@BOOK{NAP author = "National Research Council", title = "2002 Assessment of the Office of Naval Research's Air and Surface Weapons Technology Program", isbn = "978-0-309-08601-1", abstract = "The Office of Naval Research (ONR) contracted with the Naval Studies Board (NSB) of the National Research Council (NRC) to establish a committee to review ONR's Air and Surface Weapons Technology (ASWT) program. The committee convened on May 14 and 15, 2002, and reviewed more than 20 science and technology (S&T) efforts that were presented as constituting the ASWT program. The committee then met separately on May 16, 2002, to formulate its findings and recommendations. This report represents the consensus views of the committee and is based on the information presented prior to and at the review, as well as on the committee members' accumulated experience and expertise in military operations, systems, and technologies.", url = "https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/10594/2002-assessment-of-the-office-of-naval-researchs-air-and-surface-weapons-technology-program", year = 2002, publisher = "The National Academies Press", address = "Washington, DC" } @BOOK{NAP author = "National Research Council", title = "Review of Research Proposals for Cooperation with Former Soviet Biological Weapons Personnel and Institutes: Letter Report from December 2, 2005 Review", abstract = "An ongoing committee of the National Research Council assists the Department of Defense in the development and implementation of a program of expanded scientific cooperation and exchange in peaceful applications of the biological sciences between American research scientists and Russian research scientists who had participated in the biological weapons program of the former Soviet Union. The committee reviews project proposals submitted to DOD by research scientists from Russia, suggests potential collaborators from the United States, and evaluates results of collaborative projects. This letter report provides the committee\u2019s assessment of the proposals considered at its December 2, 2005, meeting.", url = "https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/11576/review-of-research-proposals-for-cooperation-with-former-soviet-biological-weapons-personnel-and-institutes", year = 2006, publisher = "The National Academies Press", address = "Washington, DC" } @BOOK{NAP author = "National Research Council", title = "Review of Research Proposals for Cooperation with Former Soviet Biological Weapons Personnel and Institutes: Letter Report from June 27, 2005 Review", abstract = "An ongoing committee of the National Research Council assists the Department of Defense in the development and implementation of a program of expanded scientific cooperation and exchange in peaceful applications of the biological sciences between American research scientists and Russian research scientists who had participated in the biological weapons program of the former Soviet Union. The committee reviews project proposals submitted to DOD by research scientists from Russia, suggests potential collaborators from the United States, and evaluates results of collaborative projects. This letter report provides the committee\u2019s assessment of the proposals considered at its June 27, 2005, meeting.", url = "https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/11451/review-of-research-proposals-for-cooperation-with-former-soviet-biological-weapons-personnel-and-institutes", year = 2005, publisher = "The National Academies Press", address = "Washington, DC" } @BOOK{NAP author = "National Research Council", title = "Review of Research Proposals for Cooperation with Former Soviet Biological Weapons Personnel and Institutes: Letter Report from 2000-2004 Reviews", abstract = "An ongoing committee of the National Research Council assists the Department of Defense in the development and implementation of a program of expanded scientific cooperation and exchange in peaceful applications of the biological sciences between American research scientists and Russian research scientists who had participated in the biological weapons program of the former Soviet Union. The committee reviews project proposals submitted to DOD by research scientists from Russia, suggests potential collaborators from the United States, and evaluates results of collaborative projects. This report lists the proposals considered from 2000-2004 and summarizes the committee's recommendations.", url = "https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/11430/review-of-research-proposals-for-cooperation-with-former-soviet-biological-weapons-personnel-and-institutes", year = 2005, publisher = "The National Academies Press", address = "Washington, DC" } @BOOK{NAP author = "National Research Council", title = "The Quality of Science and Engineering at the NNSA National Security Laboratories", isbn = "978-0-309-29090-6", abstract = "The three National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) national security laboratories\u2014Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL)\u2014are a major component of the U.S. government's laboratory complex and of the national science and technology base. These laboratories are large, diverse, highly respected institutions with broad programs in basic sciences, applied sciences, technology development, and engineering; and they are home to world-class staff and facilities. Under a recent interagency agreement between the Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, and the intelligence community, they are evolving to serve the needs of the broad national security community. Despite this broadening of substance and support, these laboratories remain the unique locus of science and engineering (S&E) for the U.S. nuclear weapons program, including, most significantly, the science-based stockpile stewardship program and the S&E basis for analyzing and understanding nuclear weapon developments of other nations and non-state actors. The National Research Council (NRC) was asked by Congress to assess the quality of S&E and the management of S&E at these three laboratories.\nThe Quality of Science and Engineering at the NNSA National Security Laboratories is the second of two reports produced as part of this study. This report assesses the quality of S&E in terms of the capability of the laboratories to perform the necessary tasks to execute the laboratories' missions, both at present and in the future. The report identifies the following as four basic pillars of stockpile stewardship and non-proliferation analysis: (1) the weapons design; (2) systems engineering and understanding of the effects of aging on system performance; (3) weapons science base; and (4) modeling and simulation, which provides a capability to integrate theory, experimental data, and system design.\nThe Quality of Science and Engineering at the NNSA National Security Laboratories offers a snapshot of the present with an eye to the future. This report discusses the current state of S&E and makes recommendations to maintain robust programs.", url = "https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/18440/the-quality-of-science-and-engineering-at-the-nnsa-national-security-laboratories", year = 2013, publisher = "The National Academies Press", address = "Washington, DC" } @BOOK{NAP author = "National Research Council", title = "Assessment of Approaches for Using Process Safety Metrics at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants", isbn = "978-0-309-16345-3", abstract = "The Department of Defense, through the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives program, is currently in the process of constructing two full-scale pilot plants at the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Colorado and the Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky to destroy the last two remaining inventories of chemical weapons in the U.S. stockpile. These two storage sites together account for about 10 percent of the original U.S. chemical agent stockpile that is in the process of being destroyed in accordance with the international Chemical Weapons Convention treaty. Unlike their predecessors, these facilities will use neutralization technologies to destroy agents contained within rockets, projectiles, and mortar rounds, requiring the use of specially designed equipment. \n\nAs part of its focus on safe operation of the planned facilities, the Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives asked the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct a study to offer guidance on the application of process safety metrics at the Pueblo Chemical Depot and Blue Grass Army Depot. Process safety is a disciplined framework for managing the integrity of operating systems, processes and personnel handling hazardous substances, and operations by applying good design principles, engineering, and operating practices. Process Safety Metrics at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants discusses the use of leading and lagging process safety metrics that could provide feedback on the effectiveness of controls to mitigate risks and minimize consequences of potential incidents. \n\nThe book makes several recommendations that will facilitate the development and application of process safety metrics at both sites.\n ", url = "https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/13041/assessment-of-approaches-for-using-process-safety-metrics-at-the-blue-grass-and-pueblo-chemical-agent-destruction-pilot-plants", year = 2011, publisher = "The National Academies Press", address = "Washington, DC" } @BOOK{NAP author = "National Research Council", title = "Review of Secondary Waste Disposal Planning for the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants", isbn = "978-0-309-12050-0", abstract = "The U.S. Army Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (PMACWA) is charged with disposing of chemical weapons as stored at two sites: Pueblo, Colorado, and Blue Grass, Kentucky. In accordance with congressional mandates, technologies other than incineration are to be used if they are as safe and as cost effective. The weapons are to be disposed of in compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention. Although an element of the U.S. Army, the PMACWA is responsible to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions, Technology, and Logistics for completing this mission.\nThis book deals with the expected significant quantities of secondary wastes that will be generated during operations of the facilities and their closure. While there are only estimates for the waste quantities that will be generated, they provide a good basis for planning and developing alternatives for waste disposal while the plants are still in the design phase. Establishing efficient disposal options for the secondary wastes can enable more timely and cost-effective operation and closure of the facilities.\n ", url = "https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/12210/review-of-secondary-waste-disposal-planning-for-the-blue-grass-and-pueblo-chemical-agent-destruction-pilot-plants", year = 2008, publisher = "The National Academies Press", address = "Washington, DC" } @BOOK{NAP author = "National Research Council", title = "An Assessment of Undersea Weapons Science and Technology", isbn = "978-0-309-06926-7", abstract = "The Department of the Navy strives to maintain, through its Office of Naval Research (ONR), a vigorous science and technology (S&T) program in those areas considered critically important to U.S. naval superiority in the maritime environment, including littoral waters and shore regions. In pursuing its S&T investments in such areas, ONR must ensure that (1) a robust U.S. research capability to work on long-term S&T problems in areas of interest to the Department of the Navy and the Department of Defense is sustained, (2) an adequate supply of new scientists and engineers in these areas is maintained, and (3) S&T products and processes necessary to ensure future superiority in naval warfare are provided. One of the critical areas for the Department of the Navy is undersea weapons.\nAn Assessment of Undersea Weapons Science and Technology assesses the health of the existing Navy program in undersea weapons, evaluates the Navy's research effort to develop the capabilities needed for future undersea weapons, identifies non-Navy-sponsored research and development efforts that might facilitate the development of such advanced weapons capabilities, and makes recommendations to focus the Navy's research program so that it can meet future needs.", url = "https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/9863/an-assessment-of-undersea-weapons-science-and-technology", year = 2000, publisher = "The National Academies Press", address = "Washington, DC" } @BOOK{NAP author = "National Research Council", title = "Review Criteria for Successful Treatment of Hydrolysate at the Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant", isbn = "978-0-309-31788-7", abstract = "One of the last two sites with chemical munitions and chemical materiel is the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Pueblo, Colorado. The stockpile at this location consists of about 800,000 projectiles and mortars, all of which are filled with the chemical agent mustard. Under the direction of the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternative Program (ACWA), the Army has constructed the Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant (PCAPP) to destroy these munitions. The primary technology to be used to destroy the mustard agent at PCAPP is hydrolysis, resulting in a secondary waste stream referred to as hydrolysate.\nPCAPP features a process that will be used to treat the hydrolysate and the thiodiglycol - a breakdown product of mustard - contained within. The process is a biotreatment technology that uses what are known as immobilized cell bioreactors. After biodegradation, the effluent flows to a brine reduction system, producing a solidified filter cake that is intended to be sent offsite to a permitted hazardous waste disposal facility. Water recovered from the brine reduction system is intended to be recycled back through the plant, thereby reducing the amount of water that is withdrawn from groundwater. Although biotreatment of toxic chemicals, brine reduction, and water recovery are established technologies, never before have these technologies been combined to treat mustard hydrolysate.\nAt the request of the U.S. Army, Review Criteria for Successful Treatment of Hydrolysate at the Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant reviews the criteria for successfully treating the hydrolysate. This report provides information on the composition of the hydrolysate and describes the PCAPP processes for treating it; discusses stakeholder concerns; reviews regulatory considerations at the federal, state, and local levels; discusses Department of Transportation regulations and identifies risks associated with the offsite shipment of hydrolysate; establishes criteria for successfully treating the hydrolysate and identifies systemization data that should factor into the criteria and decision process for offsite transport and disposal of the hydrolysate; and discusses failure risks and contingency options as well as the downstream impacts of a decision to ship hydrolysate offsite.\n", url = "https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/19050/review-criteria-for-successful-treatment-of-hydrolysate-at-the-pueblo-chemical-agent-destruction-pilot-plant", year = 2015, publisher = "The National Academies Press", address = "Washington, DC" } @BOOK{NAP author = "National Research Council", title = "Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants", isbn = "978-0-309-12683-0", abstract = "The Army's ability to meet public and congressional demands to destroy expeditiously all of the U.S. declared chemical weapons would be enhanced by the selection and acquisition of appropriate explosive destruction technologies (EDTs) to augment the main technologies to be used to destroy the chemical weapons currently at the Blue Grass Army Depot (BGAD) in Kentucky and the Pueblo Chemical Depot (PCD) in Colorado. The Army is considering four EDTs for the destruction of chemical weapons: three from private sector vendors, and a fourth, Army-developed explosive destruction system (EDS). \n\nThis book updates earlier evaluations of these technologies, as well as any other viable detonation technologies, based on several considerations including process maturity, process efficacy, process throughput, process safety, public and regulatory acceptability, and secondary waste issues, among others. It also provides detailed information on each of the requirements at BGAD and PCD and rates each of the existing suitable EDTs plus the Army's EDS with respect to how well it satisfies these requirements.", url = "https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/12482/assessment-of-explosive-destruction-technologies-for-specific-munitions-at-the-blue-grass-and-pueblo-chemical-agent-destruction-pilot-plants", year = 2009, publisher = "The National Academies Press", address = "Washington, DC" } @BOOK{NAP author = "National Research Council", title = "Review of Biotreatment, Water Recovery, and Brine Reduction Systems for the Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant", isbn = "978-0-309-26393-1", abstract = " The Pueblo Chemical Depot (PCD) in Colorado is one of two sites that features U.S. stockpile of chemical weapons that need to be destroyed. The PCD features about 2,600 tons of mustard-including agent. The PCD also features a pilot plant, the Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant (PCAPP), which has been set up to destroy the agent and munition bodies using novel processes. The chemical neutralization or hydrolysis of the mustard agent produces a Schedule 2 compound called thiodiglycol (TDG) that must be destroyed. The PCAPP uses a combined water recovery system (WRS) and brine reduction system (BRS) to destroy TDG and make the water used in the chemical neutralization well water again. \n\nSince the PCAPP is using a novel process, the program executive officer for the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) program asked the National Research Council (NRC) to initiate a study to review the PCAPP WRS-BRS that was already installed at PCAPP. 5 months into the study in October, 2012, the NRC was asked to also review the Biotreatment area (BTA). The Committee on Review of Biotreatment, Water Recovery, and Brine Reduction Systems for the Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant was thus tasked with evaluating the operability, life-expectancy, working quality, results of Biotreatment studies carried out prior to 1999 and 1999-2004, and the current design, systemization approached, and planned operation conditions for the Biotreatment process. \n \nReview of Biotreatment, Water Recovery, and Brine Reduction Systems for the Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant is the result of the committee's investigation. The report includes diagrams of the Biotreatment area, the BRS, and WRS; a table of materials of construction, the various recommendations made by the committee; and more. \n ", url = "https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/13494/review-of-biotreatment-water-recovery-and-brine-reduction-systems-for-the-pueblo-chemical-agent-destruction-pilot-plant", year = 2013, publisher = "The National Academies Press", address = "Washington, DC" } @BOOK{NAP author = "National Research Council", title = "Review of Chemical Agent Secondary Waste Disposal and Regulatory Requirements", isbn = "978-0-309-10610-8", url = "https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/11881/review-of-chemical-agent-secondary-waste-disposal-and-regulatory-requirements", year = 2007, publisher = "The National Academies Press", address = "Washington, DC" } @BOOK{NAP author = "National Research Council", title = "Disposal of Neutralent Wastes: Review and Evaluation of the Army Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Disposal Program", isbn = "978-0-309-07287-8", abstract = "Chemical warfare materiel (CWM) is a collection of diverse items that were used during 60 years of efforts by the United States to develop a capability for conducting chemical warfare. Nonstockpile CWM, which is not included in the current U.S. inventory of chemical munitions, includes buried materiel, recovered materiel, binary chemical weapons, former production facilities, and miscellaneous materiel. CWM that was buried in pits on former military sites is now being dug up as the land is being developed for other purposes. Other CWM is on or near the surface at former test and firing ranges. According to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which was ratified by the United States in April 1997, nonstockpile CWM items in storage at the time of ratification must be destroyed by 2007.\nThe U.S. Army is the designated executive agent for destroying CWM. Nonstockpile CWM is being handled by the Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Program (NSCMP); stockpile CWM is the responsibility of the Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program. Because nonstockpile CWM is stored or buried in many locations, the Army is developing transportable disposal systems that can be moved from site to site as needed. The Army has plans to test prototypes of three transportable systems\u2014the rapid response system (RRS), the munitions management device (MMD), and the explosive destruction system (EDS)\u2014for accessing and destroying a range of nonstockpile chemical agents and militarized industrial chemicals. The RRS is designed to treat recovered chemical agent identification sets (CAIS), which contain small amounts of chemical agents and a variety of highly toxic industrial chemicals. The MMD is designed to treat nonexplosively configured chemical munitions. The EDS is designed to treat munitions containing chemical agents with energetics equivalent to three pounds of TNT or less. These munitions are considered too unstable to be transported or stored. A prototype EDS system has recently been tested in England by non-stockpile program personnel. Although originally proposed for evaluation in this report, no test data were available to the committee on the composition of wastes from the EDS. Therefore, alternative technologies for the destruction of EDS wastes will be discussed in a supplemental report in fall 2001. Treatment of solid wastes, such as metal munition bodies, packing materials, and carbon air filters, were excluded from this report.\nReview and Evaluation of the Army Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Disposal Program: Disposal of Neutralent Wastes evaluates the near-term (1999-2005) application of advanced (nonincineration) technologies, such as from the Army's Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment Program and the Alternative Technologies and Approaches Project, in a semi-fixed, skid-mounted mode to process Rapid Response System, Munitions Management Device, and Explosive Destruction System liquid neutralization wastes.", url = "https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/10091/disposal-of-neutralent-wastes-review-and-evaluation-of-the-army", year = 2001, publisher = "The National Academies Press", address = "Washington, DC" } @BOOK{NAP author = "Institute of Medicine", editor = "Susan Thaul and William F. Page and Harriet Crawford and Heather O'Maonaigh", title = "The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests", isbn = "978-0-309-06781-2", abstract = "More than 200,000 U.S. military personnel participated in atmospheric nuclear weapons tests between 1945 and the 1963 Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Questions persist, such as whether that test participation is associated with the timing and causes of death among those individuals. This is the report of a mortality study of the approximately 70,000 soldiers, sailors, and airmen who participated in at least one of five selected U.S. nuclear weapons test series1 in the 1950s and nearly 65,000 comparable nonparticipants, the referents. The investigation described in this report, based on more than 5 million person-years of mortality follow-up, represents one of the largest cohort studies of military veterans ever conducted.", url = "https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/9697/the-five-series-study-mortality-of-military-participants-in-us", year = 2000, publisher = "The National Academies Press", address = "Washington, DC" } @BOOK{NAP author = "National Research Council", title = "A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency", isbn = "978-0-309-08902-9", abstract = "From 1945 through 1962, the US atmospheric nuclear weapons testing program involved hundreds of thousands of military and civilian personnel, and some of them were exposed to ionizing radiation. Veterans' groups have since been concerned that their members' health was affected by radiation exposure associated with participation in nuclear tests and have pressured Congress for disability compensation. Several pieces of legislation have been passed to compensate both military and civilian personnel for such health effects. Veterans' concerns about the accuracy of reconstructed doses prompted Congress to have the General Accounting Office (GAO) review the dose reconstruction program used to estimate exposure. The GAO study concluded that dose reconstruction is a valid method of estimating radiation dose and could be used as the basis of compensation. It also recommended an independent review of the dose reconstruction program. The result of that recommendation was a congressional mandate that the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), a part of the Department of Defense, ask the National Research Council to conduct an independent review of the dose reconstruction program. In response to that request, the National Research Council established the Committee to Review the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency in the Board on Radiation Effects Research (BRER).The committee randomly selected sample records of doses that had been reconstructed by DTRA and carefully evaluated them. The committee's report describes its findings and provides responses to many of the questions that have been raised by the veterans.", url = "https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/10697/a-review-of-the-dose-reconstruction-program-of-the-defense-threat-reduction-agency", year = 2003, publisher = "The National Academies Press", address = "Washington, DC" } @BOOK{NAP author = "National Research Council", title = "1999 Assessment of the Office of Naval Research's Air and Surface Weapons Technology Program", isbn = "978-0-309-06632-7", url = "https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/9687/1999-assessment-of-the-office-of-naval-researchs-air-and-surface-weapons-technology-program", year = 1999, publisher = "The National Academies Press", address = "Washington, DC" } @BOOK{NAP author = "National Research Council", title = "Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons: A Supplemental Review", isbn = "978-0-309-06897-0", abstract = "In 1996, the U.S. Congress enacted two laws, Public Law 104-201 (authorization legislation) and Public Law 104-208 (appropriation legislation), mandating that the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) conduct an assessment of alternative technologies to the baseline incineration process for the demilitarization of assembled chemical munitions.\nThe PMACWA had previously requested that the National Research Council (NRC) perform and publish an independent evaluation of the seven technologies packages that had been selected during earlier phases of the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) program and deliver a report by September 1, 1999. However, to meet that deadline, the NRC Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons (ACW Committee) had to terminate its data-gathering activities on March 15, 1999, prior to the completion of demonstration tests. In September 1999, the PMACWA requested that the ACW Committee examine the reports of the demonstration tests and determine if the results changed the committee's original findings, recommendations, and comments. Evaluation of Demonstration Test Results of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons documents the committee's reassessment of the findings and recommendations in the original report, Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons.", url = "https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/9776/evaluation-of-demonstration-test-results-of-alternative-technologies-for-demilitarization-of-assembled-chemical-weapons", year = 2000, publisher = "The National Academies Press", address = "Washington, DC" } @BOOK{NAP author = "National Research Council", title = "Review and Assessment of Developmental Issues Concerning the Metal Parts Treater Design for the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant", isbn = "978-0-309-11515-5", abstract = "The United States is in the process of destroying its chemical weapons stockpile. In 1996, Congress mandated that DOD demonstrate and select alternative methods to incineration at the Blue Grass and Pueblo sites. The Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) program was setup to oversee the development of these methods, and pilot plants were established at both sites. One of the new technologies being developed at the Blue Grass pilot plant are metal parts treaters (MPTs) to be used for the empty metal munitions cases. During recent testing, some issues arose with the MPTs that caused the ACWA to request a review by the NRC to investigate and determine their causes. This book presents a discussion of the MPT system; an assessment of the MPT testing activities; an analysis of thermal testing, modeling, and predicted throughput of the MPT; and an examination of the applicability of munitions treatment units under development at Pueblo for the Blue Grass pilot plant.", url = "https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/12074/review-and-assessment-of-developmental-issues-concerning-the-metal-parts-treater-design-for-the-blue-grass-chemical-agent-destruction-pilot-plant", year = 2008, publisher = "The National Academies Press", address = "Washington, DC" } @BOOK{NAP author = "National Academy of Sciences", title = "Global Security Engagement: A New Model for Cooperative Threat Reduction", isbn = "978-0-309-13106-3", abstract = " The government's first Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs were created in 1991 to eliminate the former Soviet Union's nuclear, chemical, and other weapons and prevent their proliferation. The programs have accomplished a great deal: deactivating thousands of nuclear warheads, neutralizing chemical weapons, converting weapons facilities for peaceful use, and redirecting the work of former weapons scientists and engineers, among other efforts. Originally designed to deal with immediate post-Cold War challenges, the programs must be expanded to other regions and fundamentally redesigned as an active tool of foreign policy that can address contemporary threats from groups that are that are agile, networked, and adaptable. As requested by Congress, Global Security Engagement proposes how this goal can best be achieved.\n\nTo meet the magnitude of new security challenges, particularly at the nexus of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, Global Security Engagement recommends a new, more flexible, and responsive model that will draw on a broader range of partners than current programs have. The White House, working across the Executive Branch and with Congress, must lead this effort.\n ", url = "https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/12583/global-security-engagement-a-new-model-for-cooperative-threat-reduction", year = 2009, publisher = "The National Academies Press", address = "Washington, DC" } @BOOK{NAP author = "National Research Council", title = "Science and Technology for Environmental Cleanup at Hanford", isbn = "978-0-309-07596-1", abstract = "The Hanford Site was established by the federal government in 1943 as part of the secret wartime effort to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. The site operated for about four decades and produced roughly two thirds of the 100 metric tons of plutonium in the U.S. inventory. Millions of cubic meters of radioactive and chemically hazardous wastes, the by-product of plutonium production, were stored in tanks and ancillary facilities at the site or disposed or discharged to the subsurface, the atmosphere, or the Columbia River.\nIn the late 1980s, the primary mission of the Hanford Site changed from plutonium production to environmental restoration. The federal government, through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), began to invest human and financial resources to stabilize and, where possible, remediate the legacy of environmental contamination created by the defense mission. During the past few years, this financial investment has exceeded $1 billion annually. DOE, which is responsible for cleanup of the entire weapons complex, estimates that the cleanup program at Hanford will last until at least 2046 and will cost U.S. taxpayers on the order of $85 billion.\nScience and Technology for Environmental Cleanup at Hanford provides background information on the Hanford Site and its Integration Project,discusses the System Assessment Capability, an Integration Project-developed risk assessment tool to estimate quantitative effects of contaminant releases, and reviews the technical elements of the scierovides programmatic-level recommendations.", url = "https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/10220/science-and-technology-for-environmental-cleanup-at-hanford", year = 2001, publisher = "The National Academies Press", address = "Washington, DC" }