National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×

ANALYSIS OF ENGINEERING DESIGN STUDIES FOR DEMILITARIZATION OF ASSEMBLED CHEMICAL WEAPONS AT PUEBLO CHEMICAL DEPOT

Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: Phase II

Board on Army Science and Technology

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418

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 is a report of work supported by Contract DAAD19-00-C-0009 between the U.S. Army and the National Academy of Sciences. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.

International Standard Book Number 0-309-07607-2

Limited copies are available from:

Board on Army Science and Technology

National Research Council

2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20418

(202) 334–3118

Additional copies are available from:
National Academy Press
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Lockbox 285 Washington, DC 20055 (800) 624–6242 or (202) 334–3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area) http://www.nap.edu

Copyright 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

National Academy of Sciences

National Academy of Engineering

Institute of Medicine

National Research Council

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. Bruce M.Alberts 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. Wm. A.Wulf 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. Kenneth I. Shine 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. Bruce M.Alberts and Dr. Wm. A.Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×

COMMITTEE ON REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR DEMILITARIZATION OF ASSEMBLED CHEMICAL WEAPONS: PHASE II

ROBERT A.BEAUDET, Chair,

University of Southern California, Los Angeles

RICHARD J.AYEN,

Waste Management, Inc. (retired), Wakefield, Rhode Island

JOAN B.BERKOWITZ,

Farces Berkowitz and Company, Washington, D.C.

RUTH M.DOHERTY,

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head, Maryland

WILLARD C.GEKLER,

EQE International/PLG, Irvine, California

SHELDON E.ISAKOFF,

E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (retired), Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania

HANK C.JENKINS-SMITH,

University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

DAVID S.KOSSON,

Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee

FREDERICK J.KRAMBECK,

Exxon Mobil Research and Engineering Company, Fairfax,Virginia

JOHN A.MERSON,

Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico

WILLIAM R.RHYNE,

H&R Technical Associates, Inc., Oak Ridge, Tennessee

STANLEY I.SANDLER,

University of Delaware, Newark

WILLIAM R.SEEKER,

General Electric Energy and Environmental Research Corporation, Irvine, California

LEO WEITZMAN,

LVW Associates, Inc., West Lafayette, Indiana

Board on Army Science and Technology Liaison

JOSEPH J.VERVIER,

ENSCO, Inc., Indiatlantic, Florida

Staff

PATRICIA P.PAULETTE, Study Director

HARRISON T.PANNELLA, Program Officer

JACQUELINE CAMPBELL-JOHNSON, Senior Project Assistant

GWEN ROBY, Senior Project Assistant

JAMES C.MYSKA, Research Associate

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×

BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

WILLIAM H.FORSTER, Chair,

Northrop Grumman Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland

JOHN E.MILLER, Vice Chair,

Oracle Corporation, Reston, Virginia

ROBERT L.CATTOI,

Rockwell International (retired), Dallas, Texas

RICHARD A.CONWAY,

Union Carbide Corporation (retired), Charleston, West Virginia

GILBERT F.DECKER,

Walt Disney Imagineering, Glendale, California

PATRICK F.FLYNN,

Cummins Engine Company, Inc. (retired), Columbus, Indiana

HENRY J.HATCH, Chief of Engineers,

U.S. Army (retired), Oakton, Virginia

EDWARD J.HAUG,

University of Iowa, Iowa City

GERALD J.IAFRATE,

North Carolina State University, Raleigh

MIRIAM E.JOHN,

California Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, California

DONALD R.KEITH,

Cypress International (retired), Alexandria, Virginia

CLARENCE W.KITCHENS,

IIT Research Institute, Alexandria, Virginia

KATHRYN V.LOGAN,

Georgia Institute of Technology (professor emerita), Roswell, Georgia

JOHN W.LYONS,

U.S. Army Research Laboratory (retired), Ellicott City, Maryland

JOHN H.MOXLEY III,

Korn/Ferry International, Los Angeles, California

STEWART D.PERSONICK,

Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

MILLARD F.ROSE,

Radiance Technologies, Huntsville, Alabama

GEORGE T.SINGLEY III,

Hicks and Associates, Inc., McLean, Virginia

CLARENCE G.THORNTON,

Army Research Laboratories (retired), Colts Neck, New Jersey

JOHN D.VENABLES,

Venables and Associates, Towson, Maryland

JOSEPH J.VERVIER,

ENSCO, Inc., Indiatlantic, Florida

Staff

BRUCE A.BRAUN, Director

MICHAEL A.CLARKE, Associate Director

WILLIAM E.CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator

CHRIS JONES, Financial Associate

GWEN ROBY, Administrative Assistant

DEANNA P.SPARGER, Senior Project Assistant

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×

Preface

The United States has been in the process of destroying its chemical munitions for well over a decade. Initially, the U.S. Army, with recommendations from the National Research Council (NRC), decided to use incineration as its destruction method at all sites. However, citizens in some states with stockpile storage sites have opposed incineration on the grounds that it is impossible to determine the exact nature of the effluents escaping from the stacks. Although the Army has continued to pursue incineration at four of the eight storage sites in the continental United States, in response to growing public opposition to incineration in Maryland and Indiana and a 1996 report by the NRC, Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies, the Army is developing alternative processes to neutralize chemical agents using hydrolysis. These processes will be used to destroy the VX nerve agent at Newport, Indiana, and the mustard agent at Aberdeen, Maryland, both of which are stored in bulk one-ton containers.

In 1996, persuaded by the public opposition in Lexington, Kentucky, and Pueblo, Colorado, Congress enacted Public Law 104–201, which instructed the Department of Defense (DOD) to “conduct an assessment of the chemical demilitarization program for destruction of assembled chemical munitions and of the alternative demilitarization technologies and processes (other than incineration) that could be used for the destruction of the lethal chemical agents that are associated with these munitions.” The Army established a Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (PMACWA) to respond to Congress. In Public Law 104–208, the PMACWA was required to “identify and demonstrate not less than two alternatives to the baseline incineration process for the demilitarization of assembled chemical munitions.” Following the demonstration of six technologies, the PMACWA selected two as candidates for destroying the weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. The two packages have since progressed to the engineering design phase of the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) program.

In contrast with prior chemical weapons demilitarization programs, the PMACWA has involved citizen stakeholders in every aspect of the program, including the procurement process. A nonprofit organization, the Keystone Center, was hired to facilitate public involvement through a process known as the Dialogue. The Dialogue group, whose 35 members represent the Army and various community stakeholders, developed the criteria for selecting the technologies and were involved in all other aspects of the selection process. The Dialogue process has become a model for public involvement in matters of public concern. Indeed, the Department of Energy and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration have also adopted this approach.

Congress mandated that the Army coordinate with the NRC during the ACWA program. In response, the NRC established the Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons (ACW I Committee) in 1997 to oversee this program. The issue before the committee was not whether incineration is an adequate technology but whether, given that some citizens are strongly opposed to that method, other chemical methods, acceptable to the stakeholders, could be used. The Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: Phase II (ACW II Committee) was established in the spring of 2000 for the engineering design phase of the ACWA program.

One goal of this study is to provide an independent technical evaluation of the engineering-design packages of the two candidate processes being considered for use at the Pueblo Chemical Depot. This evaluation is expected to contribute to DOD’s Record of Decision (ROD) for the selection of a technology for the Pueblo site. The ROD was scheduled to be released on August 30, 2001. Therefore, to be of value in the selections, this report had to be published by mid-July 2001. Unfortunately, not all of the tests associated with the two packages, which address all aspects of demilitarization from disassembly of the weapons to the disposal of waste

Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×

streams, were completed at the time that data gathering for this report had to be terminated to meet the mid-July deadline.

I wish to express my gratitude to the members of the ACW II Committee, all of whom served as volunteers and many of whom served with me on the ACW I Committee. They have all given unselfishly of their time and knowledge. Committee members’ areas of expertise include chemical processing, biological remediation, environmental regulations and permitting, energetic materials, and public acceptance. Each member attended plenary meetings, visited the headquarters of technology providers and test sites, observed design-review sessions, and studied the extensive literature, including engineering charts and diagrams, provided by the technology providers.

The committee recognizes and appreciates the extensive support of the Army ACWA team and its interactions with stakeholders and the Dialogue group, particularly the four members of the Dialogue known as the Citizens Advisory Technical Team (CATT). Members of the CATT attended all open meetings of the committee and shared information and their views with us.

The committee also appreciates the openness and cordiality of the representatives of the technology providers. They and the Army provided us with early drafts of their test reports and other documentation to facilitate the development of this report.

A study like this always requires extensive logistic support, and we are all indebted to the NRC staff for their assistance. I would like to acknowledge particularly the close working relationship I had with the NRC study director for this study, Dr. Patricia P.Paulette. Working as a team in leading this study, she and I spoke on the phone daily and e-mailed each other incessantly. Invaluable contributions were also made by Harrison T.Pannella, who took extensive notes at all of our meetings, edited draft text for the report, and provided suggestions for organizing the report. In addition, Jacqueline Johnson and Gwen Roby provided the logistic support that freed us to concentrate on our task. Assistance was also provided by James C.Myska. The report was edited by Carol R.Arenberg, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences. I am also indebted to colleagues in the Chemistry Department at the University of Southern California, who willingly substituted for me in my teaching duties while I traveled on behalf of this study.

Robert A.Beaudet, Chair

Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: Phase II

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×

Acknowledgments

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 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:

Milton Beychok, independent consultant

Digby McDonald, Pennsylvania State University

Alvin Mushkatel, Arizona State University

Kirk Newman, Naval Surface Warfare Center

Robert Olson, independent consultant

George Parshall, Chemical Science (retired)

Carl Peterson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Janice Phillips, Centocor

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 Hyla S.Napadensky (NAE), Napadensky Energetics, Inc. (retired), appointed by the NRC’s Report Review Committee, who 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.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×

3

 

GENERAL ATOMICS TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE

 

27

   

Description of the Process,

 

27

   

Disassembly of Munitions (Steps 1 to 4),

 

27

   

Hydrolysis of Energetic Materials (Steps 5 and 6),

 

27

   

Separation of Agent from Munition Bodies and Agent Hydrolysis (Steps 7 to 10),

 

30

   

Treatment of Agent Hydrolysate by Supercritical Water Oxidation (Step 11),

 

31

   

Processing and Treatment of Dunnage and Energetics Hydrolysate (Steps 12 to 15),

 

32

   

Water Recovery and Salt Disposal (Step 16),

 

33

   

Information Used in the Development of the Assessment,

 

33

   

Engineering Design Package,

 

33

   

Engineering Design Studies Tests,

 

33

   

Assessment of Process Component Design,

 

38

   

Disassembly of Munitions (Steps 1 to 6),

 

38

   

Separation of Agent from Munition Bodies and Agent Hydrolysis (Step 7),

 

39

   

Agent Hydrolysis and Metal Parts Treatment (Steps 8 to 10),

 

40

   

Treatment of Hydrolysates and Dunnage by Supercritical Water Oxidation (Steps 11 and 15),

 

40

   

Processing and Treatment of Dunnage and Energetics Hydrolysate (Steps 12 to 16),

 

41

   

Assessment of Integration Issues,

 

42

   

Component Integration,

 

42

   

Process Operability,

 

42

   

Monitoring and Control Strategy,

 

42

   

Maintenance Issues,

 

43

   

Process Safety,

 

43

   

Worker Health and Safety,

 

44

   

Public Safety,

 

44

   

Human Health and the Environment,

 

44

   

Assessment of Overarching Technical Issues,

 

45

   

Overall Engineering Design Package,

 

45

   

Steps Required Before Implementation,

 

45

   

Previous Findings and Recommendations,

 

46

   

New Findings and Recommendations,

 

48

4

 

PARSONS/HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE

 

49

   

Description of the Process,

 

49

   

Introduction and Overview,

 

49

   

Disassembly of Munitions and Removal of Agent and Energetics,

 

49

   

Hydrolysis of Agent and Energetics,

 

52

   

Biological Treatment,

 

54

   

Metal Parts Treaters,

 

55

   

Continuous Steam Treater for Dunnage,

 

56

   

Treatment of Off-gases and Disposal of Wastes,

 

56

   

Changes to Process,

 

58

   

Information Used in the Development of the Assessment,

 

58

   

Engineering Design-Related Documents,

 

58

   

Engineering Design Studies Tests,

 

59

   

Assessment of Process Component Design,

 

59

   

Disassembly of Munitions and Removal of Agent and Energetics,

 

59

   

Hydrolysis of Agent,

 

60

   

Hydrolysis of Energetics,

 

60

   

Biological Treatment,

 

61

   

Metal Parts Treatment,

 

62

   

Treatment of Dunnage in the Continuous Steam Treater,

 

62

   

Off-gas Treatment and Disposal of Wastes,

 

63

Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×

Figures and Tables

FIGURES

ES-1

 

Simplified block diagram of GATS process components,

 

4

ES-2

 

Parsons/Honeywell WHEAT block flow diagram,

 

5

3–1

 

Simplified schematic flow diagram for GATS,

 

28

3–2

 

Simplified block diagram of GATS process components,

 

29

4–1

 

Parsons/Honeywell WHEAT block flow diagram,

 

50

4–2

 

Agent hydrolysis process,

 

53

4–3

 

Energetics hydrolysis process,

 

54

4–4

 

Biotreatment process,

 

55

4–5

 

Off-gas treatment systems,

 

57

A-1

 

105-mm howitzer projectile,

 

81

A-2

 

155-mm howitzer projectile,

 

82

A-3

 

4.2-inch mortar cartridge,

 

82

TABLES

1–1

 

Descriptions of the Seven Technology Packages That Passed the Go/No-Go Evaluation,

 

11

1–2

 

Munitions Containing HD and HT in the Pueblo Chemical Depot Stockpile,

 

13

1–3

 

Physical Properties of Mustard Agents at Pueblo Chemical Depot,

 

13

1–4

 

Original Nominal Composition of HD Mustard,

 

14

1–5

 

Original Composition of HT Mustard,

 

14

2–1

 

Nominal Composition of Energetic Materials Used in Chemical Munitions,

 

17

3–1

 

Design Parameters for GATS ERH and PRH,

 

29

3–2

 

Key Design Parameters for GATS Cryofracture Systems (Two Trains),

 

30

3–3

 

Key Design Parameters for the GATS Projectile Agent Hydrolysis System,

 

31

3–4

 

Equipment Sizes for the Full-scale SCWO System,

 

31

3–5

 

Design Parameters for the GATS DSHS,

 

32

3–6

 

Feeds and Duration of Planned SCWO Tests,

 

35

3–7

 

Corrosion of Titanium Liners During GATS EDS Work-up Tests,

 

36

4–1

 

Changes to the Parsons/Honeywell Process Since Demonstration I,

 

58

B-1

 

SCWO Reliability and Maintenance (RAM) Log for 500-Hour HD Hydrolysate Run,

 

84

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Page xvii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×

Acronyms and Abbreviations


ACAMS

automatic continuous air monitoring system

ACWA

Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment

ARDEC

Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center


BPCS

basic process control system

BWM

burster washout machine


CAMDS

Chemical Agent Munitions Disposal System

CATOX

catalytic oxidation

CATT

Citizens Advisory Technical Team

CSDP

Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program

CST

continuous steam treater

CWC

Chemical Weapons Convention


DOD

U.S. Department of Defense

DPE

demilitarization protective ensemble

DRE

destruction and removal efficiency

DSHS

dunnage-shredder hydrolysis system


ECR

explosion containment room

EDP

engineering design package

EDS

engineering design study

EPA

Environmental Protection Agency

ERD

energetics rotary deactivator

ERH

energetics rotary hydrolyzer

ESS

emergency shutdown system

EST

engineering-scale test


GATS

General Atomics Total Solution (technology package)

GB

a nerve agent


H

undistilled mustard agent

HAAP

Holston Army Ammunition Plant

HD

distilled mustard agent

HDC

heated discharge conveyor

HEPA

high-efficiency particulate air

HMX

cyclotetramethylene-tetranitramine (an energetic material)

HRA

health risk assessment

HT

a type of mustard agent containing mustard-T

HVAC

heating, ventilating, and air conditioning


ICB

immobilized-cell bioreactor

IITRI

Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute


JACADS

Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System


kW

kilowatt


LANL

Los Alamos National Laboratory


M

molar concentration

MAV

modified ammunition van

MDB

munitions demilitarization building

MDM

munitions demilitarization machine

MPT

metal parts treater

MSB

munitions storage building


NEPA

National Environmental Policy Act

NRC

National Research Council

NSWC

Naval Surface Warfare Center


OB/OD

open burn/open detonation


PHA

preliminary hazards analysis

PLC

programmable logic control/controller

PMACWA

Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment

PMCD

Program Manger for Chemical Demilitarization

PMD

projectile mortar demilitarization (machine)

PRH

projectile rotary hydrolyzer

PRR

propellant removal room

Page xviii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×

psi

pounds per square inch

psig

pounds per square inch gauge


QRA

quantitative risk assessment


R3

resource reclamation and recycling (process)

R&D

research and development

RAAP

Radford Army Ammunition Plant

RCRA

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RDX

an energetic material

RFP

Request for Proposals

ROD

Record of Decision

RWM

rotary washout machine


scfm

standard cubic feet per minute

SCWO

supercritical water oxidation


T

a mustard ether

TACOM

Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command

TCLP

toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

TNT

trinitrotoluene (an energetic material)

TOC

total organic carbon


UPA

unpack area


VX

a nerve agent


WHEAT

water hydrolysis of explosives and agent technology

WMDM

WHEAT multipurpose demilitarization machine

WPMD

WHEAT projectile/mortar disassembly (machine)

3X

At the 3X decontamination level, solids are decontaminated to the point that agent concentration in the headspace above the encapsulated solid does not exceed the health-based, eight-hour, time-weighted average limit for worker exposure. The level for mustard agent is 3.0 µg per cubic meter in air. Materials classified as 3X may be handled by qualified plant workers using appropriate procedures but are not releasable to the environment or for general public reuse. In specific cases in which approval has been granted, a 3X material may be shipped to an approved hazardous waste treatment facility for disposal in a landfill or for further treatment.

5X

Treatment of solids to a 5X decontamination level is accomplished by holding a material at 1,000°F for 15 minutes. This treatment results in completely decontaminated material that can be released for general use or sold (e.g., as scrap metal) to the general public in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×
Page R14
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×
Page R15
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×
Page R16
Page xvii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×
Page R17
Page xviii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10182.
×
Page R18
Next: Executive Summary »
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $41.00 Buy Ebook | $32.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (PMACWA) of the Department of Defense (DOD) requested the National Research Council (NRC) to assess the engineering design studies (EDSs) developed by Parsons/Honeywell and General Atomics for a chemical demilitarization facility to completely dispose of the assembled chemical weapons at the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Pueblo, Colorado. To accomplish the task, the NRC formed the Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: Phase II (ACW II Committee). This report presents the results of the committee's scientific and technical assessment, which will assist the Office of the Secretary of Defense in selecting the technology package for destroying the chemical munitions at Pueblo.

The committee evaluated the engineering design packages proposed by the technology providers and the associated experimental studies that were performed to validate unproven unit operations. A significant part of the testing program involved expanding the technology base for the hydrolysis of energetic materials associated with assembled weapons. This process was a concern expressed by the Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons (ACW I Committee) in its original report in 1999 (NRC, 1999). The present study took place as the experimental studies were in progress. In some cases, tests for some of the supporting unit operations were not completed in time for the committee to incorporate results into its evaluation. In those cases, the committee identified and discussed potential problem areas in these operations. Based on its expertise and its aggressive data-gathering activities, the committee was able to conduct a comprehensive review of the test data that had been completed for the overall system design. This report summarizes the study.

  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. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    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!