3
Current Status of Explosive Destruction Technologies

INTRODUCTION

The four explosive destruction technologies (EDTs) for chemical munitions that are evaluated in this report were initially evaluated and described by a National Research Council (NRC) committee in the International Technologies report (NRC, 2006). Since that initial evaluation, all of the technologies have been used for applications that postdate the 2006 report. As a result of the additional experience, each of the technologies has been modified to a greater or lesser degree. In this chapter, the changes to each EDT since early 2006 are described and the operating experience since that time is summarized. After each description and summary, the committee provides its thoughts on changes that could be made to enhance the performance of three of the technologies, as requested by Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) staff.1 These suggested changes are not characterized as findings or recommendations because the committee was unable to discuss the feasibility of implementing them with the technology vendors. The D-100 system being evaluated for the noncontaminated rocket motors at Blue Grass is also described. The chapter concludes with a discussion of regulatory approval and permitting issues and other considerations that could impact the implementation of each technology.

SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE SINCE EARLY 2006

Since early 2006, after which time no more data were gathered for the 2006 NRC International Technologies report, additional use has been made of all four of the EDTs reviewed in that report. Summarized below and described in greater detail under each of the technology-specific sections of this chapter is the experience gained from these more recent deployments.

The CH2M HILL transportable detonation chamber (TDC) TC-60 model chamber, designed for 60 lb TNT-equivalent net explosive weight (NEW), was subjected to tests at Porton Down in the United Kingdom. In 2004, nine mustard agent-filled and -fuzed projectiles were destroyed. In March 2006, 101 munitions were destroyed in testing to measure the throughput rate. From April to July 2008, this same TC-60 system was used at Schofield Barracks in Hawaii to destroy 71 World War I- and World War II-era phosgene-filled and chloropicrin-filled munitions.

The DV60 version of the detonation of ammunition in a vacuum integrated chamber (DAVINCH) was used at Kanda Port in Japan between April and November 2006 to destroy 659 World War II-era bombs filled with a lewisite/mustard agent mix (Yellow bombs) and Clark I and Clark II vomiting agents (Red bombs). A version having a slightly greater explosion containment capability, the DV65, was then used at Kanda Port to destroy additional Yellow and Red bombs. As of mid-2008, 1,650 Red bombs and 400 Yellow bombs had

1

Personal communication between Joseph Novad, Deputy Operations and Engineering Manager, ACWA, and Margaret Novack, NRC, study director, May 30, 2008.



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 29
3 current status of explosive destruction Technologies iNTroducTioN summarY oF exPerieNce siNce earlY 2006 The four explosive destruction technologies (EDTs) Since early 2006, after which time no more data were for chemical munitions that are evaluated in this report gathered for the 2006 NRC International Technologies were initially evaluated and described by a National report, additional use has been made of all four of the Research Council (NRC) committee in the Interna- EDTs reviewed in that report. Summarized below and tional Technologies report (NRC, 2006). Since that described in greater detail under each of the technol- initial evaluation, all of the technologies have been ogy-specific sections of this chapter is the experience used for applications that postdate the 2006 report. gained from these more recent deployments. As a result of the additional experience, each of the The CH2M HILL transportable detonation chamber technologies has been modified to a greater or lesser (TDC) TC-60 model chamber, designed for 60 lb TNT- degree. In this chapter, the changes to each EDT since equivalent net explosive weight (NEW), was subjected early 2006 are described and the operating experience to tests at Porton Down in the United Kingdom. In since that time is summarized. After each description 2004, nine mustard agent-filled and -fuzed projectiles and summary, the committee provides its thoughts on were destroyed. In March 2006, 101 munitions were changes that could be made to enhance the performance destroyed in testing to measure the throughput rate. of three of the technologies, as requested by Assembled From April to July 2008, this same TC-60 system was Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) staff.1 These used at Schofield Barracks in Hawaii to destroy 71 suggested changes are not characterized as findings or World War I- and World War II-era phosgene-filled and recommendations because the committee was unable to chloropicrin-filled munitions. discuss the feasibility of implementing them with the The DV60 version of the detonation of ammunition technology vendors. The D-100 system being evaluated in a vacuum integrated chamber (DAVINCH) was used for the noncontaminated rocket motors at Blue Grass is at Kanda Port in Japan between April and November also described. The chapter concludes with a discussion 2006 to destroy 659 World War II-era bombs filled of regulatory approval and permitting issues and other with a lewisite/mustard agent mix (Yellow bombs) and considerations that could impact the implementation Clark I and Clark II vomiting agents (Red bombs). A of each technology. version having a slightly greater explosion containment capability, the DV65, was then used at Kanda Port to destroy additional Yellow and Red bombs. As of mid- 2008, 1,650 Red bombs and 400 Yellow bombs had 1Personal communication between Joseph Novad, Deputy Opera- tions and Engineering Manager, ACWA, and Margaret Novack, NRC, study director, May 30, 2008. 

OCR for page 29
0 ASSESSMENT OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES been destroyed by various versions of the DAVINCH are described in the remainder of this chapter, along technology at Kanda Port.2 with a review of recent operating experience. It is More recently, a DAVINCH DV50 was installed at recommended that before reading further in Chap- Poelkapelle, Belgium, where it is being used to destroy ter 3 readers not already familiar with EDTs begin by chemical warfare materiel. As of mid-July 2008, 639 first reviewing Tables 4-10 and 4-11 in Appendix A. chemical munitions containing Clark I and Clark II Table 4-10 in Appendix A summarizes engineering agents and another 35 conventional munitions had been and operational parameters: throughput rate, destruc- destroyed. tion verification capability, largest munition that can be The Dynasafe static detonation chamber (SDC) processed, reliability/operability, and transportability. model SDC2000 was used at the German government Table 4-11 in Appendix A presents detailed informa- facility Gesellschaft zur Entsorgung Chemischen tion on throughput rates as a function of the nature of Kampfstoffe und Rüstungs-Altlasten mbH (GEKA) the munition being destroyed. The information is still in Münster, Germany, to destroy over 13,000 German correct. chemical warfare munitions filled with mustard agent (H), distilled (sulfur) mustard agent (HD), Clark I, TraNsPorTaBle deToNaTioN chamBer Clark II, phosgene, and other chemical agents (Stock TechNoloGY et al., 2007).3 This work was done over a 2-year period. The same unit has also been used in a test mode at changes to the Process since early 2006 GEKA to destroy 27 10-cm mustard agent-filled mortar rounds. No substantial changes have been made to the TDC Three explosive destruction system (EDS) units have process since the 2006 NRC International Technologies been in operation since June 13, 2006, at the Pine Bluff report was published (NRC, 2006). The model TC-60 Explosive Destruction System (PBEDS) facility in Pine process as configured for the testing at Porton Down Bluff, Arkansas. One of these is an EDS Phase 1 unit is the same as that for the TC-25 controlled detona- (EDS-1) with a vessel volume of 0.19 m3 and a contain- tion chamber (CDC) system shown in Figure 4-1 of ment capacity of 1.5 lb (0.68 kg) TNT-equivalent NEW. Appendix A. With one exception, the process flow The other two are the larger EDS-2 units, each having a diagram shown in that figure and the accompanying 0.623 m3 volume and a 4.8 lb (2.18 kg) TNT-equivalent process description in Appendix A are still current NEW containment capacity. The EDS units are being and applicable to the TC-60. The “largest munition” used to destroy 1,220 recovered chemical munitions, rating of 60 lb TNT-equivalent NEW for the TC-60 the majority of which are 4.2-in. mortar rounds and (shown in Table 4-10 in Appendix A) is the design German World War II-era Traktor rockets. As of May value, not the Department of Defense Explosive Safety 2008, 1,065 munitions had been destroyed. Board (DDESB) rating of 40 lb TNT-equivalent NEW for the Schofield Barracks event.4 If the TC-60 is to Most of the main characteristics of the three vendor- supplied EDT technologies are nearly the same now be used to detonate explosives of more than 40 lb as they were in early 2006. The basic descriptions of TNT-equivalent, data generated by the detonation of technologies presented in the 2006 NRC International an amount of explosives 25 percent greater than the Technologies report are therefore still valid and are desired DDESB approval rating will be needed. In reproduced in Appendix A of this report. The Phase 2 addition to, or perhaps in connection with, the process version of the EDS system (EDS-2) is described in for receiving approval from the DDESB for a particular this chapter because it has not been described in detail TNT-equivalent NEW rating, the requirements of the in previous NRC reports. Changes to the design, con- recently published American Society of Mechanical figuration, or operating method of the technologies Engineers (ASME) Code Case for impulsively loaded vessels (Code Case 2564), which addresses the design of pressure vessels subject to repeated impact load- ings, might have to be satisfied. However, the vendor 2 Joseph Asahina, Chief of Technology, Kobe Steel, Ltd., “DAVINCH detonation system—recent improvements and path forward,” presentation to the committee, May 28, 2008. 3Harley Heaton, Vice President for Research, UXB International, 4Personal communication between Brint Bixler, Vice President, Inc., “Dynasafe static detonation chamber (SDC) series status CH2M HILL, David Hoffman, CMA, and Richard Ayen, committee update,” presentation to the committee, May 7, 2008. chair, May 12, 2008.

OCR for page 29
 CURRENT STATUS OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES TABLE 3-1 Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds at the Inlet and Outlet of Air Filtration Unit #2 of the TDC of CH2M HILL (parts per billion by volume) Volatile Organic Compound Inlet Concentration Outlet Concentration Ambient Concentration Methane 756.7 810.3 637.5 Propane 3,437.5 3,142.8 ND Acetone 99.2 624.0 1,416.3 Chloromethane 4.3 4.1 4.0 Dichlorodifluoromethane 11.7 11.5 14.1 Methyl ethyl ketone 11.6 53.0 47.6 Toluene 6.0 184.8 105.1 Trichlorofluoromethane 7.4 6.1 8.3 NOTE: ND, nondetect. SOURCE: DiBerardo, 2007. has pointed out that its vessels are “ventilated vessels,” Chemical Biological Center (ECBC) (DiBerardo et as opposed to pressure vessels. The vendor’s analysis al., 2007). indicates that its design will comply with the basic Over a 2-week test period, 74 munitions were requirements of the Code Case, despite the fact that destroyed. The highest throughput was 42 munitions the chambers are fundamentally different in design and in less than 14.5 hours in the second week. Two muni- operation from a total containment pressure vessel. tions were destroyed in each detonation event. During When destroying munitions containing mustard or the peak processing period, the time elapsed between nerve agents but not phosgene, oxygen is added to detonation events was about 35 minutes. the detonation chamber. The additional oxygen is not Extensive environmental tests were conducted mentioned in the process description in Appendix A. under ECBC direction during the period of highest However, this process feature was employed during the productivity at Porton Down in 2006 (DiBerardo, 2007; March 2006 testing at Porton Down and is described DiBerardo et al., 2007). Three sampling periods—280 in the comprehensive report covering the Porton Down minutes, 290 minutes, and 230 minutes—were used on tests between July 2004 and July 2006 (DiBerardo et three consecutive days. The masses of agent destroyed al., 2007). The initial testing used oxygen cylinders that during these three periods were 18.84, 21.98, and 18.84 were placed in the chamber and detonated together with pounds, respectively. The key results are shown in the munition. This technique was later replaced by an Tables 3-1 through 3-4. automated oxygen feed system to meter oxygen into the Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 show measurements for the detonation chamber just before the detonation. stream entering the final particulate filtration/activated carbon adsorption unit and for the stream leaving this unit. The stream at the outlet enters the atmosphere additional experience since early 2006 without further treatment. The conclusions presented The TDC vendor, CH2M HILL, has gained some in the report were as follows: additional operating experience since the text of the • No chemical agent was detected in the final air 2006 International Technologies report was finalized. The coverage of the TDC from that report (reproduced emissions. Additionally, no chemical agent was in Appendix A) mentions that a series of tests at Porton detected at the entrance to the activated carbon Down was scheduled for early 2006.5 These tests adsorbers. This corresponds to destruction effi- ciencies (DEs) of >99.9999 percent. were in fact successfully carried out, destroying U.K. • The measured air emissions would be a minor 25-pounder mustard agent-filled projectiles. The results were presented in the previously mentioned report on additional source for Title V (Clean Air Act the Porton Down testing prepared by the Edgewood (CAA) Amendments of 1990) permitting of the facility. • Two of the solid waste streams, spent pea gravel 5The TDC in the 2006 NRC report was then known and referred and spent lime, would be defined as hazard- to as the controlled detonation chamber (CDC).

OCR for page 29
 ASSESSMENT OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES TABLE 3-2 Emissions to the Air of Metals from the tank to neutralize acid gases. The amount of spent lime TDC of CH2M HILL produced is proportional to the number of munitions destroyed. The rate of generation is about 0.26 pounds Metal Emission Rate (lb/hr) of lime per pound of intact munition, or 19.8 pounds <0.0000158 Antimony per detonation event. Spent activated carbon is gener- Arsenic 0.000439 ated only upon completion of operations. The system <0.00000342 Barium <0.00000191 generated 1,100 kilograms of spent activated carbon. Beryllium Cadmium 0.0000145 The activated carbon was not changed during or after <0.0000381 Chromium the 2004 shutdown at Porton Down. <0.00000624 Cobalt Air emission samples were taken upstream and <0.0000123 Copper downstream of one of the two parallel high-energy Iron 0.00138 particulate air (HEPA) filter/activated carbon adsorp- <0.00000816 Lead tion units in the pollution abatement system and tested Mercury 0.00000767 <0.0000316 for oxygen, carbon dioxide, water, sulfur dioxide, Nickel <0.000047 Selenium nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, total hydrocarbons, <0.00000416 Silver particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, chlorine, metals, <0.0000233 Thallium C1 to C6 hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, Vanadium 0.0000323 semivolatile organic compounds, dioxins, and furans. Zinc 0.000285 No emissions of regulatory concern were found. It was SOURCE: DiBerardo, 2007. concluded as follows:6 TABLE 3-3 Stack Emissions of Particulate Matter, There does not appear to be any impediment to obtaining an Dioxin/Furan, HCl, and Semivolatile Organic air quality permit for the TC-60 CDC based on the results Compounds from the TDC of CH2M HILL of sampling and analysis. The TC-60 would be considered a minor source for Title V (Clean Air Act Amendments of Emission Type Amount 1990) applicability determination purposes because all air Particulate matter 0.03 lb/hr emissions were below emission thresholds used for a rule 10–13 g/Nm3 TEQ Dioxin/furan applicability determination. A Subpart X (Miscellaneous HCl 0.02 ppmv Treatment Unit) permit would be required for a RCRA- <0.03 ppbv Semivolatile organic compounds affected facility because the munitions to be treated would be a hazardous waste and the miscellaneous unit designation NOTE: TEQ, [international] toxic equivalency (the amount of is the most appropriate for this process. (DiBerardo et al., 2,3,7,8-TCDD [2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin] with toxicity 2007, p. 87) equivalent to the complex mixture of 210 dioxin and furan isomers with 4 to 8 chlorine atoms found in flue gases). This Porton Down test report also provided details SOURCE: DiBerardo, 2007. of earlier Porton Down testing that were not known when the NRC International Technologies report was prepared (NRC, 2006; DiBerardo et al., 2007). In September 2004, an operator observed that one of ous waste owing to their lead content. The lead the expansion joints in the crossover pipes between measurements exceeded the limits given in the the detonation chamber and the expansion tank had Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) cracked. Subsequently, several of the expansion joints regulations at 40 CFR 261.24. upstream and downstream of the expansion chamber were replaced, using a modified design. No further During the March 2006 test period at Porton Down, expansion joint failures were experienced during the the system generated about 0.4 pounds of scrap metal testing at Porton Down. per pound of intact munition fed to the process. Spent pea gravel was generated only upon completion of operations. The system generated 1,939 kilograms of pea gravel during the 2006 campaign. The system gen- 6The committee is simply quoting the cited report on the regula- erated 325 kilograms (estimated from volume) of spent tory requirements and has not independently reviewed the applica- lime; the lime was added downstream of the expansion bility of the Clean Air Act or any other regulatory requirement.

OCR for page 29
 CURRENT STATUS OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES TABLE 3-4 Selected Total Metals Concentrations in Solid Waste from the TDC of CH2M HILL (milligrams per kilogram) Spent Pea Gravel Spent Lime Test Parameter (from Detonation (from Lime Total Metals Fresh Pea Gravel Fresh Lime Chamber Floor) Injection Systems) Barium 5 100 31 50 Chromium total 8.81 40 53 23.8 Copper 4 80 9,380 3,400 Iron 14,300 885 30,100 5,440 Lead 2.17 20 1,840 4,400 Nickel 5.75 80 84.3 24.8 Zinc 15.6 24.4 3,850 1,900 NOTE: No significant metal increase for antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, selenium, silver, thallium, or vanadium. SOURCE: DiBerardo, 2007. Later on, problems with incomplete destruction munitions of that size. The system was then shipped to of agent and weapon bodies and a damaged heat Hawaii in February 2008. exchanger were experienced and then resolved over the Operations were carried out during April and May of next 16 months. An important task during that period 2008, with the system set up in an open field at Schofield was the redesign of the donor explosives system. The Barracks. The 71 munitions to be destroyed had been use of the revised designed system solved the problem removed from a Schofield Barracks training range in of incomplete destruction of agent. 2006. The munitions dated from World War I and World As previously indicated, final throughput rate testing War II and were thought to include the following: was carried out at Porton Down in March 2006. Dur- • One 4-in. mortar filled with chloropicrin, ing this testing, 101 mustard-containing 25-pounder • Ten 4-in. mortars filled with phosgene, projectiles were destroyed. The highest throughput rate • Thirty-eight 155-mm projectiles filled with phos- was achieved on March 22, when 16 projectiles were destroyed in eight detonation events. The test report gene, and • Twenty-two 75-mm projectiles filled with states that TC-60 operations were conducted safely dur- ing the 2004-2006 testing at Porton Down (DiBerardo phosgene. et al., 2007). Upon completion of the Porton Down tests and It was subsequently found during operations that closure of the site, the TDC system was prepared for one of the 75-mm projectiles was actually filled with shipment to Crescent City, Illinois, for storage. In chloropicrin. December 2007 and January 2008, the system was pre- Daily operations were carried out by personnel pared for shipment to Schofield Barracks in Hawaii.7 from the U.S. Army ECBC. The initial two phases of Several flexible connections were replaced. The flow operations were work-up trials and developmental test- control valves on the 3-in. and 10-in. pipes between ing. During these operations, two 4-in. Stokes mortars the expansion tank and the air pollution control system filled with phosgene and eight 155-mm projectiles were rebuilt. Tests were run using simulated equipment filled with phosgene were destroyed. The next phase test hardware for 155-mm projectiles and 4.2-in. mor- of operations was termed the operational testing: It tars in preparation for operations at Schofield Barracks. called for the destruction of 30 155-mm projectiles Planning was done for destruction of 155-mm projec- filled with phosgene. One additional munition was tiles in Hawaii; the TDC had not previously destroyed destroyed, for a total of 31. The operations were carried out on April 21, 22, and 23, 2008, with 10, 10, and 11 detonations carried out on each of these days, respec- 7Personal communication between Brint Bixler, Vice President, tively. The operations proceeded fairly smoothly. The CH2M HILL, and Richard Ayen, committee chair, May 12, 2008.

OCR for page 29
 ASSESSMENT OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES cycle times averaged 39 minutes on the first day and air. The purge air feed system was subsequently 37 minutes on the second and third days. No phosgene modified to address this problem. • During each detonation event, lime is automati- was detected in the vestibule, the system enclosure, or the air filtration units. cally injected into the system. The lime feed was The second phase of operations took place on limited by the equipment’s maximum feed rate. May 12 and 13, 2008. These operations were wit- CH2M HILL determined that a faster lime feed nessed by the chair of the committee, Richard Ayen. rate would be beneficial and the feed system is On May 12, 20 75-mm projectiles filled with phosgene being modified to increase the lime feed rate. • Late on May 13, it was discovered that a heat were destroyed, with two projectiles destroyed in each detonation event. Minor problems were encountered exchanger directly upstream of the activated with the detonator firing system. On at least two occa- carbon adsorber had failed; this was the same sions, lack of electrical continuity in the firing circuit heat exchanger that had failed during the testing at Porton Down.10 It was subsequently replaced by a required an operator to reenter the area in front of the detonation chamber to adjust the connector to the “pass- system with upgraded materials of construction: through,” so called because it allows the electrical firing 316 stainless steel was used in place of 304 stain- charge to pass through the walls of the chamber.8 less steel, and various Heresite baked phenolic On May 13, more serious problems were encoun- coatings were applied to the various parts. tered with the detonator firing system. Planned produc- tion for the day was two 75-mm projectiles and eight The committee expects that a connection exists Stokes 4-in. mortars, all filled with phosgene. Continu- between these three issues. Acidic materials are gener- ity problems and misfires resulted in the replacement of ated in the detonation chamber and collect in part in the pass-through and other firing system components. the expansion chamber. Some pass through into the The accompanying delays resulted in the destruction of pollution abatement system. If the lime feed system is only the two 75-mm projectiles and two of the mortars. not effective, is not operating reliably, or is set too low, The firing plug, which connects the firing circuit to the some acidic materials will work their way downstream chamber pass-through, was subsequently analyzed by to the heat exchanger and other parts of the pollution the manufacturer, which determined that the firing plug abatement system. The modifications to the purge air had been incorrectly modified in the field at the project and lime feed systems implemented by CH2M HILL site, causing an internal electrical short. This has been are designed to prevent this problem from recurring. corrected by a change to standard operating procedures ECBC had obtained an emergency destruction permit preventing field modifications and mandating the use from the state of Hawaii allowing 90 days of operation of firing plugs that have been tested and certified by and the destruction of 90 munitions. Agreement with the the manufacturer. state took 6 months. The permit was issued 12 months Other design or operational issues that arose during after applying, which is not atypical. A public meeting or after the campaign were as follows: has been held in connection with applying for the per- mit; no opposition arose during the event. No opposition • After the campaign was completed it was dis- was expressed during the comment periods for either the covered that approximately 50 gallons of acidic environmental assessment or the permit. aqueous fluid (pH = 1) had accumulated in the It was also necessary to obtain a DDESB site safety expansion tank.9 Such an event had never before approval for the Schofield Barracks event. An event- occurred. It was attributed to excessive moisture specific approval was obtained. The TDC’s DDESB added to the system through the chamber purge site safety approval allows detonation of no more than 40 pounds of TNT-equivalent NEW.11 8For a picture of the pass-through, see Figure 2.2 in DiBerardo 10Personal communication between Brint Bixler, Vice President, et al. (2007, p. 28). 9Communication via teleconference between David Hoffman, CH2M HILL, and Richard Ayen, committee chair, August 15, CMA, George Parshall and Douglas Medville, committee members, 2008. 11Limits on the maximum size of detonations are set by the Richard Ayen, committee chair, Margaret Novack, NRC, study director, and Harrison Pannella, NRC, senior program officer, DDESB. Physical strain measurements on the walls of the chamber August 18, 2008. are carried out during detonations in the chamber. These measure-

OCR for page 29
 CURRENT STATUS OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES Proposal for static Firing of Noncontaminated The BGAD-CH2M HILL proposal is for a series rocket motors of tests with actual rocket motors to demonstrate that the static firing concept will work as anticipated. It is The committee was informed that the Blue Grass expected that between four and six motors could be Army Depot (BGAD), in partnership with CH2M HILL, destroyed in each firing cycle and that the throughput had presented a proposal to the Blue Grass Chemical rate would be up to 18 motors per hour. Calculations Agent Destruction Pilot Plant (BGCAPP) relating to based on a burn time of 2.5 seconds for 19.3 pounds Requirement BG-1.12 A CH2M HILL nontransportable propellant show that the temperature in the chamber D-100 detonation chamber has been installed at BGAD would rise by 32°F for each rocket fired. Whether the for destruction of conventional munitions (versus the rocket motors will be fired sequentially or all at once chemical stockpile stored there). DDESB approval has will be determined during these tests. Because the been obtained for 49.3 pounds of total explosives in each testing proposal states that sequential motor firing is detonation event.13 RCRA permitting of this system is preferred, sequential firing will be tested to determine under way. BGAD has proposed a program to BGCAPP technical feasibility. With the short 2.5-second burn to test the technical feasibility of using this existing time, whether the rockets are fired sequentially or all at D-100 CDC system to destroy the rocket motors by static once will not appreciably affect the throughput rate. firing.14 The D-100 is adequate in size for this purpose, Based on its past experience in obtaining DDESB having internal dimensions of 14 ft wide × 16 ft high × approvals of its site safety submissions, CH2M HILL 20 ft long. The detonation chamber is connected to a normally uses 2 pounds donor explosive for each pound cylindrical expansion tank made from mild steel, 10 ft of energetics in the munition for a controlled detonation. in diameter × 71 ft long. The air pollution control system However, it claims this practice would not apply to the consists of a cartridge-type particulate filter with pulsed firing of rocket motors. The static firing is a deflagra- jet cleaning, followed by an exhaust fan. tion over 2.5 seconds, not a detonation. It does admit Before being processed, the rocket motors would be that there is a remote chance of a detonation, but only removed from their shipping and firing tubes (SFTs) and one at a time, and the chamber, which has a 49.3 lb their fins would be banded. Banding the fins prevents TNT-equivalent DDESB rating would accommodate this them from deploying during subsequent processing. detonation. Hence, the D-100 chamber could be used to This allows easier handling when mounting the rocket fire multiple (between four and six) rocket motors. motors in the firing stand and, after firing, removing The M28 propellant in M55 rocket motors contains the motors from the stand. The motors would then be 2 percent lead stearatea significant amountand loaded into a static firing stand, the stand moved into the initiator might contain a smaller amount of lead the detonation chamber, and the firing wires connected. azide (BGCAPP, 2004). BGAD anticipates that at least After the chamber door is closed, the rocket motors 99.999 percent of this lead would be captured by the would be ignited. The door would then be opened particulate filters in the air pollution control system, and the chamber ventilated for 5 to 10 minutes before based on previous testing with conventional systems. workers enter. The firing stand would be removed and Various models of detonation chambers from CH2M replaced with another firing stand freshly loaded with HILL’s product line have been used for destruction of rocket motors. If attempts to use the existing igniters conventional weapons in the United States (Bixler, in the motors were unsuccessful, new igniters would 2006). These systems have fewer unit operations in be used. their pollution abatement systems and were intended to be used to destroy only conventional weapons. Some of the systems employed and examples of their applica- ments are reviewed by experts, and the DDESB issues an approval tion follow:15,16 letter that states the upper limit for size of detonations. 12Brint Bixler, Vice President, CH2M HILL, “Destruction of chemical weapons using CH2M HILL’s transportable detonation 15Personal communication between Brint Bixler, Vice President, chamber,” presentation to the committee, May 8, 2008. 13Personal communication between Brint Bixler, Vice President, CH2M HILL, and Richard Ayen, committee chair, August 29, CH2M HILL, and Richard Ayen, committee chair, July 23, 2008. 2008. 14Personal communication between Brint Bixler, Vice President, 16Personal communication between Tom Cain, Senior Principal CH2M HILL, and Margaret Novack, NRC, study director, July 23, Engineer, Noblis, and Richard Ayen, committee chair, Septem- 2008. ber 19, 2008.

OCR for page 29
 ASSESSMENT OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES • Use of a T-10 model to destroy white phosphorus Maintainability munitions at Camp Navajo Army National Guard • A redesign of the initiation system pass-through Base in Arizona; so that it can be replaced in a few minutes rather • Use of a T-10 model to destroy munitions at four than a few hours. sites in California; • Use of a T-10 model to destroy smoke, riot agent, Capacity and thermite grenades and cartridges at Redstone Arsenal in Alabama; • Obtaining DDESB approval for higher, e.g., 60 lb • Use of a D-200 model to destroy multiple conven- total TNT-equivalent NEW. This could be impor- tional munitions at Crane Naval Surface Warfare tant for Requirement BG-2. Center in Indiana; and • Development of effective procedures for detonat- • Use of two D-100 models at Milan Army Ammu- ing munitions without removing them from over- nition Plant, Tennessee, for the destruction of packs and obtaining DDESB approval for them. 25,000 155-mm projectiles packed with sub- This could be important for Requirement P-1, munition grenades.17 which would benefit from being able to destroy munitions in overpacks. Thoughts on design changes and upgrades daViNch TechNoloGY Design changes and upgrades that could improve the ability of the TDC to destroy large numbers of changes to the Process since early 2006 munitions—for example, the 15,000 mustard agent H projectiles at BGAD—are as follows: The basic three-step process for destroying agent in the DAVINCH chamber under a near vacuum (0.2 psi) Reliability remains essentially the same as described in the 2006 NRC International Technologies report (NRC, 2006, • Replacement of the detonator initiation system pp. 36-39):18 with a system with multiple firing redundancy for each detonator circuit—for example, the system 1. Instant compression of the agent by a propagat- used on the EDS or a similar system. ing shock wave resulting from detonation of an • Redesign of the TC-60 initiation system pass- external emulsion explosive, through to make the technology more reliable. An 2. Mixing of the agent and detonation gas at 3000 K alternative would be to use a better pass-through and 10 GPa and expansion of the agent and detona- design from the EDS or another EDT. tion products into the surrounding vacuum, and • A thorough review of materials of construction 3. Thermal decomposition of the agent by a 2000°C along with a redesign of the system in accordance (2273 K) fireball in the chamber. with the findings of the materials of construction review. This three-step process is shown in Figure 4-2 of the • An increase in the maximum feed rate of the lime 2006 International Technologies report, and the simpli- feed system. fied process flow is shown in Figure 4-3 of that report • Continued monitoring for accumulation of low- (see Appendix A). Since that report was issued, how- pH liquid in the expansion tank and, if necessary, ever, several changes have been implemented as part of further implementation of controls to prevent the ongoing application of the DAVINCH technology recurrence. at the Belgian military facility at Poelkapelle, Belgium. Among the changes made are the following: • To reduce stress, the semiflat ends of the DAVINCH vessel have been replaced by rounded, 17The D-100 was originally designated D-130 in the permitting 18One documentation. change is that oxygen is now added, as explained below.

OCR for page 29
 CURRENT STATUS OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES • To minimize the formation of dioxins in the off- hemispherical heads. Also, the saddle on which the DAVINCH vessel rests has been strengthened gas, an air quench is used, cooling the offgas to to reduce vibration, and the outside of the inner 30°C. DAVINCH vessel has been reinforced with four mild steel plates. A perhaps more substantial change to the DAVINCH • An automatic clamping system is used for the process is the use of a cold plasma oxidizer to treat the offgas rather than heating it in a combustion chamber.19 DAVINCH vessel door. Previously, two U-shaped clamps were used and were tightened manually. In the current configuration, the offgases resulting from Currently, six independent clamps are used. These agent destruction in the DAVINCH chamber are filtered are hydraulically operated and clamp the flanges to remove particulates and, with oxygen from an exter- of the DAVINCH vessel door. nal supply, are pumped into the cold plasma oxidizer. • Munitions are placed in slings and manually hung The concentration of CO in the offgas is reported to be on the linear rack at the top of the inner vessel by reduced from 35-40 percent to less than 0.05 percent workers in personnel protective equipment (PPE) between two diverging electrodes in a 900°C-950°C while standing on a hydraulic lift. (In the opera- plasma arc reactor. The arc temperature is 1600°C tions at Kanda Port, Japan, munitions were hung and the residence time in the cold plasma oxidizer on the rack with a robotic arm that extended into is 0.5-1.0 second. As a result of the 99.9999 percent the vessel.) agent destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) in the • The pumpable emulsion of explosives that previ- DAVINCH vessel, the technology provider, Kobe Steel, ously had been injected into boxed munitions has Ltd., states that there is no need to use the cold plasma been replaced by aluminized emulsion explosives oxidizer for additional agent destruction; however, it in flexible tubes that are strapped onto the muni- reports removal of remaining traces of residual mustard tion bodies. The placement of these tubes around agent HD in the offgas of more than 99.99 percent in the munition, the number of tubes used, and the the cold plasma oxidizer (Katayama and Ueda, 2006; quantity of explosive charge depend on the muni- Asahina et al., 2007). The DAVINCH Glid-Arc cold tion size, wall thickness, and other factors. plasma thermal oxidizer, illustrated in Figure 3-1, uti- • Following evacuation of the DAVINCH vessel to lizes a small specially designed reactor with a “quasi- 0.2 psi, about 2 m3 of oxygen are injected into the periodic ignition-spreading-extinction sequence of a vessel to assist in agent destruction and to reduce series of electrical discharges” called gliding arcs. The the quantity of dust produced by the detonation of gliding-arc discharge is somewhere between a lumines- munitions. Additional oxygen was used in opera- cent discharge and an electric arc and is called “cold tions at Kanda Port in Japan. plasma.” Each arc glides along between two diverging • The offgas treatment system at Poelkapelle has electrodes for ignition of premixed combustible gases been modularized and placed on two skids, each and generates some oxygen radicals by the high energy of electrons to assist the oxidation reaction.20 The glid- 6 meters (20 feet) long and 2.4 meters (8 feet) wide (Lefebvre, 2008). ing arcs between the electrodes of the Glid-Arc reactor • A calcium peroxide chlorine scavenger is now are the energy source that ignite the incoming gases, mixed into the emulsion donor charge to control resulting in a discharge that looks somewhat like a vis- chlorine produced in the DAVINCH vessel dur- ible flame but is less defined and more like the flame ing operations. This reduces the HCl in the off- of a candle than the stable visible flame envelope of gas and thereby minimizes pitting and corrosion typical commercial burners. “Cold plasma” is a term in piping and other equipment. As a result, the described by Orfeuil (1987, p. 629). The book explains chlorine concentration in dust in the inner vessel the difference between thermal plasmas, in which the doubled and the HCl concentration in the stack electrons and the heavier bodies are both at 10,000 K (prior to release to the atmosphere) was reduced from 180-200 ppm to 0.1-0.5 ppm. Between 6 and 7 kg of CaCl2 are generated per shot; the CaCl2 19This is described in the International Technologies report (NRC, 2006; Appendix A, p. 95, in the present report). is mixed with metal fragments and dust and is 20Personal communication between Frank Augustine, Chief removed with these materials when the inner Technology Officer, Versar, Inc., and Margaret Novack, NRC, study vessel is cleaned. director, July 7, 2008.

OCR for page 29
 ASSESSMENT OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES in this application, two cold plasma units in parallel Input gas are used to process the offgas. Since the volume of the Prechamber High-voltage connector inner vessel of the DAVINCH DV50 used in Belgium is 33 m3, processing takes about 35 minutes. During start-up and preheating, a fuel such as propane can be utilized with air as the source of oxygen. Dur- ing operation following detonations in the DAVINCH 2000-2300°C chamber, the incoming gases to the Glid-Arc cold plasma reactor are rich in H2 and CO and include Electrodes enough oxidizer (O2) to provide 99.9 to 99.99 percent 1600°C oxidation after mixing downstream of the reactor and Electric discharger (Glid-arc) being held at 900°C-950°C for 0.5-1.0 second. 900°C Postexpansion zone additional experience since early 2006 Double-wall body for air preheat By the time data gathering for the International Technologies report had been completed (early 2006), Exit gas the DAVINCH technology had been used to destroy about 600 World War II-era Japanese bombs recovered FIGURE 3-1 The DAVINCH Glid-Arc cold plasma thermal from beneath Kanda Port in Japan. The unit used was oxidizer. SOURCE: Personal communication between Frank a DV45, which had an explosion containment capacity Augustine, Chief Technology Officer, Versar, Inc., and of 45 kg TNT-equivalent NEW. Between April and Margaret Novack, NRC, study director, July 7, 2008. November 2006 a larger DAVINCH unit, the DV60, was used at Kanda Port to destroy another 659 Red and Yellow bombs. The Yellow bombs contained a 50:50 mix of lewisite and mustard agent and the Red bombs to 20,000 K, and “cold plasmas” (also called “non- contained Clark I and Clark II vomiting agents. Follow- thermal plasmas” or “luminescent discharges”), with ing that operation, a modified version of DAVINCH, electron temperatures of about 10,000 K and heavier the DV65, was used at Kanda Port to destroy nearly body temperatures between 0.01 and 0.1 of the electron 800 Red and Yellow bombs. In all, 2,050 such bombs temperatures. As mentioned above, the cold plasma in have been destroyed by the DAVINCH technology at the DAVINCH technology primarily serves to ignite Kanda Port. the premixed combustible gases entering the Glid-Arc In July 2006, Kobe Steel, Ltd., contracted with the cold plasma reactor. Belgian Ministry of Defense to install a DAVINCH Following a quench, the treated offgases are held in a system having a 50 kg TNT-equivalent explosion con- retention tank, where they will be tested for any remain- tainment capacity—the DV50—at the military facility ing agent and other organic compounds of interest. If the level of agent in the offgas is ≤1VSL for the agent at Poelkapelle. This unit will destroy about 3,500 muni- tions over a 36-month period. Acceptance testing took involved, the gas then passes through HEPA filters place in January and February 2008 with 177 Clark and activated carbon filters and is released. If agent in the treated offgas is >1VSL, it is recycled through the agent-filled projectiles destroyed in 52 shots (deto- nation events) (see Figure 3-3). As of July 14, 2008, detonation chamber and the cold plasma unit for further DAVINCH had destroyed 639 projectiles containing treatment. the Clark agents in 148 shots.21 The DV50 is 7.92 m The process flow diagram shown in Figure 4-3 in long and has both an inner and an outer vessel. The wall the 2006 International Technologies report (see Appen- thickness of the outer vessel is about 170 mm and the dix A) shows an offgas holding tank in front of the wall thickness of the inner vessel is about 220 mm. The cold plasma unit. After the publication of that report and as shown in Figure 3-2 in this report, this has been moved downstream from the cold plasma unit and is 21Personal communication between Joseph Asahina, Chief of now called the offgas retention tank. The offgas feed Technology, Kobe Steel, Ltd., and Margaret Novack, NRC, study rate to the cold plasma unit in Belgium is 28 m3/hr and director, July 23, 2008.

OCR for page 29
 CURRENT STATUS OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES GB less than 0.0001 mg/m 3 VX less than 0.00001 mg/m 3 HD Preparation area less than 0.003 mg/m3 Munitions Donor charge Detonation area Offgas area storage and setup Check and release Exhaust gas Return line (If agent is detected) • Nerve agent munitions • HD munitions *2 *1 Detonation Activated M S M Vacuum Offgas furnace Offgas Setup Stack charcoal chamber pump (cold plasma) retention tank adsorber Activated Consumables charcoal Solid waste Condensate water adsorber • Detonator • Donor (emulsion) • Detonation case • Chlorine scavenger • Submaterials Process water Sampling point S *1,2 Monitoring point M Waste pit FIGURE 3-2 Process flow diagram for DAVINCH. SOURCE: Joseph Asahina, Chief of Technology, Kobe Steel, Ltd., Ryusuke Kitamura, Kobe Steel, Ltd., and Koichi Hayashi, Kobe Steel, Ltd., “DAVINCH detonation system—Recent improvements and path forward,” presentation to the committee, May 28, 2008. inner diameter of the outer vessel is 2.67 m. The DV50 smaller fragments and a more uniform distribution of has an internal volume of 33 m3. The DV50 footprint metal fragments impinging on the surface of the inner at Poelkapelle, including the offgas treatment area and vessel. Consequently, wear on the inner vessel walls has holding tank, is 20 m by 40 m, or about 8,600 ft2. been reduced compared to previous operations in Japan, The munition destruction record as of mid-July and the need to rotate the inner vessel to distribute wear 2008 is summarized in Table 3-5. In acceptance test- has been eliminated. The expected inner vessel life is ing at Poelkapelle, the DV50 has carried out 2.5 to over 1,000 shots, according to the manufacturer. 3 shots per 10-hour day for 5 days per week. During Routine scheduled maintenance activities at operations, the DV50 cycle times at Poelkapelle have Poelkapelle include the removal of condensate water been 60-70 minutes per shot and, in accordance with from the cold plasma oxidizer, cleaning of piping, and Belgian government policy, only three shots per day removal of filter dust. These and other activities take have been carried out. The cycle time per shot includes about 30 minutes per day, an additional 3 hours per the removal of between 40 kg and 107 kg of metal frag- week, and yet another 3 hours per month. ments (depending on the size and quantity of munitions Two unanticipated events took place at Poelkapelle. being destroyed) by workers in PPE following each In one of them, there was some difficulty in opening shot. the vessel lid. This was due to the deposition of dust In operations at Poelkapelle, the placement of tubular on the traveling rail on which the lid moves laterally. donor charges around the munitions has resulted in Unscheduled downtime also occurred when a 21-cm

OCR for page 29
 ASSESSMENT OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES vendor does not believe that this is a serious issue.33 The results of the 3-day HD tests showed that a DE of >99.999999989 (nine nines) percent was achieved It expects that the motors don’t have enough mass or velocity to damage the 7.5-cm-thick inner chamber at Sampling Port 2 (after the secondary combustion walls, let alone the 7.5-cm-thick outer chamber walls. chamber), with DEs ranging from 99.99481 percent The vendor has stated that if future testing or calcula- to 99.99508 percent at Sampling Port 1 (before the tions show that the issue is real, one solution is to make secondary combustion chamber). A DE of 99.99988 two cuts: the first to separate the motor from the war- percent was recorded at Sampling Port 1A. The results head and the second cut between the forward closure of this test would satisfy the requirements of the state and the propellant to remove the former. If the forward of Kentucky for a DE of 99.9999 percent. closure is either removed from the motor or is ejected, Propellant Processing Configuration. The purpose the Engineering Assessment Attachment of the UXB International 2007 report states “. . . the case pressure of this test was to observe the behavior of propellant will fall to the ambient (or nearly so), which will drop and aluminum as found in a noncontaminated M55 the burning rate to low values and cause the motor to be rocket motor and to demonstrate the ability of added non-propulsive” (UXB International, 2007, p. 365). water to absorb energy released from the propellant as The Dynasafe technology has obtained a permit to that energy is conveyed to the offgas treatment system. destroy chemical weapons in Germany but not in the Actual rockets were not used in the test. Instead, a United States. propellant having characteristics similar to those of an M55 rocket and aluminum strips of the same composi- tion as the fins in an M55 rocket were used. Tests Conducted at GEKA During the testing phase, the SDC was operated at its Mustard Agent HD Test. The HD testing was con- normal operating conditions and was fed containers with ducted by operating the SDC unit in its normal mode, plastic bags holding 2.3 kg propellant, 2.3 kg aluminum which was in compliance with all the environmental pieces, and, in the later tests, water-filled 2-L plastic bot- permits and procedures approved by the appropriate tles with screw caps. Each container constituted a single authorities of Germany. Three HD runs were conducted feeding. During the 3 hours of testing, a processing rate using 100-mm mortar rounds. For each run, either two of eight feedings per hour was maintained. The contents or three mortars at a time were fed in a single batch to of each container in each hour were as follows: the SDC approximately three times per hour. The sampling for HD was at three ports, as shown in Hour  Figures 3-4a and 3-4b. These sampling ports were at the 2.3 kg propellant, 2.3 kg aluminum strips, exit of the detonation chamber (Sampling Port 1), at the no water. exit of the equalization tank and before the secondary Hour  combustion chamber (Sampling Port 1A), and at the 2.3 kg propellant, 2.3 kg aluminum strips, exit of the quench (Sampling Port 2). 2.3 kg water. Before the test could begin, a full day was spent cali- Hour  brating the in-line flow meters for the air feed to the sec- 2.3 kg propellant, 2.3 kg aluminum strips, ondary combustion chamber. These calibrations were 4.6 kg water. made using EPA standard protocols to validate this critical measurement. After this step was completed, There was no problem feeding the propellant or the the HD tests began. The HD tests were completed over aluminum or adding the water in 2 of the 3 hours. How- 3 days. On all 3 days the test ran for 3 hours. On the first ever, there was a problem with dumping the aluminum and third days, the SDC processed three HD projectiles scrap. The material did not appear to be burning while per feeding, one every 20 minutes for a total of 27. On inside the unit but began to burn when the chamber the second day, only two HD projectiles were fed to the was detached from the feed section and rotated prior SDC per feeding every 20 minutes for a total of 18. to dumping. It was decided to continue emptying the chamber. Some pieces of burning aluminum were discharged into the scrap bin, and the fire brigade con- trolled the burning using CO2 fire extinguishers. The 33Site visit by Doug Medville, committee vice chair, to GEKA, scrap bin was then left to cool overnight. UXB said the Münster, Germany, August 2008.

OCR for page 29
 CURRENT STATUS OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES Fuel oil Propane Cyclone Offgas Primary air to scrubbers ET Sampling Loading Secondary Chamber port 1 1 combustion chamber Loading Chamber 2 Sampling port 1a Dust bin Blast Munitions (for recycle) Carbon isolation filter Outer destruction Dust chamber disposal Overall Sweep air enclosure Inner destruction chamber Scrap Scrap bin Preheater Scrap Scrap chamber sorting/inspection FIGURE 3-4a Dynasafe SDC2000 flow diagram showing sampling ports. ET, equalization tank. SOURCE: UXB International, 2007. Activated carbon/ Baghouse CaCO3 Water additive Fuel oil Propane NaOH HCl Primary air Spent additive DeNOx Offgas from secondary preheater combustion chamber ID fan Quench NH3 Acid Caustic Neutral scrubber scrubber scrubber Sampling port 2 Wastewater FIGURE 3-4b Dynasafe SDC2000 flow diagram showing sampling ports (continued). ID, induction. SOURCE: UXB Inter- national, 2007.

OCR for page 29
 ASSESSMENT OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES test was a deliberate “overtest” of the ability of the SDC “bridged” in the chamber, hindering their removal. The to handle aluminum. It reasoned that an M67 rocket manufacturer claims this problem can be avoided by motor normally contains only 0.28 kg aluminum per redesigning the discharge chute when a new system motor, giving an aluminum:propellant ratio of 3.2:100 is built for application at BGAD or Pueblo Chemical rather than the 1:1 ratio in this test. More testing would Depot (PCD). appear to be warranted. The addition of the water also had a measurable Thoughts on design changes and upgrades effect on the peak stack gas flow, which decreased from 950 Nm3/hr without water to 860 Nm3/hr when The feed system and the scrap metal discharge an extra 2.3 kg (per feed) of water was added at every system should be redesigned to resolve problems with feeding. Also, the gas temperature at the exit of the processing whole M55 rocket motors. The redesigned SDC increased from 350°C to 400°C during the first systems would have to be tested to demonstrate their hour without water but leveled off at 440°C during the operability. Moreover, it would be prudent to obtain second and third hours, when water was added. This assurances that DDESB would grant approval to shows that the addition of water keeps the SDC from destroy whole noncontaminated rocket motors for the overheating when propellant is fed and decreases the use of the SDC2000 system. peak flow rates out of the SDC. The use of water could allow an increase in the rate at which munitions are eds TechNoloGY fed to the SDC. The missions envisioned at the Blue Grass and Pueblo ACWA sites call for an ability to destroy more and larger Test Conducted at Structo chemical munitions than can be destroyed by the EDS The purpose of this testing, which took place in Phase 1 (EDS-1). In response to the Non-Stockpile Kristinehamn, Sweden, was to confirm that the SDC Chemical Materiel Project’s (NSCMP’s) requirement for was capable of processing noncontaminated M55 rocket similar capabilities, the EDS developer, Sandia National motors without jamming or “bridging” of the metal parts Laboratories, designed and fabricated the larger EDS when the scrap was removed from the chamber. Fifty Phase 2 (EDS-2). The discussion that follows focuses on simulated motor cases 110 mm in diameter × 1,092 mm the EDS-2. Because the EDS-2 was not fully described long were made. The tubes were as long as the cylindri- in the 2006 International Technologies report, the follow- cal cases of the rocket motors plus the closed fins (the ing section has more detail than the preceding sections uncut tubes). Since there was a possibility that the fins on the vendor-supplied technologies. might deploy during the actual processing, 20 of the 50 tubes were modified to simulate a motor case with eds-2 opened and locked fins (the cut tubes). During the tests, the SDC was operated in a cold The EDS-2 can destroy munitions as large as 8-in. mode, but the simulated rockets would not fit through chemical projectiles. It can also destroy multiple chem- the feed chamber at the top and had to be hand-fed ical munitions at one time if the combined TNT-equiva- through a chamber inspection door located on the side lent NEW of the rounds and of the shaped charges does not exceed the 4.8-lb NEW rating of the container.34 of the SDC outer closure. Since the feed chambers are sized according to the size of the different munitions, For example, it can destroy multiple rounds of smaller the vendor claims that this problem should be easily chemical munitions such as 75-mm artillery projectiles, 4.2-in. mortars, and German Traktor rockets.35 The solved by enlarging the feed chamber on the SDC. With the SDC chamber rotated 90 degrees from its EDS-2 is depicted in Figure 3-5. normal vertical orientation, simulated rockets were loaded so as to randomly orient the tubes. Three tests were performed. In the first test, 30 uncut tubes were 34Allan Caplan, System Development Group Leader, NSCMP, fed into and removed from the chamber. In the second CMA, “Explosive destruction system (EDS)—A mobile treatment system,” presentation to the committee, May 7, 2008. test, 20 cut tubes with attached parts simulating fins 35U.S. Army, “RCRA pre-application meeting for Pine Bluff were fed and emptied. Finally, all 50 tubes, both cut and explosive destruction system (PBEDS),” briefing on the NSCMP, uncut, were fed and emptied. In all three tests the tubes Pine Bluff, Arkansas, April 22, 2004.

OCR for page 29
 CURRENT STATUS OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES Main disconnect switch 480 V 120 V support distribution power panels 1 and 2 120 V support conditioner distribution panel Utility Main power receptacle 120 V panel (under gooseneck) distribution panel Reagent supply Stairs platform 120 V power conditioner Platform power panel Clamp Drive power hanger panel assembly Drive motor and Heater power panel mount assembly Process control panel Leak detector Vessel control panel Stairs Loading area Stainless steel Stainless steel containment Containment Trailer railings pan and decking vessel platform extensions Hydraulic nut pump Leveling jacks (four corners Rear of trailer) stairs FIGURE 3-5 Drawing of the EDS-2 vessel on its trailer. SOURCE: Allan Caplan, System Development Group Leader, Non- Stockpile Chemical Materiel Project, CMA, “Explosive destruction system (EDS)—A mobile treatment system,” presentation to the committee, May 7, 2008. The heart of the EDS-2 is an explosion containment tion by rotating the containment vessel, which is heated vessel mounted on a flatbed trailer. The EDS-2 vessel by external band heaters. has an inside diameter of 28 in., an inner length of The operating cycle of the EDS-2 includes load- 57 in., and a wall thickness of 3.6 in. It is fabricated ing an unpacked munition, detonating shaped charges from a 316 stainless steel forging and the door is fabri- to cut open the munition and destroy its energetics, cated from a separate forging. The vessel is designed to destroying chemical agent with neutralizing chemicals, contain hundreds of detonations with explosive ratings and cleanup/maintenance. of up to 4.8 lb TNT-equivalent NEW. It contains the explosive shock, metal fragments, and chemical agents Loading released during the process that opens the munition. It also serves as a vessel for subsequent neutralization The operating cycle begins when an unpacked of the chemical agent and residual energetics from the chemical munition is placed in a fragment suppression munition. The neutralent is agitated during neutraliza- system (FSS) consisting of two steel half-cylinders, one

OCR for page 29
 ASSESSMENT OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES above and one below the munition. The FSS takes the chemical fill and any remaining explosives. Reagents impact of small fragments in order to protect the wall used in EDS systems include 20 percent aqueous of the EDS containment vessel. If multiple chemical sodium hydroxide for phosgene, 90 percent mono- munitions are to be treated simultaneously, they are ethanolamine (MEA)/water for nitrogen mustard (HN) placed in a rack supported in the FSS. The FSS also and sulfur mustard (HD), and 45 percent MEA/water serves to mount and properly locate the shaped charges for the nerve agent GB (NRC, 2001). Reagents have used for explosively opening the chemical munition in also been developed and demonstrated for the destruc- tion of nerve agent VX and the blister agent lewisite.38 the EDS. The loaded FSS is placed inside the EDS-2 vessel using a movable loading table. Following prepa- Reactions take place at low pressures and low, but ration of the door sealing surface and installation of a above ambient, temperatures. The solution containing new O-ring, the chamber door is closed and a leak test neutralized chemical agent is retained in the vessel until is conducted. While unpacking is the normal procedure, analysis shows that the agent concentration is below loading a munition in an overpack into the EDS and its particular VSL. The liquid neutralent is treated as a detonating through both the overpack and the munition hazardous waste and shipped to a permitted TSDF for has been done during NSCMP operations.36 treatment and disposal. Detonation Cleaning and Maintenance The explosives used include linear and conical Following treatment of the chemical munition, the shaped charges. The linear shaped charges are used to EDS-2 vessel is rinsed, cleaned, and inspected. This explosively cut open the chemical munition and access includes inspection of the sealing surface and the its contents for chemical treatment. For treatment of chamber door as well as replacement of the all-metal a single munition, a conical shaped charge is used seal that contains the detonation and the O-ring seals to detonate the burster inside the chemical munition. that prevent release of the contents of the vessel. The When multiple munitions are processed, linear charges vessel is washed with chemical reagent, if needed, and are used to access the agent as well as the bursters. Dur- rinsed with water and detergent. Upon completion of ing the loading process, detonators are attached to the a disposal campaign, final washes (e.g., water/acetic explosive shaped charges and shorted for safety. The acid) are made. The resulting aqueous waste has tradi- detonator lead wires are connected to the external con- tionally been sent to a permitted TSDF for treatment trol by wires leading through a pass-through in the door and disposal. At the conclusion of the lewisite tests, of the containment vessel. Three pairs of wires provide the airborne levels of arsenic and mercury were found redundant detonation circuits if the first (and second) to be below the 8-hour time-weighted average limit attempt to initiate the detonation fails. The system is adopted by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.39 very reliable—the detonation system has never failed in all the field deployments of EDS systems.37 The chemi- The typical quantity of liquid wastes is 8-10 gallons cal safety submittal for the EDS system to the DDESB per operating cycle. The expected source and nature was approved on a systemwide basis, which facilitates of these wastes are presented in Table 2-2 of Systems use of the EDS in various jurisdictions. and Technologies for the Treatment of Non-Stockpile Chemical Warfare Materiel (NRC, 2002). Agent Neutralization After detonation has taken place, a neutralizing reagent is pumped into the EDS-2 vessel to treat the 38Trish Weiss, EDS Systems Manager, Project Manager for NSCMP, “Explosive destruction system (EDS) lewisite and VX 36Personal communication between Allan Caplan, System Devel- testing,” presentation to the committee that wrote the International opment Group Leader, NSCMP, CMA, and Margaret Novack, NRC, Technologies report, September 7, 2005. 39Trish Weiss, EDS Systems Manager, PMNSCMP, “Explosive study director, November 5, 2008. 37David Hoffman, CMA, “Transportable detonation chamber destruction system (EDS) lewisite and VX testing,” presentation (TDC) at Schofield Barracks,” presentation to the committee, to the committee that wrote the International Technologies report, May 29, 2008. September 7, 2005.

OCR for page 29
 CURRENT STATUS OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES changes in the Process since early 2006 TABLE 3-6 Recent Deployments of EDS Units Date Site Munitions Destroyed The operating sequence that evolved during the 2004 Dugway Proving 15 GB- or H-filled RCWM; production-scale operations at Pine Bluff Arsenal per- Ground (Utah) 7 DOT bottles mitted efficient use of crews and equipment (Friedman, 2007). Typically, a day is required to load a set of 2004-2006 Dover Air Force 9 HD 75-mm projectiles chemical munitions into an EDS unit, detonate the Base shaped charges, inject and heat the neutralizing reagent, agitate the chamber to mix the reagent and residual 2005 Aberdeen Proving 8 cylinders (7 AC, 1 CK) Grounds (Maryland) agent, and wet the vessel’s inner walls. After the vessel cools overnight, the neutralent is analyzed to 2006 to Pine Bluff Arsenal 1,065 to date; 4.2 in. establish that it is suitable for further (off-site) treat- present mortars (HD); German ment and disposal. During the second day of the work Traktor rockets (HN-1) cycle, the vessel is drained and rinsed. Then the door NOTE: AC, hydrogen cyanide; CK, cyanogen chloride; HD, dis- is opened, debris is removed, and the vessel is cleaned tilled mustard; HN-1, nitrogen mustard; RCWM, recovered chemi- and inspected to ensure that no damage occurred. The cal warfare munitions. EDS unit is then ready for another cycle of operations. In the interest of safety and for staffing reasons, paired EDS-2 units carry out their detonations on alternate days. In this way, it was possible to destroy up to 30 small chemical munitions, such as 4.2-in. mortars, in tained blister agents or unknown liquids. Only a few a normal week.40 of the German Traktor rockets contained both chemi- cal agent and propellant. There were also many other additional experience since early 2006 miscellaneous chemical munitions and samples. In the destruction operations, munitions removed The original EDS-1 proved its worth in a series of from storage were inspected to determine whether they field operations in the continental United States. The contained agent and/or energetics and if they did, which sites included Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Colorado type of agent/energetic was involved. Those containing (10 GB bomblets); Camp Sibert, Alabama (one CG agent or energetics were destroyed in one of the three mortar round); and Spring Valley in Washington, D.C. EDS units (one EDS-1, two EDS-2s) deployed to Pine (15 mustard agent HD artillery rounds). One EDS-1 Bluff. Typically, only two were operated simultane- and two EDS-2s have been used in the ongoing project ously. The third was kept on standby or was dispatched to destroy 1,220 recovered chemical munitions at Pine for use at other locations. Bluff Arsenal (PBA), Arkansas, as described below. To update the history of EDS units, operations since 2004 are tabulated in Table 3-6. Future Plans The campaign at Pine Bluff is especially relevant to To accommodate future requirements for the EDS the potential ACWA applications because it involves concept, the Army and Sandia National Laborato- the destruction of hundreds of old munitions, some ries have generated conceptual designs for a larger, of which were not suitable for safe dismantling. At more productive EDS in Phase 3 of the EDS program least partly in response to NRC recommendations, (EDS-3). The development work has not yet been the Army discontinued plans for a fixed facility at funded pending identification of an application in the PBA (NRC, 2004). Instead, a team of mobile EDS NSCMP—for instance, a large burial site, where many units was deployed to PBA to destroy the 1,220 World hundreds of chemical munitions might need to be War II chemical munitions stored there. Most of the treated. The requirements fall into two categories: 4.2-in. mortars were empty, but more than 100 con- • A larger double-chambered EDS vessel that would accommodate more chemical munitions. 40Allan Caplan, System Development Group Leader, NSCMP, One objective would be to destroy up to four CMA, “Explosive destruction system (EDS)—A mobile treatment 155-mm chemical projectiles simultaneously, system,” presentation to the committee, May 7, 2008.

OCR for page 29
0 ASSESSMENT OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES thus increasing the throughput with these large ization followed by biotreatment at PCAPP and in chemical munitions. Another would be to destroy February 2003, for a Record of Decision calling for a complete M55 rocket, including agent and pro- neutralization followed by supercritical water oxidation pellant, although this would necessitate enhanc- (SCWO) at BGCAPP. ing the explosion containment capacity. It is The EDTs were not evaluated in the draft ACWA EIS forecast that an EDS-3 version could destroy up of 2001. These technologies will need to be evaluated to 12 mortar rounds or 12 75-mm projectiles at under NEPA. While an EIS could be required for these once. Another high-throughput concept would technologies, if their application is determined to have employ two double-chamber vessels that would no significant impact, an environmental assessment be able to process 12 4.2-in. mortars at a time could be all that is needed. Environmental assessments and to complete five process cycles per week (60 typically take far fewer resources and much less time mortars).41 to prepare than EISs. Because the NEPA process can • A new heating system based on the injection of take several years to complete, evaluation of NEPA steam into the containment vessel, which would requirements seems desirable for the use of EDTs at entail replacing the external band system for heat- Pueblo and Blue Grass. ing the EDS-2 chamber. When combined with an From a regulatory perspective, all the EDTs evalu- active cooling system, this approach is expected ated in this report should be able to meet environmental to allow one detonation every day instead of one regulatory requirements and achieve permitted status every other day by speeding the heating and cool- at both BGCAPP and PCAPP. The EDS has received ing processes, which are currently considered to permits in several states for destruction of chemical be rate limiting. weapons. The TC-60 TDC has received a RCRA permit from the state of Hawaii for the destruction of chemical weapons. However, each EDT has some nuances that reGulaTorY aPProVal aNd PermiTTiNG pose a challenge to regulatory approval and permitting. RCRA insists that a technology must demonstrate that General it will be sufficiently protective of human health and the environment42 and has stringent requirements for The primary environmental regulations that apply to the treatment of chemical munitions include the National public involvement in the permitting process. Also, Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Air Act the ACWA program should know that thermal treat- (CAA), and RCRA. In addition, DOD Ammunition ment technologies for treating EDT offgas may be of and Explosive Safety Standards (DOD 6055.9-STD) particular concern to the public. mandate DDESB approval of a site safety submission Application of EDTs at ACWA sites will require for each application, although systemwide approval can RCRA operating permits. However, RCRA provides be obtained allowing use anywhere in the United States a research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) with minimal supplementary information. mechanism for obtaining permits for some technolo- NEPA requirements apply equally to all the EDTs. gies, particularly those that are new or that are intended Under NEPA, the federal government must evaluate to be used for waste materials whose destruction using the environmental consequences of proposed actions the technology has not been yet demonstrated. The and alternatives at federal facilities, considering pub- RD&D permit mechanism gives a permittee a lot of lic input. The NEPA process for ACWA was initiated flexibility to adjust process and conditions to maximize shortly after passage of the National Defense Appro- treatment effectiveness, throughput, and efficiency. For priations Act of 1997 (Public Law 104-208), which both PCAPP and BGCAPP, the Army’s plan, approved established the ACWA program. In 2002, the ACWA by state regulators, has been to begin the neutralization/ program published a final environmental impact state- ment (EIS). Pursuant to the EIS, a Record of Decision 42The EDTs, being technologies that do not fit into established was issued in July of that year that called for neutral- waste treatment categories under RCRA, will probably be permitted under RCRA Subpart X—Miscellaneous Units. Subpart X entails a performance demonstration. Rather than meeting set require- 41Allan Caplan, System Development Group Leader, NSCMP, ments, permittees for Subpart X units must demonstrate that CMA, “Explosive destruction system (EDS)—A mobile treatment technologies will be sufficiently protective of human health and system,” presentation to the committee, May 7, 2008. the environment.

OCR for page 29
 CURRENT STATUS OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES biotreatment and neutralization/SCWO (respectively) this topic was obtained in discussions with Colorado processes under an RD&D permit and then, once the and Kentucky regulators. Many questions were asked technologies have been demonstrated and become about the acceptability of certain features of the various more routine, to transition seamlessly to a full RCRA EDTs to the regulators. In both states and for many, operating permit.43 if not most, of the questions asked, the response by a For the noncontaminated rocket motors, another regulator began with the words “The public will. . . .” concern involves PCB contamination of the M55 rocket or “The public will not. . . .” Regulators in both states SFTs. As noted in Chapter 1, M55 rocket SFTs are made it very clear that activist public positions and known to be contaminated with PCBs. If SFTs con- regulatory decision making are inextricably linked. taining >50 ppm PCBs were to be treated using any of the EDTs along with or separately from the rocket Tdc motor itself, the EDT would require a facility permit under 40 CFR Part 761 of the TSCA. However, ACWA The TDC system destroys the bulk of the agent and intends to separate the rocket warheads from their SFT explosives in the chemical munitions by detonating segments, and the latter are to be disposed of off-site donor explosives wrapped around the munitions. The at a permitted TSCA facility. Also, Dynasafe has said agent and explosives are destroyed by the donor explo- it does not intend to process the SFTs through the sive detonation, achieving an initial DE of 99.99 percent Dynasafe SDC2000 facility.44 The situation for the SFT for the agent. With the addition of thermal treatment of segments encasing the noncontaminated rocket motors the offgas by catalytic oxidation (CATOX), the system had not been resolved at the time this report was being achieves a DRE in excess of 99.9999 percent. Because prepared.45,46 of the offgas treatment system, the TDC would need to Lastly, a regulatory concern with all EDTs, includ- be added to the existing Title V Clean Air Act permit ing the EDS, involves the disposition of heavy metals held by both BGCAPP and PCAPP; however, since the that may be present in the munitions to be treated. For air emissions are considered a minor release an addition example, lead is a component of the propellant used for to the air permit is not expected to be an issue. the M55 rockets. Mercury is known to be a contaminant As indicated previously, the TDC has been operated in some of the mustard agent formulations. The Army for munitions containing phosgene and chloropicrin and the technology providers must ascertain what chemical weapons in the United States (Schofield issues, if any, must be addressed in managing whatever Barracks, Hawaii) under a RCRA emergency permit. heavy metals may be present in secondary wastes. Simpler versions of the technology have been oper- ated at several locations within the United States for conventional weapons. The TDC technology, because TechNoloGY-sPeciFic reGulaTorY it has not yet been applied for chemical weapons other coNsideraTioNs than phosgene and chloropicrin in the United States, The following subsections provide information on should be a good candidate for beginning operations the regulatory situation for each of the EDTs under con- through the use of an RD&D permit. sideration. As mentioned in the Preface, useful input on Considering that the TDC produces a relatively small amount of secondary waste, including scrap metal, pea gravel, and spent lime, off-site treatment and disposal 43Teleconference with Colorado Department of Public Health of secondary wastes are not going to be a big concern. and Environment, May 22, 2008; teleconference with Kentucky Much less secondary waste will be produced by the Department of Environmental Protection, July 22, 2008. 44Personal communication between Harley Heaton, Vice Presi- TDC than by the planned neutralization of the bulk of dent for Research, UXB International, Inc., and Richard Ayen, the chemical weapons at both BGCAPP and PCAPP. In committee chair, August 3, 2008. addition, off-the-shelf treatment technologies are avail- 45As also noted in Chapter 1, some of the SFT segments encas- able in the United States for treatment of the secondary ing some rocket motors are difficult to remove from the rocket wastes produced by the TDC. motor body. However, Noblis claims to have developed and tested The primary concern with the TDC from a RCRA an effective procedure for removing the SFT segments from the rocket motors. permitting perspective is the operation of the CATOX 46Personal communication between Tom Cain, Senior Principal thermal treatment unit and the lack of a hold-test- Engineer, Noblis, and Richard Ayen, committee chair, Septem- release capability for the offgas. There may be some ber 19, 2008.

OCR for page 29
 ASSESSMENT OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES concern also about the formation of dioxins and should be an ideal candidate for beginning operations furans in the treated offgas. Technically, the initial via an RD&D permit. detonation combined with catalytic oxidation should Considering that the DAVINCH produces a rela- preclude agent and other organics, including dioxins tively small amount of secondary wastes, including and furans, from being released into the atmosphere scrap metal, dust, calcium chloride, and aluminum untreated. oxide, off-site treatment/disposal of secondary wastes The CATOX technology, while a form of thermal is not going to be a primary concern. Much less sec- treatment, is not an incineration technology. It must ondary waste is produced by the DAVINCH than is also be remembered that the bulk of the destruction of produced by the planned neutralization of the bulk of the chemical agent within the munition (on the order the chemical weapons at both BGCAPP and PCAPP. In of 99.99 percent) is accomplished by the initial detona- addition, off-the-shelf treatment technologies are avail- tion. The treatment of the offgas is intended to destroy able in the United States for treatment of the secondary the 0.01 percent of agent potentially remaining in the wastes produced by the DAVINCH. offgas. From this perspective, that the TDC employs Because the DAVINCH employs a hold-test-release a CATOX process for treatment of the offgas should capability for the offgas, hold-test-release is not going be a very minor concern to the public. Special studies to be a concern to public interest groups and should assessing risk, such as multipathway health-risk assess- make the technology more palatable to regulators and ments (MPHRAs), which are often conducted for incin- public interest groups. The cold plasma technology, erator operations, are not necessary. Catalytic oxidation while a form of thermal treatment, is not an incineration is not incineration. From the regulatory perspective, as technology. It must also be remembered that the bulk of long as the technology can be shown to protect human the destruction of the chemical agent within the muni- health and the environment, there should be no impedi- tion (on the order of 99.9999 percent) is accomplished ment to use of a CATOX technology for treatment of by the initial detonation. The treatment of the offgas the offgas. However, if the TDC were operated with a destroys more than 99.99 percent of the 0.0001 percent hold-test-release capability, it would probably be more of agent potentially remaining in the offgas. From this palatable to public interest groups. standpoint, a cold plasma oxidation technology for The TDC also has received DDESB approval for its treating the DAVINCH offgas should be of very little application at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. Because the concern to the public. From the regulatory perspective, system does not have systemwide approval, DDESB as long as the technology can be shown to be protective would have to approve its application at Pueblo or of human health and the environment, there should be Blue Grass. no impediment to use of a cold plasma technology for treatment of the offgas. Because the DAVINCH, like the TDC, has not daViNch received DDESB approval of a site safety submis- The DAVINCH system destroys the vast majority sion for application within the United States, DDESB of the agent and explosives in the chemical munitions approval would be required to apply it at Pueblo or by detonating donor explosives wrapped around the Blue Grass. munitions. The agent is destroyed by this detonation, which achieves an initial DE of >99.9999 percent. dynasafe sdc With the addition of cold plasma for thermal treatment of the offgas, the system achieves a DRE in excess of The Dynasafe system destroys most of the agent and 99.999999 percent. Because of the offgas treatment explosives in the chemical munitions by deflagration system, the DAVINCH would need to be added to the or detonation and subsequent heating of the munitions existing Title V CAA permit held by both BGCAPP in an electrically heated containment vessel. No donor and PCAPP; however, the air emissions are considered charges are needed. The heated containment vessel a minor release, and achieving the addition to the air causes deflagration or detonation of the explosives permit is not expected to be an issue. within the munition, releasing agent. Some treatment As indicated previously, the DAVINCH has not been is accomplished by the initial deflagration or detona- operated for chemical weapons or any other explosive tion, but the bulk of treatment is accomplished by the waste materials in the United States. For this reason, it heat imposed from within the containment vessel,

OCR for page 29
 CURRENT STATUS OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES achieving an initial DE of 99.99 percent. With the From this perspective, whether the Dynasafe system addition of the secondary combustion afterburner for employs secondary combustion or a flameless thermal thermal treatment of the offgas, the Dynasafe system oxidizer for treatment of the offgas should be a very at Münster (Germany) achieves a DRE in excess of minor concern to the public. But because the second- 99.9999 percent. However, the proposed U.S. version ary combustion technology is incineration, if secondary of the Dynasafe system would employ an FTO and combustion is used for the Dynasafe, the regulatory there would be no secondary combustion chamber. authorities may consider requiring in-depth studies, Because of the offgas treatment system, the SDC would such as an MPHRA. Again, considering the fact that the need to be added to the existing Title V CAA permit offgas treatment technology is to be used to treat only held by both BGCAPP and PCAPP; however, the air the 0.01 percent of agent that may remain following ini- emissions are considered a minor release and getting tial treatment, the committee believes that an MPHRA the SDC added to the air permit is not expected to be is unnecessary. However, if Dynasafe employs sec- a problem. ondary combustion and if the regulatory authorities As already mentioned, the Dynasafe technology determine that some type of risk assessment is needed, has not been operated for chemical weapons or other a screening-level MPHRA should sufficea detailed waste explosives in the United States and should be an MPHRA is not required unless the screening-level ideal candidate for beginning operations via an RD&D MPHRA shows the potential for concern. Of course, if permit. a flameless system (which is not incineration) is used, Considering that the Dynasafe technology would a study assessing risk, often conducted for incinerator produce a relatively small amount of secondary wastes, operations, is not necessary. including scrap metal and a scrubber salts filter cake, From the regulatory perspective, as long as the tech- off-site treatment and disposal of secondary wastes nology chosen for treatment of the offgas can be shown is not going to be much of a concern. The amount of to be protective of human health and the environment, secondary waste produced by the proposed U.S. version there should be no impediment to its use. However, if of the Dynasafe system will be much smaller than the the Dynasafe system employs secondary combustion amount of waste produced by the planned neutralization technology, a hold-test-release capability becomes of the bulk of the chemical weapons at both BGCAPP more important for public interest groups. Even if a and PCAPP. In addition, off-the-shelf treatment tech- flameless system is used, the presence of a hold-test- nologies are available in the United States for treatment release capability would make the technology more of the secondary wastes produced by the SDC. acceptable to the public. As reported by Dynasafe, the The main concern with the Dynasafe technology from system can be operated in a hold-test-release mode, but the perspective of RCRA permitting would be the opera- when operated in this manner it may not be as produc- tion of the secondary combustion thermal treatment unit tive as the earlier design. and the absence of a hold-test-release capability for the The Dynasafe system also has not received DDESB offgas. Technically, because the secondary combustion approval for its application in the United States, which unit will employ an open flame, it would be defined as it would need for application at Pueblo or Blue Grass. incineration. This could be a concern for public interest groups, which have long opposed incineration tech- eds nologies, particularly for chemical agents. To avoid this, Dynasafe has proposed the use of a flameless thermal The EDS uses small shaped charges to open the oxidizer in place of secondary combustion. chemical munition and consume the explosive in the Technically, the initial deflagration or detonation burster and fuze. The agent is destroyed by the sub- combined with thermal treatment and secondary sequent neutralization process, achieving a DRE of >99.9999 percent. Because no offgas treatment system combustion should preclude agent and other organics from being released into the atmosphere untreated. is needed for the EDS, no addition to the CAA Title V The bulk of the destruction of the chemical agent permit for BGCAPP or PCAPP is needed. Similarly, within the munition (on the order of 99.99 percent) is because there is no offgas treatment, the potential pro- accomplished by thermal treatment within the system. duction of dioxins and furans is not a concern. The treatment of the offgas is intended to destroy the The EDS has been operated under RCRA permits 0.01 percent of agent that might remain in the offgas. at a variety of locations throughout the United States,

OCR for page 29
 ASSESSMENT OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES and regulators, the general public, and public interest BGCAPP (Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant). 2004. Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act Research, Development groups have achieved a level of comfort with it. The and Demonstration Permit Application. Richmond, Ky.: Blue Grass system can therefore be operated under a full operating Army Depot. permit; a RCRA RD&D permit is not needed. Bixler, B. 2006. Controlled detonation of chemical munitions. Presented at the 9th International Chemical Weapons Demilitarisation Conference The main concern with the EDS from a RCRA per- in Luneburg, Germany, May. Available online at http://www.dstl.gov. mitting perspective is the amount of secondary waste, uk/conferences/cwd/2006/index.php. Last accessed on February 17, specifically hydrolysate, produced when chemical 2009. DiBerardo, R. 2007. Environmental characterization of the TC-60 Con- weapons are treated. Because it is a RCRA hazardous trolled Detonation Chamber. Presented at the 10th International Chemi- waste that may contain agent degradation products, it cal Weapons Demilitarisation Conference in Brussels, Belgium, May. will require subsequent treatment at a RCRA-permitted Available online at http://www.dstl.gov.uk/conferences/cwd/2007/. Last TSDF. The hydrolysate produced by the system can accessed on February 17, 2009. DiBerardo, R., T.A. Blades, and N. McFarlane. 2007. Demonstration/ be tested for the presence of agent prior to subsequent Validation of the TC-60 Controlled Detonation Chamber Porton Down, management, effectively providing the system with a U.K., Final Demonstration Test Report, ECBC-SP-021, June. Aberdeen hold-test-release capability. Proving Ground, Md.: Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center. Friedman, L. 2007. Pine Bluff Explosive Destruction System (PBEDS). Although the EDS produces large amounts of Presented at the 10th International Chemical Weapons Demilitarisation secondary wastes (primarily the 8 to 10 gallons of Conference in Brussels, Belgium, May. Available online at http://www. monoethanolamine (MEA)-based hydrolysate per dstl.gov.uk/conferences/cwd/2007/. Last accessed on February 17, 2009. detonation), the amount produced is much less than Katayama, M., and M. Ueda. 2006. Optimal treatment of detonation the amount of aqueous hydrolysate produced by the chamber off-gas. Presented at the 9th International Chemical Weapons planned neutralization of the bulk of the chemical Demilitarisation Conference in Luneburg, Germany, May. Available weapons at both BGCAPP and PCAPP. The disposal of online at http://www.dstl.gov.uk/conferences/cwd/2006/index.php. Last accessed on February 17, 2009. EDS wastes by shipment to a TSDF for treatment has Kitamura, R., M. Ueda, and J.K. Asahina. 2007. Surrogate test for M55 not been a problem in the many jurisdictions in which nerve agent rocket mortar by DAVINCH. Presented at the 10th Inter- the EDS has operated. While environmental regulators national Chemical Weapons Demilitarisation Conference in Brussels, Belgium, May. Available online at http://www.dstl.gov.uk/conferences/ will require that TSDFs be permitted for treatment cwd/2007/. Last accessed on February 17, 2009. of the waste hydrolysate, there is typically very little Lefebvre, M.H. 2008. Controlled Detonation Chamber (CDC)—Achieve- concern about the capability of the TSDFs to safely and ments & Challenges. Presented to the 11th International Chemical Weapons Demilitarisation Conference in Interlaken, Switzerland, May. effectively treat the waste. However, the general public Available online at http://www.dstl.gov.uk/conferences/cwd/2008/ and public interest groups may take issue with shipping index.php. Last accessed on February 17, 2009. the EDS hydrolysate to off-site locations, even consid- Orfeuil, M. 1987. Electric Process Heating: Technologies/Equipment/ ering its relatively small amount. If the EDS is selected Applications. Columbus, Ohio: Battelle Press. NRC (National Research Council). 2001. Evaluation of Alternative Tech- for one or more applications at PCAPP, however, the nologies for Disposal of Liquid Wastes from the Explosive Destruction Army will need to dispose of the MEA-based hydroly- System. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. sate produced by the EDS in a treatment facility other NRC. 2002. Systems and Technologies for the Treatment of Non-Stockpile Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies than the planned biotreatment operation at PCAPP. Press. The EDS also enjoys the advantage of having NRC. 2004. Assessment of the Army Plan for the Pine Bluff Nonstockpile already achieved systemwide approval of the site safety Facility. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. NRC. 2006. Review of International Technologies for Destruction of submission from the DDESB. None of the other tech- Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, D.C.: The National nologies evaluated in this report have received this type Academies Press. of broad approval. Stock, T.H., H. Heaton, H. Weigel, and H. Moskal. 2007. The Static Deto- nation Chamber—Agent destruction efficiency in a 10 cm HD mortar destruction campaign. Presented at the 10th International Chemical reFereNces Weapons Demilitarisation Conference in Brussels, Belgium, May. Available online at http://www.dstl.gov.uk/conferences/cwd/2007/. Last Asahina J., K. Koide, T. Shirakura, M. Ouchi, and T. Tada. 2007. Study on accessed on February 17, 2009. controlled detonation chamber system of chemical weapons (II): Implo- UXB International, Inc. 2007. Static Detonation Chamber Testing Using a sion and sequential detonation. Science and Technology of Energetic Dynasafe SDC 2000. Final Report. Richmond, Ky.: Blue Grass Chemi- Materials 68(2): 48-54. cal Agent Destruction Pilot Plant. Beerens, K., B. Vanclooster, and M. Katayama. 2008. Construction Record of DAVINCH at Poelkapelle. Presented to the 11th International Chemi- cal Weapons Demilitarisation Conference in Interlaken, Switzerland, May. Available online at http://www.dstl.gov.uk/conferences/cwd/2008/ index.php. Last accessed on February 17, 2009.