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
Evaluation of the Army's Draft Assessment Criteria to Aid in the Selection of Alternative Technologies for Chemical Demilitarization Evaluation of the Army's Draft Assessment Criteria to Aid in the Selection of Alternative Technologies for Chemical Demilitarization COMMITTEE ON REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF THE ARMY CHEMICAL STOCKPILE DISPOSAL PROGRAM BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMISSION ON ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SYSTEMS NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL National Academy Press Washington, D.C. 1995
OCR for page R2
Evaluation of the Army's Draft Assessment Criteria to Aid in the Selection of Alternative Technologies for Chemical Demilitarization 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 competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of 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. Bruce M. Alberts 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. Harold Liebowitz 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. Kenneth I. Shine 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. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Harold Liebowitz are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. This is a report of work supported by Contract DAAL03–90–C–0035 (CLIN OO1) between the U.S. Department of the Army and the National Academy of Sciences. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authoring committee and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors. Copies available from: Board on Army Science and Technology National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., HA 258 Washington, D.C. 20418 Copyright 1995 by the National Academy of Sciences . All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.
OCR for page R3
Evaluation of the Army's Draft Assessment Criteria to Aid in the Selection of Alternative Technologies for Chemical Demilitarization COMMITTEE ON REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF THE ARMY CHEMICAL STOCKPILE DISPOSAL PROGRAM RICHARD S. MAGEE, Chair, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark ELISABETH M. DRAKE, Vice Chair, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge DENNIS C. BLEY, Buttonwood Consulting, Inc., Fountain Valley, California COLIN G. DRURY, University at Buffalo, State University of New York GENE H. DYER, Consultant, San Rafael, California MG VINCENT E. FALTER, USA Retired, Springfield, Virginia ANN FISHER, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park J. ROBERT GIBSON, DuPont Agricultural Products, Wilmington, Delaware CHARLES E. KOLB, Aerodyne Research, Inc., Billerica, Massachusetts DAVID S. KOSSON, Rutgers—The State University, Piscataway, New Jersey WALTER G. MAY, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign ALVIN H. MUSHKATEL, Arizona State University, Tempe PETER J. NIEMIEC, Greenberg, Glusker, Fields, Claman & Machtinger, Los Angeles GEORGE W. PARSHALL, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Wilmington, Delaware JAMES R. WILD, Texas A&M University, College Station JYA-SYIN WU, Advanced System Concepts Associates, El Segundo, California (as of August, 1995) Staff DONALD L. SIEBENALER, Study Director MARGO L. FRANCESCO, Administrative Supervisor DEBORAH B. RANDALL, Project Assistant
OCR for page R4
Evaluation of the Army's Draft Assessment Criteria to Aid in the Selection of Alternative Technologies for Chemical Demilitarization BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY GENERAL GLENN K. OTIS, Chair, USA Retired, Newport News, Virginia CHRISTOPHER C. GREEN, Vice Chair, General Motors Corporation, Warren, Michigan ROBERT A. BEAUDET, University of Southern California, Los Angeles GARY L. BORMAN, University of Wisconsin, Madison ALBERTO COLL, U.S. Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island LAWRENCE J. DELANEY, BDM Europe, Berlin, Germany JAMES L. FLANAGAN, Center for Computer Aids in Industrial Productivity, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey ROBERT J. HEASTON, Guidance and Control Information Analysis Center, Chicago, Illinois THOMAS MCNAUGHER, Arroyo Center, RAND Corporation, Washington, D.C. NORMAN F. PARKER, Varian Associates (Retired), Cardiff by the Sea, California KATHLEEN J. ROBERTSON, Booz, Allen and Hamilton, McLean, Virginia JAY P. SANFORD, University of Southwestern Health Sciences Center, Dallas, Texas HARVEY W. SCHADLER, General Electric Corporation, Schenectady, New York JOYCE L. SHIELDS, Hay Management Consultants, Arlington, Virginia CLARENCE G. THORNTON, Army Research Laboratories (Retired), Colts Neck, New Jersey JOHN D. VENABLES, Venables & Associates, Towson, Maryland ALLEN C. WARD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Staff BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director E. VINCENT HOLAHAN, Senior Program Officer ROBERT J. LOVE, Senior Program Officer DONALD L. SIEBENALER, Senior Program Officer PATRICIA A. KIRCHNER, Administrative Associate MARGO L. FRANCESCO, Administrative Supervisor ALVERA V. GIRCYS, Senior Program Assistant JACQUELINE CAMPBELL-JOHNSON, Senior Project Assistant SHIREL R. SMITH, Senior Project Assistant DEBORAH B. RANDALL, Project Assistant
OCR for page R5
Evaluation of the Army's Draft Assessment Criteria to Aid in the Selection of Alternative Technologies for Chemical Demilitarization Preface In 1985, the Congress of the United States directed the U.S. Army to destroy the nation's stockpile of unitary chemical agents and munitions. This mandate has been complemented by international agreements, such as the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, that require completion of the destruction process within 10 years after ratification by 65 of the treaty's signatories. The stockpile to be destroyed comprises chemical warfare agents: nerve agents, GB and VX, and mustard agent, HD. These agents are contained in a variety of munitions and bulk containers that are distributed among eight sites in the continental United States and at Johnston Atoll in the Pacific Ocean. Initially, the Army planned to build and operate integrated incineration facilities at each of the eight sites in the continental United States. The National Research Council (NRC) Committee on Demilitarizing Chemical Agents and Munitions evaluated the proposed baseline incineration system and determined that it was a safe and effective process for disposal of the stockpile. However, the choice of incineration as the preferred technology has become controversial and is opposed by some community groups and environmental organizations. To address these concerns, as early as 1991 the NRC's Committee on Review and Evaluation of the Army Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program (the Stockpile Committee, author of the present report) suggested, and the Army agreed, that a study of alternatives technologies should be undertaken. In June 1993, the NRC Committee on Alternative Chemical Demilitarization Technologies (Alternatives Committee) presented the Army with the results of a study, which summarized about two dozen alternative technologies. Subsequently, the Stockpile Committee recommended that the Army accelerate research and development on four neutralization-based technologies. The Army embarked on an intensive research and development program on neutralization-based processes, which it expects will lead to the selection of one or two systems for further development. The Army anticipates that by late 1996 a decision will be made about whether an alternative technology requires pilotscale demonstration. To facilitate the decision-making process, the Army developed draft assessment criteria that address regulatory requirements, safety and health requirements, and scheduling and cost effectiveness requirements, as well as technological considerations and issues related to public acceptance of the alternative processes. Statement of Task In order to carry out its assessment of the Army's alternative technology research and development program, the Stockpile Committee will evaluate the Army's draft criteria developed for its decision to proceed or not with advanced development and demonstration of a neutralization-based alternative technology. Identify critical factors that should be considered in the decision on advanced development and demonstration. Written input on relevant factors will be sought from the Army, and from the Citizens Advisory Commissions, regulatory authorities, and the concerned public in the states that could be affected by the testing and operation of a neutralization-based process for stockpile disposal Evaluate the draft criteria to be provided by the Army in light of the critical factors identified by the committee. The findings of the evaluation and any recommendations for modification of the proposed criteria will be published by the committee in a written report. The Stockpile Committee task was to assist in the decision-making process by evaluating the Army's draft assessment criteria and by analyzing the results of research and development related to the neutralizationbased alternative technologies. The committee's evaluation focused on determining if the criteria were adequate to address both the technical requirements for a disposal technology and public concerns about agent-
OCR for page R6
Evaluation of the Army's Draft Assessment Criteria to Aid in the Selection of Alternative Technologies for Chemical Demilitarization destruction technologies. This report contains the results of that evaluation. During its evaluation, the committee sought public input on critical factors that should underlie the assessment criteria through both public meetings and written input from a wide range of environmental organizations, state regulatory authorities, Citizens Advisory Commissions, and individuals who live in communities near the stockpile storage sites. The committee also met with the Applied Technology Branch of the Army's Office of the Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization to gather information on scientific and engineering factors critical to the technology decision. All of this information was considered during the evaluation process. The committee wishes particularly to recognize the efforts of the alternative technologies subcommittee comprising George W. Parshall, Lead, Davis S. Kosson, Gene H. Dyer, Peter J. Niemiec, and James R. Wild. This group was aided greatly in solicitation of public input and conduct of public meetings by Ann Fisher and Alvin H. Mushkatel. The entire process was ably supported by NRC Staff members Donald L. Siebenaler, Margo L. Francesco, Deborah B. Randall, consultant William Spindel, and editors Catherine Brown and Andrea Posner. The committee also thanks the Office of the Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization for their assistance in enabling the committee to review the progress of the alternative technologies program and for making available written documentation as requested. Richard S. Magee, Chair Elisabeth M. Drake, Vice Chair Committee on Review and Evaluation of the Army Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program