INTERIM DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR THE Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
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-04-C-0045 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of Defense. 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 0-309-09698-7
Limited copies of this report are available from:
Board on Army Science and Technology
National Research Council
500 Fifth Street, N.W., Room 940
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 334-3118
Additional copies are available from: The
National Academies Press
500 Fifth Street, N.W. Lockbox 285 Washington, DC 20055 (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area) Internet, http://www.nap.edu
Copyright 2005 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. 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. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
COMMITTEE TO ASSESS DESIGNS FOR PUEBLO AND BLUE GRASS CHEMICAL AGENT DESTRUCTION PILOT PLANTS
ROBERT A. BEAUDET, Chair,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles
CHARLES BARTON,
Iowa Department of Public Health, Des Moines
JOAN B. BERKOWITZ,
Farkas Berkowitz and Company, Washington, D.C.
RUTH M. DOHERTY,
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head, Maryland
LAWRENCE E. EISELSTEIN,
Exponent Failure Analysis Associates, Menlo Park, California
HAROLD K. FORSEN,
Bechtel Corporation (retired), Kirkland, Washington
WILLARD C. GEKLER,
PLG (retired), Los Alamitos, California
CLAIR F. GILL,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
CHANDRA M. ROY,
Exponent Failure Analysis Associates, Irvine, California
KENNETH A. SMITH,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
MICHAEL K. STENSTROM,
University of California, Los Angeles
THOMAS WEBLER,
Antioch New England Graduate School, Keene, New Hampshire (member until March 22, 2005)
Staff
DONALD L. SIEBENALER, Study Director
HARRISON T. PANNELLA, Senior Program Officer
DETRA BODRICK-SHORTER, Senior Program Assistant
JAMES C. MYSKA, Research Associate
BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
JOHN E. MILLER, Chair,
L3 Communications Corporation, Reston, Virginia
HENRY J. HATCH, Vice Chair,
Army Chief of Engineers (retired), Oakton, Virginia
SETH BONDER,
The Bonder Group, Ann Arbor, Michigan
JOSEPH V. BRADDOCK,
The Potomac Foundation, McLean, Virginia
NORVAL L. BROOME,
MITRE Corporation (retired), Suffolk, Virginia
ROBERT L. CATTOI,
Rockwell International (retired), Dallas, Texas
DARRELL W. COLLIER,
U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command (retired), Leander, Texas
ALAN H. EPSTEIN,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
ROBERT R. EVERETT,
MITRE Corporation (retired), New Seabury, Massachusetts
PATRICK F. FLYNN,
Cummins Engine Company, Inc. (retired), Columbus, Indiana
WILLIAM R. GRAHAM,
National Security Research, Inc., Arlington, Virginia
PETER F. GREEN,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
EDWARD J. HAUG,
University of Iowa, Iowa City
M. FREDERICK HAWTHORNE,
University of California, Los Angeles
CLARENCE W. KITCHENS,
Science Applications International Corporation, Vienna, Virginia
ROGER A. KRONE,
Boeing Integrated Defense Systems, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
JOHN W. LYONS,
U.S. Army Research Laboratory (retired), Ellicott City, Maryland
MALCOLM R. O’NEILL,
Lockheed Martin Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland
EDWARD K. REEDY,
Georgia Tech Research Institute (retired), Atlanta, Georgia
DENNIS J. REIMER,
DFI International, Washington, D.C.
WALTER D. SINCOSKIE,
Telcordia Technologies, Inc., Morristown, New Jersey
JUDITH L. SWAIN,
University of California, San Diego
WILLIAM R. SWARTOUT,
Institute for Creative Technologies, Marina del Rey, California
EDWIN L. THOMAS,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
BARRY M. TROST,
Stanford University, Stanford, California
Staff
BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director
WILLIAM E. CAMPBELL, Manager, Program Operations
CHRIS JONES, Financial Associate
ROBERT J. LOVE, Senior Program Officer
MARGARET NOVACK, Senior Program Officer
HARRISON T. PANELLA, Senior Program Officer
DONALD L. SIEBENALER, Senior Program Officer
DEANNA P. SPARGER, Program Administrative Coordinator
Preface
For the last two decades, the U.S. Army has been engaged in destroying its aging stockpile of chemical agents and munitions, which are located at eight sites in the continental United States.1 Approximately 35 percent of the original stockpile of more than 30,000 tons of nerve and blister (mustard) agents has been destroyed to date.
As a signatory to the international treaty known as the Chemical Weapons Convention, which was ratified by the international community on April 29, 1997, the United States had 10 years to destroy its stockpile, with an allowable extension of 5 additional years. The United States has acknowledged that it will require the 5 additional years or more to complete destruction operations.
At four stockpile sites (Tooele, Utah; Umatilla, Oregon; Anniston, Alabama; and Pine Bluff, Arkansas), the destruction process is based on incineration. Two other sites have never had any assembled chemical weapons (i.e., munitions containing both energetic materials and chemical agent) but have chemical agents stored in bulk ton containers. The mustard agent at Aberdeen, Maryland, has now been completely destroyed by neutralization with hot water, though all the ton containers that contained the agent have not yet been decontaminated. Secondary treatment of the hydrolysate from Aberdeen was carried out at the DuPont Secure Environmental Treatment facility for industrial waste in Deepwater, New Jersey. The VX nerve agent at Newport, Indiana, will also be destroyed by neutralization, but with hot caustic. Destruction operations began there in May 2005. The Army is hoping to send the VX hydrolysate from Indiana to Deepwater as well, but some citizens and government agencies in states along the transportation route are opposing the transport of the hydrolysate.
In 2003, at the request of the Program Manager for the U.S. Army’s Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (formerly, Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment) program, the National Research Council (NRC) formed its Committee to Assess Designs for Pueblo and Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants (ACWA Design Committee), tasking it to review and evaluate the initial and intermediate facility designs for the prospective pilot plants at Pueblo, Colorado, and Blue Grass, Kentucky. The committee’s first report, Interim Design Assessment for the Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant, was published in January 2005.
Specifically, for the Blue Grass Army Depot, the Department of Defense chose hydrolysis (neutralization) followed by secondary treatment with super-critical water oxidation to destroy the chemical agents and energetic materials in the chemical munitions. The contract for the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant (BGCAPP) design was awarded to the Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass Team, which includes a group of subcontractors well experienced in chemical demilitarization matters.
This interim report highlights the assessment that the ACWA Design Committee has made based on its
review of data and information on the initial BGCAPP design and on some data on the intermediate design that were made available to it during drafting of the report. The committee received regular presentations on the design, members made site visits to locations where the testing and construction of equipment was under way, and selected members attended periodic design reviews given by the Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass Team. Funding constraints delayed the further design of the secondary treatment process, supercritical water oxidation, until August 2005.
Delivery of sufficiently detailed written information concerning the initial design for the Blue Grass facility was complicated and delayed by the security concerns that arose after September 11, 2001. The new security requirements were not entirely compatible with existing NRC policies. The sponsor and the NRC continue to work to resolve security concerns and to establish effective procedures for the timely acquisition of data and information.
The committee is indebted to both the Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives and the Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass Team for their candor and cooperation during the committee’s data-gathering sessions and resultant discussions. Appreciation is extended to Joseph Novad and Yu-Chu Yang from the Army Program Office and to Chris Haynes, Chris Midgett, and John Ursillo from the Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass Team, who were the committee’s primary points of contact during this study.
Fortunately for the members of this committee, all of whom are volunteers, the NRC provided extensive logistics support. The committee is indebted to the NRC staff for their assistance, particularly to the study director for this report, Donald L. Siebenaler, to Harrison T. Pannella, who helped to organize and edit the report, and to James Myska and Detra Bodrick-Shorter, who provided much technical and administrative assistance throughout the study.
Robert A. Beaudet, Chair
Committee to Assess Designs for Pueblo and Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants
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:
Judith A. Bradbury, Battelle, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
Lawrence B. Evans, Aspen Technology, Inc.,
L. Louis Hegedus, Arkema Inc.,
Frederick J. Krambeck, ReacTech Inc.,
Ronald M. Latanision, Exponent, Inc.,
Dan Luss, University of Houston,
Richard S. Magee, Carmagen Engineering, Inc.,
James F. Mathis, Exxon Corporation (retired),
Raymond R. McGuire, Consultant,
Douglas Medville, MITRE (retired),
George W. Parshall, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (retired),
Carl R. Peterson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (retired), and
John A. Sanchez, Los Alamos 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, Napadensky 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.
Tables and Figures
TABLES
1-1 |
Physical Properties of the Pure Forms of Chemical Agents at BGAD, |
|||
1-2 |
Description of the Chemical Weapons in the BGAD Stockpile, |
|||
1-3 |
BGCAPP Process Wastes, |
|||
1-4 |
BGCAPP Secondary Wastes, |
|||
1-5 |
Overall BGCAPP Train Availability, Including Facility Shutdown, |
|||
1-6 |
Average Processing Rates, Including Train Availability, |
|||
2-1 |
Probability, Consequence, and Risk Weighting Factors for BGCAPP Design-Build Plan Technical Risk Assessment, |
|||
2-2 |
Summary of Technical Risk Reduction Projects for BGCAPP as of February 15, 2005, |
|||
4-1 |
Agent Neutralization Parameters, |
|||
4-2 |
Energetic Materials in BGAD Chemical Munitions, |
|||
4-3 |
EBH Processing Cycle Sequence for M55 Rocket Parts, |
|||
5-1 |
Treatment Methods for Different Waste Stream Materials During Normal Disposal Campaigns and Closure, |
|||
5-2 |
Rates of Feed to SCWO Reactor During Test Runs, |
|||
5-3 |
General Types of BGCAPP Secondary Wastes to Be Managed, |
|||
C-1 |
Composition of Liquid H (Levenstein Mustard), 16-42 wt% (Average = 31 wt%) of Agent Fill in the 10 155-mm H Projectiles Tested During Munitions Washout System Testing, |
|||
C-2 |
Composition of H Heels, 58-84 wt% (Average = 69 wt%) of Agent Fill in the 10 155-mm Projectiles Tested During Munitions Washout System Testing, |
|||
C-3 |
Liquid Chromatography–Electrospray Ionization–Mass Spectrometry Analysis of 14 Solid H Samples, |
|||
C-4 |
Liquid Chromatography–Electrospray Ionization–Mass Spectrometry Analysis of Solids (Filtered from Liquid H Samples), |
|||
C-5 |
Estimated Total Iron Contents in Liquid and Solid Phases of H Mustard Agent Fill in 155-mm Projectiles, |
FIGURES
ES-1 |
Block flow diagram for BGCAPP, |
|||
1-1 |
Block flow diagram for BGCAPP, |
|||
3-1 |
Rocket and projectile disassembly flow diagram, |
|||
3-2 |
Cut points for RSM cutting of M55 rockets, |
|||
3-3 |
Detail drawing showing planned BGCAPP RSM Cut 4 of M55 rockets, |
|||
4-1 |
Flow diagram for the agent neutralization system, |
|||
4-2 |
Drawing of EBH design for BGCAPP, |
|||
4-3 |
Peak VX EBH processing cycle, |
|||
4-4 |
Flow diagram for OTE system, |
|||
5-1 |
Flow diagram for OTM system, |
|||
A-1 |
Responsibilities of the members of the Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass Team, |
|||
B-1 |
Schematic drawing and specifications for M55 rocket, |
|||
B-2 |
Schematic drawing and specifications for 155-mm projectile, |
|||
B-3 |
Schematic drawing and specifications for 8-inch projectile, |
Acronyms
ACS
agent collection system
ACWA
Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives2
AEL
airborne exposure limit
AFS
aluminum filtration system
ANR
agent neutralization reactor
ANS
agent neutralization system
ASME
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
BGAD
Blue Grass Army Depot
BGCAPP
Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant
BGCSOO
Blue Grass Chemical Stockpile Outreach Office
CAC
Citizens’ Advisory Commission
CAM
cavity access machine
CDCAB
Chemical Destruction Community Advisory Board
CF
caustic fill
CHB
container handling building
DBP
design-build plan
DPE
demilitarization protective ensemble
DSH
dunnage shredding and handling
EBH
energetics batch hydrolyzer
ECR
explosion containment room
ECV
explosion containment vestibule
EIS
environmental impact statement
ENR
energetics neutralization reactor
EONC
enhanced on-site container
GB
nerve agent (Sarin)
H
Levenstein mustard agent
HD
distilled mustard agent
HDC
heated discharge conveyor
HT
mustard agent containing mustard-T
HVAC
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
IPT
integrated product team
KDEP
Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection
LPMD
linear projectile/mortar disassembly (machine)
LSS
life support system
MCE
maximum credible event
MDB
munitions demilitarization building
MPT
metal parts treater
MWS
munitions washout system
NCR
nose cone removal (machine)
NOI
notice of intent
NRC
National Research Council
OTE
energetics offgas treatment
OTM
MPT offgas treatment
PCAPP
Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant
PCD
Pueblo Chemical Depot
PMACWA
Program Manager, Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives
RD&D
research, development, and demonstration
RFP
request for proposal
RM
rocket motors
ROD
Record of Decision
RSM
rocket shear machine
SCWO
supercritical water oxidation
SSMP
System Safety Analysis Management Program
T
bis[2-(2-chloroethylthio)ethyl] ether
TMA
toxic maintenance area
TRA
technical risk assessment
TRRP
technical risk reduction project
UL
unload liquids
UPA
unpack area
US
unload solids
VX
nerve agent
WH
warhead
WRS
water recovery system