National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×

Alternatives for the Demilitarization
of Conventional Munitions

Committee on Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions

Board on Army Science and Technology

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

A Consensus Study Report of

images

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, DC
www.nap.edu

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS • 500 Fifth Street, NW • Washington, DC 20001

This activity was supported by Contract No. W911NF-13-D-0002, TO#3 with the U.S. Department of Defense. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-47732-1
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-47732-8
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25140

Additional copies of this publication are available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.

Copyright 2019 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/25140.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×

Image

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×

Image

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.

Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.

For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×

COMMITTEE ON ALTERNATIVES FOR THE DEMILITARIZATION OF CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS

TODD A. KIMMELL, Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, D.C., Chair

DOUGLAS M. MEDVILLE, Independent Consultant, Highlands Ranch, Colorado, Vice Chair

JUDITH A. BRADBURY, Independent Consultant, Knoxville, Tennessee

GAIL CHARNLEY, HealthRisk Strategies, LLC, Washington, D.C.

HEREK L. CLACK, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

DEBORAH L. GRUBBE, Operations and Safety Solutions, LLC, Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania

REBECCA A. HAFFENDEN, Argonne National Laboratory Associate, Santa Fe, New Mexico

PETER R. JAFFE, Princeton University, New Jersey

RICHARD S. MAGEE, New Jersey Corporation for Advanced Technology (NJCAT), Hoboken

JAMES P. PASTORICK, Independent Consultant, Alexandria, Virginia

SETH P. TULER, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Massachusetts

WILLIAM J. WALSH, Clark Hill, PLC, Washington, D.C.

LAWRENCE J. WASHINGTON, Independent Consultant, Midland, Michigan

Staff

BRUCE BRAUN, Director, Board on Army Science and Technology

JAMES C. MYSKA, Program Officer, Study Director

GREG EYRING, Senior Program Officer

NIA D. JOHNSON, Senior Research Associate

DEANNA SPARGER, Program Administrative Coordinator

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×

BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

DAVID M. MADDOX (GEN, U.S. Army, retired), NAE,1 Independent Consultant, Arlington, Virginia, Chair

SCOTT BADENOCH, Badenoch, LLC, Southfield, Michigan

STEVEN W. BOUTELLE (LTG, U.S. Army, retired), Independent Consultant, Arlington, Virginia

CARL A. CASTRO, Center for Innovation and Research and Military Families, University of Southern California, Los Angeles

DAVID E. CROW, NAE, University of Connecticut, Glastonbury

REGINALD DESROCHES, Rice University, Houston, Texas

FRANCIS J. DOYLE III, NAM,2 Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

JULIA D. ERDLEY, Pennsylvania State University, State College

LESTER A. FOSTER, Electronic Warfare Associates, Herndon, Virginia

JAMES A. FREEBERSYSER, BBN Technology, St. Louis Park, Minnesota

PETER N. FULLER (MG, U.S. Army, retired), Cypress International, Alexandria, Virginia

R. JOHN HANSMAN, NAE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

J. SEAN HUMBERT, University of Colorado, Boulder

JOHN W. HUTCHINSON, NAS3/NAE, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

JENNIE HWANG, NAE, H-Technologies Group, Cleveland, Ohio

JOHN JOANNOPOULOS, NAS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

ERIC T. MATSON, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

ROGER L. McCARTHY, NAE, McCarthy Engineering, Palo Alto, California

MICHAEL McGRATH, McGrath Analytics, LLC, Reston, Virginia

ALLAN T. MENSE, Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Arizona

WALTER F. MORRISON, WFM Consulting, Alexandria, Virginia

DANIEL PODOLSKY, NAM, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas

KENNETH M. ROSEN, NAE, General Aero-Science Consultants, LLC, Guilford, Connecticut

ALBERT A. SCIARRETTA, CNS Technologies, Inc., Springfield, Virginia

NEIL SIEGEL, NAE, Northrop Grumman Information Systems, Carson, California

MICHAEL A. VANE (LTG, U.S. Army, retired), Independent Consultant, Shaver Lake, California

Staff

BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director

CHRIS JONES, Financial Manager

DEANNA P. SPARGER, Program Administrative Coordinator

___________________

1 Member, National Academy of Engineering.

2 Member, National Academy of Medicine.

3 Member, National Academy of Sciences.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×

Preface

I have been on a number of National Academies committees, all of which have been challenging. This committee has been different in many respects. First, it is congressionally mandated, which puts it on a higher level of visibility. That aside, the subject matter delves into an area that has been controversial for many years—from the perspective of the public, regulators, and the military. Open burning/open detonation (OB/OD) of excess, obsolete, or unserviceable munitions has been a common disposal practice for decades, even centuries. It is quick, relatively straightforward, and relatively inexpensive. Although there have been safety incidents, it can also be conducted safely. The downside, as can be deduced from the word “open” is that OB/OD releases contaminants into the environment. During my observations of OB/OD operations at many locations, thick plumes of smoke and particulates are quite visible during these operations. Public interest groups have been opposed to OB/OD operations for years.

Yet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states have issued permits under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for a number of OB/OD operations, and several permits are still pending. In order for a facility to receive an RCRA permit, the operation must be shown to be protective of human health and the environment—a statutory requirement of RCRA. This would lead one to believe that OB/OD can be conducted in a manner that, according to environmental regulatory agencies, is protective of human health and the environment. The permits, however, are accompanied by many restrictions, all of which limit what can be treated, when it can be treated, how it can be treated, and the rate of treatment. They also contain extensive monitoring requirements. Many hazardous waste cleanup sites exist across the United States, and the contamination as a result of OB/OD operations is well documented. But most, if not all, of these are pre-RCRA “legacy sites” operated without the restrictions we see in RCRA permits today.

On the other hand, there are new and emerging technologies for the demilitarization of conventional munitions, which consist mostly of some type of contained burning (CB) or contained detonation (CD). Recycling and recovery are also employed, as are other technologies. These technologies, by their nature, limit the release of constituents into the environment to a relatively small amount. CB/CD technologies are more environmentally acceptable—RCRA permits for their operation carry fewer restrictions as compared to OB/OD. Like OB/OD, CB/CD can also be conducted safely, but there is an increased risk to workers due to additional handling requirements associated with many of the alternatives. Public interest groups will always favor CB/CD over OB/OD. The primary downside of most of the available CB/CD technologies is cost and throughput. And considering the huge inventory of munitions maintained by the military that is destined for destruction, cost and throughput become very important considerations, especially when you consider that EPA and the States maintain that permitted OB/OD operations are safe for human health and the environment.

I would like to thank the U.S. Army and the product director for demilitarization, Department of Defense representatives and staff, EPA and the state regulators, and Army contractors that provided input to the committee’s deliberations and accommodated its numerous inquiries. I also want to thank the vendors of alternative technologies that addressed the committee and responded to its inquiries. My thanks also to representatives of the public interest groups that addressed the committee as well, including California Communities Against Toxics, the Cease Fire Campaign, and Environmental Patriots of the New River Valley, for offering

Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×

their perspectives on the issues. I would also like to thank Senator Tammy Baldwin and her staff for their input and direction during the conduct of the study. I must also thank the staff of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine for their tireless and outstanding support, especially Bruce Braun, Jim Myska, Greg Eyring, Nia Johnson, and Deanna Sparger. I also thank the committee members for putting up with my challenging schedule, onerous demands, and my dry and only sometimes witty sense of humor. Last, I must offer my very sincere thanks to Committee Vice Chair

Doug Medville for his dedication, perseverance, and attention to detail. It was often hard to tell who was the chair and who was the vice chair. Thank you, Doug!

Image

Todd A. Kimmell, Chair
Committee on Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×

Acknowledgment of Reviewers

This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, 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 thank the following individuals for their review of this report:

Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Hyla S. Napadensky, retired vice president, Napadensky Energetics, Inc. She was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.

___________________

1 Member, National Academy of Engineering.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×

3 REVIEW OF CONVENTIONAL OPEN BURNING/OPEN DETONATION TECHNOLOGIES

Components of Environmental and Public Health Concern

Overview of Open Burning and Open Detonation

Open Burning

Open Detonation

References

4 REVIEW OF CANDIDATE ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES

Introduction

Preparation Technologies

Disassembly and Size Reduction

Energetics Removal

Contained Detonation Chambers

Controlled Detonation Chamber (CDC)

Explosive Destruction System (EDS)

Detonation of Ammunition in a Vacuum Integrated Chamber (DAVINCH)

Contained Burn and Rocket and Missile Motor Firing Chambers

Contained Burn Chambers

A Large Contained Burn System Application: Camp Minden, Louisiana

Contained Firing of Rocket and Missile Motors

A Large Rocket Motor Contained Burn Application: Ammonium Perchlorate Rocket Motor Destruction (ARMD) Facility

Static Detonation Chamber (SDC)

Deactivation Furnaces/Rotary Kiln Incinerators

APE 1236M2

Explosive Waste Incinerator (EWI)

Rotary Kiln Incinerator (RKI)

Decineration

Bulk Energetics Disposal System (BEDS)

Nonincineration Energetics Destruction Technologies

Industrial Supercritical Water Oxidation (iSCWO)

Stationary Base Hydrolysis Oxidation

MuniRem

Thermal Decontamination of Munitions Scrap

Flashing Furnace/Contaminated Waste Processor

Emerging Technologies

Size Reduction

Supercritical Fluid

Other Destruction Technologies

Other Emerging Technologies

References

5 EVALUATION CRITERIA

Throughput Capacity

Personnel Safety

Environmental Impacts

Cost

Public Health Impacts

Technical Maturity

Permitability or Other Approvals

Monitorability

Public Confidence

References

Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×

6 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO OPEN BURNING, OPEN DETONATION, AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES

Application of RCRA to OB/OD and Alternative Technologies

Permit Limitations

Public Involvement

Treatment Units Exempt from RCRA Permitting Requirements

Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility (TSDF) Closure

Changing Regulatory Environment

References

7 APPLICABILITY OF TREATMENT TYPES TO MUNITIONS AND ENERGETIC TYPES

Munitions Suitable for OB/OD

Munitions Suitable for Alternative Treatment

Munitions Not Suitable for Demilitarization Using Either OB/OD or Alternative Technologies

Reference

8 COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF DEMILITARIZATION TECHNOLOGIES

Overview

Alternative Technologies Evaluated

Technologies That May Be Used to Replace OB

Technologies That May Be Used to Replace OD

CB Technologies That May Be Used to Replace Both OB and OD

Industrial Capabilities as Alternatives to OB/OD

Technology Comparisons

Explanation of OB/OD and Comparable Technologies Ratings

References

9 BARRIERS AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Funding Barrier

PD Demil Funding

Cost Estimates

Other Considerations That Could Impact the Full-Scale Deployment of Alternative Technologies

Lack of a Formal Plan to Transition to Alternative Technologies

Public Opposition

References

APPENDIXES

A Committee Activities

B Cease Fire! Campaign Technology Criteria

C Military Munitions Rule

D Public Concerns About Open Burning/Open Detonation and Alternative Demilitarization Options

E Committee Biographical Information

F Acronyms

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×

Tables, Figures, and Box

TABLES

2.1 The FY2017 Demilitarization RDT&E Project Scoring and Ranking for 21 Funded Projects

2.2 Incidents Associated with OB/OD and Alternative Demilitarization Technologies from 2004 to 2017

4.1 Examples of Munitions That Can Be Processed in the SDC

6.1 RCRA-Permitted Alternative Technologies at Army Stockpile Facilities

7.1 Stable Dispensers with Shaped Charges (Projectiles and Bombs) Currently Demilitarized Using OB and OD and Example Applicable Alternative Technologies

7.2 Stable Gun Propellant Currently Demilitarized Using OB and OD and Example Applicable Alternative Technologies

7.3 Stable Rocket Motors Currently Demilitarized Using OB and OD and Example Applicable Alternative Technologies

7.4 Stable Mortars Currently Demilitarized Using OB and OD and Example Applicable Alternative Technologies

7.5 Stable High-Explosive Projectiles, Bombs, and Warheads Currently Demilitarized Using OB and OD and Example Applicable Alternative Technologies

7.6 Stable Fuzes Currently Demilitarized Using OB and OD and Example Applicable Alternative Technologies

7.7 Stable Miscellaneous Munitions Currently Demilitarized Using OB and OD and Example Applicable Alternative Technologies

7.8 Sample of Munitions Identified As “Capability Gaps” and Possible Existing Alternative Treatments

8.1 Summary of CB and CD Demilitarization Technologies That Can Be Used to Replace OB or OD

8.2 Comparison of OB and Technology Alternatives to OB

8.3 Comparison of OD and Technology Alternatives to OD

FIGURES

2.1 Executive responsibility for demilitarization of the stockpile of excess, obsolete, and unserviceable munitions rests with the Army’s PD Demil

2.2 The total weights of conventional munitions, rockets, and missiles in the demilitarization stockpile as of September 30, 2017

2.3 Major demilitarization stockpile munitions in tons

2.4 Rocket and missile input (by number) into the demilitarization stockpile by fiscal year, compared with the number that had been planned for

2.5 Munitions input (in tons) into the demilitarization stockpile by fiscal year, compared with the amount that had been planned for

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×
Page R14
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×
Page R15
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×
Page R16
Next: Summary »
Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $75.00 Buy Ebook | $59.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The U.S. military has a stockpile of approximately 400,000 tons of excess, obsolete, or unserviceable munitions. About 60,000 tons are added to the stockpile each year. Munitions include projectiles, bombs, rockets, landmines, and missiles. Open burning/open detonation (OB/OD) of these munitions has been a common disposal practice for decades, although it has decreased significantly since 2011.

OB/OD is relatively quick, procedurally straightforward, and inexpensive. However, the downside of OB and OD is that they release contaminants from the operation directly into the environment. Over time, a number of technology alternatives to OB/OD have become available and more are in research and development. Alternative technologies generally involve some type of contained destruction of the energetic materials, including contained burning or contained detonation as well as contained methods that forego combustion or detonation.

Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions reviews the current conventional munitions demilitarization stockpile and analyzes existing and emerging disposal, treatment, and reuse technologies. This report identifies and evaluates any barriers to full-scale deployment of alternatives to OB/OD or non-closed loop incineration/combustion, and provides recommendations to overcome such barriers.

  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!