National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×

ANALYSIS OF ENGINEERING DESIGN STUDIES FOR DEMILITARIZATION OF ASSEMBLED CHEMICAL WEAPONS AT BLUE GRASS ARMY 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 OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×

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 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 0-309-08528-4

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
500 Fifth Street, N.W. Lockbox 285 Washington, DC 20055 (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 http://www.nap.edu

Copyright 2002 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×

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. 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. 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. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

www.national-academies.org

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×

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,

Farkas Berkowitz and Company, Washington, D.C.

RUTH M. DOHERTY,

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head, Maryland

WILLARD C. GEKLER,

ABS Consulting/PLG

(retired),

Irvine, California

SHELDON E. ISAKOFF,

E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company

(retired),

Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania

HANK C. JENKINS-SMITH,

Texas A&M University, College Station

DAVID S. KOSSON,

Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee

FREDERICK J. KRAMBECK, Consultant,

Alexandria, Virginia

JOHN A. MERSON,

Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico

WILLIAM R. RHYNE, Consultant,

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., Melbourne, Florida

Staff

PATRICIA P. PAULETTE, Study Director

HARRISON T. PANNELLA, Program Officer

GWEN ROBY, Senior Project Assistant (through July 2002)

JAMES C. MYSKA, Research Associate

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×

BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

JOHN E. MILLER, Chair,

Oracle Corporation, Reston, Virginia

GEORGE T. SINGLEY III, Vice Chair,

Hicks and Associates, Inc., McLean, 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

(retired),

Glendale, California

ROBERT R. EVERETT,

MITRE Corporation

(retired),

New Seabury, Massachusetts

PATRICK F. FLYNN,

Cummins Engine Company, Inc.

(retired),

Columbus, Indiana

HENRY J. HATCH, Army Chief of Engineers (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

DONALD R. KEITH,

Cypress International

(retired),

Alexandria, Virginia

CLARENCE W. KITCHENS,

IIT Research Institute, Alexandria, Virginia

SHIRLEY A. LIEBMAN,

CECON Group

(retired),

Holtwood, Pennsylvania

KATHRYN V. LOGAN,

Georgia Institute of Technology

(professor emerita),

Roswell

STEPHEN C. LUBARD,

S-L Technology, Woodland Hills, California

JOHN W. LYONS,

U.S. Army Research Laboratory

(retired),

Ellicott City, Maryland

JOHN H. MOXLEY,

Korn/Ferry International, Los Angeles, California

STEWART D. PERSONICK,

Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

MILLARD F. ROSE,

Radiance Technologies, Huntsville, Alabama

JOSEPH J. VERVIER,

ENSCO, Inc., Melbourne, Florida

Staff

BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director

MICHAEL A. CLARKE, Associate Director

WILLIAM E. CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator

CHRIS JONES, Financial Associate

GWEN ROBY, Administrative Assistant (through July 2002)

DEANNA P. SPARGER, Senior Project Assistant

DANIEL E.J. TALMAGE, JR., Research Associate

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×

Preface

The United States has been 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 by 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, 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 an elaborate selection process and the demonstration of six technologies, PMACWA selected three as candidates for destroying the weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. The three technologies—AEA SILVER II™, Eco Logic, and General Atomics Total Solution—have since progressed to the engineering design phase of DoD’s Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) program. This report evaluates the engineering design studies for these three candidates.

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, given that some citizens are strongly opposed to incineration, whether other disposal methods acceptable to the stakeholders could be used. A second committee, 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

Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×

2000 for the engineering design phase of the ACWA program.

This report provides an independent technical evaluation of the engineering-design packages of the three candidate processes being considered for use at the Blue Grass Army Depot. A separate chapter is devoted to each technology package that addresses all aspects of demilitarization, from disassembly of the weapons to disposal of the waste streams. Specific recommendations related to the technology are found in these chapters but are not repeated in the Executive Summary. The committee’s evaluation is expected to contribute to DoD’s record of decision (ROD) for the selection of a technology for the Lexington Blue Grass site. The ROD was scheduled to be released in September 2002. Therefore, to be of value in the selection process, this report had to be published by August 2002. Unfortunately, not all of the tests associated with the three packages were completed at the time that data gathering for this report was terminated to meet the mid-July deadline.

This report documents the ACW II Committee’s completion of its final task. Since 1997, the ACW I and ACW II Committees have produced four full reports and one letter report (NRC, 1999, 2000a, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c). Usually, NRC study committees are constituted to produce only a single report during their tenure. The aim of the ACW I and ACW II Committees has been to provide constructive advice to PMACWA. Questions that committee members asked at meetings attended by the ACWA team and its support contractors have supplemented the advice contained in the reports.

The environment in which the ACW II Committee works has changed since the events of September 11, 2001. Destruction of the stockpile has become more urgent, and this has made the general findings in this report more pertinent than ever. The committee confirms its belief that technologies using hydrolysis to destroy both agent and energetics are now mature, safe, straightforward, and effective. Moreover, the products from the hydrolysis no longer exhibit the acute toxicity of the agents and could be treated at commercial toxic or hazardous waste facilities if the states permit it. A precedent was established at Aberdeen Proving Ground: The mustard in bulk containers is being destroyed by hydrolysis, using mostly the facilities that already exist on site and sending the products to a commercial treatment facility.

I wish to express my gratitude to the members of the ACW II Committee, all of whom served as volunteers and most of whom served with me on the ACW I Committee. They have all given unselfishly of their time and knowledge. These technology packages are complex and voluminous, and it required extensive work to properly evaluate them. The committee members’ areas of expertise include chemical processing, biological remediation, environmental regulations and permitting, energetic materials, public involvement, 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, given by the technology providers. Fortunately for me, the members are all brighter and more experienced in chemical processing than am I, a physical chemist.

The committee recognizes and appreciates the extensive support of the Army ACWA team and the committee 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. I believe our relationship with the sponsor, PMACWA, and his team and support contractors has been effective and constructive and that the committee has been given the best available information to conduct this evaluation of the three technologies.

The committee also appreciates the openness and cordiality of the representatives of the technology providers. They and the Army provided it with early drafts of test reports and other documentation to facilitate the writing of this report while work was still in progress.

A study like this always requires extensive logistic support, and the committee is 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, 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, Gwen Roby provided the logistic support that freed us to concentrate on our task. Assistance was also pro-

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×

vided by James C. Myska. The report was edited by Liz Fikre of the 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. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×

Acknowledgment of Reviewers

This report has been reviewed by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’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:

Ronald Ballinger, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Steven Konkel, Eastern Kentucky University,

Richard S. Magee, Carmagen Consulting,

Walter May (NAE), Consultant, Urbana, Illinois,

Digby McDonald, Pennsylvania State University,

Ray McGuire, Consultant, Livermore, California,

George Parshall (NAS), Chemical Science (retired),

and

Bruce E. Watkins, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

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), Napadersky Energetics, Inc. (retired). 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.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×

3

 

AEA SILVER II™ TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE

 

33

   

Description of the Process,

 

33

   

Disassembly of Munitions,

 

36

   

Preparation of Energetic Materials for SILVER II™ Process,

 

37

   

Preparation of Agent for SILVER II™ Treatment,

 

38

   

Treatment of Agent and Energetics by the SILVER II™ Process,

 

38

   

Processing and Treatment of Metal Parts, Dunnage, and Other Solid Waste,

 

42

   

Processing and Treatment of Gaseous Effluent Streams,

 

43

   

Effluent Management,

 

44

   

Information Used in Developing the Assessment,

 

45

   

Engineering Design Package,

 

45

   

Overview of Engineering Design Studies and Tests,

 

45

   

Engineering Tests,

 

46

   

Laboratory-Scale Testing,

 

49

   

Desktop Studies,

 

54

   

CST/CATOX Unit Testing,

 

55

   

Assessment of Process Component Design,

 

57

   

Disassembly of Munitions,

 

57

   

Preparing Energetics for Destruction,

 

57

   

Agent and Energetics Destruction,

 

57

   

Separation of Agent from Munition Bodies,

 

59

   

Agent Preparation for Destruction,

 

59

   

Metal Parts Treatment,

 

59

   

Dunnage Preparation and Treatment,

 

59

   

Catalytic Oxidation Units,

 

60

   

Assessment of Integration Issues,

 

60

   

Component Integration,

 

60

   

Process Operability,

 

60

   

Materials of Construction,

 

60

   

Maintenance Issues,

 

61

   

Process Safety,

 

62

   

Worker Health and Safety,

 

63

   

Public Safety,

 

63

   

Human Health and the Environment,

 

63

   

Environmental Compliance and Permitting,

 

64

   

Assessment of Overarching Technical Issues,

 

65

   

Overall Engineering Design Package,

 

65

   

Reevaluation of Steps Required for Implementation,

 

67

   

Findings and Recommendations,

 

69

   

Findings,

 

69

   

Recommendation,

 

70

4

 

ECO LOGIC TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE

 

71

   

Introduction and Overview,

 

71

   

Description of the Process,

 

71

   

Area 100—Reverse Assembly/Munitions Access,

 

71

   

Area 200—Hydrolysis of Agent and Energetics,

 

77

   

Area 300—Supercritical Water Oxidation,

 

78

   

Area 400—Gas-Phase Chemical Reduction,

 

81

Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×
   

Area 500—Utilities,

 

83

   

Area 600—Materials Handling,

 

84

   

Information Used in Developing the Assessment,

 

84

   

Engineering-Design-Related Documents,

 

84

   

Overview of Engineering Design Studies and Tests,

 

84

   

Engineering Tests,

 

85

   

Assessment of Process Component Design,

 

89

   

Disassembly of Munitions and Removal of Agent and Energetics (Area 100),

 

89

   

Hydrolysis of Agent and Energetics (Area 200),

 

90

   

Supercritical Water Oxidation (Area 300),

 

90

   

Gas-Phase Chemical Reduction (Area 400),

 

92

   

Utilities (Area 500),

 

93

   

Materials Handling (Area 600),

 

93

   

Assessment of Integration Issues,

 

93

   

Component Integration,

 

93

   

Process Operability,

 

93

   

Maintenance Issues,

 

93

   

Monitoring and Control Strategy,

 

94

   

Process Safety,

 

95

   

Worker Health and Safety,

 

95

   

Public Safety,

 

96

   

Human Health and the Environment,

 

96

   

Environmental Compliance and Monitoring,

 

97

   

Assessment of Overarching Technical Issues,

 

97

   

Steps Required Before Implementation,

 

97

   

Findings and Recommendations,

 

97

   

Findings,

 

97

   

Recommendations,

 

98

5

 

GENERAL ATOMICS TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE

 

99

   

Description of the Process,

 

99

   

Disassembly of Munitions,

 

99

   

Hydrolysis of Energetic Materials,

 

101

   

Cryofracture of Munitions,

 

103

   

Aluminum Precipitate Filtration,

 

104

   

Projectile Rotary Hydrolyzer,

 

104

   

Dunnage Hydropulping,

 

104

   

Completion of Agent Hydrolysis,

 

104

   

Treatment by Supercritical Water Oxidation,

 

104

   

Treatment of Metal Parts,

 

107

   

Water Recovery and Salt Disposal,

 

107

   

Design and Throughput Basis for the GATS,

 

108

   

Information Used in Developing the Assessment,

 

109

   

Engineering-Design-Related Documents,

 

109

   

Overview of Engineering Design Studies and Tests,

 

110

   

Engineering Tests,

 

110

   

Assessment of Process Component Design,

 

113

   

Disassembly of Munitions (Steps 1, 3, 4, 6),

 

114

   

Hydrolysis of Energetic Materials (Steps 5, 7, and 15),

 

114

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×

Figures and Tables

FIGURES

ES-1

 

AEA SILVER II™ demilitarization process,

 

4

ES-2

 

Schematic flow diagram of the Eco Logic technology package,

 

6

ES-3

 

GATS Blue Grass block flow diagram,

 

8

3-1

 

AEA SILVER II™ demilitarization process,

 

34-35

3-2

 

SILVER II™ process system for agent or energetic destruction,

 

39

3-3

 

AEA 12-kW SILVER II™ test setup for EDS II,

 

47

4-1

 

Schematic flow diagram of the Eco Logic technology package,

 

72

4-2

 

Schematic diagram of Foster Wheeler transpiring-wall SCWO reactor,

 

79

4-3

 

CO and HC spiking profiles during transpiring-wall SCWO operation,

 

91

5-1

 

GATS Blue Grass block flow diagram,

 

100

5-2

 

GATS SCWO liner materials and configuration,

 

106

A-1

 

A 155-mm projectile, M110, H/HD; M121A1, VX,

 

138

A-2

 

An 8-inch howitzer projectile, M426, GB,

 

139

A-3

 

A 115-mm rocket, M55, GB, VX,

 

140

TABLES

ES-1

 

Description of the Chemical Weapons in the Blue Grass Army Depot Stockpile,

 

5

1-1

 

The Original Seven Candidate Technologies Under Consideration for the ACWA Program,

 

16

1-2

 

Physical Properties of Chemical Warfare Agents,

 

19

1-3

 

Description of the Chemical Weapons in the Blue Grass Army Depot Stockpile,

 

19

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×

1-4

 

Composition of M28 Propellant,

 

20

2-1

 

Nominal Composition of Energetic Materials Used in Chemical Munitions,

 

22

2-2

 

Conditions Used in the Commissioning Runs at HAAP,

 

24

2-3

 

Test Matrix for the Army Hydrolysis Study at HAAP,

 

25

2-4

 

Residual Energetic Material in End-of-Run Hydrolysate Samples,

 

28

2-5

 

Picrate Formation in the Hydrolysis of Energetics,

 

31

3-1

 

Key Plant Performance Requirements for SILVER II™ Technology at Blue Grass Army Depot,

 

36

3-2

 

Summary of SILVER II™ Plant Electrochemical Cells,

 

41

3-3

 

EDS Tests and Studies Used for SILVER II™,

 

45

3-4

 

AEA 12-kW SILVER II™ Tests,

 

46

3-5

 

Typical Transfer Rates for Concentrations of 0.5 Moles/L of Feed,

 

51

3-6

 

Materials Selection for Key Sections of a SILVER II™ Full-Scale Plant,

 

61

4-1

 

Summary of the Eco Logic Technology,

 

73

5-1

 

Key Design Parameters for GATS ERH and PRH,

 

102

5-2

 

Key Design Parameters for Each GATS Cryofracture Train,

 

103

5-3

 

Key Design Parameters for the GATS Projectile Agent Hydrolysis System,

 

105

5-4

 

SCWO System Design Parameters,

 

107

5-5

 

Waste Materials to Be Processed per Munition,

 

108

5-6

 

Munition Processing Rates and Durations,

 

109

5-7

 

Major SCWO System Test Campaigns Conducted in Support of GATS Design Considered by the Committee,

 

111

5-8

 

Corrosion of Titanium Liners During GATS EDS Workup Tests with HD Hydrolysate,

 

117

5-9

 

Liner Lifetime and Replacement Calculations for Blue Grass Facility SCWO Reactors,

 

118

5-10

 

500-hr Test Effluent Quality,

 

122

5-11

 

Status of Recent Developments on Treatment of Various Waste Streams by SCWO,

 

125

Page xvii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×

Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Chemical Symbols


ACAMS

automatic continuous air monitoring system

ACW I

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

ACW II

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

ACWA

Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment

Ag2+

silver ion having a valence of 2

AgCl

silver chloride

a-HAX

solution containing potassium hydroxide and humic acid

AHSV

agent hydrolysate surge vessel

ANR

agent neutralization reactor

AQS

agent quantification system

ARDEC

Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center


BIF

boiler and industrial furnace

BPCS

basic process control system

BWM

burster washout machine


CAMDS

chemical agent munitions disposal system

CATOX

catalytic oxidation

CEES

chloroethyl ethyl sulfide

CEMS

continuous emission monitoring system

CO

carbon monoxide

CO2

carbon dioxide

COINS

continuous indexing neutralization system

Composition B

an energetic material that contains (nominally) 59.5 percent RDX, 39.5 percent TNT, and 1.0 percent wax

CSDP

Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program

CST

continuous steam treater

CWC

Chemical Weapons Convention


DAAMS

depot area air monitoring system

Demo I

Demonstration I (demonstration testing of the initial three technologies selected for the first phase of ACWA technology testing)

Page xviii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×

Demo II

Demonstration II (demonstration testing of the second set of three technologies selected for the first phase of ACWA technology testing)

DMMP

dimethyl methylphosphonate

DoD

U.S. Department of Defense

DPE

demilitarization protective ensemble

DRE

destruction and removal efficiency

DSHS

dunnage shredding and handling system

DTS

dunnage treatment system


ECR

explosion containment room

EDP

engineering design package

EDS

engineering design study

EPA

Environmental Protection Agency

EPDM

ethylene propylene dimer

EPDR

energetics/propellant deactivation reactor

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

GC/MS

gas chromatography/mass spectrometry

GPCR

gas-phase chemical reduction


H

undistilled mustard agent

H2

hydrogen

HAAP

Holston Army Ammunition Plant

HD

distilled mustard agent

HDC

heated discharge conveyor

HEPA

high-efficiency particulate air (filter)

HF

hydrofluoric acid

HMX

cyclotetramethylene-tetranitramine (an energetic material)

HNO3

nitric acid

HPLC

high-performance liquid chromatography

HRA

health risk assessment

HT

a mixture of H and T mustard agents

HVAC

heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning


ICB

immobilized-cell bioreactor

ICI

Imperial Chemical Industries

IITRI

Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute

IMPA

isopropyl methylphosphonic acid

IRS

impurities removal system


JACADS

Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System


KOH

potassium hydroxide

kPa

kilopascal (unit of pressure; 6.895 kPa equals 1 pound per square inch)

kPag

kilopascals gauge

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×

kW

kilowatt


LANL

Los Alamos National Laboratory

LMIDS

Lockheed Martin Integrated Demilitarization System


M

molar concentration

M28

energetic material used for propulsion of certain assembled chemical weapons

MACT

maximum achievable control technology

MAV

modified ammunition van

MDB

munitions demilitarization building

MDM

munitions demilitarization machine

MEO

mediated electrochemical oxidation

MPA

methylphosphonic acid

MPa

megapascals

MPT

metal parts treater

MSB

munitions storage building


N2

nitrogen

N2O

nitrous oxide

NEPA

National Environmental Policy Act

NOx

nitrogen oxides

NRC

National Research Council

NSWC

Naval Surface Warfare Center


O2

oxygen

OB/OD

open burn/open detonation


PA

picric acid

PCP

pentachlorophenol

PCR

propellant collection reactor

PFA

perfluoroalkoxy

PGB

product gas burner

PHA

preliminary hazards analysis

PID

proportional integral differential controller

PLC

programmable logic control

PMACWA

Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment

PMD

projectile mortar demilitarization (machine)

POTW

publicly owned treatment works

ppm

parts per million

PRH

projectile rotary hydrolyzer

PRR

propellant removal room

psi

pounds per square inch

psig

pounds per square inch gauge

PTFE

polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon)

PVDF

polyvinylidene fluoride

PWS

projectile washout system


QRA

quantitative risk assessment


R3

resource, recovery, and recycling (process)

R&D

research and development

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×

RAAP

Radford Army Ammunition Plant

RCRA

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RDM

rocket dismantling machine

RDX

cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine (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

SET™

solvated electron technology

SILVER II™

electrochemical oxidation using Ag2+ in nitric acid

SOx

sulfur oxides

SO2

sulfur dioxide

SVOC

semivolatile organic compound


TACOM

Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command

TBA

tributylamine

TCLP

toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

THC

total hydrocarbons

TNB

trinitrobenzene

TNBA

trinitrobenzoic acid

TNT

trinitrotoluene (an energetic material)

TOC

total organic carbon

TRBP

thermal reduction batch processor

TW-SCWO

transpiring-wall supercritical water oxidation


UPA

unpack area


VOC

volatile organic compound

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, 8-hour, time-weighted average limit for worker exposure. The level for mustard agent is 3.0 mg/m3 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. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×
Page R14
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×
Page R15
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×
Page R16
Page xvii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×
Page R17
Page xviii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×
Page R18
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×
Page R19
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2002. Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10509.
×
Page R20
Next: Executive Summary »
Analysis of Engineering Design Studies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons at Blue Grass Army Depot Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $54.00 Buy Ebook | $43.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF
  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!