Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants (2009)

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

Summary The Army’s ability to meet public and ­congressional sites, and the evaluations were reported on in 2006, in demands to destroy expeditiously all of the U.S.-declared Review of International Technologies for Destruction chemical weapons would be enhanced by the selection of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel, hereinafter and acquisition of appropriate explosive destruction referred to as the International Technologies report. technologies (EDTs) to augment the main technologies The first and the third of these three EDTS—the to be used to destroy the chemical weapons currently at DAVINCH and Dynasafe’s SDC2000—and a variant the Blue Grass Army Depot (BGAD) in Kentucky and of the second EDT (CH2M HILL’s D-100, which is the Pueblo Chemical Depot (PCD) in Colorado. The designed for the destruction of conventional weapons Army is considering four EDTs (detonation technolo- only) are being considered for destruction of the nearly gies) for the destruction of chemical weapons. Three of 70,000 M55 rocket motors at BGAD that have not been them are available from private sector vendors; the fourth contaminated with chemical agent. The D-100 was not is the Army-developed explosive destruction system described in the International Technologies report. (EDS). Because of the high public, congressional, and The committee’s complete statement of task is regulatory visibility of the chemical weapons destruction provided in the preface. Its main responsibilities are program, it is critical to provide a transparent compara- these: tive technical evaluation of these technologies to assist the Army in selecting a technology or combination of 1. Update earlier evaluations of the DV-65, the technologies to augment the main destruction operations TC-60, the SDC2000, and the EDS Phase II at BGAD and PCD. (EDS-2), which appeared in the International The specific models of the three vendor-supplied Technologies report, as well as any other viable EDTs designed for use on mustard agent munitions detonation technologies, based on considerations evaluated in this report are (1) the DV65 model of of process maturity, process efficacy, process the detonation of ammunition in a vacuum integrated throughput, process safety, public and regulatory chamber (DAVINCH) technology from Kobe Steel, acceptability, secondary waste issues, destruction Ltd.; (2) the TC-60 model of the transportable detona- verification capability, and, where applicable, tion chamber (TDC), formerly the controlled detona- flexibility. tion chamber (CDC), from CH2M HILL; and (3) the SDC2000 model of the static detonation chamber, for- merly called the static kiln, from Dynasafe. These three The previous evaluations appeared in Review of International EDTs, along with the Army’s EDS, were previously Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare evaluated by the NRC for their usefulness in destroy- ­ ateriel, Chapter 4, which is reprinted as Appendix A of this M ing recovered chemical warfare materiel from burial report.  

 ASSESSMENT OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES 2. Obtain detailed information on each of the abandoned chemical munitions recovered from burial requirements at BGAD and PCD and rate each sites in ­Belgium. It was further refined through testing of the existing suitable EDTs available from the programs in the United Kingdom and was recently vendors and the Army’s EDS with respect to used in Hawaii to destroy recovered chemical warfare how well it satisfies these requirements in order materiel. No substantial changes have been made to to recommend a preferred technology for each the TDC process since the International Technologies requirement. report was published in 2006. The TC-60 TDC has three main components: a deto- nation chamber, an expansion chamber, and an emis- Requirements For USE of Explosive sions control system. A munition wrapped in explosive Destruction TechnolOgies at ACWA Sites is mounted in the detonation chamber. The floor of the This report addresses three prospective require- chamber is covered with pea gravel, which absorbs ments involving the use of EDTs to augment the pri- some of the blast energy. Bags containing water are sus- mary chemical weapons destruction processes of the pended near the projectile to help absorb blast energy Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant and to produce steam, which reacts with agent vapors. (BGCAPP), which is now under construction: Oxygen is added when destroying munitions contain- ing mustard agent. After the explosive is detonated, the • Requirement BG-1 is the processing of approxi- gases are vented to an expansion chamber, then to the mately 70,000 M55 rocket motors at Blue Grass emissions control system. The offgas treatment system that are not contaminated with agent. Current includes a reactive-bed ceramic filter to remove acidic plans call for shipment of these noncontaminated gases and to collect particulates such as soot and dust rocket motors to an off-site location for process- from the pea gravel. A catalytic oxidation (CATOX) ing; destruction in an EDT is being considered as unit oxidizes hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and organic an alternative. vapors from the gas stream before the stream is vented • Requirement BG-2 is the processing of approxi- through a carbon adsorption bed and released to the mately 15,000 mustard agent H projectiles by atmosphere. one or more EDTs. According to Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) staff, D-100 this would save approximately 8 months in the overall BGCAPP schedule. A nontransportable detonation chamber, termed the • Requirement BG-3 is the combination of require- D-100 and offered by CH2M HILL, has been installed ments BG-1 and BG-2. at BGAD for destruction of conventional munitions (as opposed to the chemical stockpile stored there). The report also addresses a single requirement involv- BGAD, in partnership with CH2M HILL, has proposed ing the use of EDTs to augment operations at the Pueblo to BGCAPP a program to test the technical feasibil- Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant (PCAPP): ity of using the D-100 system to destroy the rocket motors by static firing. The D-100 has a large detona- • Requirement P-1 is the destruction of all ­leakers tion chamber, with internal dimensions of 14 ft wide and reject munitions at Pueblo. About 1,000 × 16 ft high × 20 ft long. This chamber is connected mustard agent-filled munitions, a mixture of to a cylindrical expansion tank that is 10 ft in diameter 4.2-in. mortars, 105-mm projectiles, and 155-mm and 71 ft long. Exhaust gases pass from the expansion projectiles, would be destroyed. These munitions tank to an air pollution control system consisting of a will be overpacked. 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 the Explosive Destruction Technologies a site safety submission that includes the use of 49.3 lb TNT-equivalent net explosive weight (NEW) TC-60 TDC The CH2M HILL TDC was originally developed The CH2M HILL D-100 technology is not suitable for destroy- in the United States and then later used for treating ing chemical weapons. 

SUMMARY  total explosivesdonor plus munition. The Resource DAVINCH vessel are filtered to remove particulates Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permitting of and, with oxygen from an external supply, are pumped this system is under way. into the cold plasma oxidizer, which oxidizes CO to Before being processed, the rocket motors would be CO2. Condensate water is then recovered from the removed from their shipping and firing tubes (SFTs) and exhaust gas; the gas is passed through activated carbon their fins would be banded. Banding the fins prevents and exhausted to the atmosphere. them from deploying during subsequent processing. This allows easier handling when mounting the rocket SDC2000 motors in the firing stand and, after firing, removing the motors from the stand. The motors would then be The SDC2000 static detonation chamber is manu- loaded into a static firing stand, the stand moved into factured by Dynasafe AB, a Swedish company. Details the detonation chamber, and the firing wires connected. of the design and operation of the Dynasafe process After the chamber door is closed, the rocket motors are given in Appendix A, which is Chapter 4 of the would be ignited. The door would then be opened and 2006 International Technologies report. The Dynasafe the chamber ventilated for 5 to 10 minutes. The firing information presented in Appendix A remains gener- stand would be removed and replaced with another ally the same. firing stand freshly loaded with rocket motors. It is The detonation chamber is a nearly spherical, expected that 4 to 6 motors can be destroyed in each armored, high-alloy stainless steel vessel. The vessel firing cycle and that the throughput rate would be up is double-walled, with the inner wall considered to be to 18 motors per hour. BGAD has performed calcula- armored (UXB International, 2007). The 7.5-cm thick- tions showing that propellant in the rocket would have ness of the inner wall is much greater than required by a burn time of approximately 2.5 seconds and that the the mechanical stress loads caused by detonation pres- temperature in the chamber would rise by 32°F for each sures. Chemical munitions are placed in a cardboard rocket fired. box or carrier, which is transported to the top of the system. The boxed munitions are fed into the detona- tion chamber through two sequential loading cham- DV65 bers. The boxed munitions are dropped onto a heated Various DAVINCH models, corresponding to vari- (550°C-600°C) shrapnel (scrap) bed at the bottom of ous NEWs of the munition and its donor charge, have the detonation chamber, resulting in deflagration, deto- been built by Kobe Steel, Ltd., under the corporate nation, or burning of the munition’s explosive fill. The mark KOBELCO, and used in Japan and Belgium to chemical agent in the munitions is destroyed by the destroy chemical weapons. The technology has not shock wave from the detonation or by decomposition been used in the United States. due to the high heat in the chamber. The process uses a detonation chamber in which The offgas treatment system includes a cyclone for chemical munitions are destroyed when donor charges removal of large particulates and a flameless thermal surrounding the munitions are detonated. Offgases are oxidizer that converts carbon monoxide and hydrogen produced that require secondary treatment. A simpli- to carbon dioxide and water. This is followed by a fast fied process flow diagram is shown in Figure 4-3 of quench system to minimize dioxin and furan formation, the 2006 International Technologies report (see Appen- acidic and basic (caustic) scrubbers, and an adsorber/ dix A). Since that report was issued, however, several particulate filter system that uses Sorbalite, a mixture of changes have been made and implemented as part of calcium oxides and carbonates with activated carbon. the ongoing application of the DAVINCH technology at the Belgian military facility at Poelkapelle, Belgium EDS (see Chapter 3). The system installed at Poelkapelle is the DAVINCH DV50 model, a system with a slightly The U.S. Army’s EDSs are trailer-mounted mobile lower NEW capability than the DV65 model evaluated systems originally intended to destroy explosively con- in this report. The most substantial change involves the figured chemical munitions that are deemed unsafe to replacement of the offgas combustion chamber with transport. The system has been used to destroy chemi- a cold plasma oxidizer. In its current configuration, cal munitions with or without explosive components. the offgases resulting from agent destruction in the At the heart of the EDS system is an explosion contain- 

 ASSESSMENT OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES ment vessel. The EDS Phase 2 (EDS-2) containment BG-3, and P-1. These ratings reflect the committee’s vessel is designed to handle munitions containing up assessment of how well an EDT would perform in com- to 4.8 lb TNT-equivalent of explosives. The EDS uses parison with other EDTs in respect to eight evaluation explosive shaped charges to access the agent cavity and factors, as described in detail in Chapter 2. The results to destroy any energetics in the munition. After detona- are shown in Tables S-1, S-2, S-3, and S-4. The overall tion of the shaped charges, reagents appropriate to the approach to this assessment is explained in Chapter 4. agent to be neutralized are pumped into the vessel and Each committee member independently assigned a the vessel contents are mixed until the treatment goal value based on the following: has been attained. After the concentration of chemical agent falls below the treatment goal, as determined by • The information made available for each candi- sampling the contents of the chamber, the liquid waste date EDT; solution is transferred out of the chamber into a waste • The discussions and deliberations of the commit- drum. The drummed EDS liquid waste is normally tee members as a group; and treated further at a commercial hazardous waste treat- • A committee member’s perspective based on his ment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF). or her area of expertise. The committee used its collective judgment in rating EVALUATION CRITERIA technologies according to the factors and recognizes A rating system of 0 to 10 was used for each of that the procedure to some degree was a subjective one. eight evaluation factors for requirements BG-1, BG-2, 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 Evaluation Factor Public and Regulatory Secondary Destruction Process Process Process Process Acceptability in Waste Verification Process EDT Maturity Efficacy Throughput Safety a U.S. Context Issues Capability 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 Evaluation Factor Public and Regulatory Secondary Destruction Process Process Process Process Acceptability in Waste Verification Process EDT Maturity Efficacy Throughput Safety a U.S. Context Issues Capability 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. 

SUMMARY  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 Evaluation Factor Public and Regulatory Secondary Destruction Process Process Process Process Acceptability in Waste Verification Process EDT Maturity Efficacy Throughput Safety a U.S. Context Issues Capability Flexibility Total D-100 and TC-60 6 7 8 7 9 8  8 9 62 TDC combination 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) Evaluation Factor Public and Regulatory Secondary Destruction Process Process Process Process Acceptability in Waste Verification Process EDT Maturity Efficacy Throughput Safety a U.S. Context Issues Capability 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, A wealth of information on the characteristics and cost per munition destroyed, or any other economic fac- capabilities of the technology, on recent advances in its tors due to the proprietary nature of the information that development, and the arguments for assigning ratings would be needed to make such an evaluation, nor was it is contained in Chapters 3 and 4, so that in addition to asked to do so. See the section “Basis for Assessment” noting the individual and summed numerical ratings, at the beginning of Chapter 4 for information on how a reader should review these other chapters before the numerical ratings of 0 through 10 were assigned by engaging in discussions on the selection of an EDT for committee members. a particular requirement. Using the results of the rating procedure, the com- mittee recommended one or more EDTs that would Requirement BG-1: Destruction of best satisfy each requirement. Small differences, up Approximately 70,000 NonContaminated to about five points, in ratings were not considered M55 Rocket Motors at Blue Grass to be significant. The main finding and recommenda- tion from Chapter 4 associated with each of the four Noncontaminated rocket motors, unlike the associ- r ­ equirements—BG-1, BG-2, BG-3, and P-1—are given ated warheads, contain no agent, so Requirement BG-1 at the end of the text coverage for each requirement. can be considered to amount to conventional munitions 

 ASSESSMENT OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES disposal. The M55 rocket motor contains 19.3 lb of DAVINCH M28 double base (nitroglycerin and nitro­cellulose) The DAVINCH DV65 is capable of destroying M55 cast grain propellant. The U.S. Army’s EDS is not rocket motors, although to increase throughput, a pro- intended for processing M55 ­rockets because its explo- posed longer version of the DAVINCH, the DV120, sive containment capacity (4.8 lb NEW) is only about might be used. However, the DAVINCH technology has one-fourth of the capacity needed for a rocket motor. not yet been permitted to operate in the United States After discussions with the ACWA staff, it was decided since permits required under the RCRA and other laws to not evaluate the TC-60 TDC for the destruction of cannot be applied for unless a particular application noncontaminated rocket motors by either a static firing exists. approach or a donor charge approach for Requirement The DAVINCH system currently being used in BG-1, mainly because the TC-60 TDC is not designed Kanda Port, Japan, the DV65, has an explosion contain- for such an application but also because CH2M HILL ment capacity of 65 kg TNT-equivalent. The manufac- offers the D-100 system, which is designed to destroy turer claims that it can process four M55 rocket motors conventional weapons and which, if testing is suc- per shot with a throughput rate of nine shots (detonation cessful, should be usable for static firing of the non- events) per 10-hour day, which amounts to a cycle time contaminated rocket motors. Moreover, as previously of slightly more than 1 hour. From this information, the explained, a D-100 system is already installed at committee has projected a campaign length ranging BGAD. Accordingly, the D-100 system was evaluated from about 6.2 years to about 12.5 years for Require- for Requirement BG-1 and the TC-60 TDC was evalu- ment BG-1. ated for Requirement BG-2. In limited testing, it was demonstrated that a An analysis by BGAD concluded that between four DAVINCH system is capable of destroying a simu- and six motors could be fired in each cycle with the lated rocket motor. Tests with actual rockets would be D-100, with the vendor claiming a firing cycle time of needed before this technology could be selected for 20 minutes. Based on six motors per cycle, three cycles Requirement BG-1. per hour, and 10 hours per day, the daily throughput of motors would be 180. On this basis the commit- tee ­ projected a campaign length ranging from about SDC2000 1.2 years to about 2.5 years. Dynasafe has had extensive experience with the Use of the D-100 would not require attaching donor SDC2000 model in Germany and Taiwan. The feed explosives to the rocket motors. The firing of the rocket system of the SDC2000 at Münster, Germany, was too motors would instead be initiated using the existing small to accommodate the long rocket motors, but the igniters. If they are no longer reliable, new igniters vendor says the feed system can be enlarged if a new could be installed in the motors. system is built for BGCAPP. In addition, the NEW The volumes of wastes generated are small. The limit for the SDC2000 system at Münster is limited scrap metal will of course be free of chemical agent. by permit to 2.3 kg, which is one-fourth of the NEW The dust from the filter will contain lead from the lead of the rocket motor. It was therefore not possible to stearate in the propellant. It could possibly be defined conduct testing using a whole rocket motor. For a new as a RCRA hazardous waste. system constructed for BGCAPP, Dynasafe claims the Two D-100 systems have been installed at the Milan NEW limit can be up to 10 kg depending on the choice Army Ammunition Plant in Tennessee. The systems of an inner chamber design specification. This is just have been permitted and were used to destroy 25,000 sufficient to withstand the unexpected detonation of a 155-mm projectiles containing submunition grenades. single rocket motor with its 19.3 lb (8.8 kg) of propel- A testing program with the goal of demonstrating lant. Additional testing would be needed before this that the D-100 will work as expected has been pro- technology could be selected for Requirement BG-1. posed, but no actual testing has been done. Tests with The Dynasafe technology has not yet been given actual rockets would be needed before this technology a permit to destroy chemical weapons in the United could be selected for Requirement BG-1. 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 http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m55.htm. 

SUMMARY  projects a campaign length from about 2.2 years to overall BGAD schedule by 8 months. Although the EDS about 4.5 years. The SDC, which is rated highly for technology has proven its ability to process the type of safety, involves minimal handling of the munition and munitions that are associated with Requirement BG-2, no handling of donor explosives. its low processing rate would require a very long period Secondary waste production is moderate. The of operation. The EDS was therefore eliminated from a ­ queous scrubbers would produce no liquid effluents further consideration for Requirement BG-2. but would produce up to 500 lb per day of salts as a filter cake. The rocket motors contain lead, and the salts TDC resulting from rocket motor processing could be haz- ardous for that reason. The scrap metal can be released The TC-60 TDC technology and other models for unrestricted use. 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 Overall Ratings for Requirement BG-1 projectiles filled with mustard agent. In a 2008 cam- The high-throughput D-100 static firing system is paign at Schofield Barracks in Hawaii, 38 phosgene- clearly the most satisfactory EDT for Requirement filled 155-mm projectiles were destroyed. One projec- BG-1. The summed rating for the D-100 unit is 54 out of tile was destroyed per detonation. The operations in a possible 70. The DAVINCH DV65 and the ­Dynasafe Hawaii experienced various mechanical and electrical SDC2000 are rated equally at 46. The DV65 and the problems. These problems were being corrected as this SDC2000 have not been permitted or operated in the report was being written. United States, and their throughput rate is not as good TC-60 TDC operations at Porton Down showed as that of the D-100. that one detonation every 35 minutes is possible. A 35-minute cycle would correspond to 17 detonations Finding 4-2. The CH2M HILL D-100 detonation per 10-hour shift. At this rate, 882 days of operation chamber for conventional munitions, using static (2.83 years) would be required to destroy the 15,000 fi ­ ring of the rocket motors, is best suited for Require- projectiles. The committee thus projected a campaign ment BG-1. The DAVINCH DV65 and the Dynasafe that would last about 2.8 years to about 5.7 years. SDC2000 are acceptable second choices. The TC-60 TDC has been permitted and operated in the United States to destroy chemical weapons. When Recommendation 4-2. For Requirement BG-1, if obtaining the permits for operation of the TC-60 TDC testing is successful, the Army should use the CH2M in Hawaii, no public opposition was experienced. HILL D-100 detonation chamber at BGAD, with static The TC-60 TDC has also been through the DDESB firing of the rocket motors. The Army should consider approval process. This will be of benefit in obtaining the Dynasafe SDC2000 and the DAVINCH DV65 as future DDESB approvals. acceptable second choices. The TC-60 TDC produces moderate amounts of sec- ondary waste, which might or might not contain con- taminants at concentrations of regulatory concern. The Requirement BG-2: Destruction scrap metal is thermally decontaminated (to ≤1VSL) of APPROXIMATELY 15,000 Mustard before it is removed from the detonation chamber. Agent H-filled 155-mm projectiles at Blue Grass Vapor screening levels (VSLs) are based on the airborne expo- Implementation of Requirement BG-2 would allow an EDT to process the entire number of mustard agent H sure limits (AELs) that have been established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and vary depending on the agent. munitions stored at BGAD in parallel with the process- For mustard agent, 1 VSL is equal to 0.003 mg/m3. This use of ing of VX- and GB-filled projectiles and rockets through VSLs has replaced an earlier system used by the Army to charac- the main process of the BGCAPP. This would reduce the terize the degree of agent decontamination. That system was based on procedural methods and used values of 1X, 3X, and 5X, the l ­atter indicating complete decontamination. The 3X classification Because only the most important findings and recommendations is analogous to a determination of ≤1VSL. The VSL system will be were repeated in the summary, Finding 4-1 and Recommendation used throughout this report to indicate the level of mustard agent 4-1 do not appear here. decontamination. 

 ASSESSMENT OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES The destruction efficiency (DE) for mustard agent is According to Tables 4-7 and 4-8 in Appendix A, the >99.9999 percent. The system is transportable, which Dynasafe SDC2000 can destroy two 155-mm projec- is a significant advantage. tiles 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. DAVINCH The SDC2000 is rated highly for safety. Once the DAVINCH is a mature technology for chemical munitions have been transported to the Dynasafe agent destruction but has not as yet been demonstrated SDC2000, the processing is automatic and no external in the United States. Although it has not been used explosives need to be attached. This minimizes the to destroy mustard agent-filled 155-mm projectiles, exposure of the operators to explosives. it should be able to do so. The DAVINCH DV65 is The Dynasafe SDC2000 has not been permitted in capable of destroying two 155-mm projectiles per shot the United States to destroy chemical weapons. for nine shots per 10-hr day. At this throughput of 18 The acidic and basic scrubbers would produce no projectiles per day, it would take 834 days, or 139 6-day liquid effluents but would produce up to 500 lb per day weeks (2.7 years), to destroy the 15,000 mustard agent of salts as a filter cake. H-filled projectiles at BGAD. The committee projected a campaign length ranging from about 2.7 years to Overall Ratings for Requirement BG-2 about 5.3 years. The DAVINCH technology has not been permitted The overall ratings are shown in Table S-2. The or received DDESB approval for an application in the TC-60 TDC received a summed rating of 53 out of a United States. possible 70. The DAVINCH DV65 and the Dynasafe When processing 155-mm mustard agent H projec- SDC2000 received summed ratings of 59 and 58, tiles, several waste streams will be produced. The metal respectively. Thus, the Army should give preference to parts will have been heat treated in the vessel to a point the DAVINCH DV-65 and the Dynasafe SDC2000 for where they can be released or recycled. Following treat- this requirement. The TC-60 TDC is also acceptable, ment in the cold plasma oxidizer, the process offgas however. enters a retention tank for testing. If the quantity of agent in the offgas is >1 VSL, it is recycled through the Finding 4-3. The DAVINCH DV65 and the Dynasafe DAVINCH vessel and the cold plasma oxidizer for fur- SDC2000 are rated approximately equally and slightly ther treatment. The volumes of each waste stream from higher than the TC-60 TDC for Requirement BG-2. the processing of 155-mm projectiles are not known but are expected to be small unless there is a large volume Recommendation 4-3. The Army should give prefer- of liquid wastes. DEs are sufficiently high. The system ence to the use of the DAVINCH DV65 or the Dyna- is not transportable. safe 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 SDC2000 acceptable. The Dynasafe static detonation chamber (SDC2000) is a mature technology for destruction of the type of Requirement BG-3: Destruction of chemical weapon in Requirement BG-2. As indicated APPROXIMATELY 70,000 NonContaminated in Chapter 4, over 13,000 recovered munitions were M55 Rocket Motors and 15,000 Mustard destroyed at the Münster, Germany, facility. The tech- Agent H-FILLED 155-mm Projectiles at nology has not been demonstrated in the United States Blue Grass and Dynasafe has not designed, built, or tested the air pollution control system proposed for use in the United Requirement BG-3 is the combination of Require- States. However, the committee was confident that ments BG-1 and BG-2, and the preceding evaluation Dynasafe AB will be able to provide an air pollution discussions for BG-1 and BG-2 apply. For this require- control system that removes agent to below detection ment, a combination of two CH2M HILL technologies levels. The system is not transportable. was considered. The D-100 would be used for the destruction of the noncontaminated M55 rocket motors, 

SUMMARY  and the TC-60 TDC would be used for destruction of Requirement P-1: Destruction of all the mustard agent-filled projectiles. This combination leakers and reject munitions at Pueblo of systems from CH2M HILL was compared with Comprising approximately 1,000 rounds single systems from other vendors for Requirement of Mustard Agent HD/HT-filled MUNITIONS BG-3. It is expected that ACWA will be able to consider (mixture of 4.2-in. mortars and 105- and the committee’s evaluations and recommendations for 155-mm projectiles) Requirements BG-1 (noncontaminated rocket motors only) and BG-2 (mustard agent projectiles only) and As of mid-2008, there were 45 overpacked muni- come to its own conclusions on the use of such com- tions stored at PCD. This number is expected to grow binations. The projected campaign length ranges for to about 1,000 munitions as destruction of munitions the EDTs that can accomplish Requirement BG-3 are proceeds in the main processing unit. These munitions as follows: will be overpacked. Processing them in an EDT will significantly shorten the schedule and reduce risk to the • D-100 and TC-60 TDC combination: a range of operating staff by minimizing the need for intermediate 2.8 to 5.6 years if the two campaigns are done storage with multiple handling requirements. in parallel or 4.1 to 8.2 years if they are done sequentially. EDS • DAVINCH DV65: 8.9 to 17.8 years. • SDC2000: 3.8 to 7.7 years. 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 Overall Ratings for Requirement BG-3 the types of munitions that are associated with Require- The overall ratings are shown in Table S-3. The ment P-1. Agent is destroyed to acceptable levels. The summed rating for the D-100 and TC-60 combina- system is transportable. tion is 62 out of a possible 80, the summed rating The EDS-2 has a relatively low throughput of one for the SDC2000 is 66, and the summed rating for 155-mm projectile every 2 days but can destroy six the DAVINCH DV65 is 65. The EDS is not suitable 4.2-in. mortars in the same period. The committee for Requirement BG-3. Thus, the D-100 and TC-60 projects a campaign length of about 2.9 years to about TDC combination, the DAVINCH DV65, and the 5.7 years. Two EDS-2s could complete the mission in SDC2000 are rated about the same, and all are viable about 1.4 to about 2.9 years. candidates. The EDS has been permitted in the United States and has not drawn any notable public opposition to its use Finding 4-4. The CH2M HILL D-100 and TC-60 TDC at a number of different locations. combination, the DAVINCH DV65, and the Dynasafe The EDS-2 produces a relatively large volume SDC2000 technologies are rated approximately the of secondary waste in liquid form, 8-10 gallons per same and are all acceptable candidates for Requirement detonation. This is a disadvantage vis-à-vis the other BG-3, although the time needed for use of a single technologies. The EDS has a hold-test-release capabil- DV65 operating 60 hours per week might be considered ity for the liquid waste to ensure that agent destruction excessively long by the Army. All will require testing or has been completed before the waste is released from further testing before a final selection can be made. the unit and passed to storage. Recommendation 4-4. If the results of testing on T-60 TDC, DAVINCH DV65, and SDC2000 rocket motor destruction are favorable for all of the explosive destruction technologies suitable to this task, For these three vendor-supplied technologies, the the Army could use either the CH2M HILL D-100 and discussions on evaluation factors for Requirement BG-2 TC-60 TDC combination, the DAVINCH DV65, or apply. Campaign lengths projected by the committee the Dynasafe SDC2000 technology for Requirement would be relatively short: TC-60 TDC, about 10 weeks BG-3. The campaign length for use of a single DV65 to about 20 weeks; DAVINCH DV65, about 5 weeks to operating at 60 hours per week might be considered about 10 weeks; and SDC2000, about 2 weeks to about excessively long by the Army. 4 weeks. 

10 ASSESSMENT OF EXPLOSIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES Summary Finding and Recommendation for with respect to maturity. Its hold-test-release feature is Requirement P-1 an advantage. The DAVINCH DV65 is a close second choice. The Dynasafe SDC2000 and the TC-60 TDC Table S-4 presents the overall ratings for Require- are also acceptable choices. ment P-1. The EDS has the highest summed rating, 73 out of a possible 80. The DAVINCH DV65 is second Recommendation 4-5. For Requirement P-1, the Army and is very close to the EDS at 71. The Dynasafe should use one or more EDS-2 units or the DAVINCH SDC2000 follows at 68, and the TC-60 TDC is at 65. DV65 technology. The Dynasafe SDC2000 and the TC-60 TDC are also acceptable choices. Finding 4-5. The EDS-2 is well suited for Requirement P-1. It has an advantage over the other three systems