Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel

Committee on Review and Evaluation of International Technologies for the Destruction of Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel

Board on Army Science and Technology

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 R1
Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel Committee on Review and Evaluation of International Technologies for the Destruction of Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Board on Army Science and Technology Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 FIFTH STREET, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract No. W911NF-05-C-0078 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of Defense. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-10203-0 International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-10203-2 Cover: Images courtesy of the public affairs office of the Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Project, U.S. Army, Chemical Materials Agency. The munitions shown illustrate the condition in which such items are often found when they are recovered from munitions burial sites. Limited copies of this report are available from: Board on Army Science and Technology National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Room 940 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 334-3118 Additional copies are available from: The National Academies Press 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Lockbox 285 Washington, DC 20055 (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area) Internet, http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2006 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Adivers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel This page intentionally left blank

OCR for page R1
Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel COMMITTEE ON REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF NON-STOCKPILE CHEMICAL MATERIEL RICHARD J. AYEN, Chair, Waste Management, Inc. (retired), Jamestown, Rhode Island ROBIN L. AUTENRIETH, Texas A&M University, College Station ADRIENNE T. COOPER, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania MARTIN GOLLIN, St. Davids, Pennsylvania GARY S. GROENEWOLD, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls PAUL F. KAVANAUGH, BG, U.S. Army (retired), Fairfax, Virginia TODD A. KIMMELL, Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, D.C. LOREN D. KOLLER, Oregon State University (retired), Corvallis DOUGLAS M. MEDVILLE, MITRE Corporation (retired), Reston, Virginia GEORGE W. PARSHALL, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company (retired), Wilmington, Delaware JAMES P. PASTORICK, Geophex UXO, Ltd., Alexandria, Virginia LEONARD M. SIEGEL, Center for Public Environmental Oversight, Mountain View, California WILLIAM J. WALSH, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Washington, D.C. Staff HARRISON T. PANNELLA, Study Director JAMES C. MYSKA, Senior Research Associate ALEXANDER R. REPACE, Senior Program Assistant (from March 2006) LaTANYA CLEMENCIA, Senior Program Assistant (until March 2006)

OCR for page R1
Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MALCOLM R. O’NEILL, Chair, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired), Vienna, Virginia HENRY J. HATCH, Vice Chair, Army Chief of Engineers (retired), Oakton, Virginia RAJ AGGARWAL, Rockwell Collins, Cedar Rapids, Iowa SETH BONDER, The Bonder Group, Ann Arbor, Michigan NORVAL L. BROOME, MITRE Corporation (retired), Suffolk, Virginia JAMES CARAFANO, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C. ROBERT L. CATTOI, Rockwell International Corporation (retired), Dallas, Texas DARRELL W. COLLIER, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command (retired), Leander, Texas ALAN H. EPSTEIN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge ROBERT R. EVERETT, MITRE Corporation (retired), New Seabury, Massachusetts WILLIAM R. GRAHAM, National Security Research, Inc., Arlington, Virginia PETER F. GREEN, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor CARL GUERRERI, Electronic Warfare Associates, Inc., Herndon, Virginia M. FREDERICK HAWTHORNE, University of California, Los Angeles CLARENCE W. KITCHENS, Science Applications International Corporation, Vienna, Virginia LARRY LEHOWICZ, Quantum Research International, Arlington, Virginia JOHN W. LYONS, U.S. Army Research Laboratory (retired), Ellicott City, Maryland EDWARD K. REEDY, Georgia Tech Research Institute (retired), Atlanta DENNIS J. REIMER, DFI International, Washington, D.C. WALTER D. SINCOSKIE, Telcordia Technologies, Inc., Morristown, New Jersey JUDITH L. SWAIN, University of California, San Diego WILLIAM R. SWARTOUT, Institute for Creative Technologies, Marina del Rey, California EDWIN L. THOMAS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge BARRY M. TROST, Stanford University, Stanford, California Staff BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director DETRA BODRICK-SHORTER, Administrative Coordinator CHRIS JONES, Financial Associate DEANNA P. SPARGER, Program Administrative Coordinator

OCR for page R1
Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel Preface The Committee on Review and Evaluation of International Technologies for the Destruction of Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel was appointed by the National Research Council (NRC) in response to a request by the U.S. Army’s Project Manager for Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel. The committee’s focus was on destruction technologies for recovered chemical weapons that are not now a part of the repertoire of the Project Manager for Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel but that could prove to be useful additions or replacements. To that end, countries using or considering the use of technologies for the destruction of old and abandoned chemical weapons to meet requirements of the international Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) treaty, along with the developers of such technologies, were contacted. This report summarizes the acquired information, evaluates the technologies to the extent possible, and presents the results. Consideration was given to technologies that might offer advantages over those now in use by the U.S. Army or those that might otherwise prove useful, especially for situations not now adequately covered, such as destruction operations where large numbers of recovered munitions must be treated. A limited effort was expended on the assessment and storage of recovered chemical weapons. Several individuals met with visiting committee members in Europe and provided helpful information on the status of international technologies in other countries. The committee offers its thanks for their assistance: Richard Soilleux, Technical Leader, Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, U.K. Ministry of Defence, Porton Down, England; Hans-Joachim Grimsel, Managing Director, Gesellschaft zur Entsorgung von chemischen Kampfstoffe und Rüstungs-Altlasten (GEKA), Munster, Germany; Ralf Trapp, Senior Planning Officer, Office of the Deputy Director-General, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, The Hague, The Netherlands; Jerzy Mazur, Head, Chemical Demilitarisation Branch (CDB), Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, The Hague, Netherlands; Jeff Osborne, Senior Substantive Officer, CDB, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, The Hague, Netherlands; Herbert De Bischopp, Professor, Royal Military Academy, Brussels, Belgium; and Michel Lefebvre, Professor, Royal Military Academy, Brussels, Belgium. The committee would also like to thank vendor representatives and others who assisted in information gathering for this report. See Appendix D for the names of these individuals. The study was conducted under the auspices of the NRC’s Board on Army Science and Technology (BAST). The BAST was established in 1982 as a unit of the National Research Council at the request of the U.S. Army. The BAST brings to bear broad military, industrial, and academic scientific, engineering, and management expertise on Army technical challenges and other issues of importance to senior Army leaders. The board discusses potential studies of interest; develops and frames study tasks; ensures proper project planning; suggests potential committee members and reviewers for reports produced by fully independent ad hoc study committees; and convenes meetings to examine strategic issues. The board members listed on p. vi were not asked to endorse the committee’s conclusions or recommendations, nor did they review the final draft of this report before its release. However, board members with appropriate expertise may be nominated to serve as formal members of study committees, or as report reviewers. The chair acknowledges the superb support of the BAST director, Bruce A. Braun, and the study director, Harrison T. Pannella. Valuable assistance was provided by James C. Myska, Alexander R. Repace, and LaTanya Clemencia

OCR for page R1
Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel of the NRC staff. In view of the international nature of the necessary information gathering, committee members were faced with considerably more challenges than is typical for a National Research Council study in the area of chemical demilitarization, and the chair is grateful for their hard work and diligence in carrying out this study. Richard J. Ayen, Chair Committee on Review and Evaluation of International Technologies for the Destruction of Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel

OCR for page R1
Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel Acknowledgment of Reviewers 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 National Research Council’s 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: William B. Bacon, Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Ruth M. Doherty, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Gene Dyer, consultant, Jeff Edson, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Mario H. Fontana, University of Tennessee (Knoxville), Dan Luss, University of Houston, James F. Mathis, Exxon Corporation (retired), Hyla S. Napadensky, Napadensky Energetics Inc., William R. Rhyne, ABS Consulting, Inc. (retired), and William Tumas, Los Alamos National Laboratory. 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 Richard A. Conway, Union Carbide Corporation (retired). Appointed by the National Research Council, he 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.

OCR for page R1
Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel This page intentionally left blank

OCR for page R1
Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel Contents     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   1 1   INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND   8      Purpose of This Report,   8      Study Scope and Structure,   8      Scope,   8      Structure and Tiering of Technologies,   9      Report Organization,   9      U.S. Non-Stockpile Program,   9      Chemical Demilitarization Overview,   9      Chemical Weapons Convention,   10      Types of Non-Stockpile Items,   11      Scope of Buried Non-Stockpile Chemical Weapons Materiel,   11      Existing Non-Stockpile Destruction Technologies,   11      Explosive Destruction System,   12      Rapid Response System,   13      Single CAIS Accessing and Neutralization System,   14      Neutralization and Hydrolysis,   15      References,   16 2   ISSUES BEARING ON SITES CONTAINING LARGE AMOUNTS OF BURIED CHEMICAL WEAPONS MATERIEL   17      Introduction,   17      U.S. Regulatory Framework Governing Buried CWM,   17      Key Issues Pertaining to CWM Recovery and Destruction,   18      Rate of Munitions Recovery and Destruction,   18      Criteria for Determining Whether Buried CWM Are Recovered,   18      Direct Treatment Versus Storage of RCWM,   18      Public Involvement,   19      Findings and Recommendations,   20      References,   20

OCR for page R1
Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel 3   EVALUATION FACTORS FOR INTERNATIONAL DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES   22      Selection of Evaluation Factors,   22      Description of Evaluation Factors,   23      Process Maturity,   23      Process Efficacy/Throughput,   23      Process Safety,   24      Public and Regulatory Acceptability in a U.S. Context,   25      Secondary Waste Issues,   25      Process Costs,   26      Rating System,   26      Assessment of Evaluation Factors Against Directives Reflected in the Statement of Task,   28      References,   28 4   TIER 1 INTERNATIONAL MUNITIONS PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES   29      Introduction,   29      Measurement of Performance for Detonation Technologies,   29      Controlled Detonation Chamber Technology,   30      Description,   30      Country-by-Country Experience,   33      Evaluation Factors Analysis for CDC,   33      Summary,   35      Detonation of Ammunition in Vacuum Integrated Chamber,   36      Description,   36      Country-by-Country Experience,   39      Evaluation Factors Analysis,   39      Summary,   42      Dynasafe Technology,   43      Description,   43      Country-by-Country Experience,   45      Evaluation Factors Analysis,   45      Summary,   49      Comparative Evaluations of Tier 1 Munitions Processing Technologies,   49      Findings and Recommendations,   52      References,   53 5   TIER I INTERNATIONAL AGENT-ONLY PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES   54      Introduction,   54      Use of Neutralization and Hydrolysis in the Rest of the World,   54      Russian Two-Stage Process: Neutralization with Addition of Bitumen,   56      Description,   56      Country-by-Country Experience,   59      Evaluation Factors Analysis,   59      Incineration,   60      Description,   60      Country-by-Country Experience,   60      Evaluation Factors Analysis,   62      Comparative Evaluations of Tier 1 Agent-Only Processing Technologies,   64      Findings and Recommendations,   66      References,   66

OCR for page R1
Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel 6   TIER 2 INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR MUNITIONS AND AGENT-ONLY PROCESSING   68      Introduction,   68      Technologies for Munitions Processing,   68      Acid Digestion Process,   68      Bulk Vitrification Process (GeoMelt),   70      Firing Pool,   71      Technologies for Agent-Only Processing,   72      Biological Approaches,   72      Defense Science and Technology Laboratory Electric Cylinder Furnace,   73      Electrochemical Oxidation,   73      Plasma Arc Technology,   74      Photocatalytic Destruction System,   75      Plasmazon,   76      Finding and Recommendation,   77      References,   77 7   ASSESSING LARGE BURIAL SITES AND ACCESSING CHEMICAL WARFARE MATERIEL   79      Introduction,   79      Assessing Large CWM Burial Sites,   79      Accessing the Contents of Large Burial Sites,   81      Accessing Techniques in Other Countries,   81      Processes for Close Proximity and In Situ Treatment,   81      References,   82     APPENDIXES     A   Tables Illustrative of a Variety of Non-Stockpile Items   85 B   Tier 1 Munitions Processing Evaluation Subfactor Comparative Tables   89 C   Tier 1 Agent-Only Processing Evaluation Subfactor Comparative Tables   99 D   Committee Meetings and Other Activities   105 E   Biographical Sketches of Committee Members   108

OCR for page R1
Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel Tables and Figures TABLES ES-1   Evaluation Factor Rating Comparison of Tier 1 Munitions Processing Technologies with U.S. EDS,   3 ES-2   Specific Engineering Parameters for Existing Munitions Processing Technologies,   4 1-1   Examples of Known or Potential Large Sites of Buried CWM Identified by the U.S. Army,   12 1-2   Agent Neutralization Parameters for the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant,   16 3-1   Process Maturity Subfactors,   23 3-2   Process Efficacy/Throughput Subfactors,   24 3-3   Process Safety Subfactors,   25 3-4   Public and Regulatory Acceptability in a U.S. Context Subfactors,   26 3-5   Secondary Waste Issues Subfactors,   27 3-6   Statement of Task Directives and Corresponding Technology Evaluation Factors,   28 4-1   Dimensions of the Pressure Chambers in Three CDC Models Designed for Destroying Chemical Warfare Agents,   32 4-2   Estimated Throughput Rates for CDC TC-60,   34 4-3   DAVINCH Experience in Destroying Japanese WW II-Era Bombs Containing Lewisite, Mustard Agent, and Agents Clark I and Clark II (Vomiting Agents),   39 4-4   Estimated DAVINCH DV65 Throughput Rates,   41 4-5   Agent Quantities Destroyed per DAVINCH DV65 Cycle,   41 4-6   Size Specifications for Two Dynasafe Static Kiln Models,   43 4-7   Estimated Dynasafe SK2000 Throughput Rates,   47 4-8   Agent Quantities Destroyed per Dynasafe SK2000 Cycle,   47 4-9   Evaluation Factor Rating Comparison of Tier 1 Munitions Processing Technologies with U.S. EDS,   50 4-10   Specific Engineering Parameters for Existing Munitions Processing Technologies,   51 4-11   Estimated Daily Throughput Rates for Three Detonation Technologies (10-hr day),   51 5-1   Destruction of Chemical Agents, 1958-1993,   63 5-2   Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility Waste Streams,   65 5-3   Evaluation Factor Rating Comparison of Tier 1 Agent-Only Processing Technologies with U.S. RRS/SCANS,   65

OCR for page R1
Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel 6-1   Energetic Materials and Chemical Warfare Fills Treatable by the Acid Digestion Process,   69 A-1   Inventory of Non-Stockpile Items at the Pine Bluff Arsenal,   86 A-2   Inventory of Non-Stockpile Items at Dugway Proving Ground (DPG) and Deseret Chemical Depot (DCD), Utah,   87 A-3   Inventory of Non-Stockpile Items at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland,   87 A-4   Inventory of Non-Stockpile Items at Anniston Chemical Activity, Alabama,   87 B-1   Process Maturity Subfactor Evaluations for Tier 1 Munitions Processing Technologies,   90 B-2   Process Efficacy/Throughput Subfactor Evaluations for Tier 1 Munitions Processing Technologies,   91 B-3   Process Safety Subfactor Evaluations for Tier 1 Munitions Processing Technologies,   93 B-4   Public and Regulatory Acceptability in a U.S. Context Subfactor Evaluations for Tier 1 Munitions Processing Technologies,   94 B-5   Secondary Waste Issues Subfactor Evaluations for Tier 1 Munitions Processing Technologies,   96 C-1   Process Maturity Subfactor Evaluations for Tier 1 Agent-Only Processing Technologies,   100 C-2   Process Efficacy/Throughput Subfactor Evaluations for Tier 1 Agent-Only Processing Technologies,   101 C-3   Process Safety Subfactor Evaluations for Tier 1 Agent-Only Processing Technologies,   102 C-4   Public and Regulatory Acceptability Subfactor Evaluations for Tier 1 Agent-Only Processing Technologies,   103 C-5   Secondary Waste Issues Subfactor Evaluations for Tier 1 Agent-Only Processing Technologies,   104 FIGURES 1-1   Diagram of EDS-2,   13 1-2   Diagram of RRS operations trailer,   14 1-3   Photograph of SCANS,   15 4-1   TC-25 CDC system layout,   32 4-2   DAVINCH three-stage destruction mechanism,   37 4-3   Outline of the Kanda project,   37 4-4   Dynasafe static destruction kiln process flow,   44 5-1   Reaction of Russian VX and potassium isobutylate,   57 5-2   Reaction of VX and potassium isobutylate,   57 5-3   Notional reaction scheme for the addition of G-type agent to aqueous monoethanolamine (MEA),   58 5-4   Block diagram of U.S. baseline incineration system,   61

OCR for page R1
Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel Acronyms ACWA Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment/Alternatives ADP acid digestion process AEL airborne exposure limit ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers CAA Clean Air Act CAIS chemical agent identification set(s) CAMDS Chemical Agent Munitions Disposal System CATOX catalytic oxidation (unit) CDC controlled detonation chamber CEB Centre d’Etudes du Bouchet CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CG phosgene CK cyanogen chloride CO carbon monoxide CS orthochlorobenzylidene malononitrile (tear gas) CWC Chemical Weapons Convention CWM chemical warfare materiel DA diphenylchloroarsine (Clark I) DAVINCH detonation of ammunition in vacuum integrated chamber DC diphenylcyanoarsine (Clark II) DCD Deseret Chemical Depot DE destruction efficiency DF a binary precursor (methylphosphonic difluoride) DFS deactivation furnace system DM adamsite DOD Department of Defense DOE Department of Energy DOT Department of Transportation DPG Dugway Proving Ground DRE destruction and removal efficiency DRES Defence Research Establishment Suffield DSTL Defence Science and Technology Laboratory DUN dunnage furnace EDS explosive destruction system EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESTCP Environmental Security Technology Certification Program GA a nerve agent (tabun) GB a nerve agent (sarin) GD a nerve agent (soman) GEKA German testing facility, Gesellschaft zur Entsorgung von chemischen Kampfstoffe und Rüstungs-Altlasten GPL general population limit H sulfur mustard HCl hydrogen chloride HD sulfur mustard (distilled) HEPA high efficiency particulate air HMX an explosive HN nitrogen mustard HS sulfur mustard HT sulfur mustard, T-mustard combination HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning ICV In-Container Vitrification IDLH immediately dangerous to life and health IUPAC International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry L lewisite or liter LIC liquid incinerator LITANS large item transportable access and neutralization system

OCR for page R1
Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel MEC munitions and explosives of concern mg milligram MPF metal parts furnace NaOH sodium hydroxide NEPA National Environmental Policy Act nm nanometer NRC National Research Council NSCMP Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Project NSCWM Non-Stockpile Chemical Warfare Materiel OPCW Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons PBA Pine Bluff Arsenal PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PD phenyldichloroarsine PINS portable isotopic neutron spectroscopy PMNSCM Project Manager for Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel PPE personal protective equipment RAP regulatory approval and permitting RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCWM recovered chemical warfare materiel RDX an explosive RMA Rocky Mountain Arsenal ROD record of decision RRS Rapid Response System SCANS single CAIS accessing and neutralization system SERDP Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program SIPRI Stockholm International Peace Research Institute SNPE Société Nationale des Poudres et Explosifs SOT statement of task STEL short-term exposure limit TNT an explosive TPA triphenylarsine TSDF treatment, storage, and disposal facility UV ultraviolet VR Russian version of VX VX a nerve agent 3X level of agent decontamination (suitable for transport for further processing) 5X level of agent decontamination (suitable for commercial release)

OCR for page R1
Review of International Technologies for Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel This page intentionally left blank