Effects of the Deletion of
Chemical Agent Washout on Operations at the
Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant

Committee on Effects of the Deletion of Chemical Agent Washout
on Operations at the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant

Board on Army Science and Technology

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, DC
www.nap.edu

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS • 500 Fifth Street, NW • Washington, DC 20001

This activity was supported by Contract No. W911NF-15-1-0465 with the U.S. Department of Defense. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-38948-8
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-38948-8
Digital Object Identifier: 10.17226/21884

Additional copies of this report are available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.

Copyright 2016 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Effects of the Deletion of Chemical Agent Washout on Operations at the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/21884.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.

This page intentionally left blank.

COMMITTEE ON EFFECTS OF THE DELETION OF CHEMICAL AGENT WASHOUT ON OPERATIONS AT THE BLUE GRASS CHEMICAL AGENT DESTRUCTION PILOT PLANT

GARY S. GROENEWOLD, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Chair

HEREK L. CLACK, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

RICHARD C. FLAGAN, NAE,¹ California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

REBECCA A. HAFFENDEN, Argonne National Laboratory, Santa Fe, New Mexico

THOM J. HODGSON, NAE, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina

MURRAY GLENN LORD, The Dow Chemical Company, Freeport, Texas

WILLIAM J. WARD, NAE, GE Corporate Research and Development (retired), Niskayuna, New York

Staff

BRUCE BRAUN, Director, Board on Army Science and Technology

JAMES C. MYSKA, Study Director

NIA D. JOHNSON, Senior Research Associate

DEANNA SPARGER, Program Administrative Coordinator

___________________

¹ Member of the National Academy of Engineering.

BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

DAVID M. MADDOX, NAE,¹ Independent Consultant, Arlington, Virginia, Chair

JEAN D. REED, National Defense University, Arlington, Virginia, Vice Chair

SCOTT BADENOCH, Badenoch, LLC, Southfield, Michigan

STEVEN W. BOUTELLE, CISCO Consulting Services, Herndon, Virginia

CARL A. CASTRO, Center for Innovation and Research and Military Families, University of Southern California, Los Angeles

DAVID E. CROW, NAE, University of Connecticut, Glastonbury

REGINALD DESROCHES, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta

EARL H. DOWELL, NAE, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina

FRANCIS J. DOYLE III, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

JULIA D. ERDLEY, Pennsylvania State University, State College

LESTER A. FOSTER, Electronic Warfare Associates, Herndon, Virginia

JAMES A. FREEBERSYSER, BBN Technology, St. Louis Park, Minnesota

PETER N. FULLER, Cypress International, Springfield, Virginia

R. JOHN HANSMAN, NAE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

J. SEAN HUMBERT, University of Colorado, Boulder

JOHN W. HUTCHINSON, NAE/NAS,² Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

JENNIE HWANG, NAE, H-Technologies Group, Cleveland, Ohio

BRUCE D. JETTE, Synovision Solutions, LLC, Burke, Virginia

JOHN JOANNOPOULOS, NAS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

ROBIN L. KEESEE, Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (retired), Fairfax, Virginia

ERIC T. MATSON, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

ROGER L. McCARTHY, NAE, McCarthy Engineering, Palo Alto, California

MICHAEL McGRATH, McGrath Analytics, LLC, Reston, Virginia

ALLAN T. MENSE, Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Arizona

WALTER F. MORRISON, Booz Allen Hamilton (retired), Alexandria, Virginia

SCOTT PARAZYNSKI, Arizon State University, Tempe

DANIEL PODOLSKY, NAE, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas

KENNETH M. ROSEN, General Aero-Science Consultants, LLC, Guilford, Connecticut

LEON E. SALOMON, Independent Consultant, Gulfport, Florida

ALBERT A. SCIARRETTA, CNS Technologies, Inc., Springfield, Virginia

NEIL SIEGEL, NAE, North Grumman Information Systems, Carson, California

LAWRENCE D. STONE, NAE, Metron, Inc., Reston, Virginia

MICHAEL A. VANE, Independent Consultant, Shaver Lake, California

Staff

BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director

CHRIS JONES, Financial Associate

JAMES C. MYSKA, Program Officer

NIA D. JOHNSON, Senior Research Associate

DEANNA P. SPARGER, Program Administrative Coordinator

___________________

¹ Member of the National Academy of Engineering.

² Member of the National Academy of Sciences.

Preface

The Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant (BGCAPP) was designed and constructed at the Blue Grass Army Depot in Richmond, Kentucky, for the purpose of destroying rockets and artillery projectiles that contain the nerve agents GB and VX. These nerve agents are chemical warfare agents, and the United States is obligated by the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty to destroy them. BGCAPP is a chemical processing plant specifically designed to access munition cavities and drain liquid agents. Agent remaining in the munitions was originally to have been washed out using a stream of hot, high-pressure water. The agent and washout water were to have been combined and then reacted with sodium hydroxide, which chemically degrades the nerve agents. In addition to treating the agent, the BGCAPP also processes other multiple solid, liquid, and gaseous waste streams.

The mixtures of the agents with washout water generated by the initial drain-water washout process had the potential to create problems that would degrade the safety of operations and compromise the materials used in the agent transfer lines. Consequently, BGCAPP program management decided that these problems could be mitigated by eliminating the water washout process. This decision resulted in munitions bodies containing significant residual agent on surfaces or in crevices being sent into some BGCAPP processes that, in some instances, were not originally designed for agent destruction; and in others, resulted in higher agent loads than originally intended.

This report describes possible outcomes of the deletion of the water washout process that are related to the partitioning of agent into multiple processing streams within BGCAPP. These outcomes include the necessity of some processing units treating more agent than was initially planned, impacts on BGCAPP’s ability to meet and demonstrate achieving legally required destruction efficiency criteria, and impacts on process modeling and the ability to computationally predict munitions throughput and completion dates for munitions destruction campaigns.

I am very thankful for the members of the Committee on Effects of the Deletion of Chemical Agent Washout on Operations at the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant, who served in a volunteer capacity but nevertheless were exceptionally generous with their expertise and time. They attended briefings at BGCAPP and two writing meetings at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine facilities in Washington, D.C.

The committee is indebted to the BGCAPP staff, being the beneficiary of extensive briefings and literature that they provided. The BGCAPP staff members were remarkable in their patience and energy as they responded to repeated requests for information. They displayed a high level of expertise throughout the course of this study.

The committee is also grateful for the support of the Academies staff, particularly Deanna Sparger, Nia Johnson, Jim Myska, and Bruce Braun. Their attention to logistical detail and the long-running familiarity with the BGCAPP endeavor was significant and highly appreciated over the course of this study.

Gary S. Groenewold, Chair
Committee on Effects of the
Deletion of Chemical Agent Washout on
Operations at the Blue Grass Chemical
Agent Destruction Pilot Plant

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 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:

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), who was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

Contents

SUMMARY

1 INTRODUCTION

Processing of Rocket Warheads

Processing of Projectiles

Concerns Related to the Operation of the Plant as Originally Designed

Washout Deletion Modifications

Statement of Task

Approach to the Statement of Task and Organization of the Report

References

2 PLANT PROCESS CHANGES AS A RESULT OF WASHOUT DELETION

Rocket and Projectile Drain Operations

Strainer Sock Loading

MPT and Plant Off-Gas Treatment System (OTM)

EBH and Off-Gas Treatment System for the Energetics Neutralization System (OTE)

Impacts on the Overall MDB HVAC System

References

3 IMPACTS ON CALCULATION OF DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY

Current Regulatory Requirements for Destruction Efficiency

Current Approach to Calculating Destruction Efficiency (Approach 1)

Impact of Washout Deletion on the Calculation of Destruction Efficiency

Agent Partitioning to the EBH and ENS Units

Agent Partitioning to the MPT and OTM Units

Alternative Approaches to Calculating Destruction Efficiency (Approaches 2 and 3)

Calculation of Destruction Efficiency Under Approach 2

Calculation of Destruction Efficiency Under Approach 3

Measurements Required for Verifying Destruction Efficiency Requirements

4 PROCESS MODELING IN SUPPORT OF WASHOUT DELETION

The BGCAPP Facility Model

Munition Drain Times

Filter Sock Change-Out Frequency

Exploring System Sensitivity to the Input Parameters

Operational Data Collection

Reference

APPENDIXES

A Committee Activities

B Biographical Sketches of Committee Members

Figures and Table

FIGURES

1-1 Block diagram showing the processing units and the flow of products at BGCAPP

2-1 Agent transfer system block diagram

2-2 Worst-case GB scenario with venting to room

3-1 Process flow diagram for destruction efficiency calculation under Approaches 1, 2, and 3

3-2 Flow diagram showing committee recommendations for expanding effluent measurements to allow the calculation of DE at 99.9999 regulatory requirements and for rerouting the OTE through the OTM

TABLE

3-1 Summary of Approaches to Calculating Destruction Efficiency (DE)

This page intentionally left blank.

Abbreviations and Acronyms

This page intentionally left blank.