National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×

Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons

A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II

Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: Phase II

Board on Army Science and Technology

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
2101 CONSTITUTION AVE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20055

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 is a report of work supported by Contract DAAD19-00-C-0009 between the U.S. Army and the National Academy of Sciences. 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 0-309-07634-X

Limited copies are available from:

Board on Army Science and Technology

National Research Council

2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20418

(202) 334–3118

Additional copies are available from:
National Academy Press
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Lockbox 285 Washington, DC 20055 (800) 624–6242 or (202) 334–3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area) http://www.nap.edu

Copyright 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

National Academy of Sciences

National Academy of Engineering

Institute of Medicine

National Research Council

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. 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. 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. Wm.A.Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×

COMMITTEE ON REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR DEMILITARIZATION OF ASSEMBLED CHEMICAL WEAPONS: PHASE II

ROBERT A.BEAUDET, Chair,

University of Southern California, Los Angeles

RICHARD J.AYEN,

Waste Management, Inc. (retired), Jamestown, Rhode Island

JOAN B.BERKOWITZ,

Farkas Berkowitz and Company, Washington, D.C.

RUTH M.DOHERTY,

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head, Maryland

WILLARD C.GEKLER,

EQE International/PLG, Irvine, California

SHELDON E.ISAKOFF,

E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (retired), Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania

HANK C.JENKINS-SMITH,

University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

DAVID S.KOSSON,

Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee

FREDERICK J.KRAMBECK,

Mobil Technology Company, Paulsboro, New Jersey

JOHN A.MERSON,

Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico

WILLIAM R.RHYNE,

H&R Technical Associates, Inc., Oak Ridge, Tennessee

STANLEY I.SANDLER,

University of Delaware, Newark

WILLIAM R.SEEKER,

General Electric Energy and Environmental Research Corporation, Irvine, California

LEO WEITZMAN,

LVW Associates, Inc., West Lafayette, Indiana

Board on Army Science and Technology Liaison

JOSEPH J.VERVIER,

ENSCO, Inc., Indiatlantic, Florida

Staff

PATRICIA P.PAULETTE, Study Director

HARRISON T.PANNELLA, Program Officer

JAMES C.MYSKA, Research Associate

WILLIAM E.CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator

GWEN ROBY, Senior Project Assistant

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×

BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

WILLIAM H.FORSTER, Chair,

Northrop Grumman Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland

JOHN E.MILLER, Vice Chair,

Oracle Corporation, Reston, Virginia

ROBERT L.CATTOI,

Rockwell International (retired), Dallas, Texas

RICHARD A.CONWAY,

Union Carbide Corporation (retired), Charleston, West Virginia

GILBERT F.DECKER,

Walt Disney Imagineering (retired), Glendale, California

PATRICK F.FLYNN,

Cummins Engine Company, Inc. (retired), Columbus, Indiana

HENRY J.HATCH, Army, Chief of Engineers (retired),

Oakton, Virginia

EDWARD J.HAUG,

University of Iowa, Iowa City

GERALD J.IAFRATE,

North Carolina State University, Raleigh

MIRIAM E.JOHN,

Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, California

DONALD R.KEITH,

Cypress International (retired), Alexandria, Virginia

CLARENCE W.KITCHENS,

IIT Research Institute, Alexandria, Virginia

KATHRYN V.LOGAN,

Georgia Institute of Technology (professor emerita), Roswell

JOHN W.LYONS,

Army Research Laboratory (retired), Ellicott City, Maryland

JOHN H.MOXLEY,

Korn/Ferry International, Los Angeles, California

STEWART D.PERSONICK,

Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

MILLARD F.ROSE,

Radiance Technologies, Huntsville, Alabama

GEORGE T.SINGLEY III,

Hicks and Associates, Inc., McLean, Virginia

CLARENCE G.THORNTON,

Army Research Laboratory (retired), Colts Neck, New Jersey

JOHN D.VENABLES,

Venables and Associates, Towson, Maryland

JOSEPH J.VERVIER,

ENSCO, Inc., Indiatlantic, Florida

Staff

BRUCE A.BRAUN, Director

MICHAEL A.CLARKE, Associate Director

WILLIAM E.CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator

CHRIS JONES, Financial Associate

GWEN ROBY, Administrative Assistant

DEANNA P.SPARGER, Senior Project Assistant

DANIEL E.TALMAGE, JR., Research Associate

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×

Preface

The United States has been in the process of destroying its chemical munitions for well over a decade. Initially, the U.S. Army, guided by recommendations from the National Research Council (NRC), decided to use incineration as its destruction method at all sites. However, citizens in some states with stockpile storage sites oppose incineration on the grounds that the exact nature of the effluents escaping from the stacks cannot be determined. The Army has continued to pursue incineration at four of the eight storage sites in the continental United States where that process seemed appropriate. Nevertheless, influenced by growing public opposition to incineration and the 1996 NRC report Review and Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Disposal Technologies, the Army has also been developing technologies based on chemical hydrolysis for the remaining sites. These processes will be used to destroy the VX nerve agent stored at Newport, Indiana, and the mustard agent stored at Aberdeen, Maryland, both of which are stored only in bulk one-ton containers and not in assembled munitions.

In 1996, persuaded by public opposition in Lexington, Kentucky, and Pueblo, Colorado, Congress enacted Public Law 104–201, which instructed the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to “conduct an assessment of the chemical demilitarization program for destruction of assembled chemical munitions and of the alternative demilitarization technologies and processes (other than incineration) that could be used for the destruction of the lethal chemical agents that are associated with these munitions.” In response, the Army established the program manager for the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (PMACWA). In Public Law 104–208, the PMACWA was required to “identify and demonstrate not less than two alternatives to the baseline incineration process for the demilitarization of assembled chemical weapons.” During the first phase of the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) program, seven technologies were evaluated. Three of them proceeded to demonstration testing (Demo I) and one was dropped completely. In August 1999, the PMACWA selected two of the Demo I technologies as candidates for the destruction of the assembled munitions weapons at Pueblo Chemical Depot. The two packages, General Atomics Total Solution (GATS) and Parsons/Honeywell (formerly Parsons-Allied Signal) water hydrolysis of explosives and agent technology (WHEAT), were advanced to the engineering design study phase of the ACWA program.

The PMACWA has involved the citizen stakeholders in every aspect of the program, including the procurement process. The Keystone Center, a nonprofit organization, was hired to facilitate public involvement through a process known as the Dialogue, which has become a model for public involvement in matters of public concern.1

The Congress mandated that the Army coordinate with the NRC during the ACWA program. In response, the NRC established the Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons (ACW I committee) in 1997 to oversee this program. The question before the committee was not whether incineration was an adequate technology for destroying assembled chemical weapons but whether other chemical processes acceptable to the stakeholders could be

1  

The U.S. Department of Energy and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration have both adopted this approach. For example, at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the Dialogue process will be used in developing a Mars sample-return mission, which is scheduled for 2012.

Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×

used. The second NRC committee (ACW II committee) was established in the spring of 2000 to evaluate the two engineering design studies for the destruction facilities at Pueblo, Colorado, and Richmond, Kentucky, and to evaluate the demonstration testing of the three technology packages that had not been selected for those sites or for previous demonstration testing.

Although the PMACWA had no intention of demonstrating these three technologies, Public Law 106–79 (2000) mandated that the PMACWA “conduct evaluations of [the] three additional alternative technologies under the ACWA program.” Furthermore, the PMACWA was directed to “proceed under the same guidelines as contained in Public Law 104–208 and continue to use the Dialogue process and Citizens’ Advisory Technical Team and their consultants.” Accordingly, the PMACWA initiated a program commonly referred to as Demo II to demonstrate the three technologies (AEA SILVER II™, the Foster Wheeler/Eco Logic/ Kvaerner integrated demilitarization process, and Teledyne-Commodore’s solvated electron process) that had not been selected during the first phase. The ACW II committee was asked to determine if and how the Demo II results affected its commentary, findings, and recommendations and the steps that were suggested for implementation in the ACW I report. This report presents the committee’s evaluation of the second set of demonstration tests.

I wish to gratefully acknowledge the hard work of members of the ACW II committee, all of whom served as volunteers and provided the expertise necessary to carry out this enormous task. They gave relentlessly and unselfishly of their time and effort throughout the study. Their areas of expertise included chemical processing, biological remediation, environmental regulations and permitting, energetic materials, and public acceptance. Committee members attended plenary meetings, visited the technology providers’ headquarters and test sites, observed design-review sessions, and studied the extensive literature, including engineering charts and diagrams, provided by the technology providers.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to also express appreciation for the extensive support of the Army ACWA team and its interactions with stakeholders and the Dialogue, particularly the group’s Citizens Advisory Technical Team, whose members attended all open meetings of the committee and shared information and views with it. The committee also appreciated the openness and cordiality of the representatives of the technology providers. They and the Army provided early drafts of their test reports and other documentation to facilitate the committee’s evaluation.

A study such as this requires extensive logistic support; the committee is indebted to the NRC staff for their assistance. I would particularly like to acknowledge the close working relationship I had with the NRC study director, Patricia Paulette. We worked as a team in leading this study. We spoke on the phone daily and e-mailed each other incessantly. The efforts of William Campbell, who took extensive notes and provided real-time report corrections at all our meetings as well as suggestions on how to best organize the report, were invaluable to the committee and to me. Gwen Roby provided the logistic support that enabled us to concentrate on our task. I am also indebted to my colleagues in the Chemistry Department at the University of Southern California who willingly took over my teaching duties while I traveled on behalf of this study.

Robert A.Beaudet, Chair

Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: Phase II

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×

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 NRC’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:

Steven Konkel, Eastern Kentucky University

Richard Magee, New Jersey Institute of Technology

Walter May, Consultant

Ray McGuire, Consultant

Vernon Myers, Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters

George Parshall, E.I. du Pont de Nemours (retired)

Robert Olson, Consultant

Donald Sadoway, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Martin B.Sherwin, Chemical Engineer (retired)

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 Royce Murray, University of North Carolina, 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.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×

List of Figures and Tables

FIGURES

2–1

 

AEA SILVER II™ total system solution,

 

11

2–2

 

Process flow diagram of the AEA 2 kW demilitarization process,

 

12

2–3

 

Process flow diagram of the AEA 12 kW demilitarization plant,

 

13

2–4

 

Revised process flow diagram of the AEA SILVER II™ demilitarization process,

 

18

3–1

 

Schematic diagram of the FW/EL/K demilitarization process,

 

24

4–1

 

Schematic diagram of the Teledyne-Commodore SET™ process,

 

32

TABLES

ES–1

 

Summary Evaluation of the Maturity of Demo II Unit Operations and Processes,

 

3

1–1

 

Description of the Seven Technology Packages That Passed DoD’s Initial Evaluation,

 

7

2–1

 

Destruction Efficiency in the 2 kW Test Unit,

 

14

2–2

 

Anolyte Coupon Weights Before and After Testing,

 

15

5–1

 

Summary Evaluation of the Maturity of Demo II Unit Operations and Processes,

 

38

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×

Acronyms, Chemical Symbols, and Abbreviations


ACWA

Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (program)

ACW I

Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons

ACW II

Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: Phase II

AEA

AEA Technologies Corporation

Ag2+

silver II ions

AgCl

silver chloride

a-HAX

solution containing potassium hydroxide and humic acid


BIF

boiler and industrial furnace


CATOX

catalytic oxidation

CEES

chloroethyl ethyl sulfide

CEM

continuous emission monitor

CO

carbon monoxide

CO2

carbon dioxide

Composition B

an energetic material that contains (nominally) 59.5 percent RDX, 39.5 percent TNT, and 1.0 percent wax

CWC

Chemical Weapons Convention


DAAMS

depot area air monitoring system

Demo I

Demonstration I (demonstration testing of three technologies selected for the first phase of ACWA technology testing)

DMMP

dimethyl methylphosphonate

DoD

U.S. Department of Defense

DPE

demilitarization protective ensemble

DRE

destruction and removal efficiency


ECBC

Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center

EDP

engineering design package

EDS

engineering design study

EPA

Environmental Protection Agency

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×

FEK or FW/EL/K

Foster Wheeler/Eco Logic/Kvaerner


GATS

General Atomics Total Solution

GB

a nerve agent

GC/MS

gas chromatography/mass spectrometry

GPCR™

gas-phase chemical reduction


H2

hydrogen

HD

distilled mustard agent

HF

hydrofluoric acid

HNO3

nitric acid

HPLC

high-performance liquid chromatography

HRA

health risk assessment


ICI

Imperial Chemical Industries

IMPA

isopropyl methylphosphonic acid

IRS

impurities removal system


KOH

potassium hydroxide


LMIDS

Lockheed Martin Integrated Demilitarization System


MACT

maximum achievable control technology

MDM

multipurpose demilitarization machine

MPA

methylphosphonic acid

M28

energetic material used for propulsion of certain assembled chemical weapons


N2

nitrogen

NOx

nitrogen oxides

N2O

nitrous oxide

NRC

National Research Council


O2

oxygen


PA

picric acid

PCP

pentachlorophenol

PGB

product gas burner

PMACWA

program manager for the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment

PMD

projectile mortar demilitarization (machine)

POTW

publicly owned treatment works

ppm

parts per million

PTFE

polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon)


QRA

quantitative risk assessment


RCRA

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RDX

cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine

RFP

request for proposals


SCWO

supercritical water oxidation

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×

SET™

solvated electron technology

SILVER II™

electrochemical oxidation using silver II ions in nitric acid

SOx

sulfur oxides

SO2

sulfur dioxide

SVOC

semivolatile organic compound


TBA

tributylamine

TC

Teledyne-Commodore

TCLP

toxicity characteristic leachate procedure

TNB

trinitrobenzene

TNBA

trinitrobenzoic acid

TNT

trinitrotoluene, an energetic material

TOC

total organic carbon

TRBP

thermal reduction batch processor

TW-SCWO

transpiring-wall supercritical water oxidation


VOC

volatile organic compound

VX

a nerve agent


WHEAT

water hydrolysis of explosives and agent technology


3X

At the 3X decontamination level, solids are decontaminated to the point that agent concentration in the headspace above the encapsulated solid does not exceed the health-based, eight-hour, time-weighted average limit for worker exposure. The level for mustard agent is 3.0 mg per cubic meter in air. Materials classified as 3X may be handled by qualified plant workers using appropriate procedures but are not releasable to the environment or for general public reuse. In specific cases in which approval has been granted, a 3X material may be shipped to an approved hazardous waste treatment facility for disposal in a landfill or for further treatment.

5X level

Treatment of solids to a 5X decontamination level is accomplished by holding a material at 1,000°F for 15 minutes. This treatment results in completely decontaminated material that can be released for general use or sold (e.g., as scrap metal) to the general public in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

5X treatment unit

This unit is used to heat chemical solid waste materials to a level of decontamination where no residual contamination is detectable.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×
Page R14
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×
Page R15
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2001. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10233.
×
Page R16
Next: Executive Summary »
Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review for Demonstration II Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $29.00 Buy Ebook | $23.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

By direction of Congress, the U.S. Department of Defense's (DoD's) program manager for the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (PMACWA) asked the National Research Council (NRC) Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: Phase II (the ACW II committee) to conduct an independent scientific and technical assessment of three alternative technologies (referred to as Demo II) under consideration for the destruction of assembled chemical weapons at U.S. chemical weapons storage sites. The three technologies are AEA Technologies Corporation's (AEA's) electrochemical oxidation process; the transpiring-wall supercritical water oxidation and gasphase chemical reduction processes of Foster Wheeler/Eco Logic/Kvaerner (FW/EL/K); and Teledyne-Commodore's solvated electron process. Each of these technologies represents an alternative to incineration for the complete destruction of chemical agents and associated energetic materials. The demonstration tests were approved by the PMACWA after an initial assessment of each technology. The results of that initial assessment were reviewed by an earlier NRC committee, the Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons (the ACW I committee).

For the present review, the committee conducted an indepth examination of each technology provider's data, analyses, and demonstration test results for the critical components tested. This review report supplements the ACW I report and considers the demonstration performance of the Demo II candidate technologies and their readiness for advancement to pilot-scale implementation. Because testing in these areas is ongoing, the committee decided to cut short its fact-finding efforts for input to this report as of March 30, 2001.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!