In 1994 the National Research Council published Recommendations for the Disposal of Chemical Agents and Munitions, which assessed the status of various alternative destruction technologies in comparison to the Army's baseline incineration system. The volume's main finding was that no alternative technology was preferable to incineration but that work should continue on the neutralization technologies under Army consideration. In light of the fact that alternative technologies have evolved since the 1994 study, this new volume evaluates five Army-chosen alternatives to the baseline incineration system for the disposal of the bulk nerve and mustard agent stored in ton containers at Army sites located in Newport, Indiana, and Aberdeen, Maryland, respectively. The committee assessed each technology by conducting site visits to the locations of the technology proponent companies and by meeting with state regulators and citizens of the affected areas. This volume makes recommendations to the Army on which, if any, of the five technologies has reached a level of maturity appropriate for consideration for pilot-scale testing at the two affected sites.

This report examines seven disposal technologies being considered by the U.S. government as alternative methods to the process of incineration for destroying mortars, rockets, land mines, and other weapons that contain chemical warfare agents, such as mustard gas. These weapons are considered especially dangerous because they contain both chemical warfare agent and explosive materials in an assembled package that must be disassembled for destruction. The study identifies the strengths and weaknesses and advantages and disadvantages of each technology and assesses their potential for full-scale implementation.

This report examines seven disposal technologies being considered by the U.S. government as alternative methods to the process of incineration for destroying mortars, rockets, land mines, and other weapons that contain chemical warfare agents, such as mustard gas. These weapons are considered especially dangerous because they contain both chemical warfare agent and explosive materials in an assembled package that must be disassembled for destruction. The study identifies the strengths and weaknesses and advantages and disadvantages of each technology and assesses their potential for full-scale implementation.

Chemical warfare materiel (CWM) encompasses diverse items that were used during 60 years of efforts by the United States to develop a capability for conducting chemical warfare. Non-Stockpile CWM (NSCWM) is materiel not included in the current U.S. inventory of chemical munitions and includes buried materiel, recovered materiel, components of binary chemical weapons, former production facilities, and miscellaneous materiel. Because NSCWM is stored or buried at many locations, the Army is developing transportable treatment systems that can be moved from site to site as needed. Originally, the Army planned to develop three transportable treatment systems for nonstockpile chemical materiel: the rapid response system (RRS), the munitions management device (MMD), and the explosive destruction system (EDS). This report supplements an earlier report that evaluated eight alternative technologies for destruction of the liquid waste streams from two of the U.S. Army's transportable treatment systems for nonstockpile chemical materiel: the RRS and the MMD. This report evaluates the same technologies for the destruction of liquid waste streams produced by the EDS and discusses the regulatory approval issues and obstacles for the combined use of the EDS and the alternative technologies that treat the EDS secondary waste streams. Although it focuses on the destruction of EDS neutralent, it also takes into consideration the ability of posttreatment technologies to process the more dilute water rinses that are used in the EDS following treatment with a reagent.

In 1994 the National Research Council published Recommendations for the Disposal of Chemical Agents and Munitions, which assessed the status of various alternative destruction technologies in comparison to the Army's baseline incineration system. The volume's main finding was that no alternative technology was preferable to incineration but that work should continue on the neutralization technologies under Army consideration. In light of the fact that alternative technologies have evolved since the 1994 study, this new volume evaluates five Army-chosen alternatives to the baseline incineration system for the disposal of the bulk nerve and mustard agent stored in ton containers at Army sites located in Newport, Indiana, and Aberdeen, Maryland, respectively. The committee assessed each technology by conducting site visits to the locations of the technology proponent companies and by meeting with state regulators and citizens of the affected areas. This volume makes recommendations to the Army on which, if any, of the five technologies has reached a level of maturity appropriate for consideration for pilot-scale testing at the two affected sites.