Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
ASSESSMENT OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR SPECIFIC MUNITIONS AT THE BLUE GRASS AND PUEBLO CHEMICAL AGENT DESTRUCTION PILOT PLANTS
Committee to Review Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives Program Detonation Technologies
Board on Army Science and Technology
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
OCR for page R2
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by Contract No. W911NF-08-C-0034 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Army. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-12683-0
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-12683-5
Limited copies of this report are available from
Board on Army Science and Technology
National Research Council
500 Fifth Street, N.W., Room 940
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 334-3118
Additional copies are available from
The National Academies Press
500 Fifth Street, N.W. Lockbox 285 Washington, DC 20055 (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area) Internet, http://www.nap.edu
Copyright 2009 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
www.national-academies.org
OCR for page R4
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
This page intentionally left blank.
OCR for page R5
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
COMMITTEE TO REVIEW ASSEMBLED CHEMICAL WEAPONS ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM DETONATION TECHNOLOGIES
RICHARD J. AYEN, Chair,
Waste Management, Inc. (retired), Jamestown, Rhode Island
DOUGLAS M. MEDVILLE, Vice Chair,
MITRE (retired), Reston, Virginia
ROBIN L. AUTENRIETH,
Texas A&M University, College Station
ADRIENNE T. COOPER,
Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
MARTIN K. GOLLIN,
Carmagen, St. Davids, Pennsylvania
DAVID A. HOECKE,
Enercon Systems, Inc., Elyria, Ohio
PAUL F. KAVANAUGH,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (retired), Fairfax, Virginia
TODD A. KIMMELL,
Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago, Illinois
GEORGE W. PARSHALL,
E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company (retired), Wilmington, Delaware
JAMES P. PASTORICK,
UXO Pro, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia
WILLIAM R. RHYNE,
ABS Consulting, Inc. (retired), Kingston, Tennessee
Staff
MARGARET N. NOVACK, Study Director
HARRISON T. PANNELLA, Senior Program Officer
NIA D. JOHNSON, Senior Research Associate
JAMES C. MYSKA, Senior Research Associate
ALICE V. WILLIAMS, Senior Program Assistant
OCR for page R6
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
MALCOLM R. O’NEILL, Chair,
Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired), Vienna, Virginia
ALAN H. EPSTEIN, Vice Chair,
Pratt & Whitney, East Hartford, Connecticut
RAJ AGGARWAL,
Rockwell Collins, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
SETH BONDER,
The Bonder Group, Ann Arbor, Michigan
JAMES CARAFANO,
The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C.
ROBERT L. CATTOI,
Rockwell International Corporation (retired), Dallas, Texas
DARRELL W. COLLIER,
U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command (retired), Leander, Texas
JAY C. DAVIS,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (retired), Livermore, California
PATRICIA K. FALCONE,
Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, California
RONALD P. FUCHS,
The Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington
WILLIAM R. GRAHAM,
National Security Research, Inc. (retired), San Marino, California
PETER F. GREEN,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
CARL GUERRERI,
Electronic Warfare Associates, Inc., Herndon, Virginia
M. FREDERICK HAWTHORNE,
University of Missouri, Columbia
MARY JANE IRWIN,
Pennsylvania State University, University Park
ELLIOT D. KIEFF,
Channing Laboratory, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts
LARRY LEHOWICZ,
Quantum Research International, Arlington, Virginia
EDWARD K. REEDY,
Georgia Tech Research Institute (retired), Atlanta
DENNIS J. REIMER,
DFI International (retired), Arlington, Virginia
WALTER D. SINCOSKIE,
Telcordia Technologies, Inc., Morristown, New Jersey
MARK J.T. SMITH,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
MICHAEL A. STROSCIO,
University of Illinois, Chicago
JUDITH L. SWAIN,
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla
WILLIAM R. SWARTOUT,
Institute for Creative Technologies, Marina del Rey, California
EDWIN L. THOMAS,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
ELLEN D. WILLIAMS,
University of Maryland, College Park
Staff
BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director
CHRIS JONES, Financial Associate
DEANNA P. SPARGER, Program Administrative Coordinator
OCR for page R7
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
Preface
The Committee to Review Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives Program Detonation Technologies was appointed by the National Research Council (NRC) in response to a request by the U.S. Army’s Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (PMACWA).
Three types of detonation technologies available from technology vendors and the Army’s explosive destruction system (EDS), collectively known as explosive destruction technologies (EDTs), are being considered for use at the Blue Grass Army Depot in Richmond, Kentucky, and the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Pueblo, Colorado. For the destruction of the bulk of the chemical weapons stockpiled at both sites, the current processes that the Army has selected for the main processing facilities center on weapon disassembly to access agent and energetics, followed by hydrolysis of the agent and energetics and subsequent secondary waste treatment. EDTs are being considered as supplemental technologies for destroying certain of the weapons at Blue Grass and Pueblo to improved operational safety and/or to accelerate the overall weapons destruction schedule. The three types of vendor-supplied EDTs under consideration are the detonation of ammunition in a vacuum integrated chamber (DAVINCH) from Kobe Steel, Ltd.; the transportable detonation chamber (TDC), formerly known as the controlled detonation chamber (CDC), from CH2M HILL; and the static detonation chamber (SDC) from Dynasafe, formerly known as the Dynasafe static kiln.
The committee’s focus was on updating its evaluation of the EDTs presented in an NRC report from 2006, Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel (sometimes called the International Technologies report), thoroughly understanding the requirements for the EDTs at Blue Grass and Pueblo, and then evaluating and rating the various existing EDTs with respect to how well they meet those requirements. The committee received presentations by the vendors of the DAVINCH, TDC, and Dynasafe technologies and by the U.S. Army on the EDS. Of special interest were any improvements or changes to the technologies and additional testing or operational experience since the International Technologies report was prepared. The requirements at Blue Grass and Pueblo were provided by the U.S. Army.
This report responds to the following statement of task:
The Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (PMACWA) is directing the design and construction of facilities for the destruction of the chemical weapons that are stored at the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Pueblo, Colorado, and the Blue Grass Army Depot in Richmond, Kentucky. Both facilities will employ reverse assembly to access agent and energetics in the weapons, followed by hydrolysis of the agent and energetics.
However, plans currently also call for installation of a system employing a detonation technology or the Nonstockpile Chemical Materiel (NSCM) Project’s Explosive Destruction System (EDS) to process leaking munitions and/or contaminated explosive components. Detonation technology is not
OCR for page R8
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
in the BGCAPP [Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant] design but is under consideration for processing leaking munitions, mustard-filled projectiles, and non-contaminated rocket motors. The detonation technologies and the EDS do not employ reverse assembly of munitions and will therefore be used to destroy atypical weapons—weapons with either chemical or mechanical anomalies that might result in problems when fed to the reverse assembly process.
The detonation technologies to be considered are the DAVINCH (detonation of ammunition in a vacuum integrated chamber), the CDC (controlled detonation chamber) and the Dynasafe static kiln. The DAVINCH and CDC employ an explosive donor charge that is placed around the munition. The munition is placed within an explosive containment structure, and the donor charge is detonated, resulting in the destruction of agent and energetics. The Dynasafe static kiln employs insertion of the munition into an externally heated kiln. The high temperature of the kiln results in deflagration, detonation, or burning of the munition’s explosive fill and destruction of the agent. The EDS employs explosive charges to open a munition followed by use of neutralization chemicals to destroy the agent.
The NRC investigated the three detonation technologies and the EDS as part of a study titled Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel. Most of the information presented in the resulting report was gathered nearly two years ago. Development and employment of these technologies has proceeded rapidly, and an update of that review is needed. The technologies also need to be evaluated against the Pueblo and Blue Grass requirements.
The National Research Council will establish an ad hoc committee to
Update the previously published evaluation of the DAVINCH, CDC, and Dynasafe static kiln technologies for the destruction of chemical munitions, to include the NSCM EDS or any viable detonation technologies. Evaluation factors will include process maturity, process efficacy/throughput rate, process safety, public and regulatory acceptability, secondary waste issues, and destruction verification capability.
Obtain detailed information on the requirements of the specific applications at Pueblo and Blue Grass. Rank each of the three detonation technologies and the EDS against these requirements, and recommend a preferred technology.
The committee was also asked to incorporate into the report its thoughts on design changes and upgrades that would allow the technologies to better process a large number of mustard agent rounds—on the order of 15,000 at Blue Grass—in a reasonable amount of time. This was to be done for the three vendor-supplied technologies but not the EDS. Thoughts that were relevant to the destruction of M55 rocket motors at Blue Grass and to overpacked munitions at Pueblo were also offered. The committee was to specifically address reliability, maintainability, and capacity.
The committee held three meetings. The first was at the National Academy of Sciences building in Washington, D.C. Presentations were received from vendors on the Dynasafe and TDC technologies and from the Army on the EDS. The requirements for the Blue Grass and Pueblo sites were discussed in a teleconference with Joseph Novad, Technical Director, Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA). The second meeting was at the Keck Center in Washington, D.C. A presentation on the DAVINCH technology was received from the vendor and another on the use of the TDC at Schofield Barracks in Hawaii was received from the Army. The third meeting was held at the J. Erik Jonsson Center at Woods Hole, Massachusetts.
The committee thanks the vendors and the staff of ACWA and the Chemical Materials Agency (CMA)-NSCM Project. The PMACWA, Kevin Flamm, and his staff, especially Joseph Novad and Ray Malecki, provided information on the requirements at the Blue Grass and Pueblo sites. Information on the EDS was received from Allan Kaplan, CMA-NSCM Project. One member of the committee witnessed the TDC in operation at Schofield Barracks in Hawaii, which provided valuable insight into the TDC system. The committee thanks F. David Hoffman, System Development Group Leader, NSCM project, for his help in arranging this visit to Schofield Barracks. A very useful teleconference call involving committee members, Colorado regulators, and NRC staff was held on May 22, 2008. The committee especially wishes to thank Doug Knappe, Kevin Mackey, and James Hindman of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) for their participation. A similar and, again, very useful teleconference call involving Kentucky regulators was held on July 22, 2008. The committee wishes to thank Bill Buchanan, John Jump, Leasue Meyers, Shannon Powers, and April Webb of the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection (KDEP) for their participation.
The committee also offers its thanks for the support and assistance of National Research Council staff members. Support was provided by BAST director Bruce Braun and study director Margaret Novack. Nia Johnson, Harrison Pannella, Angela Martin, Alice Williams, and Jim Myska capably assisted the committee in its fact-finding activities, in its meeting and trip arrangements, and in the production of this report.
OCR for page R9
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
The Board on Army Science and Technology (BAST) members listed on page vi were not asked to endorse the committee’s conclusions or recommendations, nor did they review the final draft of this report before its release, although board members with appropriate expertise may be nominated to serve as formal members of study committees or as report reviewers. BAST was established in 1982 by the National Academies at the request of the Army. It brings to bear broad military, industrial, and academic experience and scientific, engineering, and management expertise on Army technical challenges and other issues of importance to senior Army leaders. BAST also discusses potential studies of interest; develops and frames study tasks; ensures proper project planning; suggests potential committee members and reviewers for reports produced by fully independent, ad hoc study committees; and convenes meetings to examine strategic issues.
Richard J. Ayen, Chair
Committee to Review Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives Program Detonation Technologies
OCR for page R10
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Williams Bacon, Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure,
Robert A. Beaudet, University of Southern California,
Gene Dyer, Consultant,
Willard C. Gekler, Consultant,
Dan Luss, NAE, University of Houston,
James F. Mathis, NAE, Exxon Corporation (retired),
John A. Merson, Sandia National Laboratories, and
William J. Walsh, Pepper Hamilton, LLP.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by LTG Henry Hatch, U.S. Army retired. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
OCR for page R11
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
Contents
SUMMARY
1
1
INTRODUCTION
11
Purpose of This Report,
11
Requirements for Use of Explosive Destruction Technologies at ACWA Sites,
11
Requirements for the Blue Grass Site,
11
Requirement for the Pueblo Site,
12
Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives Program,
12
Background,
12
BGCAPP Process Description,
13
PCAPP Process Description,
14
Types of Explosive Destruction Technologies,
18
“Cold” Detonation Versus “Hot” Detonation,
19
CH2M HILL TC-60 TDC,
19
CH2M HILL D-100,
20
DAVINCH,
20
Dynasafe SDC2000,
20
Explosive Destruction System (EDS),
21
Study Scope and Report Structure,
21
References,
22
2
EVALUATION FACTORS SPECIFIC TO ACWA SITES APPLICATION
23
Selection of Evaluation Factors,
23
Description of Evaluation Factors,
23
Process Maturity,
23
Process Efficacy,
24
Process Throughput,
25
Process Safety,
25
Public and Regulatory Acceptability in a U.S. Context,
25
Secondary Waste Issues,
26
Destruction Verification Capability,
26
Process Flexibility,
27
OCR for page R12
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
Assessment of Evaluation Factors Against Directives Reflected in the Statement of Task,
28
Reference,
28
3
CURRENT STATUS OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES
29
Introduction,
29
Summary of Experience Since Early 2006,
29
Transportable Detonation Chamber Technology,
30
Changes to the Process Since Early 2006,
30
Additional Experience Since Early 2006,
31
Proposal for Static Firing of Noncontaminated Rocket Motors,
35
Thoughts on Design Changes and Upgrades,
36
DAVINCH Technology,
36
Changes to the Process Since Early 2006,
36
Additional Experience Since Early 2006,
38
Future Developments for DAVINCH,
41
Thoughts on Design Changes and Upgrades,
41
Dynasafe Technology,
42
Changes to the Process Since Early 2006,
42
Dynasafe SDC2000 Tests for BGCAPP,
43
Thoughts on Design Changes and Upgrades,
46
EDS Technology,
46
EDS-2,
46
Changes in the Process Since Early 2006,
49
Additional Experience Since Early 2006,
49
Future Plans,
49
Regulatory Approval and Permitting,
50
General,
50
Technology-Specific Regulatory Considerations,
51
TDC,
51
DAVINCH,
52
Dynasafe SDC,
52
EDS,
53
References,
54
4
RATING OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR PROPOSED BGCAPP AND PCAPP APPLICATIONS
55
Introduction,
55
Basis for Assessment,
55
Requirement BG-1: Destruction of Approximately 70,000 Noncontaminated M55 Rocket Motors at Blue Grass,
57
Process Maturity,
58
Process Efficacy,
59
Process Throughput,
60
Process Safety,
61
Public and Regulatory Acceptability in a U.S. Context,
61
Secondary Waste Issues,
62
Destruction Verification Capability,
62
Process Flexibility,
62
Summary Assessment for Requirement BG-1,
62
OCR for page R13
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
Requirement BG-2: Destruction of Approximately 15,000 Mustard Agent H-Filled 155-mm Projectiles at Blue Grass,
64
Process Maturity,
64
Process Efficacy,
65
Process Throughput,
66
Process Safety,
66
Public and Regulatory Acceptability in a U.S. Context,
67
Secondary Waste Issues,
68
Destruction Verification Capability,
69
Process Flexibility,
69
Summary Assessment for Requirement BG-2,
70
Requirement BG-3: Destruction of Approximately 70,000 Noncontaminated M55 Rocket Motors and Approximately 15,000 Mustard Agent H-Filled 155-mm Projectiles at Blue Grass,
71
Process Maturity,
71
Process Efficacy,
71
Process Throughput,
71
Process Safety,
72
Public and Regulatory Acceptability in a U.S. Context,
72
Secondary Waste Issues,
73
Destruction Verification Capability,
73
Process Flexibility,
73
Summary Assessment for Requirement BG-3,
74
Requirement P-1: Destruction of All Leakers and Reject Munitions at Pueblo Comprising Approximately 1,000 Rounds of Mustard Agent HD/HT-Filled Munitions (Mixture of 4.2-in. Mortars and 105- and 155-mm Projectiles),
75
Process Maturity,
75
Process Efficacy,
76
Process Throughput,
76
Process Safety,
78
Public and Regulatory Acceptability in a U.S. Context,
78
Secondary Waste Issues,
79
Destruction Verification Capability,
79
Process Flexibility,
80
Summary Assessment for Requirement P-1,
80
References,
81
APPENDIXES
A Chapter 4 from the 2006 NRC Report Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel
85
B Committee Meetings and Site Visits
111
C Biographical Sketches of Committee Members
113
OCR for page R14
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
This page intentionally left blank.
OCR for page R15
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
Tables and Figures
TABLES
S-1
EDT Ratings Summary for Requirement BG-1, Destruction of Approximately 70,000 Noncontaminated M55 Rocket Motors at Blue Grass,
4
S-2
EDT Ratings Summary for Requirement BG-2, Destruction of 15,000 Mustard Agent H-Filled 155-mm Projectiles at Blue Grass,
4
S-3
EDT Ratings Summary for Requirement BG-3, Destruction of Approximately 70,000 Noncontaminated M55 Rocket Motors and 15,000 Mustard Agent H-Filled 155-mm Projectiles at Blue Grass,
5
S-4
EDT Ratings Summary for Requirement P-1, Destruction of All Leakers and Reject Munitions at Pueblo Comprising Approximately 1,000 Rounds of Mustard Agent HD/HT-Filled Munitions (Mixture of 4.2-in. Mortars and 105- and 155-mm Projectiles),
5
1-1
Blue Grass Army Depot Chemical Weapons Inventory,
14
1-2
Description of Overpacks,
15
1-3
Pueblo Chemical Depot Weapons Inventory,
17
2-1
Process Maturity Subfactors,
24
2-2
Process Efficacy Subfactors,
24
2-3
Process Safety Subfactors,
25
2-4
Subfactors for Public and Regulatory Acceptability in a U.S. Context,
26
2-5
Subfactors for Secondary Waste Issues,
27
2-6
Subfactors for Destruction Verification Capability (for Chemical Agents),
27
3-1
Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds at the Inlet and Outlet of Air Filtration Unit #2 of the TDC of CH2M HILL,
31
3-2
Emissions to the Air of Metals from the TDC of CH2M HILL,
32
3-3
Stack Emissions of Particulate Matter, Dioxin/Furan, HCl, and Semivolatile Organic Compounds from the TDC of CH2M HILL,
32
3-4
Selected Total Metals Concentrations in Solid Waste from the TDC of CH2M HILL,
33
OCR for page R16
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
3-5
Munition Destruction by DAVINCH at Poelkapelle, Belgium, through July 14, 2008,
40
3-6
Recent Deployments of EDS Units,
49
4-1
Requirements Proposed for EDT Processing of Chemical Stockpile Items at Blue Grass Army Depot and Pueblo Chemical Depot,
56
4-2
Throughput Rates of Five EDTs and Their Implications for Schedule: Requirements BG-1, BG-2, and BG-3,
56
4-3
EDT Ratings Summary for Requirement BG-1, Destruction of Approximately 70,000 Noncontaminated M55 Rocket Motors at Blue Grass,
63
4-4
EDT Ratings Summary for Requirement BG-2, Destruction of 15,000 Mustard Agent H-Filled 155-mm Projectiles at Blue Grass,
70
4-5
EDT Ratings Summary for Requirement BG-3, Destruction of Approximately 70,000 Noncontaminated M55 Rocket Motors and 15,000 Mustard Agent H-Filled 155-mm Projectiles at Blue Grass,
74
4-6
EDT Ratings Summary for Requirement P-1, Destruction of all Leakers and Reject Munitions at Pueblo Comprising Approximately 1,000 Rounds of Mustard Agent HD/HT-Filled Munitions (Mixture of 4.2-in. Mortars and 105- and 155-mm Projectiles),
81
FIGURES
1-1
Main operations of the BGCAPP process,
16
1-2
Main operations of the PCAPP process,
18
3-1
The DAVINCH Glid-Arc cold plasma thermal oxidizer,
38
3-2
Process flow diagram for DAVINCH,
39
3-3
Items destroyed in the DAVINCH DV50 at Poelkapelle, Belgium,
40
3-4a
Dynasafe SDC2000 flow diagram showing sampling ports,
45
3-4b
Dynasafe SDC2000 flow diagram showing sampling ports (continued),
45
3-5
Drawing of the EDS-2 vessel on its trailer,
47
OCR for page R17
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACWA Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives
AEL airborne exposure limit
ANS agent neutralization system
BGAD Blue Grass Army Depot
BGCAPP Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant
BPBGT Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass Team
CAA Clean Air Act
CaCl2 calcium chloride
CATOX catalytic oxidation
CBARR Chemical Biological Applications and Risk Reduction
CDC controlled detonation chamber
CMA Chemical Materials Agency
CO carbon monoxide
CWC Chemical Weapons Convention
DAVINCH detonation of ammunition in a vacuum integrated chamber
DDESB Department of Defense Explosive Safety Board
DE destruction efficiency
DOD Department of Defense
DRE destruction and removal efficiency
EBH energetics batch hydrolyzer
ECBC Edgewood Chemical Biological Center
EDS explosive destruction system
EDS-1 EDS Phase 1
EDS-2 EDS Phase 2
EDS-3 EDS Phase 3
EDT explosive destruction technology
EIS environmental impact statement
FSS fragment suppression system
FTO flameless thermal oxidizer
GB nerve agent (sarin)
GEKA Gesellschaft zur Entsorgung Chemischen Kampfstoffe und Rüstungs-Altlasten mbH
H mustard agent
H2 hydrogen
HCl hydrochloric acid
HD distilled (sulfur) mustard agent
HEPA high-efficiency particulate air
HN nitrogen mustard
HT distilled mustard mixed with bis(2-chloroethylthioethyl) ether
ICB immobilized cell bioreactor
LPMD linear projectile/mortar disassembly (machine)
MPHRA multipathway health risk assessment
MPT metal parts treater
MTU munitions treatment unit
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
OCR for page R18
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
NEW net explosive weight
NRC National Research Council
NSCMP Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Project
O2 oxygen
PBA Pine Bluff Arsenal
PBEDS Pine Bluff Explosive Destruction System
PCAPP Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PCD Pueblo Chemical Depot
PMACWA Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives
PPE personnel protective equipment
RCM rocket cutting machine
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCWM recovered chemical warfare materiel
RD&D research, development, and demonstration
RDT&E research, development, testing, and evaluation
SCWO supercritical water oxidation
SDC static detonation chamber
SFT shipping and firing tube
TDC transportable detonation chamber
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TSDF treatment, storage, and disposal facility
VSL vapor screening level
VX a nerve agent
