National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. 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. 2018. 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. 2018. 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. 2018. 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. 2018. 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. 2018. 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. 2018. 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. 2018. 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. 2018. 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. 2018. 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. 2018. 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. 2018. 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. 2018. 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. 2018. 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. 2018. 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. 2018. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×
Page R16

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Prepublication Copy – Subject to Further Editorial Correction 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 PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

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-XXXXX-X International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-XXXXX-X 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 2018 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. 2018. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/25140. PREPUBLICATION COPY−SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

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. PREPUBLICATION COPY−SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

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. PREPUBLICATION COPY−SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

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, LLC, Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania REBECCA A. HAFFENDEN, Global Empire, 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, Study Director NIA D. JOHNSON, Senior Research Associate DEANNA SPARGER, Program Administrative Coordinator PREPUBLICATION COPY−SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION v

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, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta 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, Springfield, Virginia R. JOHN HANSMAN, NAE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge J. SEAN HUMBERT, University of Colorado, Boulder JOHN W. HUTCHINSON, NAS 3/NAE, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts JENNIE HWANG, NAE, H-Technologies Group, Cleveland, Ohio BRUCE D. JETTE, Synovision Solutions, LLC, Burke, Virginia 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, Booz, Allen and Hamilton (retired), 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, North 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. PREPUBLICATION COPY−SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION vi

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. While 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. PREPUBLICATION COPY−SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION vii

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 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! Todd A. Kimmell, Chair Committee on Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions PREPUBLICATION COPY−SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION viii

Acknowledgments 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: Dr. Dianne Chong, NAE, Vice President, Materials, Manufacturing Structure & Support (Retired), Boeing Research and Technology Dr. Michael Ettenberg, NAE, Principal, Dolce Technologies Mr. David W. Graham, Vice President of Environmental, Health and Safety and Sustainability (retired), The Dow Chemical Company Mr. Thomas F. Hall, Jr., independent consultant Mr. David A. Hoecke, President & CEO, ES Thermal, Inc. Dr. John R. Howell. NAE, Ernest Cockrell, Jr., Memorial Chair Emeritus, in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin Mr. Louis E. Martino, Argonne National Laboratory Dr. Charles K. Westbrook, NAE, Senior Scientist (Retired), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 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 Mrs. 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. PREPUBLICATION COPY−SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION ix

Contents SUMMARY S-1 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 Overview of the Conventional Demilitarization Enterprise, 1-2 Overview of Demilitarization Technologies, 1-3 Transition from OB/OD to CB/CD, 1-5 The Committee’s Approach, 1-6 The Importance of Considering Regulatory Policy, Health and Safety Concerns, and Public Confidence, 1-8 A Word About Cost, 1-10 Committee Meetings and Presentations, 1-10 Report Structure, 1-10 References, 1-11 2 AN OVERVIEW OF THE U.S. ARMY DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM, THE DEMILITARIZATION STOCKPILE, AND FACTORS BEARING ON THE PROGRAM 2-1 Organizational Responsibility, 2-1 The Demilitarization Stockpile, 2-3 Munitions Input into the Demilitarization Stockpile by Fiscal Year (Tons), 2-4 End-of-Year Demilitarization Stockpile by Fiscal Year (Tons), 2-6 Stockpile Storage Locations, 2-6 Demilitarization Program Funding, 2-8 Demilitarization Program Operations, 2-9 Demilitarization Program Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation, 2-12 Army Conventional Demilitarization Public Affairs Program, 2-14 Army Safety Program, 2-15 Demilitarization Technologies Used to Treat the Stockpile, 2-18 Munitions Demilitarized Organically by Open Burning or Open Detonation, 2-20 Recovery, Recycling, and Reuse, 2-21 Munitions Demilitarized Organically by Alternative Technologies, 2-22 Capabilities of the Demilitarization Industrial Base, 2-22 Materials Containing or Contaminated with Energetics, 2-23 References, 2-24 3 REVIEW OF CONVENTIONAL OPEN BURNING/OPEN DETONATION TECHNOLOGIES 3-1 Components of Environmental and Public Health Concern, 3-1 Overview of Open Burning and Open Detonation, 3-2 PREPUBLICATION COPY−SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION xi

Open Burning, 3-4 Open Detonation, 3-8 References, 3-12 4 REVIEW OF CANDIDATE ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES 4-1 Introduction, 4-1 Preparation Technologies, 4-4 Disassembly and Size Reduction, 4-5 Energetics Removal, 4-8 Contained Detonation Chambers, 4-9 Controlled Detonation Chamber (CDC), 4-10 Explosive Destruction System (EDS), 4-12 Detonation of Ammunition in a Vacuum Integrated Chamber (DAVINCH), 4-13 Contained Burn and Rocket and Missile Motor Firing Chambers, 4-16 Contained Burn Chambers, 4-16 A Large Contained Burn System Application: Camp Minden, Louisiana, 4-18 Contained Firing of Rocket and Missile Motors, 4-20 A Large Rocket Motor Contained Burn Application: Ammonium Perchlorate Rocket Motor Destruction (ARMD) Facility, 4-21 Static Detonation Chamber (SDC), 4-23 Deactivation Furnaces/Rotary Kiln Incinerators, 4-28 APE 1236M2, 4-29 Explosive Waste Incinerator (EWI), 4-30 Rotary Kiln Incinerator (RKI), 4-31 Decineration, 4-32 Bulk Energetics Disposal System (BEDS), 4-34 Nonincineration Energetics Destruction Technologies, 4-35 Industrial Supercritical Water Oxidation (iSCWO), 4-35 Stationary Base Hydrolysis Oxidation, 4-37 MuniRem, 4-38 Thermal Decontamination of Munitions Scrap, 4-39 Flashing Furnace/Contaminated Waste Processor, 4-39 Emerging Technologies, 4-41 Size Reduction, 4-42 Supercritical Fluid, 4-42 Other Destruction Technologies, 4-43 Other Emerging Technologies, 4-43 References, 4-44 5 EVALUATION CRITERIA 5-1 Throughput Capacity, 5-2 Personnel Safety, 5-2 Environmental Impacts, 5-2 Cost, 5-3 Public Health Impacts, 5-4 Technical Maturity, 5-4 Permitability or Other Approvals, 5-5 Monitorability, 5-5 Public Confidence, 5-6 PREPUBLICATION COPY−SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION xii

References, 5-6 6 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO OPEN BURNING, OPEN DETONATION, AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES 6-1 Application of RCRA to OB/OD and Alternative Technologies, 6-3 Permit Limitations, 6-5 Public Involvement, 6-7 Treatment Units Exempt from RCRA Permitting Requirements, 6-8 Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility (TSDF) Closure, 6-8 Changing Regulatory Environment, 6-9 References, 6-11 7 APPLICABILITY OF TREATMENT TYPES TO MUNITIONS AND ENERGETIC TYPES 7-1 Munitions Suitable for OB/OD, 7-1 Munitions Suitable for Alternative Treatment, 7-2 Munitions That Are Not Suitable for Demilitarization Using Either OB/OD or Alternative Technologies, 7-11 Reference, 7-12 8 COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF DEMILITARIZATION TECHNOLOGIES 8-1 Overview, 8-1 Alternative Technologies Evaluated, 8-1 Technologies That May Be Used to Replace OB, 8-2 Technologies That May Be Used to Replace OD, 8-2 CB Technologies That May Be Used to Replace Both OB and OD, 8-3 Industrial Capabilities as Alternatives to OB/OD, 8-3 Technology Comparisons, 8-3 Explanation of OB/OD and Comparable Technologies Ratings, 8-7 References, 8-11 9 BARRIERS AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 9-1 Funding Barrier, 9-2 PD Demil Funding, 9-2 Cost Estimates, 9-3 Other Considerations That Could Impact the Full-Scale Deployment of Alternative Technologies, 9-4 Lack of a Formal Plan to Transition to Alternative Technologies, 9-4 Public Opposition, 9-6 References, 9-8 APPENDIXES A Committee Activities A-1 B Cease Fire! Campaign Technology Criteria B-1 C Military Munitions Rule C-1 D Public Concerns About Open Burning/Open Detonation and Alternative Demilitarization Options D-1 PREPUBLICATION COPY−SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION xiii

E Committee and Staff Biographical Information E-1 F Acronyms F-1 PREPUBLICATION COPY−SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION xiv

Tables, Figures, and Box Tables 2.1 The FY2017 Demilitarization RDT&E Project Scoring and Ranking for 21 Funded Projects, 2-13 2.2 Incidents Associated with OB/OD and Alternative Demilitarization Technologies from 2004-2017, 2-17 4.1 Examples of Munitions That Can Be Processed in the SDC, 4-26 6.1 RCRA-Permitted Alternative Technologies at Army Stockpile Facilities, 6-2 7.1 Stable Dispensers with Shaped Charges (Projectiles and Bombs) Currently Demilitarized Using OB and OD and Applicable Alternative Technologies, 7-7 7.2 Stable Gun Propellant Currently Demilitarized Using OB and OD and Example Applicable Alternative Technologies, 7-8 7.3 Stable Rocket Motors Currently Demilitarized Using OB and OD and Example Applicable Alternative Technologies, 7-8 7.4 Stable Mortars Currently Demilitarized Using OB and OD and Example Applicable Alternative Technologies, 7-9 7.5 Stable High-Explosive Projectiles, Bombs, and Warheads Currently Demilitarized Using OB and OD and Example Applicable Alternative Technologies, 7-9 7.6 Stable Fuzes Currently Demilitarized Using OB and OD and Example Applicable Alternative Technologies, 7-10 7.7 Stable Miscellaneous Munitions Currently Demilitarized Using OB and OD and Example Applicable Alternative Technologies, 7-10 7.8 Sample of Munitions Identified As “Capability Gaps” and Possible Existing Alternative Treatments, 7-12 8.1 Summary of CB and CD Demilitarization Technologies That Can Be Used to Replace OB or OD, 8-4 8.2 Comparison of OB and Technology Alternatives to OB, 8-5 8.3 Comparison of OD and Technology Alternatives to OD, 8-6 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 2.2 The total weights of conventional munitions, rockets, and missiles in the demilitarization stockpile as of September 30, 2017, 2-3 2.3 Major demilitarization stockpile munitions in tons, 2-4 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 2.5 Munitions input (in tons) into the demilitarization stockpile by fiscal year, compared with the amount that had been planned for, 2-5 2.6 End-of-fiscal-year munitions and missile stockpiles, FY2008-FY2017, 2-6 2.7 Army conventional stockpile and demilitarization locations in the continental United States, 2-7 2.8 Demilitarization program funding, FY2008-FY2018, 2-8 PREPUBLICATION COPY−SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION xv

2.9 Funding allocation for various aspects of the demilitarization program budget in FY2017 and FY2018, 2-9 2.10 Alternatives for disposition of excess munitions prior to entering the demilitarization stockpile, 2-10 2.11 Schematic diagram of the database Demilitarization Optimizer tool, 2-11 2.12 The decision process for determining the annual demilitarization plan for stockpile munitions, 2-12 2.13 Research, development, testing, and evaluation project selection process, 2-13 3.1 An open burn operation at the Hawthorne Army Ammunition Depot, 3-4 3.2 An open burn operation at Letterkenny Munitions Center, 3-4 3.3 Static firing (a form of OB) of Shrike rocket motors at Letterkenny Munitions Center, 3-6 3.4 An open detonation at Letterkenny Munitions Center, 3-9 3.5 Technicians prepare bombs for venting (a form of OD) at the Crane Army Ammunition Activity, 3-9 3.6 Vented bombs at Crane Army Ammunition Activity, 3-10 4.1 Camp Minden contained burn system, 4-19 4.2 ARMD thermal treatment chamber, 4-22 4.3 Static Detonation Chamber (SDC), 4-24 4.4 SDC treatment chamber, 4-24 4.5 APE 1236M2 and pollution abatement system (PAS), 4-30 4.6 APE 2048 flashing furnace, 4-40 7.1 Cutaway of DODIC D563 projectile containing submunitions (grenades), 7-3 Box 1.1 Statement of Task, 1-2 PREPUBLICATION COPY−SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION xvi

Next: Summary »
Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $60.00
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. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    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!