. Mathis, NAE, Exxon Corporation (retired), the institution. ix

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
contents SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 7 Background, 7 The BGCAPP Design and the Metal Parts Treater, 8 The PCAPP Design and the Munitions Treatment Unit, 10 Scope and Organization of the Study, 10 2 METAL PARTS TREATER SYSTEM 11 Overview, 11 Metal Parts Treater, 11 System Description, 11 System Operation, 13 Prototype Testing of the Metal Parts Treater Technology, 14 Off-Gas Treatment System, 16 System Description, 16 System Operation, 18 3 ASSESSMENT OF METAL PARTS TREATER TESTING ACTIVITIES 20 Mechanical Issues, 20 New Door Closure Mechanism and Seals, 20 Bearings for the Conveyer Rollers, 21 Heating Zones, 21 Secondary and Closure Waste Treatment, 22 Waste to Be Treated in the MPT, 22 Pyrolysis Testing of Secondary Waste Simulants, 24 Technical Risk Reduction Program Testing of MPT Treatment of Secondary Waste, 24 Alternative Treatment and Disposition of Secondary Waste, 26 4 THERMAL TESTING, MODELING, AND PREDICTED THROUGHPUT OF THE 27 METAL PARTS TREATER Experimental Temperature Measurements, 27 Temperature Prediction by Computational Fluid Dynamics Thermal Modeling, 28 Comparison of Temperature Measurements and Modeling, 30 Ability to Scale Up and Meet Throughput Requirements, 32 xi

OCR for page R1
xii CONTeNTS 5 APPLICABILITY OF PCAPP MUNITIONS TREATMENT UNIT AT BGCAPP 34 Munitions Treatment Unit Design and Operation at PCAPP, 34 Testing of the Munitions Treatment Unit for PCAPP, 35 Comparison of the Metal Parts Treater and Munitions Treatment Unit for BGCAPP, 35 Treatment of Energetics Batch Hydrolyzers and Secondary and Closure Waste at BGCAPP, 38 6 GENERAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 40 REFERENCES 42 APPENDIXES A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 45 B COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND SITE VISITS 47

OCR for page R1
Tables, Figures, and Box TaBles S-1 Comparison of the Metal Parts Treater and the Munitions Treatment Unit, 5 1-1 Inventory of the Chemical Weapons in the Blue Grass Army Depot Stockpile, 8 1-2 Pueblo Chemical Depot Chemical Weapons Stockpile of HD- or HT-filled Munitions, 8 3-1 Solid Waste Generation and Processing Rate in the Metal Parts Treater, 24 3-2 Summary of Results from Secondary Waste Testing Carried Out in 2005, 24 4-1 Metal Parts Treater Unit’s Material Properties, 30 4-2 Computational Fluid Dynamics Model Boundary Conditions for the Technical Risk Reduction Program, 31 4-3 Computational Fluid Dynamics Model 070806 Boundary Conditions, 32 4-4 Computational Fluid Dynamics Model 070806 Component Masses, 32 4-5 Metal Parts Treater/Metal Parts Treater Cooling System Projectile Throughput Rates, 33 5-1 Comparison of the Metal Parts Treater and the Munitions Treatment Unit, 37 FiGUres 1-1 Process flow diagram for the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant, 9 2-1 Simplified flow diagram of the metal parts treater system, 12 2-2 Current design of the off-gas treatment system for the metal parts treater, 12 2-3 First-of-a-kind full-scale metal parts treater system, 13 2-4 Technical Risk Reduction Program metal parts treater system (without staging conveyors, air lock doors, and cooling chamber), 15 2-5 Bulk oxidizer in the off-gas treatment system for the metal parts treater, 17 4-1 Location of thermocouples (X) and computational fluid dynamics model “cold spots” on test rounds and in tray for June 14 testing, 28 4-2 Comparison of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model predictions with experimental results for thermocouples 4 and 6 on projectile 14 with CFD predictions, 29 4-3 Thermocouple installation on the projectile, 30 4-4 Variation of specific heat and emissivity with temperature, 31 5-1 The Abbott Furnace Company munitions treatment unit, 36 Box 3-1 The Technical Risk Reduction Program (TRRP) 05c Heat Transfer Test, 22 xiii

OCR for page R1
abbreviations and acronyms MTU munitions treatment unit ACWA Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives MWS munitions washout system BGAD Blue Grass Army Depot NAE National Academy of Engineering BGCAPP Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction NRC National Research Council Pilot Plant BOX bulk oxidizer (flameless thermal oxidizer) OTM off-gas treatment for the MPT BPBGT Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass Team OTS off-gas treatment system CATOX catalytic oxidizer PCAPP Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot CFD computational fluid dynamics Plant PCD Pueblo Chemical Depot DOD Department of Defense PMACWA Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives EBH energetics batch hydrolyzer PMD projectile mortar disassembly ENS energetics neutralization system PTFE polytetrafluoroethylene PVC polyvinylchloride GB nerve agent (sarin) SCWO supercritical water oxidation H Levinstein mustard agent SDU supplemental decontamination unit HD distilled mustard agent HT distilled mustard mixed with TRRP Technical Risk Reduction Program bis(2-chloroethylthioethyl) ether HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning VOC volatile organic compound VSL vapor screening level LSS Lab Safety Supply VX nerve agent MDB munitions demilitarization building WCL waste control limit MPT metal parts treater WIC waste incineration container xiv