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 1
Summary
This report responds to a request by the Program Executive Officer for Assembled
Chemical Weapons Alternatives (PEO ACWA) that the National Research Council
examine and evaluate options for disposal of the motors that will be separated from
approximately 70,000 M55 rockets stored at the Blue Grass Army Depot (BGAD) that
are not contaminated by the chemical nerve agent contained in the rocket warheads. The
Blue Grass Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant (BGCAPP) will be responsible for
destroying the chemical weapons stockpile currently being stored at BGAD. BGCAPP
was designed to separate M55 rockets into warhead and motor sections and process the
chemical agent warhead portion. However, BGCAPP is not designed to dispose of all of
the separated rocket motors.1 This report evaluates the potential technologies and options
that could be used to dispose of the separated rocket motors at a location other than
BGCAPP: either on-site (at BGAD) or off-site (away from BGAD).
It is important to note that, as per the statement of task, this report deals solely
with separated rocket motors that will have been monitored to ensure there is no agent
present above the short term exposure limit and cleared for transportation and disposal
off-site. Any separated rocket motors that are determined to be contaminated by agent
above the short-term exposure limit will be processed at BGCAPP. In this summary, the
committee presents what it believes are its most significant findings and
recommendations.
The committee was composed largely of members with expertise in the
destruction of conventional munitions. Accordingly, much of this report addresses the
safety risks that must be taken into account when handling and disposing of the separated
rocket motors. There are numerous safety risks that can impact the disposal of the
separated rocket motors because they contain aged and degraded energetic materials,
specifically the M28 propellant. The M55 rockets were manufactured between 1961 and
1965, meaning that the M28 propellant was between 47 and 51 years old when this report
was prepared. Due to aging and degradation, the M28 propellant may have become more
sensitive to shock and thermal conditions. The separated rocket motors will also be more
exposed to environmental conditions, such as heat and humidity, than they were as part of
an assembled rocket. This could accelerate propellant degradation and increase the safety
risks. Measures can be taken, however, to address the risk of accelerated propellant
degradation, among them using desiccant to control humidity and designing storage
boxes so that heat dissipation is adequate. In any case, the committee believes that the
separated rocket motors should be disposed of as soon as possible after rocket cutting.
1
The term separated rocket motor, as the committee uses it, is defined in Appendix A.
1
OCR for page 2
The M55 rockets were designed at a time when the electromagnetic environment
was quite different from what it is today--for example, wireless devices such as cell
phones had not yet been invented. The committee believes the process of cutting the
rocket creates a new motor configuration and could damage its electrical system, leaving
it susceptible to risks from electromagnetic emanations and electrostatic discharge. The
committee stressed that approved practices and procedures for safely handling energetic
materials need to be followed and that potential new safety risks need to be evaluated.
The committee also noted that the M28 propellant contains substances such as lead that
could pose a safety hazard depending on the destruction technology selected and how that
technology is implemented. The committee believes that a hazards analysis working
group would be an important tool to address the multiple safety concerns associated with
separated rocket motors.
Finding 2-2. The Army's 2002 M55 Rocket Assessment Summary Report for the intact
M55 rocket may not be directly applicable to the separated rocket motors. New not-
readily-apparent safety risks could emerge during demilitarization operations involving
the M55 rocket containing energetic materials.
Finding 2-5. The current hazards to the separated rocket motors posed by
electromagnetic radiation and the potential for electrostatic discharge may require
verifying the condition of the igniter system after cutting before placement in the storage
and shipping box.
Finding 2-3. Among the vitally important approved safety practices and procedures that
need to be followed in handling energetic materials are the assessment and approval of
standard operating procedures and hazard analyses. They will account for potential new
safety risks that emerge during the demilitarization process.
Recommendation 2-3. Blue Grass Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant program
staff should establish a hazards analysis working group to assess, analyze, and develop
risk mitigation practices and procedures with specific attention to energetic materials in
the overall demilitarization of the M55 rocket.
In addition to reviewing disposal technologies and options, the committee was
asked to examine the feasibility of recycling options for the M28 propellant. The
committee concluded that recycling these aged and degraded energetic materials was not
feasible based upon similar experience with conventional munitions. The committee did
find that the recycling of the metal components should be considered, provided that any
recycler takes appropriate precautions against lead exposure.
Finding 3-1. There are no practical, useful, or cost-effective means of recycling energetic
materials from the M28 propellant.
Finding 3-2. It is feasible to recycle the metal components of the separated rocket
motors.
2
OCR for page 3
Recommendation 3-1. The Blue Grass Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant program
staff should inform the recipient of materials for recycling of the potential for the
presence of lead or lead dust on recovered materials.
A significant portion of this report reviews the current technologies that could be
used to dispose of the separated rocket motors. These are primarily open thermal,
contained thermal, and chemical treatment options. The committee presents a comparison
of advantages and disadvantages of each technology and considers the estimate of
separated rocket motor throughput where available. The committee finds that a contained
thermal treatment technology is the best option for disposing of the separated rocket
motors.
Finding 3-4. Thermal treatment demilitarization and disposal operations performed in a
chamber require the least handling and permit treatment of product emissions. Chemical
technologies either are not mature or are not readily implementable for the disposal of the
separated rocket motors.
Finding 3-7. A contained thermal technology is the best option for disposing of the
rocket motors separated from the M55 rockets stored at the Blue Grass Army Depot.
The storage and disposal of the separated rocket motors could both be rate-
limiting factors in overall BGCAPP operations. For a variety of reasons, the disposal of
the separated rocket motors will likely proceed at a slower rate than the warhead
processing at BGCAPP. This necessitates the ability to store some number of separated
rocket motors from the time of rocket cutting until eventual disposal. The committee is
concerned that the storage space that is included in the BGCAPP design will not be
sufficient and that any mishap that interrupts the disposal of the separated rocket motors
could easily impact M55 rocket processing at BGCAPP. The committee discusses
securing additional storage space for separated rocket motors within the BGAD area,
such as converting the storage igloos in which the M55 rockets are currently stored into
explosive hazardous waste units.
Finding 4-1. The provision of adequate storage space for the separated rocket motors is
important for the overall rate of operations for M55 rocket disposal at the Blue Grass
Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant. Rocket-cutting and warhead-processing
operations would need to be slowed or halted if the combination of storage capacity and
separated rocket motor disposal could not meet the rate at which separated rocket motors
are produced.
Recommendation 4-1. Blue Grass Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant program
staff should secure additional space for storage of separated rocket motors. It is essential
that discussion with Blue Grass Army Depot staff concerning the option for securing
such additional space at the depot be given high priority.
3
OCR for page 4
Finding 4-4. Reusing emptied M55 rocket storage igloos for storage of separated rocket
motors is a possible solution to the problem of inadequate storage space. Pursuing this
option would entail much coordination and planning and would take time.
Recommendation 4-2. If a decision is made to pursue this option, Blue Grass Chemical
Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant program staff should prepare a plan to convert the M55
rocket storage igloos to hazardous waste storage sites that are also site-approved for the
storage of explosives. The plan should include management of the transition without the
need to submit separate approval requests one igloo at a time.
When considering storage for the separated rocket motors, it should be noted that,
owing to environmental and other factors, the storage risk may be greater for separated
rocket motors than for an intact M55 rocket. Further, owing to the new configuration of
the separated rocket motors, a new storage and transportation box may be required for
packaging the separated rocket motors.
Finding 4-5. Storage risk may increase more quickly in the case of separated rocket
motors than assembled M55 rockets because of the increased environmental exposure of
the separated motors. The effects of this environmental exposure on the separated rocket
motors have not been characterized.
Recommendation 4-3. Blue Grass Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant program staff
should dispose of separated rocket motors as soon as possible, using a "first in, first out"
protocol to minimize storage time and reduce risk.
It is technologically feasible to dispose of the separated rocket motors on-site (at
BGAD). BGAD currently operates an on-site open burn facility for the disposal of
conventional munitions and has an operational (though not currently operating) D-100
detonation chamber for the same purpose. Either of these could be adapted for the
disposal of separated rocket motors. It is also possible that other technologies could be
established on BGAD to dispose of the separated rocket motors. Key considerations will
be public acceptance of the technology chosen, obtaining the necessary permits, and
balancing separated rocket motor disposal with the overall BGAD workload. One
primary advantage to on-site disposal is that the transportation of the separated rocket
motors would likely be much safer than moving them over public roads and simpler as
well, since broader federal regulations would not apply because the entire process would
take place within the BGAD boundaries. Another on-site disposal option would be the
long-term storage of the separated rocket motors until BGCAPP completes all chemical
agent disposal operations, meaning the separated rocket motors would be stored for
several years if BGCAPP operations proceed as currently planned. The separated rocket
motors could then be returned to BGCAPP for disposal at whatever rate BGCAPP could
manage. The committee does not consider the last option to be the best approach in light
of propellant degradation and storage risk, which are discussed in Chapters 2, 4, and 5.
Finding 5-1. The Blue Grass Army Depot has a permitted, operational open-burning site
that might be capable of meeting separated rocket motor disposal requirements.
4
OCR for page 5
Finding 5-2. There are alternative disposal technologies to open burning that can be
instituted at the Blue Grass Army Depot. However, the use of these alternative
technologies would necessitate the inclusion of design, construction, and permitting time
into the project schedule.
Finding 5-3. A D-100 detonation chamber is currently operational at the Blue Grass
Army Depot to dispose of conventional munitions. It is possible that this could be
modified and permitted to dispose of the separated rocket motors. A number of other
contained technologies are available from commercial vendors, and it might prove
simpler to contract for one of these to be installed than to modify the D-100 and obtain
the necessary permit modification.
Finding 5-12. Transporting separated rocket motors solely on-site will be safer and easier
to accomplish than transporting separated rocket motors off-site.
The disposal of the separated rocket motors off-site is dependent on several
factors, including the identification of an appropriate disposal facility, satisfying the
pertinent environmental and transportation regulations, and gaining the acceptance of the
public.
Finding 5-6. There are potential technologies for the disposal of the separated rocket
motors that could be used concurrently at one or more off-site disposal facilities to meet
program requirements and schedule. Off-site disposal would increase flexibility in regard
to choice of a specific disposal technology. The Blue Grass Chemical Agent Disposal
Pilot Plant program staff would, of course, need to work with any off-site disposal facility
to ensure that all relevant environmental regulations, such as the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act, are complied with.
A key factor in off-site disposal is that the transportation of separated rocket
motors off-site would be subject to a greater degree of transportation regulation than on-
site transportation and would necessitate the design, approval, and procurement of
performance-oriented packaging in which to transport the separated rocket motors.
Finding 5-14. Transportation of separated rocket motors off-site must comply with
federal regulations governing the transportation of hazardous materials on public
thoroughfares, including the use of labeled performance-oriented packaging, which is
packaging that has been tested to meet anticipated environmental and transportation
stresses.
Finding 5-13. All off-site disposal options necessarily require removal of the separated
rocket motors from government property and transportation on public roads or railways.
There are numerous federal, state, and Army regulations governing the transportation of
explosive hazardous waste, permits, and safety standards that must be met.
5
OCR for page 6
Finally, public sentiment and acceptance will be a significant factor in the ability
to implement any technology to dispose of the separated rocket motors, as well in the
decision whether to dispose of the separated rocket motors on-site or off-site. There is a
long-standing, interested, and very knowledgeable community living and working around
BGAD. This community has successfully influenced program choices regarding
BGCAPP in the past and can be expected to continue to do so. Thus, while not explicit in
the committee's statement of task, issues of public sentiment warrant some mention in the
report.
6
