Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants Summary The Army’s ability to meet public and congressional demands to destroy expeditiously all of the U.S.-declared chemical weapons would be enhanced by the selection and acquisition of appropriate explosive destruction technologies (EDTs) to augment the main technologies to be used to destroy the chemical weapons currently at the Blue Grass Army Depot (BGAD) in Kentucky and the Pueblo Chemical Depot (PCD) in Colorado. The Army is considering four EDTs (detonation technologies) for the destruction of chemical weapons. Three of them are available from private sector vendors; the fourth is the Army-developed explosive destruction system (EDS). Because of the high public, congressional, and regulatory visibility of the chemical weapons destruction program, it is critical to provide a transparent comparative technical evaluation of these technologies to assist the Army in selecting a technology or combination of technologies to augment the main destruction operations at BGAD and PCD. The specific models of the three vendor-supplied EDTs designed for use on mustard agent munitions evaluated in this report are (1) the DV65 model of the detonation of ammunition in a vacuum integrated chamber (DAVINCH) technology from Kobe Steel, Ltd.; (2) the TC-60 model of the transportable detonation chamber (TDC), formerly the controlled detonation chamber (CDC), from CH2M HILL; and (3) the SDC2000 model of the static detonation chamber, formerly called the static kiln, from Dynasafe. These three EDTs, along with the Army’s EDS, were previously evaluated by the NRC for their usefulness in destroying recovered chemical warfare materiel from burial sites, and the evaluations were reported on in 2006, in Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel, hereinafter referred to as the International Technologies report. The first and the third of these three EDTS—the DAVINCH and Dynasafe’s SDC2000—and a variant of the second EDT (CH2M HILL’s D-100, which is designed for the destruction of conventional weapons only) are being considered for destruction of the nearly 70,000 M55 rocket motors at BGAD that have not been contaminated with chemical agent. The D-100 was not described in the International Technologies report. The committee’s complete statement of task is provided in the preface. Its main responsibilities are these: Update earlier evaluations of the DV-65, the TC-60, the SDC2000, and the EDS Phase II (EDS-2), which appeared in the International Technologies report, as well as any other viable detonation technologies, based on considerations of process maturity, process efficacy, process throughput, process safety, public and regulatory acceptability, secondary waste issues, destruction verification capability, and, where applicable, flexibility.1 1 The previous evaluations appeared in Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel, Chapter 4, which is reprinted as Appendix A of this report.
OCR for page 2
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants Obtain detailed information on each of the requirements at BGAD and PCD and rate each of the existing suitable EDTs available from the vendors and the Army’s EDS with respect to how well it satisfies these requirements in order to recommend a preferred technology for each requirement. REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES AT ACWA SITES This report addresses three prospective requirements involving the use of EDTs to augment the primary chemical weapons destruction processes of the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant (BGCAPP), which is now under construction: Requirement BG-1 is the processing of approximately 70,000 M55 rocket motors at Blue Grass that are not contaminated with agent. Current plans call for shipment of these noncontaminated rocket motors to an off-site location for processing; destruction in an EDT is being considered as an alternative. Requirement BG-2 is the processing of approximately 15,000 mustard agent H projectiles by one or more EDTs. According to Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) staff, this would save approximately 8 months in the overall BGCAPP schedule. Requirement BG-3 is the combination of requirements BG-1 and BG-2. The report also addresses a single requirement involving the use of EDTs to augment operations at the Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant (PCAPP): Requirement P-1 is the destruction of all leakers and reject munitions at Pueblo. About 1,000 mustard agent-filled munitions, a mixture of 4.2-in. mortars, 105-mm projectiles, and 155-mm projectiles, would be destroyed. These munitions will be overpacked. THE EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES TC-60 TDC The CH2M HILL TDC was originally developed in the United States and then later used for treating abandoned chemical munitions recovered from burial sites in Belgium. It was further refined through testing programs in the United Kingdom and was recently used in Hawaii to destroy recovered chemical warfare materiel. No substantial changes have been made to the TDC process since the International Technologies report was published in 2006. The TC-60 TDC has three main components: a detonation chamber, an expansion chamber, and an emissions control system. A munition wrapped in explosive is mounted in the detonation chamber. The floor of the chamber is covered with pea gravel, which absorbs some of the blast energy. Bags containing water are suspended near the projectile to help absorb blast energy and to produce steam, which reacts with agent vapors. Oxygen is added when destroying munitions containing mustard agent. After the explosive is detonated, the gases are vented to an expansion chamber, then to the emissions control system. The offgas treatment system includes a reactive-bed ceramic filter to remove acidic gases and to collect particulates such as soot and dust from the pea gravel. A catalytic oxidation (CATOX) unit oxidizes hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and organic vapors from the gas stream before the stream is vented through a carbon adsorption bed and released to the atmosphere. D-100 A nontransportable detonation chamber, termed the D-100 and offered by CH2M HILL, has been installed at BGAD for destruction of conventional munitions (as opposed to the chemical stockpile stored there).2 BGAD, in partnership with CH2M HILL, has proposed to BGCAPP a program to test the technical feasibility of using the D-100 system to destroy the rocket motors by static firing. The D-100 has a large detonation chamber, with internal dimensions of 14 ft wide × 16 ft high × 20 ft long. This chamber is connected to a cylindrical expansion tank that is 10 ft in diameter and 71 ft long. Exhaust gases pass from the expansion tank to an air pollution control system consisting of a cartridge-type particulate filter with pulsed jet cleaning, followed by an exhaust fan. Approval has been obtained from DOD’s Explosive Safety Board (DDESB) for a site safety submission that includes the use of 49.3 lb TNT-equivalent net explosive weight (NEW) 2 The CH2M HILL D-100 technology is not suitable for destroying chemical weapons.
OCR for page 3
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants total explosives—donor plus munition. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permitting of this system is under way. Before being processed, the rocket motors would be removed from their shipping and firing tubes (SFTs) and their fins would be banded. Banding the fins prevents them from deploying during subsequent processing. This allows easier handling when mounting the rocket motors in the firing stand and, after firing, removing the motors from the stand. The motors would then be loaded into a static firing stand, the stand moved into the detonation chamber, and the firing wires connected. After the chamber door is closed, the rocket motors would be ignited. The door would then be opened and the chamber ventilated for 5 to 10 minutes. The firing stand would be removed and replaced with another firing stand freshly loaded with rocket motors. It is expected that 4 to 6 motors can be destroyed in each firing cycle and that the throughput rate would be up to 18 motors per hour. BGAD has performed calculations showing that propellant in the rocket would have a burn time of approximately 2.5 seconds and that the temperature in the chamber would rise by 32°F for each rocket fired. DV65 Various DAVINCH models, corresponding to various NEWs of the munition and its donor charge, have been built by Kobe Steel, Ltd., under the corporate mark KOBELCO, and used in Japan and Belgium to destroy chemical weapons. The technology has not been used in the United States. The process uses a detonation chamber in which chemical munitions are destroyed when donor charges surrounding the munitions are detonated. Offgases are produced that require secondary treatment. A simplified process flow diagram is shown in Figure 4-3 of the 2006 International Technologies report (see Appendix A). Since that report was issued, however, several changes have been made and implemented as part of the ongoing application of the DAVINCH technology at the Belgian military facility at Poelkapelle, Belgium (see Chapter 3). The system installed at Poelkapelle is the DAVINCH DV50 model, a system with a slightly lower NEW capability than the DV65 model evaluated in this report. The most substantial change involves the replacement of the offgas combustion chamber with a cold plasma oxidizer. In its current configuration, the offgases resulting from agent destruction in the DAVINCH vessel are filtered to remove particulates and, with oxygen from an external supply, are pumped into the cold plasma oxidizer, which oxidizes CO to CO2. Condensate water is then recovered from the exhaust gas; the gas is passed through activated carbon and exhausted to the atmosphere. SDC2000 The SDC2000 static detonation chamber is manufactured by Dynasafe AB, a Swedish company. Details of the design and operation of the Dynasafe process are given in Appendix A, which is Chapter 4 of the 2006 International Technologies report. The Dynasafe information presented in Appendix A remains generally the same. The detonation chamber is a nearly spherical, armored, high-alloy stainless steel vessel. The vessel is double-walled, with the inner wall considered to be armored (UXB International, 2007). The 7.5-cm thickness of the inner wall is much greater than required by the mechanical stress loads caused by detonation pressures. Chemical munitions are placed in a cardboard box or carrier, which is transported to the top of the system. The boxed munitions are fed into the detonation chamber through two sequential loading chambers. The boxed munitions are dropped onto a heated (550°C-600°C) shrapnel (scrap) bed at the bottom of the detonation chamber, resulting in deflagration, detonation, or burning of the munition’s explosive fill. The chemical agent in the munitions is destroyed by the shock wave from the detonation or by decomposition due to the high heat in the chamber. The offgas treatment system includes a cyclone for removal of large particulates and a flameless thermal oxidizer that converts carbon monoxide and hydrogen to carbon dioxide and water. This is followed by a fast quench system to minimize dioxin and furan formation, acidic and basic (caustic) scrubbers, and an adsorber/particulate filter system that uses Sorbalite, a mixture of calcium oxides and carbonates with activated carbon. EDS The U.S. Army’s EDSs are trailer-mounted mobile systems originally intended to destroy explosively configured chemical munitions that are deemed unsafe to transport. The system has been used to destroy chemical munitions with or without explosive components. At the heart of the EDS system is an explosion contain-
OCR for page 4
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants ment vessel. The EDS Phase 2 (EDS-2) containment vessel is designed to handle munitions containing up to 4.8 lb TNT-equivalent of explosives. The EDS uses explosive shaped charges to access the agent cavity and to destroy any energetics in the munition. After detonation of the shaped charges, reagents appropriate to the agent to be neutralized are pumped into the vessel and the vessel contents are mixed until the treatment goal has been attained. After the concentration of chemical agent falls below the treatment goal, as determined by sampling the contents of the chamber, the liquid waste solution is transferred out of the chamber into a waste drum. The drummed EDS liquid waste is normally treated further at a commercial hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF). EVALUATION CRITERIA A rating system of 0 to 10 was used for each of eight evaluation factors for requirements BG-1, BG-2, BG-3, and P-1. These ratings reflect the committee’s assessment of how well an EDT would perform in comparison with other EDTs in respect to eight evaluation factors, as described in detail in Chapter 2. The results are shown in Tables S-1, S-2, S-3, and S-4. The overall approach to this assessment is explained in Chapter 4. Each committee member independently assigned a value based on the following: The information made available for each candidate EDT; The discussions and deliberations of the committee members as a group; and A committee member’s perspective based on his or her area of expertise. The committee used its collective judgment in rating technologies according to the factors and recognizes that the procedure to some degree was a subjective one. Furthermore, the committee did not evaluate or com- TABLE S-1 EDT Ratings Summary for Requirement BG-1, Destruction of Approximately 70,000 Noncontaminated M55 Rocket Motors at Blue Grass EDT Evaluation Factor Process Maturity Process Efficacy Process Throughput Process Safety Public and Regulatory Acceptability in a U.S. Context Secondary Waste Issues Destruction Verification Capability Process Flexibility Total D-100 8 9 10 8 10 9 N/A N/A 54 DAVINCH DV65 8 9 5 8 7 9 N/A N/A 46 SDC2000 6 9 8 9 7 7 N/A N/A 46 NOTE: The above values for each evaluation factor are the average of each committee member’s rating on a scale of 0-10. These average values were then summed to arrive at the totals given in the last column. Small differences in the summed ratings, up to about five points, were not considered to be significant by the committee. There was no weighting. TABLE S-2 EDT Ratings Summary for Requirement BG-2, Destruction of 15,000 Mustard Agent H-Filled 155-mm Projectiles at Blue Grass EDT Evaluation Factor Process Maturity Process Efficacy Process Throughput Process Safety Public and Regulatory Acceptability in a U.S. Context Secondary Waste Issues Destruction Verification Capability Process Flexibility Total TC-60 TDC 8 4 8 7 9 8 9 N/A 53 DAVINCH DV65 8 9 8 8 7 9 10 N/A 59 SDC2000 7 9 10 9 7 7 9 N/A 58 NOTE: The above values for each evaluation factor are the average of each committee member’s rating on a scale of 0-10. These average values were then summed to arrive at the totals given in the last column. Small differences in the summed ratings, up to about five points, were not considered to be significant by the committee. There was no weighting.
OCR for page 5
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants TABLE S-3 EDT Ratings Summary for Requirement BG-3, Destruction of Approximately 70,000 Noncontaminated M55 Rocket Motors and 15,000 Mustard Agent H-Filled 155-mm Projectiles at Blue Grass EDT Evaluation Factor Process Maturity Process Efficacy Process Throughput Process Safety Public and Regulatory Acceptability in a U.S. Context Secondary Waste Issues Destruction Verification Capability Process Flexibility Total D-100 and TC-60 TDC combination 6 7 8 7 9 8 8 9 62 DAVINCH DV65 8 9 5 8 7 9 10 9 65 SDC2000 7 9 9 9 7 7 9 9 66 NOTE: The above values for each evaluation factor are the average of each committee member’s rating on a scale of 0-10. These average values were then summed to arrive at the totals given in the last column. Small differences in the summed ratings, up to about five points, were not considered to be significant by the committee. There was no weighting. TABLE S-4 EDT Ratings Summary for Requirement P-1, Destruction of All Leakers and Reject Munitions at Pueblo Comprising Approximately 1,000 Rounds of Mustard Agent HD/HT-Filled Munitions (Mixture of 4.2-in. Mortars and 105- and 155-mm Projectiles) EDT Evaluation Factor Process Maturity Process Efficacy Process Throughput Process Safety Public and Regulatory Acceptability in a U.S. Context Secondary Waste Issues Destruction Verification Capability Process Flexibility Total TC-60 TDC 8 4 10 7 9 8 9 10 65 DAVINCH DV65 8 9 10 8 7 9 10 10 71 SDC2000 7 9 10 9 7 7 9 10 68 EDSa 10 10 10 7 10 6 10 10 73 NOTE: The above values for each evaluation factor are the average of each committee member’s rating on a scale of 0-10. These average values were then summed to arrive at the totals given in the last column. Small differences in the summed ratings, up to about five points, were not considered to be significant by the committee. There was no weighting. aThese ratings are based on the use of two EDS-2 units. pare the technologies based on total life-cycle costs, cost per munition destroyed, or any other economic factors due to the proprietary nature of the information that would be needed to make such an evaluation, nor was it asked to do so. See the section “Basis for Assessment” at the beginning of Chapter 4 for information on how the numerical ratings of 0 through 10 were assigned by committee members. Using the results of the rating procedure, the committee recommended one or more EDTs that would best satisfy each requirement. Small differences, up to about five points, in ratings were not considered to be significant. The main finding and recommendation from Chapter 4 associated with each of the four requirements—BG-1, BG-2, BG-3, and P-1—are given at the end of the text coverage for each requirement. A wealth of information on the characteristics and capabilities of the technology, on recent advances in its development, and the arguments for assigning ratings is contained in Chapters 3 and 4, so that in addition to noting the individual and summed numerical ratings, a reader should review these other chapters before engaging in discussions on the selection of an EDT for a particular requirement. REQUIREMENT BG-1: DESTRUCTION OF APPROXIMATELY 70,000 NONCONTAMINATED M55 ROCKET MOTORS AT BLUE GRASS Noncontaminated rocket motors, unlike the associated warheads, contain no agent, so Requirement BG-1 can be considered to amount to conventional munitions
OCR for page 6
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants disposal. The M55 rocket motor contains 19.3 lb of M28 double base (nitroglycerin and nitrocellulose) cast grain propellant.3 The U.S. Army’s EDS is not intended for processing M55 rockets because its explosive containment capacity (4.8 lb NEW) is only about one-fourth of the capacity needed for a rocket motor. After discussions with the ACWA staff, it was decided to not evaluate the TC-60 TDC for the destruction of noncontaminated rocket motors by either a static firing approach or a donor charge approach for Requirement BG-1, mainly because the TC-60 TDC is not designed for such an application but also because CH2M HILL offers the D-100 system, which is designed to destroy conventional weapons and which, if testing is successful, should be usable for static firing of the non-contaminated rocket motors. Moreover, as previously explained, a D-100 system is already installed at BGAD. Accordingly, the D-100 system was evaluated for Requirement BG-1 and the TC-60 TDC was evaluated for Requirement BG-2. An analysis by BGAD concluded that between four and six motors could be fired in each cycle with the D-100, with the vendor claiming a firing cycle time of 20 minutes. Based on six motors per cycle, three cycles per hour, and 10 hours per day, the daily throughput of motors would be 180. On this basis the committee projected a campaign length ranging from about 1.2 years to about 2.5 years. Use of the D-100 would not require attaching donor explosives to the rocket motors. The firing of the rocket motors would instead be initiated using the existing igniters. If they are no longer reliable, new igniters could be installed in the motors. The volumes of wastes generated are small. The scrap metal will of course be free of chemical agent. The dust from the filter will contain lead from the lead stearate in the propellant. It could possibly be defined as a RCRA hazardous waste. Two D-100 systems have been installed at the Milan Army Ammunition Plant in Tennessee. The systems have been permitted and were used to destroy 25,000 155-mm projectiles containing submunition grenades. A testing program with the goal of demonstrating that the D-100 will work as expected has been proposed, but no actual testing has been done. Tests with actual rockets would be needed before this technology could be selected for Requirement BG-1. DAVINCH The DAVINCH DV65 is capable of destroying M55 rocket motors, although to increase throughput, a proposed longer version of the DAVINCH, the DV120, might be used. However, the DAVINCH technology has not yet been permitted to operate in the United States since permits required under the RCRA and other laws cannot be applied for unless a particular application exists. The DAVINCH system currently being used in Kanda Port, Japan, the DV65, has an explosion containment capacity of 65 kg TNT-equivalent. The manufacturer claims that it can process four M55 rocket motors per shot with a throughput rate of nine shots (detonation events) per 10-hour day, which amounts to a cycle time of slightly more than 1 hour. From this information, the committee has projected a campaign length ranging from about 6.2 years to about 12.5 years for Requirement BG-1. In limited testing, it was demonstrated that a DAVINCH system is capable of destroying a simulated rocket motor. Tests with actual rockets would be needed before this technology could be selected for Requirement BG-1. SDC2000 Dynasafe has had extensive experience with the SDC2000 model in Germany and Taiwan. The feed system of the SDC2000 at Münster, Germany, was too small to accommodate the long rocket motors, but the vendor says the feed system can be enlarged if a new system is built for BGCAPP. In addition, the NEW limit for the SDC2000 system at Münster is limited by permit to 2.3 kg, which is one-fourth of the NEW of the rocket motor. It was therefore not possible to conduct testing using a whole rocket motor. For a new system constructed for BGCAPP, Dynasafe claims the NEW limit can be up to 10 kg depending on the choice of an inner chamber design specification. This is just sufficient to withstand the unexpected detonation of a single rocket motor with its 19.3 lb (8.8 kg) of propellant. Additional testing would be needed before this technology could be selected for Requirement BG-1. The Dynasafe technology has not yet been given a permit to destroy chemical weapons in the United States. The system appears to be robust and reliable. The throughput rate expected by the vendor for the SDC2000 is high, 10 motors per hour. The committee 3 http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m55.htm.
OCR for page 7
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants projects a campaign length from about 2.2 years to about 4.5 years. The SDC, which is rated highly for safety, involves minimal handling of the munition and no handling of donor explosives. Secondary waste production is moderate. The aqueous scrubbers would produce no liquid effluents but would produce up to 500 lb per day of salts as a filter cake. The rocket motors contain lead, and the salts resulting from rocket motor processing could be hazardous for that reason. The scrap metal can be released for unrestricted use. Overall Ratings for Requirement BG-1 The high-throughput D-100 static firing system is clearly the most satisfactory EDT for Requirement BG-1. The summed rating for the D-100 unit is 54 out of a possible 70. The DAVINCH DV65 and the Dynasafe SDC2000 are rated equally at 46. The DV65 and the SDC2000 have not been permitted or operated in the United States, and their throughput rate is not as good as that of the D-100.4 Finding 4-2. The CH2M HILL D-100 detonation chamber for conventional munitions, using static firing of the rocket motors, is best suited for Requirement BG-1. The DAVINCH DV65 and the Dynasafe SDC2000 are acceptable second choices. Recommendation 4-2. For Requirement BG-1, if testing is successful, the Army should use the CH2M HILL D-100 detonation chamber at BGAD, with static firing of the rocket motors. The Army should consider the Dynasafe SDC2000 and the DAVINCH DV65 as acceptable second choices. REQUIREMENT BG-2: DESTRUCTION OF APPROXIMATELY 15,000 MUSTARD AGENT H-FILLED 155-mm PROJECTILES AT BLUE GRASS Implementation of Requirement BG-2 would allow an EDT to process the entire number of mustard agent H munitions stored at BGAD in parallel with the processing of VX- and GB-filled projectiles and rockets through the main process of the BGCAPP. This would reduce the overall BGAD schedule by 8 months. Although the EDS technology has proven its ability to process the type of munitions that are associated with Requirement BG-2, its low processing rate would require a very long period of operation. The EDS was therefore eliminated from further consideration for Requirement BG-2. TDC The TC-60 TDC technology and other models of CH2M HILL’s TDC technology have been used extensively for the destruction of chemical weapons. However, the TC-60 TDC has never destroyed 155-mm projectiles filled with mustard agent. In a 2008 campaign at Schofield Barracks in Hawaii, 38 phosgenefilled 155-mm projectiles were destroyed. One projectile was destroyed per detonation. The operations in Hawaii experienced various mechanical and electrical problems. These problems were being corrected as this report was being written. TC-60 TDC operations at Porton Down showed that one detonation every 35 minutes is possible. A 35-minute cycle would correspond to 17 detonations per 10-hour shift. At this rate, 882 days of operation (2.83 years) would be required to destroy the 15,000 projectiles. The committee thus projected a campaign that would last about 2.8 years to about 5.7 years. The TC-60 TDC has been permitted and operated in the United States to destroy chemical weapons. When obtaining the permits for operation of the TC-60 TDC in Hawaii, no public opposition was experienced. The TC-60 TDC has also been through the DDESB approval process. This will be of benefit in obtaining future DDESB approvals. The TC-60 TDC produces moderate amounts of secondary waste, which might or might not contain contaminants at concentrations of regulatory concern. The scrap metal is thermally decontaminated (to ≤1VSL)5 before it is removed from the detonation chamber. 4 Because only the most important findings and recommendations were repeated in the summary, Finding 4-1 and Recommendation 4-1 do not appear here. 5 Vapor screening levels (VSLs) are based on the airborne exposure limits (AELs) that have been established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and vary depending on the agent. For mustard agent, 1 VSL is equal to 0.003 mg/m3. This use of VSLs has replaced an earlier system used by the Army to characterize the degree of agent decontamination. That system was based on procedural methods and used values of 1X, 3X, and 5X, the latter indicating complete decontamination. The 3X classification is analogous to a determination of ≤1VSL. The VSL system will be used throughout this report to indicate the level of mustard agent decontamination.
OCR for page 8
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants The destruction efficiency (DE) for mustard agent is >99.9999 percent. The system is transportable, which is a significant advantage. DAVINCH DAVINCH is a mature technology for chemical agent destruction but has not as yet been demonstrated in the United States. Although it has not been used to destroy mustard agent-filled 155-mm projectiles, it should be able to do so. The DAVINCH DV65 is capable of destroying two 155-mm projectiles per shot for nine shots per 10-hr day. At this throughput of 18 projectiles per day, it would take 834 days, or 139 6-day weeks (2.7 years), to destroy the 15,000 mustard agent H-filled projectiles at BGAD. The committee projected a campaign length ranging from about 2.7 years to about 5.3 years. The DAVINCH technology has not been permitted or received DDESB approval for an application in the United States. When processing 155-mm mustard agent H projectiles, several waste streams will be produced. The metal parts will have been heat treated in the vessel to a point where they can be released or recycled. Following treatment in the cold plasma oxidizer, the process offgas enters a retention tank for testing. If the quantity of agent in the offgas is >1 VSL, it is recycled through the DAVINCH vessel and the cold plasma oxidizer for further treatment. The volumes of each waste stream from the processing of 155-mm projectiles are not known but are expected to be small unless there is a large volume of liquid wastes. DEs are sufficiently high. The system is not transportable. SDC2000 The Dynasafe static detonation chamber (SDC2000) is a mature technology for destruction of the type of chemical weapon in Requirement BG-2. As indicated in Chapter 4, over 13,000 recovered munitions were destroyed at the Münster, Germany, facility. The technology has not been demonstrated in the United States and Dynasafe has not designed, built, or tested the air pollution control system proposed for use in the United States. However, the committee was confident that Dynasafe AB will be able to provide an air pollution control system that removes agent to below detection levels. The system is not transportable. According to Tables 4-7 and 4-8 in Appendix A, the Dynasafe SDC2000 can destroy two 155-mm projectiles per cycle and can conduct two cycles per hour. The committee has projected a campaign lasting from about 1.6 years to about 3.2 years. The SDC2000 is rated highly for safety. Once the munitions have been transported to the Dynasafe SDC2000, the processing is automatic and no external explosives need to be attached. This minimizes the exposure of the operators to explosives. The Dynasafe SDC2000 has not been permitted in the United States to destroy chemical weapons. The acidic and basic scrubbers would produce no liquid effluents but would produce up to 500 lb per day of salts as a filter cake. Overall Ratings for Requirement BG-2 The overall ratings are shown in Table S-2. The TC-60 TDC received a summed rating of 53 out of a possible 70. The DAVINCH DV65 and the Dynasafe SDC2000 received summed ratings of 59 and 58, respectively. Thus, the Army should give preference to the DAVINCH DV-65 and the Dynasafe SDC2000 for this requirement. The TC-60 TDC is also acceptable, however. Finding 4-3. The DAVINCH DV65 and the Dynasafe SDC2000 are rated approximately equally and slightly higher than the TC-60 TDC for Requirement BG-2. Recommendation 4-3. The Army should give preference to the use of the DAVINCH DV65 or the Dynasafe SDC2000 for Requirement BG-2, the destruction of 15,000 mustard-filled projectiles at BGCAPP. The TC-60 TDC is rated lower but would also be acceptable. REQUIREMENT BG-3: DESTRUCTION OF APPROXIMATELY 70,000 NONCONTAMINATED M55 ROCKET MOTORS AND 15,000 MUSTARD AGENT H-FILLED 155-mm PROJECTILES AT BLUE GRASS Requirement BG-3 is the combination of Requirements BG-1 and BG-2, and the preceding evaluation discussions for BG-1 and BG-2 apply. For this requirement, a combination of two CH2M HILL technologies was considered. The D-100 would be used for the destruction of the noncontaminated M55 rocket motors,
OCR for page 9
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants and the TC-60 TDC would be used for destruction of the mustard agent-filled projectiles. This combination of systems from CH2M HILL was compared with single systems from other vendors for Requirement BG-3. It is expected that ACWA will be able to consider the committee’s evaluations and recommendations for Requirements BG-1 (noncontaminated rocket motors only) and BG-2 (mustard agent projectiles only) and come to its own conclusions on the use of such combinations. The projected campaign length ranges for the EDTs that can accomplish Requirement BG-3 are as follows: D-100 and TC-60 TDC combination: a range of 2.8 to 5.6 years if the two campaigns are done in parallel or 4.1 to 8.2 years if they are done sequentially. DAVINCH DV65: 8.9 to 17.8 years. SDC2000: 3.8 to 7.7 years. Overall Ratings for Requirement BG-3 The overall ratings are shown in Table S-3. The summed rating for the D-100 and TC-60 combination is 62 out of a possible 80, the summed rating for the SDC2000 is 66, and the summed rating for the DAVINCH DV65 is 65. The EDS is not suitable for Requirement BG-3. Thus, the D-100 and TC-60 TDC combination, the DAVINCH DV65, and the SDC2000 are rated about the same, and all are viable candidates. Finding 4-4. The CH2M HILL D-100 and TC-60 TDC combination, the DAVINCH DV65, and the Dynasafe SDC2000 technologies are rated approximately the same and are all acceptable candidates for Requirement BG-3, although the time needed for use of a single DV65 operating 60 hours per week might be considered excessively long by the Army. All will require testing or further testing before a final selection can be made. Recommendation 4-4. If the results of testing on rocket motor destruction are favorable for all of the explosive destruction technologies suitable to this task, the Army could use either the CH2M HILL D-100 and TC-60 TDC combination, the DAVINCH DV65, or the Dynasafe SDC2000 technology for Requirement BG-3. The campaign length for use of a single DV65 operating at 60 hours per week might be considered excessively long by the Army. REQUIREMENT P-1: DESTRUCTION OF ALL LEAKERS AND REJECT MUNITIONS AT PUEBLO COMPRISING APPROXIMATELY 1,000 ROUNDS OF MUSTARD AGENT HD/HT-FILLED MUNITIONS (MIXTURE OF 4.2-in. MORTARS AND 105- AND 155-mm PROJECTILES) As of mid-2008, there were 45 overpacked munitions stored at PCD. This number is expected to grow to about 1,000 munitions as destruction of munitions proceeds in the main processing unit. These munitions will be overpacked. Processing them in an EDT will significantly shorten the schedule and reduce risk to the operating staff by minimizing the need for intermediate storage with multiple handling requirements. EDS The EDS is a mature technology for chemical agent destruction and has been demonstrated in the United States. It has been shown to be capable of processing the types of munitions that are associated with Requirement P-1. Agent is destroyed to acceptable levels. The system is transportable. The EDS-2 has a relatively low throughput of one 155-mm projectile every 2 days but can destroy six 4.2-in. mortars in the same period. The committee projects a campaign length of about 2.9 years to about 5.7 years. Two EDS-2s could complete the mission in about 1.4 to about 2.9 years. The EDS has been permitted in the United States and has not drawn any notable public opposition to its use at a number of different locations. The EDS-2 produces a relatively large volume of secondary waste in liquid form, 8-10 gallons per detonation. This is a disadvantage vis-à-vis the other technologies. The EDS has a hold-test-release capability for the liquid waste to ensure that agent destruction has been completed before the waste is released from the unit and passed to storage. T-60 TDC, DAVINCH DV65, and SDC2000 For these three vendor-supplied technologies, the discussions on evaluation factors for Requirement BG-2 apply. Campaign lengths projected by the committee would be relatively short: TC-60 TDC, about 10 weeks to about 20 weeks; DAVINCH DV65, about 5 weeks to about 10 weeks; and SDC2000, about 2 weeks to about 4 weeks.
OCR for page 10
Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants Summary Finding and Recommendation for Requirement P-1 Table S-4 presents the overall ratings for Requirement P-1. The EDS has the highest summed rating, 73 out of a possible 80. The DAVINCH DV65 is second and is very close to the EDS at 71. The Dynasafe SDC2000 follows at 68, and the TC-60 TDC is at 65. Finding 4-5. The EDS-2 is well suited for Requirement P-1. It has an advantage over the other three systems with respect to maturity. Its hold-test-release feature is an advantage. The DAVINCH DV65 is a close second choice. The Dynasafe SDC2000 and the TC-60 TDC are also acceptable choices. Recommendation 4-5. For Requirement P-1, the Army should use one or more EDS-2 units or the DAVINCH DV65 technology. The Dynasafe SDC2000 and the TC-60 TDC are also acceptable choices.