REPLY TO ATTENTION OF:

SFAE-ACW-BG

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ASSEMBLED CHEMICAL WEAPONS ALTERNATIVES FIELD OFFICE

BLUE GRASS CHEMICAL AGENT-DESTRUCTION PILOT PLANT 830 EASTERN BYPASS SUITE 106

RICHMOND, KENTUCKY 40475-2512

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

28 May 2014 ACW-14-0047

SUBJECT: Blue Grass Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant (BGCAPP) Meeting with Explosive Destruction Technology (EDT) Working Group (EDTWG) Members

1. Summary: On 6 May 2014, the BGCAPP team and the EDTWG, a sub-committee of the Kentucky Chemical Destruction Community Advisory Board (CDCAB), met to discuss the Explosive Destruction Technology (EDT) 30 percent design update. In attendance were the following : Robert Blythe, CDCAB; Jeff Brubaker, BGCAPP; Joe Elliott, Blue Grass Army Depot; Doug Hindman, Kentucky Chemical Demilitarization Citizens' Advisory Commission (CAC)/CDCAB; Debbie Hogan, BGCAPP; Terry House, CDCAB; Scott Jackson, CDCAB; Leslie Kaylor, CDCAB; John McArthur, Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass (BPBG); Sarah Parke, BGCAPP; Stephanie Parrett, BGCAPP; Chester Powell, CDCAB; Kevin Roberts, BPBG; Regina Stivers, CDCAB; Daniel Walker, Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection (KDEP); April Webb, KDEP; Craig Williams, CAC/CDCAB; Todd Williams, Blue Grass Chemical Activity (BGCA).

2. Actions: Brubaker noted Static Detonation Chamber (SDC) design information will continue to be shared with the EDTWG after it is received and reviewed.

3. Presentations: McArthur delivered a presentation on the EDT 30 percent design status, including the facility layout, munitions processing steps and equipment layout.

4. Discussion Topics:

a) Brubaker opened the meeting by welcoming the group and saying the project completed a successful 30 percent design review with KDEP in March 2014. He anticipates the 60 percent design review to take place in June 2014, followed by the 90 percent design review by the end of July 2014. The following question was asked:

b) Williams asked when Static Detonation Chamber (SDC) operations would begin. Brubaker stated sometime between October 2016 and March 2017.

c) Williams then asked EDTWG members who visited the Anniston Chemical-Agent Disposal Facility (ANCDF) to provide a summary of their SDC tour. Kaylor thanked project members for extending the invitation and said it was a good opportunity. Kaylor also remarked about the systems and processes associated with SDC and how they were easily understandable. She further noted that the Anniston facility was people oriented in their management philosophy. House said the trip allowed him to put the operation in perspective and see the SDC in progress. It gave him confidence. He also remarked it reinforced the need for the Economic Development Working Group to prepare for the eventual closure of BGCAPP. Blythe said the trip helped him understand the SDC process. Blythe also commented on his focus of the economic impact after demilitarization. Additionally, he noted that it was necessary for others to visit and observe operations at the SDC for the purpose of having knowledgeable conversations. He said knowledge alleviates fear. Williams said it was a good hands-on experience and built confidence in the SDC.

SFAE-ACW-BG SUBJECT: Blue Grass Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant Meeting with Explosive Destruction Technology Working Group Members

d) McArthur started his briefing by showing the BGCAPP site and location of the EDT. He highlighted the different buildings and their functions. The following questions were asked:

e) Williams asked if the EDT Service Magazine (ESM) building extended into the Chemical Limited Area (CLA). McArthur noted it does not, but during construction the CLA will be extended to surround both the ESM and EDT Enclosure Building (EEB). Williams was interested in knowing the route of the munitions from the CLA to the ESM. McArthur said several routes were under consideration. Williams wanted clarification if munitions would be moved from the CLA to ESM at night. McArthur said they would not, but munitions could be moved from the ESM to the EEB at night. Williams wanted to know response procedures if a leaker were discovered in the ESM. McArthur said it would be much like the response BGCA conducts if leakers are discovered in igloos. He also noted continuous air monitoring systems, or MINICAMS, and Depot Area Air Monitoring Systems would be installed in the facilities for near real time monitoring. Williams asked questions about the method of munition transportation from the ESM to EEB. Hindman asked why the munitions could not be transported in an EONC from the ESM to EEB.

f) McArthur went on to explain the most care and design went into the EEB. He described the air flow from Level D (least contaminated) to Level A, which is the containment zone for the SOC, and the Off­Gas Treatment System (OTS).

g) Next, McArthur also informed the group about the munitions processing steps based on the 30 percent design. The group asked what level of personal protective equipment workers wear while loading the munitions trays. McArthur said it would be modified Level C. McArthur also noted the SOC would have an ash collection system in place after munitions are processed. Once collected, if the ash is tested and not cleared for release, it would be placed back in a tray and reprocessed . Since the ash would primarily come from paint on the munitions, Hindman asked if some paint would end up in scrap metal. McArthur said it would not.

h) McArthur explained the EDT feeding cycle to the group. Williams asked if munitions would be in the upper chamber as other munitions are begin deflagrated in the lower chamber. McArthur confirmed no munitions would be in the upper chamber. House said when he visited ANCDF, he was able to touch the SOC and it was covered in dust, but no one in the area was wearing masks. He asked if the residual dust was a concern . McArthur said it was not. Additionally, the enhanced dust collection system for the Blue Grass SOC should cut down on dust build up even more.

i) McArthur then briefed the group about the thermal oxidizer (THO) and OTS, pointing out the THO is 98 percent larger and OTS is 75 percent larger than the systems at ANCDF. Williams asked if it was due to throughput or the need for greater confidence in the system. McArthur said ANCDF had some concern with carbon monoxide (CO) levels, hence the need for an upgrade in the Blue Grass SOC. Williams asked if the CO concern would be confirmed during systemization and if so, how. McArthur said it would be confirmed through testing with simulants.

j) The group was then informed about maintenance cycles. The SOC will operate 20 out of 24 hours a day. The other four hours will be used for maintenance and emptying the chamber of projectiles. Williams remarked that if the projected operational period for SOC is based on 4.8 projectiles per hour, this created a tight window between SOC operations and main plant operations, especially if the main plant operations schedule moves to the left. Brubaker said he hopes to start SOC as soon as possible. Williams inquired about the ability to increase throughput capability and if the projected operational period was locked in. He further inquired about the project's ability to move operations to the left as there could potential be a challenge with main plant start-up and concurrent operations.

k) Williams also asked how many people it takes to support SOC operations. McArthur said it takes approximately 180 people for all aspects of SOC. Kaylor asked if there were any issues with only having

2

SFAE-ACW-BG SUBJECT: Blue Grass Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant Meeting with Explosive Destruction Technology Working Group Members

a four hour maintenance cycle. McArthur said the time aligns with the manufacturer's recommended cycle. Williams asked if all enhancements to the Blue Grass SOC were included in the permit modification request. McArthur said they were included in the process description portion of the request. Kaylor asked about real-time monitoring capability and McArthur responded by stating BGCAPP uses near real-time monitoring with a cycle period of 3.5 to 5 minutes. Kaylor also inquired about the project's decision to conduct maintenance four hours a day and noted the difference between Anniston's 12 hour maintenance shift. McArthur noted that this was not a concern as BGCAPP operational maintenance would be continuous.

5. Conclusion: The meeting was conducted to provide a status update on the design process. BPBG will continue to provide updates to the group as it becomes available.

Site Project Manager Blue Grass Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant

sp/dbp

CF: BGCAPP Document Control

3