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 Approaches for Using Process Safety Metrics at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
ASSESSMENT OF APPROACHES FOR USING PROCESS SAFETY METRICS AT THE BLUE GRASS AND PUEBLO CHEMICAL AGENT DESTRUCTION PILOT PLANTS
Committee to Assess Process Safety Metrics for the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
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 Approaches for Using Process Safety Metrics 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-10-C-0066 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: 978-0-309-16345-3
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-16345-5
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 2011 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
Assessment of Approaches for Using Process Safety Metrics 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 Approaches for Using Process Safety Metrics at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
This page intentionally left blank.
OCR for page R5
Assessment of Approaches for Using Process Safety Metrics at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
COMMITTEE TO ASSESS PROCESS SAFETY METRICS FOR THE BLUE GRASS AND PUEBLO CHEMICAL AGENT DESTRUCTION PILOT PLANTS
OTIS A. SHELTON, Chair,
Praxair, Inc., Danbury, Connecticut
ROBERT A. BEAUDET,
University of Southern California, Pasadena
MAURICIO FUTRAN (NAE), Independent Consultant,
Westfield, New Jersey
J. ROBERT GIBSON,
Gibson Consulting, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware
RANDAL J. KELLER,
Murray State University, Murray, Kentucky
TIM OVERTON,
TOPS Consulting, Angleton, Texas
CAROL A. PALMIOTTO,
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Wilmington, Delaware
STYRON N. POWERS,
U.S. Foodservice, Rosemont, Illinois
Staff
BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director
JAMES C. MYSKA, Senior Research Associate
DEANNA P. SPARGER, Program Administrative Coordinator
OCR for page R6
Assessment of Approaches for Using Process Safety Metrics at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
ALAN H. EPSTEIN, Chair,
Pratt & Whitney, East Hartford, Connecticut
DAVID M. MADDOX, Vice Chair, Independent Consultant,
Arlington, Virginia
DUANE ADAMS,
Carnegie Mellon University (retired), Arlington, Virginia
ILESANMI ADESIDA,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
RAJ AGGARWAL,
University of Iowa, Coralville
EDWARD C. BRADY,
Strategic Perspectives, Inc., Fort Lauderdale, Florida
L. REGINALD BROTHERS,
BAE Systems, Arlington, Virginia
JAMES CARAFANO,
The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C.
W. PETER CHERRY, Independent Consultant,
Ann Arbor, Michigan
EARL H. DOWELL,
Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
RONALD P. FUCHS, Independent Consultant,
Seattle, Washington
W. HARVEY GRAY, Independent Consultant,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
CARL GUERRERI,
Electronic Warfare Associates, Inc., Herndon, Virginia
JOHN H. HAMMOND,
Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired), Fairfax, Virginia
RANDALL W. HILL, JR.,
University of Southern California Institute for Creative Technologies, Marina del Rey
MARY JANE IRWIN,
Pennsylvania State University, University Park
ROBIN L. KEESEE, Independent Consultant,
Fairfax, Virginia
ELLIOT D. KIEFF,
Channing Laboratory, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts
LARRY LEHOWICZ,
Quantum Research International, Arlington, Virginia
WILLIAM L. MELVIN,
Georgia Tech Research Institute, Smyrna
ROBIN MURPHY,
Texas A&M University, College Station
SCOTT E. PARAZYNSKI,
The Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston, Texas
RICHARD R. PAUL, Independent Consultant,
Bellevue, Washington
JEAN D. REED, Independent Consultant,
Arlington, Virginia
LEON E. SALOMON, Independent Consultant,
Gulfport, Florida
JONATHAN M. SMITH,
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
MARK J.T. SMITH,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
MICHAEL A. STROSCIO,
University of Illinois, Chicago
JOSEPH YAKOVAC, JVM LLC,
Hampton, Virginia
Staff
BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director
CHRIS JONES, Financial Associate
DEANNA P. SPARGER, Program Administrative Coordinator
OCR for page R7
Assessment of Approaches for Using Process Safety Metrics at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
Preface
The Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives program was mandated to use nonincineration technologies to destroy the chemical weapons stockpiles at the Pueblo Chemical Depot (PCD) in Colorado and the Blue Grass Army Depot (BGAD) in Kentucky. These two storage sites together account for about 10 percent of the original U.S. chemical agent stockpile that is in the process of being destroyed in accordance with the international Chemical Weapons Convention treaty. Disposal operations at six other sites in the continental United States and Johnston Island in the Pacific near Hawaii have already destroyed over 80 percent of the stockpile. Incineration technology was used by the now closed disposal facility on Johnston Island, and at a facility in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, which has completed operations and has entered closure. Chemical neutralization (hydrolysis) technology was used to destroy bulk mustard agent and VX nerve agent at the now closed facilities in Aberdeen, Maryland, and Newport, Indiana, respectively. Disposal campaigns at the three other currently operating facilities, which use incineration technology, are nearing completion.
The Pueblo site contains the larger portion of the remaining stockpile inventory in the form of various mustard agent projectiles. While the Blue Grass inventory is relatively small, it is more diverse and contains both mustard agent in various projectiles and the nerve agents GB and VX in various projectiles and M55 rockets. The two facilities being built at these sites, the Pueblo and Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants (PCAPP and BGCAPP, respectively), will use chemical neutralization to destroy chemical agent, followed by different downstream processes to treat the resulting waste streams. PCAPP will use biotreatment to treat waste streams from chemical agent disposal, and BGCAPP will use supercritical water oxidation. PCAPP and BGCAPP will also employ a number of pieces of first-of-a-kind equipment. Both facilities have been designed using established engineering codes and principles and have incorporated lessons learned from the operation of earlier chemical agent disposal operations to ensure safe operation. PCAPP is currently under construction and is planned to start agent disposal operations in 2014. BGCAPP is also under construction, with operations to commence in 2018.
As part of its focus on safe operation of the planned facilities, the Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives asked the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct a study to offer guidance on the application of process safety metrics at PCAPP and BGCAPP. The committee that was assembled by the NRC held a number of meetings, virtual meetings, and teleconferences. It also visited the offices of staff working on the PCAPP and BGCAPP projects.
Among the process safety considerations discussed in this report is the applicability of the James Reason barrier model’s concept of layers of protection to the chemical processes being designed at PCAPP and BGCAPP. Also discussed extensively is the use of leading and lagging process safety metrics1 that could provide feedback on the effectiveness of controls to mitigate risks and minimize consequences of potential
1
“Leading metric” and “lagging metric” are defined in Appendix A.
OCR for page R8
Assessment of Approaches for Using Process Safety Metrics at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
incidents and, it is hoped, prevent incidents that might otherwise occur. Several recommendations are made to facilitate the development and application of process safety metrics at both sites.
As chair of this committee, I want to express my sincere thanks to the members of this committee. Their insights on safety culture, especially as it relates to process safety management, were invaluable in executing the statement of task. James Myska, senior research associate at the Board on Army Science and Technology, assisted Bruce Braun, director of the Board on Army Science and Technology, in running this study. Mr. Myska excelled at keeping the committee focused and ensuring that work was accomplished in a timely manner. C.T. Anderson, a safety and surety engineer at the Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives, was very helpful in providing timely responses to numerous committee requests for information. Raj K. Malhotra, deputy, Risk Directorate at the Chemical Materials Agency (CMA), approved committee access to records of incidents at CMA facilities to identify incident casual factors. This access was instrumental in allowing the committee to identify several leading process safety metrics. Lastly, I want to thank Deanna Sparger and Nia Johnson for their administrative and research support to the committee. Without their assistance, the preparation of the report would have been much more difficult.
Otis A. Shelton, Chair
Committee to Assess Process Safety Metrics for the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
OCR for page R9
Assessment of Approaches for Using Process Safety Metrics 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:
Scott Berger, American Institute of Chemical Engineers Center for Chemical Process Safety;
Deborah L. Grubbe, Operations and Safety Solutions, LLC;
Alexander MacLachlan, NAE, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. (retired);
M. Sam Mannan, Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center;
James F. Mathis, NAE, Exxon Corporation (retired);
George W. Parshall, NAS, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. (retired);
Ian Travers, United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive; and
Ronald Willey, Northeastern University.
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 Elisabeth M. Drake, NAE, MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment. Appointed by the National Research Council, she 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 R10
Assessment of Approaches for Using Process Safety Metrics at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
This page intentionally left blank.
OCR for page R11
Assessment of Approaches for Using Process Safety Metrics at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
Contents
SUMMARY
1
1
INTRODUCTION
7
The Chemical Weapons Stockpile Disposal Program,
7
The Safety Challenge—Process Safety Metrics,
8
Statement of Task,
9
Process Safety Management,
9
Process Safety Management at PCAPP and BGCAPP,
10
Committee Makeup and Meeting Schedule and Report Scope and Approach,
10
Overview of Report,
11
Reference,
12
2
OVERVIEW OF AGENT DESTRUCTION PROCESSES AT PUEBLO CHEMICAL AGENT DESTRUCTION PILOT PLANT AND BLUE GRASS CHEMICAL AGENT DESTRUCTION PILOT PLANT
13
PCAPP Process Overview,
13
BGCAPP Process Overview,
18
Rocket Processing,
18
Projectile Processing,
20
Neutralization of Chemical Agent,
20
First-of-a-Kind Process Equipment,
20
Systemization,
20
References,
22
3
REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF PROCESS SAFETY INCIDENTS AT OTHER CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION SITES
23
Reference,
25
OCR for page R12
Assessment of Approaches for Using Process Safety Metrics at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
4
IDENTIFICATION AND USE OF PROCESS SAFETY METRICS
26
Introduction,
26
Process Safety Metrics from Industry and Organizations,
26
American Institute of Chemical Engineers’ Center for Chemical Process Safety Metrics,
26
American Petroleum Institute Metrics,
27
United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive Metrics,
29
Applicability of Published Chemical and Petroleum Industry Metrics to PCAPP and BGCAPP,
30
Process Safety Metrics Derived from Prior Operating Experience at Chemical Agent Disposal Facilities,
30
Other Process Safety Metrics That May Be Relevant to PCAPP and BGCAPP,
31
Process Safety Near-Miss Events,
31
Action Item Closure,
32
Completion of Emergency Response Drills,
32
Management of Change,
32
Metrics Related to Other Management Systems,
32
Examples of ACWA Process-Specific Metrics,
33
Management of Best Practices of Process Safety Metrics in Industry,
35
Process Safety Competency,
35
References,
36
APPENDIXES
A Glossary
39
B Committee Meetings and Activities
40
C Biographical Sketches of Committee Members
42
OCR for page R13
Assessment of Approaches for Using Process Safety Metrics at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
Tables, Figures, and Box
TABLES
S-1
First-of-a-Kind Equipment and Processes That Could Pose Significant Challenges for PCAPP and BGCAPP,
2
2-1
Physical Properties of Nerve Agents,
14
2-2
Physical Properties of Mustard Agents,
14
2-3
Chemical Weapons Stockpile Stored at PCD,
17
2-4
Chemical Weapons Stockpile Stored at BGAD,
18
2-5
First-of-a-Kind Equipment and Processes That Could Pose Significant Challenges for PCAPP and BGCAPP,
21
3-1
Frequency of Causal Factors in the 81 Chemical Events Reviewed by the Chemical Events Committee in 2002,
24
3-2
Frequency of Causal Factors in the 121 Events at Chemical Agent Disposal Facilities Since 2001,
24
FIGURES
2-1
A 105-mm howitzer projectile,
15
2-2
A 155-mm howitzer projectile,
15
2-3
A 4.2-inch mortar cartridge,
15
2-4
An 8-inch projectile,
16
2-5
An M55 rocket,
16
2-6
PCAPP process flow chart,
17
2-7
BGCAPP process flow chart,
19
2-8
Overview of the systemization process,
22
4-1
Hierarchy of leading and lagging metrics illustrated by the James Reason barrier model (left) and the Pyramid model of incident categories (right),
28
4-2
Illustration of the Swiss cheese model,
28
4-3
Process flow diagram for agent neutralization,
33
4-4
Diagram of EBH,
34
BOX
4-1
Definitions of Tier 1-4 Process Safety Events from API Recommended Practice (RP) 754,
29
OCR for page R14
Assessment of Approaches for Using Process Safety Metrics at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
This page intentionally left blank.
OCR for page R15
Assessment of Approaches for Using Process Safety Metrics at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACWA Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives
ANCDF Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal Facility
ANR agent neutralization reactor
ANS agent neutralization system
ANSI American National Standards Institute
APB agent processing building
API American Petroleum Institute
BGAD Blue Grass Army Depot
BGCAPP Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant
BRS brine reduction system
BTA biotreatment area
CAM cavity access machine
CCPS Center for Chemical Process Safety
CMA Chemical Materials Agency
CSB Chemical Safety Board
EBH energetics batch hydrolyzer
EDT explosive destruction technology
ENR energetics neutralization reactor
ERB enhanced reconfiguration building
FOAK first of a kind
GB a nerve agent, also known as sarin
H mustard agent
HD distilled mustard agent
HSE United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive
HT mustard agent with an additive to lower its freezing point
IOD integrated operational demonstration
JACADS Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System
LOPC loss of primary containment
LPMD linear projectile mortar disassembly
MOC management of change
MPT metal parts treater
MSM munitions storage magazine
MTU munitions treatment unit
MWS munitions washout system
NRC National Research Council
ORR operational readiness review
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OTE offgas treatment system for EBH
OTM offgas treatment system for MPT
OTS offgas treatment system
PCAPP Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant
PCD Pueblo Chemical Depot
OCR for page R16
Assessment of Approaches for Using Process Safety Metrics at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
PMACWA Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives
PMD projectile mortar disassembly
PSI process safety incident
PSM process safety metrics
RCM rocket cutter machine
RO reverse osmosis
RSM rocket shear machine
SCWO supercritical water oxidation
SDU supplemental decontamination unit
SFT shipping and firing tube
SOP standard operating procedure
VX a nerve agent
WRS water recovery system
