National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2008. Review and Assessment of Developmental Issues Concerning the Metal Parts Treater Design for the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12074.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2008. Review and Assessment of Developmental Issues Concerning the Metal Parts Treater Design for the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12074.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2008. Review and Assessment of Developmental Issues Concerning the Metal Parts Treater Design for the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12074.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2008. Review and Assessment of Developmental Issues Concerning the Metal Parts Treater Design for the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12074.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2008. Review and Assessment of Developmental Issues Concerning the Metal Parts Treater Design for the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12074.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2008. Review and Assessment of Developmental Issues Concerning the Metal Parts Treater Design for the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12074.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2008. Review and Assessment of Developmental Issues Concerning the Metal Parts Treater Design for the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12074.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2008. Review and Assessment of Developmental Issues Concerning the Metal Parts Treater Design for the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12074.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2008. Review and Assessment of Developmental Issues Concerning the Metal Parts Treater Design for the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12074.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2008. Review and Assessment of Developmental Issues Concerning the Metal Parts Treater Design for the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12074.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2008. Review and Assessment of Developmental Issues Concerning the Metal Parts Treater Design for the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12074.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2008. Review and Assessment of Developmental Issues Concerning the Metal Parts Treater Design for the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12074.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2008. Review and Assessment of Developmental Issues Concerning the Metal Parts Treater Design for the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12074.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2008. Review and Assessment of Developmental Issues Concerning the Metal Parts Treater Design for the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12074.
×
Page R14

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.

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

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

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

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

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 

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 •  Review the design and thermal modeling of the metal parts Weapons Alternatives and the Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass treater (MPT) for BGCAPP; Team to clarify any remaining questions, and the remainder •  Review testing results that have become available in the of the 3-day meeting was devoted to discussions and to 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; •  Review the Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant the delivery of sufficiently detailed written information (PCAPP) Munitions Treatment Unit (MTU) design and test necessary to inform the committee was delayed owing to data, compare the MPT and MTU and make any recommen- security vetting. Such vetting, which appears to be an artifact dations regarding the MTU’s application to BGCAPP; of the September 11, 2001 attacks, continues to have a nega- •  Produce a report with findings and recommendations con- tive effect on the ability of committees to provide the type cerning first-of-a-kind developmental issues and possible of technically detailed advice that is expected of them. The 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 The committee is the latest in a series of committees before its third meeting, which took place November 6-8, assembled to provide scientific and technical advice to the 2007. Unfortunately, the Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass Team’s Army as it seeks alternatives to the existing baseline incin- final report, Technical Risk Reduction Program Metal Parts eration programs being used at five of the remaining eight Treater Final Study Report, Revision B, containing 763 chemical weapons stockpile locations. pages of information and describing the testing of the MPT, The committee met three times (see Appendix B for was not made available to the committee until November the meeting agendas). At the first meeting, the committee 2, 2007, owing to an extensive operational security review. visited the Parsons facility in Kennewick, Washington, to Thus, although the committee did spend considerable time be briefed on the full Assembled Chemical Weapons Alter- during its final meeting examining this information, it based natives (ACWA) designs, the specifications for the metal the majority of its deliberations on the oral presentations of parts treater (MPT), and the MPT Technical Risk Reduction test results and discussions with the Program Manager for Program (TRRP). The committee members also inspected Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives and contractor the TRRP MPT used in testing. On September 20, 2007, representatives. vii

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next: Summary »
Review and Assessment of Developmental Issues Concerning the Metal Parts Treater Design for the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $29.00 Buy Ebook | $23.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The United States is in the process of destroying its chemical weapons stockpile. In 1996, Congress mandated that DOD demonstrate and select alternative methods to incineration at the Blue Grass and Pueblo sites. The Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) program was setup to oversee the development of these methods, and pilot plants were established at both sites. One of the new technologies being developed at the Blue Grass pilot plant are metal parts treaters (MPTs) to be used for the empty metal munitions cases. During recent testing, some issues arose with the MPTs that caused the ACWA to request a review by the NRC to investigate and determine their causes. This book presents a discussion of the MPT system; an assessment of the MPT testing activities; an analysis of thermal testing, modeling, and predicted throughput of the MPT; and an examination of the applicability of munitions treatment units under development at Pueblo for the Blue Grass pilot plant.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!