Chemical weapons destruction technologies

Jean Pascal Zanders, The Destruction of Old Chemical Weapons in Belgium , in Stock and Lohs, eds. The Challenge of Old Chemical Munitions and Toxic Armament Wastes, pp. 197-230 Graham S. Pearson and Richard S. Magee, Critical Evaluation of Proven Chemical Weapon Destruction Technologies , Pure and Applied Chemistry... 

Pearson and Magee, Critical Evaluation of Proven Chemical Weapon Destruction Technologies . 

As Pearson and Magee have pointed out in their comprehensive review of existing chemical weapon destruction technologies, the technical problems involved are multidimensional. First of all, chemical warfare agents can be found in assembled chemical weapons,... 

See G. S. Pearson and R. S. Magee, Critical evaluation of proven chemical weapon destruction technologies (IUPAC Technical Report), in Pure and Applied Chemistry, 74 (2), 2002, 187-316, quote on 202. 

Petrov, S.V. (1996) Chemical weapons destruction technologies are chosen. Pilot plants construction is begining, /. Nuclear Control 13,2-6. 

APPENDIX B MEMBERS OF THE lUPAC COMMITTEE ON CHEMICAL WEAPONS DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES... 

As a step toward solution of the mentioned problems, the Conmiittee on Chemical Weapons Destruction Technologies of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (lUPAC), in cooperation with chemical weapons experts from the United Kingdom and the United States, sought assistance from the NATO Scientific Affairs Division in staging a workshop for examination of them. NATO agreed to provide support, and a NATO Advanced Research Workshop entitled Chemical Problems Associated with Old Mustard and Arsenical Munitions was organized. The co-chairmen of this NATO ARW are co-editors of this book both are members of the mentioned lUPAC committee. 

In its intellectual dimensions, the NATO ARW was co-sponsored by the Committee on Chemical Weapons Destruction Technologies of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (lUPAC). The work of this Committee was supported importantly by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (U.S.) and by the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche dTtalia, and significantly by lUPAC, the UK Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, the U.S. Army European Research Office, and the University of California, Santa Cruz. 

In this domain of non-proliferation and disarmament, as in many others, the majority of available information originates in the United States. Chemical weapons destruction programmes in other countries will be addressed but with less depth and fewer examples. Although much of the US controversy revolves around issues of the risk associated with incineration versus non-incineration disposal technologies, my intention in this chapter is not to make a new technical assessment of the two. I shall address how technical and scientific assessments regarding chemical weapons disposal have been communicated, viewed and utilized by the pubhc. 

W. Henry Lambright, Searching for a Safer Technology Army-Community Conflict in Chemical Weapons Destruction (Case Study for the Joint National Security Studies Program of Syracuse University and Johns Hopkins University, Syracuse, New York and Washington DC, CS 1298-11,1999). 

National Research Council, U.S. and Foreign Experience with Chemical Weapons Destruction , in Alternative Technologies for the Destruction of Chemical Agents and Munitions (Washington, DC National Academy Press, 1993), pp. 54 74. 

A historical analysis of destruction technologies applied shows that approximately 80 per cent of chemical weapons destruction since 1958 has used high-temperature incineration as the method of choice. The remainder was destroyed either through neutralization or a combination of neutralization and incineration.28 As Pearson and Magee in the IUPAC study on CW destruction technologies explain ... 

Pearson and Magee (2002) state that more chemical agent has been destroyed by incineration than by any other technology. Table 5-1 shows major chemical weapon destruction... 

Petrov, V.G., and A.V. Trubachev. 2000. On certain problems of technical and ecological safety during chemical weapons destruction in the Udmurt Republic. Proceedings of Munster 2000, The 2nd International Symposium, Destruction of Chemical Weapons—Technologies and Practical Aspects, July 30-August 3, 2000. Munster, Germany Munster Expo 2000 Committee. 

Can the technology be implemented within 3 to 5 years Yes. Already has been implemented in Belgium. Yes. Already has been implemented in Japan. Yes. Being implemented at German government chemical weapon destruction facility. Yes, in full use now. 

Both technology packages consist of multiple unit operations that work in sequence or concurrently to carry out all aspects of chemical weapons destruction. Both processes are designed to treat agent, energetic materials, metal parts... 

The U.S. Army is in the process of destroying the country s stockpile of aging chemical weapons, stored at eight locations in the continental United States and on Johnston Atoll in the Pacific Ocean. The deadline for completing the destruction of these weapons, as specified by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) international treaty, is April 29, 2007. Originally, the Army selected incineration as the preferred baseline destruction technology, and it currently operates two incineration facilities—one on Johnston Atoll and one at the Deseret Chemical Depot near Tooele, Utah. The Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System (JACADS) completed destruction of the stockpile on Johnston Island in late 2000, and closure of the... 

The specter of chemical death persists. Like atom bombs, chemical weapons have been classified as weapons of mass destruction. But were they, and are they Nerve agents such as VX and sarin can certainly kill swiftly. But so can hundreds of familiar drugs and poisons. The real question is whether anyone within the limits of current technology can, in fact, use them effectively as lethal weapons on the battlefield. 

---