ACWA Program: First-of-a-kind Equipment for a One-of-a-kind Mission

The U.S. Army Element, Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives program

By Nicole Heaton - February 10, 2011

After the chamber doors were placed, the 19,000-pound main heating drum for the Metal Parts Treater at BGCAPP was lifted into place on March 9, 2010. The MPT was constructed by Parsons, and was the second major piece of process equipment designed, built, and tested under FOAK phase one. U.S. Army photo

Additionally, the MWS (including the CAMs) for the 155 mm projectiles are complete and were shipped in August, and the MWS for the 105 mm projectiles will be completed and shipped to the site by the end of 2010.

While work at the site in Kentucky began after the PCAPP, the BGCAPP is also making great strides.

The FOAK equipment at BGCAPP includes:

Energetics Batch Hydrolyzer (EBH), fabricated by General Atomics in San Diego, Calif.
Munitions Washout System (MWS) and Cavity Access Machine (CAM), fabricated by Parsons in Pasco, Wash.
Metal Parts Treater (MPT), Parsons
Rocket Cutter Machine (RCM), Parsons
Rocket Shear Machine (RSM), Parsons

“Our program for FOAK was really broken down into two phases,” explained Jeffrey Brubaker, site project manager for BGCAPP. “The first phase completed earlier this year and it basically consisted of design, fabrication, and testing of two systems, one being the Energetics Batch Hydrolyzer system. The second major piece of process equipment designed, built, and tested under FOAK phase one is the Metal Parts Treater.”

Those systems were included in the first phase because they were considered to be the most complex FOAK systems.

Unlike Pueblo, part of the Blue Grass stockpile consists of M55 rockets, which require a different process and unique FOAK equipment to complete destruction.

At BGCAPP, rockets will be processed through the Rocket Cutter Machine, which separates the agent-filled warhead from the motor. The non-contaminated motors are then transferred to separate rooms for packaging and shipment to an appropriate disposal facility.

The warhead portions are then sent to an Explosive Containment Room where the Rocket Shear Machine will punch holes in the warhead, drain the agent, and flush the interior with high-pressure hot water. The chemical agent and the washout water will be transferred in separate streams for further processing.

Once the agent has been removed, the warhead is then cut into four pieces, which will be transferred to the Energetics Batch Hydrolyzer for further processing. The drained agent will be pumped to the Agent Neutralization Reactors to be neutralized, and its byproduct, or hydrolysate, will be processed in the Supercritical Water Oxidation system.

“Both the agents as well as the energetics are neutralized using heated water and sodium hydroxide,” explained Brubaker. “That neutralization occurs separately so the agents are first neutralized and verification is performed that the required destruction criteria are met.”

The EBH will treat the munitions parts in batches, neutralizing explosives and other components with heated water and caustic. It will consist of large rotating drums similar to cement mixers, into which robots will transfer the munitions pieces for neutralization.

The solids from that neutralization process will go to the Metal Parts Treater for thermal decontamination and the liquids will go to the Energetics Neutralization Reactors for further processing.

Although similar to the MTU that will be at PCAPP, the MPT is a larger-scale treatment unit. It will thermally decontaminate any residual agent on metal components as well as process secondary waste that may have been contaminated with agent during the process by heating items to 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit for 15 minutes.

“The SCWO process is our post [secondary] treatment process, where we bring together the neutralized material from the two reactions and we feed that material through the process using a combination of high temperature and high pressure to break down very complicated compounds into more simplified products such as water, carbon dioxide, and a series of salt compounds,” said Brubaker. “It’s important to note that our neutralization process will destroy the chemical agents before the secondary treatment process occurs.”

Similar to PCAPP, the majority of the water remaining after the final phase of destruction is recycled back into the plant.

“About 75 percent of the water is recycled back into the plant to serve as the basis for neutralizing additional agent or energetic compounds,” Brubaker said. “The remaining 25 percent of the water as well as all of the salts are chemically tested to verify their composition, and depending on the results of that testing, they will be disposed of accordingly.”

The installation of these pieces of FOAK equipment and construction progress at BGCAPP are intricately connected.

“These systems [MPT] are quite large and could not be lowered into place after the facility was constructed and the roof was on the facility,” Brubaker said. “Since they [MPT and EBH] needed to be here very early in the construction process, it was very important and a very satisfying milestone that we were able to complete factory testing in late 2009 – early 2010.”

The MPT has already been installed inside the Munitions Demilitarization Building at BGCAPP, and the fabrication and integrated testing of the EBH has been completed. The EBH is currently being stored at General Atomics in San Diego, where it was fabricated and tested, and will be shipped to the site for installation later in 2010.

Phase two of FOAK design, fabrication, and testing recently began and will include the Rocket Cutting Machine, Rocket Shear Machine, and Munitions Washout System.

According to Brubaker, these systems are much smaller in size and can be transported into the processing facility once the walls and roof are in place, making it less critical for them to be fabricated and tested as early as the other components.

“I think the major driver to success for FOAK phase one is the intense effort up front to get all of the team performers together and work collaboratively to identify early what we define as our success criteria,” Brubaker said. “Then we take those success criteria and we utilize those as a basis for developing our test plans.”

According to the ACWA program manager, there are several facets of ACWA’s success in executing the FOAK program.

He credits using lessons learned from earlier chemical weapons destruction facilities, and bringing operating contractors on board early to work with equipment designers and contractors, as well as ensuring vigorous testing of all of the equipment and systems.

“This collaborative teamwork between government and contractor, ACWA and CMA, and ACWA and other Army agencies is really bringing us great confidence that not only will the equipment operate as we intend, but help us overcome some of the challenges that were encountered previously at other chemical weapons destruction facilities.”

This article was first published in U.S. Army Materiel Command: 2010-2011 Edition.