National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12482.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12482.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12482.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12482.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12482.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12482.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12482.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12482.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12482.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12482.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12482.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12482.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12482.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12482.
×
Page R14
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12482.
×
Page R15
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12482.
×
Page R16
Page xvii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12482.
×
Page R17
Page xviii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12482.
×
Page R18

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

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

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 Additional copies are available from Board on Army Science and Technology The National Academies Press National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, N.W. 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Room 940 Lockbox 285 Washington, DC 20001 Washington, DC 20055 (202) 334-3118 (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area) Internet, http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2009 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of S ­ ciences, 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 govern- ment. 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

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, D ­ elaware 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 

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), L ­ eander, 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 vi

Preface The Committee to Review Assembled Chemical The committee’s focus was on updating its evalua- Weapons Alternatives Program Detonation Technolo- tion of the EDTs presented in an NRC report from 2006, gies was appointed by the National Research Council Review of International Technologies for Destruction (NRC) in response to a request by the U.S. Army’s of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel (sometimes Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons called the International Technologies report), thor- Alternatives (PMACWA). oughly understanding the requirements for the EDTs at Three types of detonation technologies available Blue Grass and Pueblo, and then evaluating and rating from technology vendors and the Army’s explosive the various existing EDTs with respect to how well destruction system (EDS), collectively known as they meet those requirements. The committee received explosive destruction technologies (EDTs), are being presentations by the vendors of the DAVINCH, TDC, considered for use at the Blue Grass Army Depot in and Dynasafe technologies and by the U.S. Army on Richmond, Kentucky, and the Pueblo Chemical Depot the EDS. Of special interest were any improvements in Pueblo, Colorado. For the destruction of the bulk of or changes to the technologies and additional testing the chemical weapons stockpiled at both sites, the cur- or operational experience since the International Tech- rent processes that the Army has selected for the main nologies report was prepared. The requirements at Blue processing facilities center on weapon disassembly to Grass and Pueblo were provided by the U.S. Army. access agent and energetics, followed by hydrolysis of This report responds to the following statement of the agent and energetics and subsequent secondary waste task: treatment. EDTs are being considered as supplemental technologies for destroying certain of the ­weapons at The Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons Blue Grass and Pueblo to improved operational safety Alternatives (PMACWA) is directing the design and con- struction of facilities for the destruction of the chemical and/or to accelerate the overall weapons destruction weapons that are stored at the Pueblo Chemical Depot schedule. The three types of vendor-supplied EDTs in Pueblo, Colorado, and the Blue Grass Army Depot in under consideration are the detonation of ammunition R ­ ichmond, Kentucky. Both facilities will employ reverse in a vacuum integrated chamber (DAVINCH) from assembly to access agent and energetics in the weapons, Kobe Steel, Ltd.; the transportable detonation chamber followed by hydrolysis of the agent and energetics. (TDC), formerly known as the controlled detonation However, plans currently also call for installation of a sys- chamber (CDC), from CH2M HILL; and the static tem employing a detonation technology or the Nonstockpile detonation chamber (SDC) from Dynasafe, formerly Chemical Materiel (NSCM) Project’s Explosive Destruction System (EDS) to process leaking munitions and/or contami- known as the Dynasafe static kiln. nated explosive components. Detonation technology is not vii

viii PREFACE in the BGCAPP [Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction evant to the destruction of M55 rocket motors at Blue Pilot Plant] design but is under consideration for process- Grass and to overpacked munitions at Pueblo were also ing leaking munitions, mustard-filled projectiles, and non­ contaminated rocket motors. The detonation technologies offered. The committee was to specifically address reli- and the EDS do not employ reverse assembly of munitions ability, maintainability, and capacity. and will therefore be used to destroy atypical weapons— The committee held three meetings. The first was at weapons with either chemical or mechanical anomalies that the National Academy of Sciences building in Wash- might result in problems when fed to the reverse assembly ington, D.C. Presentations were received from vendors process. on the Dynasafe and TDC technologies and from the The detonation technologies to be considered are the Army on the EDS. The requirements for the Blue Grass D ­ AVINCH (detonation of ammunition in a vacuum ­integrated and Pueblo sites were discussed in a teleconference chamber), the CDC (controlled detonation chamber) and the with Joseph Novad, Technical Director, Assembled Dynasafe static kiln. The DAVINCH and CDC employ an explosive donor charge that is placed around the munition. Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA). The second The munition is placed within an explosive containment meeting was at the Keck Center in Washington, D.C. structure, and the donor charge is detonated, resulting in the A presentation on the DAVINCH technology was destruction of agent and energetics. The Dynasafe static kiln received from the vendor and another on the use of employs insertion of the munition into an externally heated the TDC at Schofield Barracks in Hawaii was received kiln. The high temperature of the kiln results in deflagra- tion, detonation, or burning of the munition’s explosive fill from the Army. The third meeting was held at the J. Erik and destruction of the agent. The EDS employs explosive Jonsson Center at Woods Hole, Massachusetts. charges to open a munition followed by use of neutralization The committee thanks the vendors and the staff of chemicals to destroy the agent. ACWA and the Chemical Materials Agency (CMA)- The NRC investigated the three detonation technologies NSCM Project. The PMACWA, Kevin Flamm, and and the EDS as part of a study titled Review of Interna- his staff, especially Joseph Novad and Ray Malecki, tional Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical provided information on the requirements at the Blue Warfare Materiel. Most of the information presented in the Grass and Pueblo sites. Information on the EDS was resulting report was gathered nearly two years ago. Develop- received from Allan Kaplan, CMA-NSCM Project. One ment and employment of these technologies has proceeded rapidly, and an update of that review is needed. The technolo- member of the committee witnessed the TDC in opera- gies also need to be evaluated against the Pueblo and Blue tion at Schofield Barracks in Hawaii, which provided Grass requirements. valuable insight into the TDC system. The committee The National Research Council will establish an ad hoc thanks F. David Hoffman, System Development Group committee to Leader, NSCM project, for his help in arranging this visit to Schofield Barracks. A very useful tele­conference • Update the previously published evaluation of the D ­ AVINCH, CDC, and Dynasafe static kiln technologies call involving committee members, Colorado regulators, for the destruction of chemical munitions, to include and NRC staff was held on May 22, 2008. The com- the NSCM EDS or any viable detonation technologies. mittee especially wishes to thank Doug Knappe, Kevin Evaluation factors will include process maturity, process Mackey, and James ­Hindman of the Colorado Depart- efficacy/throughput rate, process safety, public and regu- ment of ­Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) for latory acceptability, secondary waste issues, and destruc- tion verification capability. their participation. A similar and, again, very useful tele- conference call involving Kentucky regulators was held • Obtain detailed information on the requirements of the on July 22, 2008. The committee wishes to thank Bill specific applications at Pueblo and Blue Grass. Rank each of the three detonation technologies and the EDS Buchanan, John Jump, Leasue ­Meyers, Shannon Powers, against these requirements, and recommend a preferred and April Webb of the Kentucky Department of Environ- technology. mental Protection (KDEP) for their participation. The committee also offers its thanks for the sup- The committee was also asked to incorporate into port and assistance of National Research Council staff the report its thoughts on design changes and upgrades members. Support was provided by BAST director that would allow the technologies to better process a Bruce Braun and study director Margaret Novack. large number of mustard agent roundson the order Nia ­Johnson, Harrison Pannella, Angela Martin, Alice of 15,000 at Blue Grassin a reasonable amount of W ­ illiams, and Jim Myska capably assisted the commit- time. This was to be done for the three vendor-supplied tee in its fact-finding activities, in its meeting and trip technologies but not the EDS. Thoughts that were rel- arrangements, and in the production of this report.

PREFACE ix The Board on Army Science and Technology (BAST) Army leaders. BAST also discusses potential studies members listed on page vi were not asked to endorse of interest; develops and frames study tasks; ensures the committee’s conclusions or recommendations, nor proper project planning; suggests potential committee did they review the final draft of this report before its members and reviewers for reports produced by fully release, although board members with appropriate independent, ad hoc study committees; and convenes expertise may be nominated to serve as formal mem- meetings to examine strategic issues. bers of study committees or as report reviewers. BAST was established in 1982 by the National Academies at Richard J. Ayen, Chair the request of the Army. It brings to bear broad military, Committee to Review Assembled industrial, and academic experience and scientific, engi- Chemical Weapons Alternatives neering, and management expertise on Army technical Program Detonation Technologies challenges and other issues of importance to senior

Acknowledgment of Reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form by indi- Willard C. Gekler, Consultant, viduals chosen for their diverse perspectives and techni- Dan Luss, NAE, University of Houston, cal expertise, in accordance with procedures approved James F. Mathis, NAE, Exxon Corporation by the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Report (retired), Review Committee. The purpose of this independent John A. Merson, Sandia National Laboratories, and review is to provide candid and critical comments William J. Walsh, Pepper Hamilton, LLP. that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report Although the reviewers listed above have provided meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, many constructive comments and suggestions, they and responsiveness to the study charge. The review were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recom- comments and draft manuscript remain confidential mendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We before its release. The review of this report was overseen wish to thank the following individuals for their review by LTG Henry Hatch, U.S. Army retired. Appointed by of this report: the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this Williams Bacon, Shaw Environmental & report was carried out in accordance with institutional Infrastructure, procedures and that all review comments were carefully Robert A. Beaudet, University of Southern considered. Responsibility for the final content of this California, report rests entirely with the authoring committee and Gene Dyer, Consultant, the institution. 

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 xi

xii CONTENTS 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 55 PROPOSED BGCAPP AND PCAPP APPLICATIONS 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

CONTENTS xiii 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 85 Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel B Committee Meetings and Site Visits 111 C Biographical Sketches of Committee Members 113

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 P ­ rojectiles), 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 xv

xvi TABLES AND FIGURES 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 P ­ rojectiles), 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

Acronyms and Abbreviations ACWA Assembled Chemical Weapons EDS-2 EDS Phase 2 Alternatives EDS-3 EDS Phase 3 AEL airborne exposure limit EDT explosive destruction technology ANS agent neutralization system EIS environmental impact statement BGAD Blue Grass Army Depot FSS fragment suppression system BGCAPP Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction FTO flameless thermal oxidizer Pilot Plant BPBGT Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass Team GB nerve agent (sarin) GEKA Gesellschaft zur Entsorgung Chemischen CAA Clean Air Act Kampfstoffe und Rüstungs-Altlasten CaCl2 calcium chloride mbH CATOX catalytic oxidation CBARR Chemical Biological Applications and H mustard agent Risk Reduction H 2 hydrogen CDC controlled detonation chamber HCl hydrochloric acid CMA Chemical Materials Agency HD distilled (sulfur) mustard agent CO carbon monoxide HEPA high-efficiency particulate air CWC Chemical Weapons Convention HN nitrogen mustard HT distilled mustard mixed with bis(2- DAVINCH detonation of ammunition in a vacuum c ­ hloroethylthioethyl) ether integrated chamber DDESB Department of Defense Explosive Safety ICB immobilized cell bioreactor Board DE destruction efficiency LPMD linear projectile/mortar disassembly DOD Department of Defense (machine) DRE destruction and removal efficiency MPHRA multipathway health risk assessment EBH energetics batch hydrolyzer MPT metal parts treater ECBC Edgewood Chemical Biological Center MTU munitions treatment unit EDS explosive destruction system EDS-1 EDS Phase 1 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act xvii

xviii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS NEW net explosive weight RCWM recovered chemical warfare materiel NRC National Research Council RD&D research, development, and NSCMP Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Project demonstration RDT&E research, development, testing, and O 2 oxygen evaluation PBA Pine Bluff Arsenal SCWO supercritical water oxidation PBEDS Pine Bluff Explosive Destruction System SDC static detonation chamber PCAPP Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot SFT shipping and firing tube Plant PCB polychlorinated biphenyl TDC transportable detonation chamber PCD Pueblo Chemical Depot TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act PMACWA Program Manager for Assembled TSDF treatment, storage, and disposal facility C ­ hemical Weapons Alternatives PPE personnel protective equipment VSL vapor screening level VX a nerve agent RCM rocket cutting machine RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Next: Summary »
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $46.00 Buy Ebook | $36.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The Army's ability to meet public and congressional demands to destroy expeditiously all of the U.S. declared chemical weapons would be enhanced by the selection and acquisition of appropriate explosive destruction technologies (EDTs) to augment the main technologies to be used to destroy the chemical weapons currently at the Blue Grass Army Depot (BGAD) in Kentucky and the Pueblo Chemical Depot (PCD) in Colorado. The Army is considering four EDTs for the destruction of chemical weapons: three from private sector vendors, and a fourth, Army-developed explosive destruction system (EDS).

This book updates earlier evaluations of these technologies, as well as any other viable detonation technologies, based on several considerations including process maturity, process efficacy, process throughput, process safety, public and regulatory acceptability, and secondary waste issues, among others. It also provides detailed information on each of the requirements at BGAD and PCD and rates each of the existing suitable EDTs plus the Army's EDS with respect to how well it satisfies these requirements.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

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

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

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

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

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!