oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Alternative Treatment Technologies
to Open Burning and Open
Detonation of Energetic
Hazardous Wastes
Final Report
•Pi -
Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (5303P) | EPA 530-R-19-007 | November 2019
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Open
Burning and Open Detonation of Energetic
Hazardous Wastes
Final Report
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Disclaimer
This report identifies alternative treatment technologies to the open burning and open
detonation (OB/OD) of energetic hazardous wastes. Although this report summarizes
information on these technologies from literature and from technology vendors, it does not
evaluate the technologies or verify the data collected. Additionally, it does not substitute for
CERCI-A, RCRA, or other EPA regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it does not impose
legally binding requirements on EPA, States, or the regulated community, and may not apply to
a particular situation based upon the circumstances. Use or mention of vendors and trade
names does not constitute EPA's endorsement nor its recommendation. Errors and omissions in
the information will be corrected as found and as time permits.
Acknowledgements
Environmental Management Support, Inc. (EMS) assisted in preparing this report under
Contract EP-W-13-016 with EPA. EMS relied on information provided by EPA, a review of
literature, and e-mail and phone correspondence with some technology vendors. EMS also
received additional input from EPA and the Department of Defense (DoD) through reviews of
earlier drafts. EPA contributors to this effort were: Ken Shuster, Sasha Gerhard, Jeff Gaines,
Mike Galbraith, Amanda Kohler, Harry Craig, Amanda Cruz, Terri Crosby-Vega, Jesse
Newland, and Julie Wanslow. EPA wishes to also acknowledge contributions by DoD, especially
J. C. King, Keith Clift, John McFassel, Thierry Chiapello, Michael Roe, AN Aminin, and William
Robertson.
Cover photos: Courtesy of Rick Stauber, Retired Army Master Sargent, and John Hutten and
J.C. King, DoD
i
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Disclaimer i
Acknowledgements i
Acronyms and Abbreviations iv
Introduction 6
Scope and Report Structure 7
OB/OD Regulatory Background 8
OB/OD Universe 10
Energetic Hazardous Wastes Treated by OB/OD 11
Availability of Alternative Treatment Technologies 12
2019 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Report 12
EPA Research on Alternative Technology Availability 15
Information Sources 15
Alternative Technology Development 15
Treatment Considerations 16
Overview of EPA Alternative Treatment Technology Findings 17
EPA Perspective on Alternative Treatment Technologies 17
Energetic Hazardous Waste Configurations 17
Technologies 19
Case Opening 20
Reverse Assembly 20
Fluid Jet Cutting 21
Cryofracturing 21
Femtosecond Laser Cutting or Laser Machining 22
Band Saws 22
Energetic Material Removal 22
Autoclave Meltout 23
Induction Heating Meltout 23
Washout 24
Dry Ice Blasting 24
Ultrasonic Separation or Sonication 25
Energetic Material Destruction 25
Closed Detonation 25
Thermal Destruction 28
Chemical Destruction 30
Decontamination 33
ii
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Thermal Decontamination 33
Chemical Decontamination 35
DDESB Approved Technologies 35
Citations 36
APPENDIX A: Glossary A1
APPENDIX B: MIDAS Family Code Definitions B1
APPENDIX C: Compendium of Resources C1
APPENDIX D: Technology Matrices D1
iii
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AAP
army ammunition plant
ADNTs
aminodinitrotoluene isomers
AP
ammonium perchlorate
APE
ammunition peculiar equipment
BRAC
Base Realignment and Closure
°C
degrees Celsius
CAD
cartridge actuated device
CBF
contained burn furnace
CBI
clean burning igniter
CDC
contained detonation chamber
cm
centimeter
C02
carbon dioxide
DAVINCH
Detonation of Ammunition in a Vacuum Integrated Chamber
DDESB
Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board
demil
demilitarization
DMMs
discarded military munitions
DNTs
dinitrotoluene isomers
DoD
Department of Defense
EDS
Explosives Destruction System
EM
energetic material
EMCW
energetic material contaminated wastes
EMS
Environmental Management Support, Inc.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Explosive D
ammonium picrate
°F
degrees Fahrenheit
ft
feet
FUDS
Formerly Used Defense Sites
FY
fiscal year
9
gram
HMX
1,3,5,7-octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitrotetrazocine
in
inch
ICM
improved conventional munitions
iSCWO
Industrial Supercritical Water Oxidation
kg
kilogram
lb
pound
LRIP
Low Rate Initial Production
MDAS
material documented as safe
MDEH
material documented as an explosive hazard
MIDAS
Munitions Items Disposition Action System
m
meter
mm
millimeter
MPPEH
material potentially presenting an explosives hazard
MTU
mobile treatment unit
NCP
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NDMA
N-nitroso-dimethylamine
NEW
net explosive weight
NOx
nitrous oxides
NPL
National Priorities List
NSWC
Naval Surface Warfare Center
iv
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
OAT
operation acceptance testing
OB
open burning
OD
open detonation
PAD
propellant actuated device
PBX
polymer-bonded explosive
PDF
Portable Document Format
PEP
pyrotechnics, explosives, and propellants
PETN
pentaerythritol tetranitrate
psia
pounds per square inch absolute
psig
pounds per square inch gauge
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RDT&E
DoD's Demilitarization (Demil) Enterprises' Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation
RDX
hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine
ROK
Republic of Korea
SDC
static detonation chamber
tetryl
2,4,6-trinitro-phenylmethylnitramine
TNT
2,4,6-trinitrotoluene
TSDF
treatment storage and disposal facility
TTU
transportable treatment unit
v
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Introduction
For decades, open burning and open detonation (OB/OD) have been used to treat/destroy
energetic hazardous wastes. "Energetic" refers to a class of materials with a high amount of
stored chemical energy that can be released, such as military munitions, fireworks, and
automobile airbag propellants. OB/OD is an uncontrolled treatment technology compared with
enclosed alternative technologies.1 In comparison to technologies that are capable of treating
and capturing the treatment byproducts prior to release, OB/OD of energetic hazardous waste
occurs in the open, and the treatment byproducts are released directly into the environment
(Figure 1). As a result, OB/OD-related contamination and exposure via emissions of
particulates, products of incomplete combustion, or explosives chunks, and the dispersal
(kickout)2 of munitions and other waste items, has raised questions on whether alternative
treatment technologies are available for energetic hazardous wastes. In keeping with EPA's
commitment to monitor the progress of the ongoing development of safe alternatives to OB/OD,3
this report presents alternative treatment technologies that have been developed, and in many
cases utilized, for consideration in place of OB/OD.
Figure 1. Open Detonation Showing Uncontrolled Emissions and Kickout
Photo courtesy ofRickStauber, Retired Amy Master Sargent
1 From EPA's 1987 Subpart X final rule, "[i]n most cases, air emissions from open burning/open detonation cannot be
controlled since it is impossible to operate these units under totally enclosed conditions" (52 FR 46957, December 10,
1987). The lack of air emission controls can be mitigated by permit conditions that lessen or monitor the impact to the
surrounding environment, e.g., ensuring a high order detonation for maximized consumption of contaminants, limiting
detonation size to the containment pit, identifying an exclusion zone around the detonation pit for fall out, sweeping
the fallout zone for kickout after each treatment event, and routine soil and groundwater monitoring.
2 The current practice of open detonation is much less likely to result in kickout beyond the treatment area since the
wastes are usually covered with several feet of soil to reduce noise, shock, and ejected debris.
3 Final Background Document, 40 CFR part 265, subpart P Interim Status Standards for Hazardous Waste Facilities
for Thermal Treatment Processes Other Than Incineration and for Open Burning. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Solid Waste, April 1980; p. 52.
6
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
The purpose of this report is to identify and describe alternative treatment technologies that can
reduce the reliance on OB/OD.4 Many of the developed technologies have been tested and
demonstrated to prove their capabilities in terms of the types of energetic hazardous waste they
can destroy safely. Thus, this report also identifies the extent to which individual technologies
have been developed, implemented, and used. It does not attempt to provide a comprehensive
analysis of the technologies' efficacy for various waste streams nor does it attempt to compare
their advantages and disadvantages.
EPA expects that this report will be a useful reference for permit writers reviewing applications
for treatment of energetic materials, facilities that treat or propose to treat such materials, and
interested community members living near OB/OD units.5
Scope and Report Structure
The primary purpose of this report is to identify and describe alternative treatment technologies
and their developmental status. The report first reviews how energetic hazardous wastes have
been treated over several decades through a synopsis of the history and regulation of OB/OD
and the past and present universe of OB/OD facilities, thereby providing perspective on the
relevance of alternative treatment technologies and the importance of their development and
use today.
Next, the report discusses selected key points from the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine's (NASEM) report on "Alternatives for the Demilitarization of
Conventional Munitions"6 and provides EPA perspectives on these points. This segues into
EPA's own information gathering and assessment of available alternative technologies.
The review of alternative treatment technologies conducted for this report focuses on
technologies that have been used either within the U.S. or internationally7 to treat energetic
hazardous wastes and primarily includes technologies claimed to have been successfully
piloted or used full-scale. A few technologies that were widely tested, but had limited success,
are also included since this information may also be of benefit.
This report encompasses alternative treatment technologies as well as any recycling/reuse
options, although the focus is on alternative treatment options. It does not specifically include
remediation technologies for treating soil or water contaminated with energetic compounds,
although some of the technologies can be used to treat contaminated media. Likewise, some
technologies may be used to treat chemical munitions but are not specifically discussed in this
regard. Because the Department of Defense (DoD) has developed, tested, and/or utilized many
of the available alternatives for demilitarization of military munitions and explosives, much of the
information in this report is devoted to the application of these alternative technologies to treat
waste military munitions and explosives; however, these technology options may also be used
4 Complete elimination of OB/OD is unlikely given that there are unstable munitions that may not be safe to handle or
transport for treatment by alternative technologies (NASEM 2019. Main Message #2, page 2).
5 Members of the public, particularly residents living near operating OB/OD units, have expressed concern over the
adverse impacts of OB/OD (Harris, 2018, Lustgarten 2017, Ross 2017, CSWAB 2016, Atkin 2015, Hilburn, 2015,
Rustric 2001).
6 NASEM 2019.
7 Note that due to differences in design and content between some U.S. and foreign munitions or pyrotechnics,
treatment results may differ between countries.
7
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
for a variety of non-military applications. Many
of the technologies in this report were first
conceptualized, tested, improved, and
implemented through DoD's Demilitarization
(Demil) Enterprises' Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) program and
DoD's demil execution program. The RDT&E
program has developed specific procedures
for the identification and selection of viable
alternatives to OB/OD for the treatment of
certain excess, obsolete or unserviceable
DoD military munitions (see Figure 2).
To aid in the reader's understanding of the
alternative technologies that would be
suitable for specific wastes, the report
identifies the various kinds of energetic
hazardous wastes and the forms or
configurations (e.g., thick-case munitions.
thin-case munitions, bulk
explosives/propellants, or potentially
explosive contaminated material) they may
exist in. The report then describes the
treatment steps based on the configuration.
Each treatment step (e.g., case opening,
material removal, material destruction, and
decontamination) is correlated to a
technology designed for that treatment step.
The individual technologies are listed
according to their step in the treatment process and include an operational description, along
with their development and use status. This information is also presented in a tabular format in
Appendix D for quick reference and ease of comparison of technologies. Appendix D further
includes: technology vendor, scale at which the technology has been developed, portability,
MIDAS codes of wastes treated, whether the technology requires pre- or post-treatment,
output/emissions output, DoD Explosives Safety Board approval, and location(s) of deployment.
It is important to note that general information is provided for the listed technologies and thus,
their viability must be determined on a site-specific basis due to the many variables involved
when considering a treatment technology (e.g., the type of the material being treated, the
quantity of energetics or net explosive weights (NEW) to be treated, and the stability of the
energetic material). While this report provides information helpful in decision making, caution is
still advised in the selection process as safety is paramount. As such, knowledge about the
wastes being treated is essential.
OB/OD Regulatory Background
The treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes are governed by regulations
developed by EPA under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Among the regulations EPA proposed in 1978 was a ban on the open burning of all
hazardous wastes (43 Federal Register (FR) 5900, December 18, 1978). EPA received public
Figure 2. DoD Procedures for the Identification
and Selection of Viable Alternatives to OB/OD
The DoD demilitarization planning process
includes an optimization program that takes
into account specific constraints. The main
constraints include cost, capability,
throughput capacity, and funding. Once the
initial plan is developed, the items are
researched to identify any potential safety,
environmental compliance, or hazardous
waste characterization concerns that might
impact execution. If safe alternative
technologies are available, based on
funding and economic feasibility, the
alternative capability would be selected.
OB/OD is primarily reserved for items that
do not currently have a safe alternative
available, for example, the 155mm and 8in
propelling charges, adapter boosters, and
155mm Improved Conventional Munitions
(ICM) submunitions.
DoD annually assesses the top 400
munitions in the Demil Stockpile. Where
there are no alternatives (capability gaps),
DoD prioritizes its research into alternatives
by tonnage (most tonnage to least).
8
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
comments, including from DoD and the private sector, indicating a lack of safe alternatives to
the use of OB/OD to treat most energetic hazardous wastes (45 FR 33217, May 19, 1980).8 In
response, when the first of these regulations was finalized in May 1980, EPA provided in 40
CFR 265.382 (for interim status units), that the "open burning of hazardous waste is prohibited
except for the open burning and detonation of waste explosives. Waste explosives include
waste that has the potential to detonate and bulk military propellants which cannot safely be
disposed of through other modes of treatment."9 This variance, allowing for the OB/OD of
energetic hazardous wastes only, was promulgated at a time when safe alternatives did not
exist for many energetics. The variance allowed treatment by OB/OD only during the interim
status period and only until additional viable technologies could be developed.10
In 1987, EPA finalized permitting standards for a catchall category of waste management units,
including OB/OD units, that were not already covered in the regulations (40 CFR part 264,
subpart X- Miscellaneous Units [52 FR 46946, December 10, 1987]). Unlike the other RCRA
unit-specific regulations, miscellaneous units permitted under Subpart X are subject to general
performance standards rather than technical performance standards since a single set of
technical standards may not be suitable for the diverse types of miscellaneous units. As a result,
owners and operators applying for Subpart X permits must ensure compliance of the unit with
environmental performance standards. To demonstrate the unit is protective of human health
and the environment, the permit application must provide detailed information on the unit's
location, design, construction, operation, maintenance, monitoring, responses to releases, and
closure, to prevent and control releases into the groundwater, surface water, surface soil and
the subsurface environment, wetlands, and air. This requires the owner or operator to assess
the potential environmental impacts of the units' unique design features and to demonstrate that
operation of the unit will be protective of human health and the environment (52 FR 46951).
These design and operational features then become permit conditions. For example, the
resulting permit conditions for OB/OD units may include: limitations on types and quantities of
wastes that may be open burned or detonated; establishment of safety buffer zones;
implementation of controls over the use of lands adjacent to the permitted facility (e.g., through
ownership or zoning); restrictions on hours of operation, specification of weather conditions,
establishment of maximum allowable wind speed; requirements to use platforms, liners, pans,
cages, or trenches with cover; and requirements to monitor the soil and groundwater. This
comprehensive evaluation and the resulting permit conditions will provide assurance that the
permitted miscellaneous unit poses minimal environmental threat (see 52 FR 46952 and 40
CFR 264.601). Note that, the final rule for miscellaneous units did not provide any regulatory
language that removed or superseded the interim status variance and only stated in the final
rule preamble that "when upgrading existing units or permitting new units, the applicable
8 See also: Final Background Document, 40 CFR part 265, subpart P Interim Status Standards for Hazardous Waste
Facilities for Thermal Treatment Processes Other Than Incineration and for Open Burning. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste, April 1980. (https://nepis.epa.gov)
9 Waste explosives are also referred to as energetic material (EM) wastes, EM contaminated wastes (EMCW), and
energetic hazardous wastes..
10 The final background document for the Subpart P interim status standards states, "the Agency has decided to allow
open burning and detonation of waste explosives during the interim status period... the Agency will be monitoring the
progress of the ongoing development of safe alternatives, and may propose additional regulations..." (See pp. 51-52,
Final Background Document, 40 CFR part 265, subpart P Interim Status Standards for Hazardous Waste Facilities for
Thermal Treatment Processes Other Than Incineration and for Open Burning. EPA Office of Solid Waste, April 1980.)
9
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
portions of Part 265 Subpart P standards...will be incorporated during issuance of Subpart X
permits" (52 FR 46952, December 10, 1987).11
Because OB/OD is considered treatment rather than disposal under RCRA, facilities are
required by statute and regulation to clean close when operations cease.12 This requirement
means removing all remaining waste, decontaminating all equipment, and cleaning up all
remaining contaminants (including particulate fallout and kickout from detonations) above
threshold action levels. Given the number of OB/OD units that have now closed, EPA is
currently evaluating OB/OD site assessment and cleanup/closure procedures. For more
information on closure and requirements, see 40 CFR part 264 subpart G for permitted units
and part 265 subpart G for interim status units.
OB/OD Universe
There are approximately 225 treatment storage or disposal facilities (TSDFs) that have or had
OB/OD units in the U.S. according to records in EPA's RCRAInfo database.13 This number
represents the cumulative total of OB/OD facilities that have operated under RCRA since the
1980 standards for owners and operators of TSDFs were finalized. Many of these 225 TSDFs
have more than one OB/OD unit. Most of these OB/OD units started operating before the RCRA
interim status and permit regulations were issued. Some of these units are small (e.g., a 55-gal
drum used to burn university chemical lab energetics) and some process tons of energetics
each month (e.g., some of the DoD demilitarization units). Of the 225 TSDFs, 60 facilities were
still operating (under either interim status or a permit) as of November 28, 2018. These 60
OB/OD facilities are operated by both the private sector and public sector. The private sector
operates 19 facilities and the public sector operates 41 facilities between DoD (36 facilities) and
other government agencies (5 facilities).
DoD's demilitarization program, which is required to reduce the stockpile of excess, obsolete,
and unserviceable munitions, is the main user, by weight, of OB/OD. "Use of OB/OD as a
demilitarization treatment method has declined from an estimated 80 percent...in the mid-1980s
to an average of about 30 percent in recent years"14. In fiscal years (FY) 2016 and 2017, DoD
demilitarized over 10,000 tons of bulk propellant and propellant charges by open burning; over
34,000 tons of cartridges, projectiles, submunitions, mines, fuzes, and other items by open
detonation; and about 650 tons of missiles by open burning or static firing (McFassel, 2017).15
11 EPA did not discuss the variance status in the 1987 final rule preamble nor address it in regulation. The
presumption is that the variance continues to apply only when there are no other safe alternatives.
12 See 52 FR 46952, December 10, 1987, and 40 CFR 265.381.
13 Data retrieved November 28, 2018, identified 225 TSDFs as having Subpart X process type X01 with names
indicative of OB and/or OD activity. Totals do not include OB/OD facilities that are/were operating under emergency
permits, protective filer status, or conducting activities not requiring a permit.
14 NASEM 2019.
15 Data on percent by weight of waste treated by the private sector is currently not available due to the format of the
Biennial Report (https://www.epa.qov/hwqenerators/biennial-hazardous-waste-report). Until recently, this reporting
system did not have a management method code option specific to OB/OD. This capability has since been added for
the 2019 reporting cycle. However, until data becomes available from the 2019 reporting cycle, the best source of this
information is via RCRA permits which provide maximum daily and/or annual weight limits.
10
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
The preference for using OB/OD has been based largely on safety and minimizing risk from
explosive hazard (i.e., reduced personnel exposure, and minimal handling of wastes) and the
capacity to treat large quantities of diverse waste streams containing explosives. Irrespective of
these considerations, a range of alternative treatment technologies that have demonstrated a
capability to satisfy safety mandates are now available. These technologies are contained or
closed and (typically) employ pollution controls to treat the byproducts before release.
Energetic Hazardous Wastes Treated by OB/OD
When energetic materials are determined to be wastes, they are designated as "hazardous"
waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) because they exhibit the
hazardous characteristics of either ignitability or reactivity, or both.16 Energetic hazardous
wastes treated by OB/OD encompass many types of energetic materials (i.e., propellants,
explosives, and pyrotechnics [PEP]) contained in conventional military munitions and other
devices, such as marine, roadside, and signal flares, consumer and commercial fireworks,
hobby rocket propellants, and auto air bag gas generators. Although DoD has increased both its
use of resource recovery and reuse and contained technologies, it still relies on OB/OD to
demilitarize significant portions of its demil stockpile. DoD's demil stockpile includes excess,
obsolete, and unserviceable munitions (e.g., missiles, bombs, mortars, artillery rounds, and bulk
energetic materials) which are stored at its ammunition depots, plants, and arsenals, such as
McAlester Ammunition Plant in Oklahoma and Crane Army Ammunition Activity in Indiana. DoD
is transitioning to insensitive munitions as these items are more stable and thus, safer for
storage and transportation; the treatment technologies summarized in this report do not address
insensitive munitions even though these munitions will require a treatment solution in the future
when they become part of the energetic hazardous waste stream.
As of July 2017, DoD estimates it has 441,811 tons of munitions in its demil stockpile
(McFassel, 2017). The energetic materials DoD produces and uses in the greatest quantities
are secondary explosives (e.g., 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT), ammonium picrate (Explosive D)17,
hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX), 1,3,5,7-octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitrotetrazocine
(HMX), and 2,4,6-trinitro-phenylmethylnitramine (tetryl)). Other DoD energetic hazardous
wastes requiring treatment include propellant compounds such as ammonium perchlorate,
nitroglycerine, and dinitrotoluene isomers (DNTs), which may contain plasticizers and
stabilizers; and other oxidizers and metal nitrates in pyrotechnics.
Also commonly treated by OB/OD are byproducts from activities occurring in munitions filling or
manufacturing facilities (e.g., Radford Army Ammunition Plant in Virginia18 and Holston Army
Ammunition Plant in Tennessee) and research and development facilities (e.g., Picatinny
Arsenal in New Jersey, Naval Support Facility Indian Head in Maryland, and Dugway Proving
Grounds in Utah).
16 See 40 CFR 261.20.
17 The accepted DOD practice for demilitarization of Explosive D containing rounds is not OB/OD, but rather a
chemical conversion process that produces a resalable commercial product. This closed chemical process is located
at Crane Army Ammunition Activity, IN, and has been in production for over 20 years.
18 Radford also has a contained incinerator for some of its energetic hazardous wastes.
11
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Several private companies also treat energetic hazardous wastes using OB/OD. These wastes
can be received from a variety of sources offsite or generated onsite from their manufacturing or
research and development activities. Similar to DoD, they treat primary and secondary
explosives, propellant compounds, oxidizers, metal nitrates, and explosives-contaminated
materials. For example, Alliant Techsystems Operations in Minnesota manufactures and treats
onsite: explosives, propellants, pyrotechnics, munitions, and contaminated materials.19 Clean
Harbors in Louisiana accepts wastes from offsite and treats munitions, propellants, high
explosives, warheads, shaped charges, rocket motors, and nitro-related compounds, in addition
to non-military items such as undeployed air bags, and fireworks.20 Private companies account
for approximately one-third of the 60 facilities21 with operating OB/OD units with permits or
interim status.
Availability of Alternative Treatment Technologies
In January 2019, in response to a 2017 Congressional mandate, the NASEM issued the report
"Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions".22 As NASEM was researching
alternative technologies and developing its report, EPA was also developing its own alternative
technology report and was in a good position to contribute to the NASEM report. Specifically,
EPA provided testimony and a preliminary list of alternative technologies to NASEM for
consideration. In turn, this EPA report references NASEM's report for more detailed descriptions
of the technologies. Although the NASEM report addresses OB/OD alternative technologies for
treating the demilitarization stockpile wastes at seven sites,23 the alternative technologies
generally apply to other energetic wastes as well.24 The following sections highlight key findings
of the NASEM report, note areas in which EPA believes additional research would promote
further understanding, and describes EPA's research efforts on available alternative
technologies.
2019 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Report
The NASEM report makes several key findings in support of implementing alternatives to
OB/OD such as:
1. "Viable alternative technologies exist within the demilitarization enterprise, either stand-
alone or as part of a treatment train, for almost all munitions currently being treated within
the DoD conventional munitions demilitarization stockpile via OB/OD."25 The report identifies
a number of energetic wastes being open burned, open detonated, or static fired (a form of
OB) for which viable alternatives exist.26
19 https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/Permit%20Application%20-%20MND081138604%20-%202017.pdf.
20 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/clean-harbors-la.pdf.
21 Based on the data retrieved from RCRAInfo on November 28, 2018.
22 NASEM 2019.
23 Demilitarization stockpile wastes refers to conventional ammunition awaiting demilitarization and disposal because
it is excess, obsolete, or unserviceable. There are seven stockpile sites dedicated to demilitarization of this waste;
however, there are a number of OB/OD operations at facilities that do not treat munitions in the stockpile. Summary,
page 1 and The Committee's Approach, page 9, NASEM 2019.
24 NASEM 2019: p. 7, footnote 4.
25 NASEM 2019: p. 2, Main Messages.
26 NASEM 2019: Tables 7.1-7.7.
12
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
2. "There are no significant technical, safety, or regulatory barriers to the full-scale deployment
of alternative technologies for the demilitarization of the vast majority of the conventional
waste munitions, bulk energetics, and associated wastes."27
3. "There is only one barrier to the full-scale deployment of alternative technologies in lieu of
OB/OD - namely, funding."28
4. "Each of the alternative technologies that the committee evaluated... would have lower
emissions and less of an environmental and public health impact, would be monitorable, and
would likely be more acceptable to the public" than OB/OD.29
EPA offers the following observations or reactions in regard to particular areas which the
NASEM report does not fully address or where it states information that deserve further
explanation.
1. NASEM mentioned that alternative technology facilities will likely be less expensive than
OB/OD to close and clean up since repeated OB/OD operations will continue to contaminate
the surrounding environment and will require extensive mitigation during closure, particularly
if groundwater is contaminated.30 In contrast, "alternative technologies' cleanup costs would
normally be associated only with nonenvironmental media (e.g., equipment and
buildings)..."31
Although the report acknowledged the cost difference between OB/OD and alternative
technologies as a measure of environmental contamination at closure, it did not evaluate the
total life-cycle cost (LCC)32 of OB/OD. NASEM acknowledges, "due to the lack of complete
information on costs, the committee was not able to conduct an LCC" analysis. It notes that
"cost evaluation of any demilitarization technology also needs to include closure costs.
Equipment and sites will have to be decontaminated after closure. Given the much larger
land area affected by OB/OD operations, and lack of containment, their closure costs are
expected to be highest. Closure costs are usually not considered in the cost of
demilitarization activities but need to be considered in an overall cost comparison. A[n] LCC
analysis is required if a true cost comparison of alternative technologies to OB/OD is to be
made."33
NASEM did not analyze in detail an issue that EPA considers to be a chief concern related
to OB/OD, which is the potential for significant soil and groundwater contamination, and the
resulting cleanup obligations. Acknowledgment of the need to factor in cleanup obligations
associated with a treatment technology is essential from EPA's perspective. The full LCCs of
OB/OD should account for site investigation activities, corrective action, cleanup, closure,
and post-closure care, including land use and institutional controls, which can, depending on
27 NASEM 2019: p. 4, Finding 9-1.
28 NASEM 2019: p. 3, Main Messages.
29 NASEM 2019: p. 4, Finding 8-1.
30 NASEM 2019: pp. 1-2, Summary.
31 NASEM 2019: p. 11, Introduction.
32 Life cycle costs include capital (startup), operational, environmental monitoring, and closure costs. (NASEM 2019:
p. 89, Comparative Assessment of Demilitarization Technologies).
33 NASEM 2019: p. 68, Cost.
13
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
site-specific factors, substantially increase the total LCCs of OB/OD in comparison to the
total LCCs of alternatives.
EPA notes that achieving comparability between the LCCs for OB/OD and for alternatives
can be challenging due to prior activities or co-located activities at OB/OD sites. As
explained earlier, there are OB/OD units that operated prior to the establishment of the 1980
RCRA regulations and permit requirements, and either continue to operate today, are
undergoing closure, or have been closed. These OB/OD units are referred to as "legacy"
sites. In other words, due to the lack of operational controls required by the 1980 RCRA
regulations that serve to minimize contamination, these sites typically have widespread and
extensive soil and groundwater contamination. An additional factor affecting the amount of
contamination and cleanup associated with these legacy sites, or even non-legacy sites
(i.e., OB/OD sites that have always operated under RCRA controls), is that they can be co-
located with other sources of contamination, such as munitions or chemical manufacturing
and military training ranges. Thus, when comparing OB/OD and alternative technology
LCCs, it is necessary to account for any prior or co-located activities that may have
contributed contamination for truly comparable results. Ideally, an LCC analysis would be
performed for an OB/OD site that has always operated under RCRA controls (i.e., RCRA
interim status regulations or RCRA permit) where the land has not been previously
contaminated and compared to an alternative technology that is operating under RCRA
controls where the land has not been previously contaminated.
However, this type of data for OB/OD sites is not easily obtained as NASEM noted. EPA is
currently evaluating OB/OD site assessment and cleanup/closure procedures with the intent
of improving those procedures. As part of this evaluation, EPA also seeks to identify
contamination solely from OB/OD. To the extent possible, EPA will provide its findings with
appropriate qualifications.
2. NASEM states that DoD identified some energetic wastes as having "capability gaps" in that
an approved method has not yet been demonstrated for demilitarizing a munition item at
either a government or contactor site. Approximately six percent of stockpile munitions
makeup this capability gap and include munitions containing depleted uranium, smoke-
producing munitions and riot control agents with white phosphorous and hexachloroethane
(HC), projectiles containing submunitions (grenades, butterfly bomblets, cluster bombs),
improved conventional munitions, and ammonium perchlorate rocket and missile motors.34
It is noteworthy that the NASEM report indicates that there are alternative treatment
technologies for most of these wastes that cannot be open burned or open detonated and
believes that the capability gap may be less than six percent. Even if alternative
technologies are available, EPA believes it relevant to also acknowledge that there are still
some problematic wastes, such as shock-sensitive submunitions and unstable munitions,
without safe and environmentally acceptable disposition (reuse, treatment, or destruction)
solutions.
3. NASEM states that "[i]n order for a facility to receive a 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,
34 NASEM 2019; p. 84, Munitions Not Suitable for Demilitarization Using Either OB/OD or Alternative Technologies.
14
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
according to environmental regulatory agencies, is protective of human health and the
environment."35
While the above statements are correct, they could be misleading and further explanation is
warranted. As discussed earlier in the Regulatory Background section, EPA established its
position on OB/OD of hazardous waste in 1980 by restricting treatment to waste explosives
only and in situations where there were no other alternatives to safely dispose of the
munitions. This position was established in response to the comments on the proposed ban
on OB/OD and before safe alternatives were available. In lieu of safe alternative
technologies for treating explosive waste, RCRA permits have served as an important
mechanism for establishing conditions to minimize exposure during OB/OD operations and
ensure cleanup of contaminants upon closure.
EPA Research on Alternative Technology Availability
Information Sources
Prior to the publication of NASEM's 2019 report, most of the information and reports
documenting available alternative technologies were written in the 2000-2010 timeframe
(ESTCP, ITRC, & SERDP, 2006; Wilkinson and Watt, 2006; Organization for Security and Co-
operation in Europe, 2008; and Poulin, 2010). This report identifies and summarizes alternatives
to the OB/OD of energetic hazardous wastes based largely on these sources, but it also has
been supplemented with more recent information from DoD, EPA regions, state agencies, and
the NASEM report. Appendix C contains all sources consulted for this report.
Alternative Technology Development
A key feature of this report is that it provides the scale at which technologies have been
developed and successfully applied by the primary user of alternative technologies, DoD.36 This
information is intended to give the reader a sense of which technologies have been successfully
used in full-scale37 demil applications versus those technologies that are promising but have
limitations that make them amenable for smaller or different treatment applications, or require
more research and testing to be successful for full-scale applications. Note that the DoD
terminology for successful full-scale application in the demil environment is "successfully
demonstrated in a sustainable, production-ready, demil execution environment." According to
DoD, for a given technology, the capability has been shown that it can be successfully operated
in a production environment for extended periods without significant failures or unreasonable
support costs to keep it operational. Technologies that have poor availability, reliability,
maintainability, affordability, and supportability are not sustainable systems from an overall Life
Cycle Logistics point of view and are therefore, not considered to be viable production-ready
capability solutions (Clift, 2019). Thus, a technology may be developed to full-scale application,
but may not be considered sustainable from a treatment perspective in a demil environment
where large quantities of waste munitions are treated. In other words, the technology may be full
scale for smaller or different treatment applications such as manufacturing and RDT&E wastes
35 NASEM 2019: p. vii, Preface.
36 As stated in the Scope, because DoD has developed, tested, and/or utilized many of the available alternative
technologies, much of the information in this report is devoted to the use of the technologies to treat military
explosives and munition. This report does not reflect the extent to which the private sector has successfully used
these technologies, nor the wastes for which they have been used.
37 Full-scale is defined in the Glossary, however, for convenience means: technologies that have reached the final
design and construction stages and are operating or have operated in the past. Full-scale is the result of
incorporating outcomes at the bench and pilot scale to optimize the final design.
15
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
or decontamination of explosives-contaminated scrap metal, pipes, and equipment, but not for
treatment of large quantities of waste munitions. Most importantly, every technology has its own
site-specific requirements and thus, what works for one site or application may not work for
another, independent of the scale at which it has been used successfully by DoD in the demil
environment.
Treatment Considerations
Again, the applicability of any technology is dependent upon many site-specific or case-specific
variables. These include the configuration of the waste material to be treated, the quantity or the
NEW, size, portability of the energetic hazardous waste, and the maturity of the technology for a
given application. Thus, even though there are many alternative treatment technologies
available today, some energetic hazardous wastes (e.g., certain large caliber munitions and
missiles) cannot be treated with these technologies. As such, for DoD and possibly others,
OB/OD will remain as the only option for certain energetic hazardous wastes until additional
viable alternatives are developed or existing technologies are modified or improved upon. In
cases where OB/OD remains the only viable option for certain types of munitions or other
explosive waste streams, there are a number of regulatory requirements that have been and
continue to be implemented to minimize the release, distribution, and impact of emissions from
OB/OD.
As discussed earlier, safety is cited as a primary reason for using OB/OD. For DoD, among the
many factors in choosing an alternative technology in place of OB/OD, is whether the
technology meets safety mandates. DoD's Explosives Safety Board (DDESB) is responsible for
determining whether a technology meets safety mandates for site-specific or munition-specific
applications. The DDESB reviews demilitarization systems to validate thaWongt personal
protection criteria are met, or that a system is effective in processing "Material Potentially
Presenting an Explosives Hazard" (MPPEH) to "Material Documented as Safe" (MDAS)
(Chiapello, 2017). Once the DDESB approves a system, it may be used (within the constraints
of the DDESB's approval) by DoD at any location (King, 2015). Approval of a technology does
not constitute a blanket authority to use the technology, but once a technology is approved, the
full approval process need not be repeated to use that system. Additional locations where the
system will be used will require a separate explosives safety quantity distance site plan.
(Chiapello, 2017). Note, these evaluations do not consider economic feasibility or environmental
consequences, such as the adequacy of emissions controls.
To date, eight alternative technologies have been approved by the DDESB, most of which are
included in EPA's matrix.38 Although the DDESB's list of approved technologies is specific to
DoD and does not apply to other Federal agencies or private companies' ability to select and
use alternative technologies, this information can potentially aid others in selecting an
alternative technology from a safety standpoint. If a technology does not appear on this list, it
does not necessarily mean that it is not safe for use; only that the DDESB has not evaluated or
not approved it for a demilitarization application. The eight technologies, along with their
locations of deployment, are listed separately at the end of the Alternative Technologies section.
38 One of the eight technologies have been applied only to treatment of chemical warfare materials and chemical
munitions, and one other technology is no longer in use. Thus, they are not included in EPA's discussion and matrix
of technologies.
16
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Overview of EPA Alternative Treatment Technology Findings
Based on the research described earlier, EPA found that there is a wide range of available
alternative treatment technologies that can be, and have been used successfully, in place of
OB/OD. Furthermore, several technologies have been issued RCRA permits.39 Each alternative
technology found through EPA's research efforts, along with accompanying descriptions, is
described in this section, as well as summarized in matrix format in Appendix D.
EPA Perspective on Alternative Treatment Technologies
The information in this report, as well as NASEM's, show that safe alternatives exist and are
being used to divert energetic hazardous wastes away from OB/OD. Nevertheless, OB/OD is
still being used despite the availability of suitable and safe alternatives, in both the public and
private sectors. Therefore, the information in this report should be useful to the regulated
community in exploring alternatives to OB/OD. Likewise, it should be useful to regulators in
engaging in conversation with facilities on moving toward enclosed technologies for the
treatment of energetic hazardous waste, with a focus on protection of human health and the
environment over the long term. Moving forward, EPA plans to develop additional guidance on
how these findings should be applied when considering treatment technologies for energetic
hazardous waste, for example, in the permitting process. As stated before, EPA understands
that there will continue to be a need for OB/OD when safe alternatives do not exist, but at the
same time, seeks to promote the development, testing, and use of alternative technologies that
are capable of safely treating munitions and other explosive waste in a manner that reduces the
potential for exposure and environmental contamination, as well as keeping cleanup and
closure obligations to a minimum.
Energetic Hazardous Waste Configurations
When evaluating potential alternative treatment technology options for use in place of OB/OD,
key considerations include what the waste is and what form it is in. As discussed earlier,
energetic hazardous wastes encompass many different types of materials and exist in many
forms or configurations. Treating munitions and energetics with alternative technologies may be
a multi-step process, depending on the starting material and its configuration (see Figure 3). In
describing the munitions and energetics for treatment purposes, this report divides them into
four general categories: thick-case munitions, thin-case munitions (depending on the relative
thickness of the metal case enclosing the energetic materials), bulk explosives or propellants,
and potentially explosive-contaminated materials.
39 The majority of RCRA permits that have been issued for alternative technologies are to DoD facilities (NASEM
2019, Table 6.1, page 73); however, the private sector holds roughly four RCRA alternative technology permits. In
addition, some alternative technologies have successfully treated energetic hazardous waste through remedial or
Superfund actions that do not require a RCRA permit, such as the contained burn chamber used at Camp Minden,
LA.
17
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Figure 3. Munitions Treatment Process
Energetic
Material
Removal
Case
Opening
Destruction
Bulk Propellant/
Energetic
Material
Case Opening includes fluid jet cutting, robot reverse assembly, and cryofracturing.
Removal of energetic material leaves the case decontaminated to a MDEH (material documented as an explosive hazard) for potential
use at DOD installations.
Further decontamination of the empty case to a MDAS level (material documented as safe) readies the case for release to the public
without restriction and the potential for scrap metal recycling.
Thick-Case Munitions: For the purpose of this report, thick-case munitions refer to items
such as bombs, bomblets, warheads, rocket motors, large and medium projectiles,
grenades, mines, sectioned munitions, and missiles. They may contain -227 g (0.5 lb) to
more than 45 kg (100 lb) of energetic material per item. In addition to the hazards from the
confined energetic materials, the metal case may create additional hazards and damage in
a detonation. Thick metal cases are typical in warheads and projectiles, and if detonated in
the open, significant quantities of both small and large fragments are produced. These
fragments can have high velocities and travel large distances.
Thin-Case Munitions: Thin-case munitions refer to items such as small-caliber ammunition,
ranging from .22 caliber through .50 caliber (12.7mm), medium caliber munitions (14mm
through 40mm direct-fire cartridges), cartridge-actuated devices, propellant-actuated
devices, exploding bolts, fuzes, bomblets, booster pellets, detonators, igniters, leads, and
numerous other small munitions. They contain approximately 227 g (0.5 lb) or less of
energetic material in each item. In addition to the hazards of the confined energetic
materials, the metal cases may create small amounts of metal fragmentation and blast
overpressure during a detonation.
Bulk Explosives/Propellants: Bulk explosives and propellants include "unconfined" energetic
materials (e.g., grains of propellant).
Potentially Explosive-Contaminated Materials: Other wastes associated with explosives and
munitions manufacturing, testing, and use—such as rags, gloves, and packaging material
(e.g., wood crates, cardboard boxes, and shipping and storage containers)—must be
18
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
assessed to determine whether they pose an explosive hazard and therefore are a
"reactive" hazardous waste requiring treatment,
DoD uses the term "Material Potentially Presenting an Explosives Hazard" (MPPEH), which
is material owned or controlled by DoD that, before determination of its explosives safety
status, potentially contains explosives or munitions (e.g., munitions containers and
packaging material; munitions debris remaining after munitions use, demilitarization, or
disposal; and range-related debris) or potentially contains a high enough concentration of
explosives that the material presents an explosive hazard (e.g., equipment, drainage
systems, holding tanks, piping, or ventilation ducts that were associated with munitions
production, demilitarization, or disposal operations). Likewise, DoD uses the term "Material
Documented as an Explosive Hazard" (MDEH) for material owned or controlled by DoD that
has been determined to present an explosive hazard. MPPEH and MDEH materials must be
treated to achieve levels that meet "Material Documented as Safe" (MDAS) before release.
The inspection and treatment process for MPPEH is outlined in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Inspection and Treatment Process for Material
Potentially Presenting an Explosive Hazard (MPPEH)
Decontamination
Transfer or
release to a
qualified
receiver
Before its transfer within the DoD or release from DoD control, personnel certified by a responsible authority as technically
qualified to act as signatories in determining the material's explosive safety status must document, in writing, that the material's
characterization as safe (MDAS) or explosively hazardous (MDEH).
Documented as not presenting an explosive hazard and consequently safe for unrestricted transfer or release. Material that has
been documented as safe is no longer considered MPPEH provided the chain of custody remains intact (DDESB, 2019)
The explosive hazard of the material is known or suspected and is documented, and consequently the MDEH is transferable or
releasable only to a qualified receiver (DDESB, 2019).
Technologies
The following sections summarize the treatment technologies that have been developed,
including how they work, and available information on their development and use status. The
technology summaries are organized according to the steps above in Figure 3:
¦ Case Opening technologies for thin and thick-cased munitions.
¦ Energetic Material Removal technologies for thin and thick-cased munitions.
19
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
¦ Energetic Material Destruction technologies for bulk energetic or material recovered from
thin and thick-cased munitions.
¦ Decontamination technologies for empty cases.The technologies are further summarized in
Appendix D, which presents information in a matrix format for easier comparison. The
technology matrices, which also are organized according to the steps in Figure 3,
summarize technology information, such as sites at which a technology has been tested or
used; the highest scale at which it has been used (bench-, pilot-, or full-scale); the portability
of the technology; whether it treats thin-cased munitions, thick-cased munitions, or bulk
explosives; and the outputs of the process. Readers are recommended to consult the
NASEM report for detailed information on the technologies, including throughput, safety, and
cost. Additional resources to consult are listed by technology type in Appendix C. (For
electronic copy users, control-click on [Additional Resources] next to the technology name to
jump directly to Appendix C. Then control-click to jump back.)
Note that the technology descriptions in this section provide available information and are not
evaluated from an environmental standpoint. Any technology that is selected for treatment of
energetic hazardous wastes would be subject to applicable environmental regulations and
permits. Generally, permitting would encompass identification of potential emissions and
releases and subject the unit to specific design, control, and operating parameters. Several
technologies have been permitted to operate40 and so it is possible to obtain general information
regarding potential regulatory and permit requirements via the state permit agency and
technology vendor. Lastly, the technology descriptions below are general in nature. In other
words, many technologies can be customized based on the user's treatment needs and
environmental regulatory requirements.
Case Opening
For some treatment options used during demilitarization, the munition's body (projectile) must
first be separated from the cartridge case. Thin cartridge cases may be simply pulled apart to
access the propellant content. However, for ICMs that contain sub-munitions, the projectile must
be opened using other methods to safely access the sub-munition housed inside the projectile's
body. This can require reverse engineering the production process to open the projectile's body.
The processes and forces required to access a projectile often involve high risk and, like many
munitions' demilitarization processes, are conducted remotely. Some munitions may be
disassembled only to a point at which it is no longer safe to disassemble further; for deteriorated
or damaged munitions, disassembly may not be a viable option.
The following case opening technologies have been identified.
Reverse Assembly [Additional Resources!
Mechanical equipment is used to disassemble munitions, typically in reverse order of
assembly used in production, to separate the component parts for reclamation and reuse.
Reverse assembly processes are primarily used to open cluster munitions to access the
submunitions. This procedure is often done remotely to protect the operator. Reverse
assembly can be automated or in some cases, performed manually, but at greater risk to
workers. There are a wide variety of process techniques, many of which have been
successfully demonstrated in a sustainable, production-ready, demil execution environment.
40 NASEM 2019. Table 6.1, page 73.
20
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Fluid Jet Cutting [Additional Resources]
In fluid jet cutting (Figure 5), a high-pressure water jet cuts the munition to allow access to
its fill. The water can be mixed with a sharp-edged abrasive such as garnet sand that is
entrained at the nozzle or premixed prior to use in the water jet. Fluid jet cutting can be used
to cut the munition into segments to reduce the NEW; the water also serves to desensitize
the explosivity of the fiil during cutting. Fluid jet cutting, also referred to as waterjet and slurry
jet cutting in the NASEM report, has been widely used in the demil enterprise for many
years. It is an effective means for cutting and accessing explosive fills, but it creates an
energetic hazardous waste that must be further treated. Fluid jet cutting has been
successfully demonstrated in a sustainable, production-ready, demil execution environment
on a wide variety of munition items.
Figure 5. Fluid Jet Cutting
Photo courtesy of John flatten and J.G. King, DoD
Cryofracturing [Additional Resources]
Liquid nitrogen or carbon dioxide is used to freeze certain munition bodies (e.g.,
submunitions, Adam Mines, grenades) below their embrittlement temperature. The
munitions are then placed in a hydraulic press and fractured to expose the energetic
material. Cryofracturing is an effective means for accessing energetics (i.e., the explosive
fill). However, because an occasional, unintentional detonation may occur when force is
applied to the frozen munitions, the process must be designed and managed to operate
safely and effectively. Generally, the cryofracture process is conducted remotely and behind
blast walls to reduce operator exposure. Controlling fugitive emissions that may be released
during unintentional detonations also may be an issue; however, most contained systems
are designed to control such emissions. Cryofracturing has been successfully demonstrated
in a sustainable, production-ready demil execution environment on specific munitions.
According to the NASEM report, as of fiscal year 2017, two demil RDT&E funded projects
are evaluating the expansion of cryogenic processing to additional types of munitions. DoD's
demil enterprise confirms that one project is utilizing cryofracture for mines at McAlester
21
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Photo courtesy' ojHarley Heaton, Dynasafe U.S.
Army Ammunition Plant while the second project involves removal of sensitive submunitions
from artillery rounds at Crane Army Ammunition Activity.
Femtosecond Laser Cutting or Laser Machining [Additional Resources!
Ultra-short laser pulses are used to cut or ablate munitions (i.e., remove metal from the
body) without transferring heat to the explosives inside the case. As such, there is a low risk
of an unintentional detonation or fire. This technology only has been demonstrated at the
pilot scale due to the protracted processing times required to cut a cased munition.
According to DoD's demil enterprise, femtosecond laser cutting has not been successfully
demonstrated to date in a sustainable, production-ready, demil execution environment.
Band Saws [Additional Resources!
Mechanical cutting, typically performed with a band saw, is used to cut thick munition bodies
(e.g., projectiles) using a remotely operated, hydraulically powered band saw cooled by
water or a cooling liquid. In some cases, the band saw may be submerged in water or
soaked in a liquid cooling medium. The use of band saws has been successful, but like
water jet cutting, their use produces contaminated wastewater that must be further managed
and treated. In addition, due to the influence of heat, shock, and friction produced during the
process, the operator must use safety precautions. Band saws have been successfully
demonstrated in a sustainable, production-ready demil execution environment on a wide
variety of munition items.
Figure 6. Segments of Bomb Cut by Underwater Band Saw
Energetic Material Removal
Once a munition case is opened, the energetic material can be removed. In some cases, the
recovered material can be reused. Otherwise, the material must be destroyed using
technologies in the next section.
22
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
The following technologies have been identified for energetic material removal.
Autoclave Meltout [Additional Resourcesl
Some explosives containing TNT (e.g., cast TNT and Composition "B" (TNT/RDX)) have low
melting points (~ 80 C). These types of explosives may be melted using steam that causes
the explosive fill to flow out of the munition's body.
A pressurized vessel is used to heat water to the boiling point, which cannot exceed 121 °C
(249.5 F), creating steam to melt the cast explosive fill (Figure 7). (A cast explosive is one
that was melted and poured inside the projectile's body.) The melted explosive collects in a
melt kettle, is poured onto a flaker belt or into a mold, allowed to cool, and is recovered for
reuse (e.g., for processing and use in other munitions, or for use as donor material required
for the destruction of excess, obsolete, or unserviceable munitions). The sealing surfaces of
the autoclave must have uniform clamping surfaces and seal with 0-ring gaskets to prevent
water infiltration.
An autoclave applies the steam to the exterior of the munition only, thereby minimizing
wastewater. For larger munitions, this process may be very slow, and a steam lance similar
to a water jet can be used inside the munition to improve speed at the expense of greater
wastewater production. Autoclave meltout has been successfully demonstrated in a
sustainable, production-ready demil execution environment on specific munition items and
continues to be viable for recovering meltable explosives.
Figure 7. Autoclave Meltout
Photo courtesy of John Hutten and J.C. King, DoD
Induction Heating Meltout [Additional Resourcesl
Induction heat around 149 C +/-3.9°C (300° F +/-25 F) is applied to a munition's case to melt
the cast explosive for recovery or treatment. This method has been tested in the demil
enterprise, but never successfully transitioned to production due to its propensity for creating
"hot spots" in the metal casings that could potentially result in flash fires/explosions.
According to DoD's demil enterprise, induction heating meltout has not been successfully
demonstrated to date in a sustainable, production-ready demil execution environment.
23
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Washout
¦ Washout with Water Jet [Additional Resources! - A water jet uses high-pressure (55,000-
60,000 psig) water to remove energetic material from a case. It has been used on a
variety of munitions from composite propeliant rocket motors to small high explosive-
filled projectiles. The energetic-contaminated water must be treated. Water jet washout
has been successfully demonstrated in a sustainable, production-ready demil execution
environment on a wide variety of munition items.
¦ Washout with Liquid Nitrogen (Cryogenic Washout) [Additional Resources - High-
pressure jets have also used liquid nitrogen to remove energetic materials from a case.
It is a dry process that embrittles and fractures the energetic material. This technology
was tested in the early 1990s through Army RDT&E, but never transitioned to production
due to sustainment (maintenance) issues. According to DoD's demil enterprise, washout
with liquid nitrogen has not been successfully demonstrated to date in a sustainable,
production-ready demil execution environment.
¦ Washout (Blastout) with Carbon Dioxide [Additional Resources - Removal of energetic
material using high-velocity carbon dioxide (CO2) particles has also been tested. A
centrifuge accelerates pelletized carbon dioxide particles to 427 m/s (1,400 ft/s) to blast
out the remaining explosive from cases. The process was tested in the early 1990s
through Army RDT&E, but never transitioned to production due to sustainment
(maintenance) issues. According to DoD's demil enterprise, washout with carbon dioxide
has not been successfully demonstrated to date in a sustainable, production-ready demil
execution environment.
Dry Ice Blasting [Additional Resources!
Cryogenic (dry ice) cleaning is an automated robotic cryogenic cleaning system for removing
contaminants from the surface of old armaments and munitions. Cryogenic cleaning fires a
jet of solid CO2 particles at supersonic velocity onto the area to be cleaned (Figure 8). The
force is sufficient to remove contaminants with minimal surface abrasion. When the dry ice
pellets penetrate the contaminant and hit the substrate, friction slows them down and they
begin to warm up. As the pellets warm up, they sublimate rapidly. The expansion forces the
contaminant, which is no longer solidly bonded, to be removed from the substrate. DoD's
demil enterprise indicates that although dry ice blasting is an effective method for removing
surface contaminants, it is not an activity typically performed.
Figure 8. Dry Ice Blasting
Photo courtesy of John Mullen and J.C. King, DoD
24
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Ultrasonic Separation orSonication [Additional Resources!
Ultrasonic waves are used in a fluid (alcohol or ketones for PBX) in which munitions are
immersed. When high-intensity ultrasound is applied to a liquid medium adjacent to a solid
material, the stress produced by acoustic cavitation in the liquid fragments the material. The
stress (or pressure) produced by the cavitation of the liquid is a function of the properties of
the liquid. Ultrasonic separation has been considered for explosives mixed with plasticizers
with a very high melting point that cannot be melted out using methods discussed
previously.
During DoD's investigation of this process for potential use, an accidental detonation of a 5-
inch Navy gun projectile with Comp A-3 filler occurred, damaging the large-scale testing
plant. As a result, DoD deemed the process unsafe and ended its investigation. The NASEM
report indicates that although the process has been successful in the degradation of RDX,
the low throughput diminishes its applicability to demilitarization. According to DoD's demil
enterprise, ultrasonic separation has not been successfully demonstrated to date in a
sustainable, production-ready demil execution environment.
Energetic Material Destruction
The technologies used to destroy energetic materials can be classified in three general
categories: contained or closed detonation, thermal destruction, and chemical destruction.
These technologies can address bulk explosives or propellants, propellants removed from
cartridge cases or the explosive removed from munitions, as well as certain munitions without
prior opening and removal of the explosive fills.
Closed Detonation
Closed (or contained) detonation uses strategically placed donor charges to trigger the
detonation of certain munitions within a detonation chamber. The thick-metal chamber walls
contain the effects (pressure, fragmentation, and noise) of the detonation and emissions are
captured for treatment by filter elements that reduce and eliminate hazardous offgases and
other toxic byproducts of the detonation. The maximum treatment load depends on the size
and design of the chamber and the configuration and NEW of the munitions. Closed
detonation chambers may be mobile systems or stationary/fixed industrial systems.
Closed detonation is a proven technology. However, because these technologies operate
using a batch waste feed process that requires cooldown, cleanout, and resetting time
between batches, the throughput, or rate that items can be demilitarized, may be very low.
In addition, batch sizes are limited by the NEW, including the donor charges that are often of
an equal NEW to the waste. Equipment sustainment issues have been reported at Crane
Army Ammunition Activity due to damage to the chamber from repeated detonations over
time, which is not uncommon with these systems. A solution for minimizing damage is to
insert a replaceable metal band or metal rods in the chamber, which serve to absorb the
fragments.
The following are examples of closed detonation technologies.
¦ Controlled Detonation Chamber (CDC) [Additional Resources!
The CDC (Figure 9), formerly known as the Donovan blast chamber prior to purchase
and use by the U.S. Army and others, uses donor explosives (e.g., linear shape charges,
wraps) to implode the munitions being treated. The NEW of the munitions being
25
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
destroyed determines the donor charge needed. The CDC is available as either a
stationary or transportable system designed for movement to multiple locations.
Figure 9. Controlled Detonation Chamber
Photo courtesy of John Hutten and J£: King, DoD
Individual chambers are rated according to the NEW that can be detonated in them.
Munitions are encased with a donor explosive (e.g., pentaerythritol tetranitrate [PETN]
sheet, granular explosives, slurry explosive, or preformed RDX donor) before being
loaded into a large, double-walled steel chamber along with bags of water for thermal
control and steam generation. The floor of the chamber is covered with pea gravel,
which absorbs some of the blast energy. The system is sealed and the donor charge
and munitions are detonated. The detonation's fireball consumes the explosive fill and
most of the offgases. In certain systems, some offgases are released to the atmosphere,
while other systems direct offgases to an expansion chamber that moderates the
pressure wave from the detonation, and the offgases are subsequently filtered to remove
acids and particulate matter and passed through a catalytic oxidizer before release.
CDC's can treat a variety of small- and medium- caliber munitions, but the types of
munitions that a CDC can treat are limited to specific munitions per the DDESB approval
for DoD sites. The largest projectile that the Models T-30 and T-60 CDCs can treat is
155 mm, and both models are limited to 18.1 kg (40 lb) NEW. The transportable T-25
Model is limited to 7.57 kg (16.7 lb) NEW; it can treat mortars as large as 10.7cm (4.2in)
and rockets as large as 11.4cm (4.5-in). The transportable T-1Q is generally limited to
4.54 kg (10 lbs) NEW and can treat up to an 81 mm mortar. Certain DDESB-approved
additions to the T-1G allow it to treat up to 5.9 kg (13 lb) NEW. The throughput of the
CDC can be limited by NEW and slow batch process times (cooling, cleanout, and
refurbishing/resetting time between detonations). The NEW of the donor charge needed
26
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
can equal the NEW of the waste, limiting batch size and throughput. This process has
been successfully demonstrated in a sustainable, production-ready demil execution
environment on specific munitions.
¦ Static Detonation Chamber (SDC) [Additional Resources!
Made by Dynasafe of Sweden, the SDC combines thermal destruction with detonation.
Munitions are fed into the contained chamber through a gastight automated loading
system and electrically heated above the auto-initiation temperature of known explosives
and propellants (about 500 C) until the explosives deflagrate (burn) or detonate (Figure
10). The SDC does not require donor charges or opening of the munition case.
Propellants and uncased high explosives will deflagrate; while cased explosives can
detonate. A thermal oxidizer operates at temperatures between 850 C and 1100 C to
destroy organics in the offgases. The resulting metal scrap meets MDAS criteria (i.e., is
safe for release for commercial recycling).
Dynasafe reports several sizes of SDCs, each with different NEWs for propellants,
uncased (or unconfined) munitions, and cased munitions. The largest unit, the SDC
2000, which is DDESB approved, has listed NEWs of 11 kg for propellants, 8.5 kg for
uncased, and 4.5 kg for cased.
The DoD demil enterprise has several ongoing studies to assess the capacity and
sustainability of Dynasafe's SDC for demil. A recent commercial demil contract uses
SDCs as the primary means of demil. The performance of these SDC units is being
monitored and assessed to determine the possibility for wider use of the technology. The
SDC has been successfully demonstrated in a sustainable, production-ready, demil
execution environment on specific munitions.
Figure 10. Static Detonation Chamber
iPSP__.ll
Photo courtesy of Harlev Heaton, Dynasafe
27
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
¦ Detonation of Ammunition in a Vacuum Integrated Chamber (DAVINCH) [Additional
Resources!
Made by Kobe Steel in Japan, the DAVINCH employs a detonation chamber (Figure 11)
in which medium or large munitions suspended from the chamber ceiling are surrounded
by donor charges. Air is evacuated from the chamber. The munitions are destroyed
when donor charges are electronically detonated, shattering the case and destroying the
energetic materials. The DAVINCH model numbers, which range from the mobile
DAVINCH Lite 24 to the DV-65, correspond to the NEWs of the munition and its donor
charge in kilograms. For example, the NEW of a DV-50 is 50 kg (110 lb).
Offgas treatment depends on the munitions being detonated. Some models have
combustion chambers while others are equipped with cold plasma oxidizers, which may
be preferred when destroying chemical agents, to treat the offgases generated in the
detonation chamber. For units equipped with cold plasma oxidizers, offgases are filtered
to remove particulate matter. An external supply of oxygen is used to pump the offgases
into the cold plasma oxidizer to oxidize carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas.
Condensate water is recovered from the exhaust gas. The exhaust gas may then be
scrubbed or filtered through HERA filters and activated carbon prior to release to the
atmosphere The DAVINCH has been successfully demonstrated in a sustainable,
production-ready demil execution environment on specific munitions.
Figure 11. DAVINCH
Photo courtesy of John Hutten and J.C. King, DoD
Thermal Destruction
Thermal destruction technologies provide for the closed burning or incineration of energetic
materials so that hazardous offgases can be captured and treated by filtration and scrubbing
to meet regulatory requirements. Munitions and non-munitions (e.g., explosives
contaminated packaging materials) are heated directly or indirectly to their auto-initiation
temperatures, triggering deflagration. Thermal destruction is typically conducted in blast and
28
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
fragmentation-proof chambers, which will absorb high-order detonations that can potentially
occur when heat is applied to energetic materials. Thick-case munitions are cut or opened
(vented) prior to thermal treatment to facilitate deflagration. Thermal treatment can also
decontaminate casing materials and allow for the safe transfer of demilitarized scrap metal
for commercial recycling. Considerations for use include: (1) the thermal sensitivity of the
munitions or material being destroyed, (2) whether case opening is required to access
explosives, and (3) the NEW of the energetic materials.
The following are examples of technologies for thermal destruction.
¦ Contained Burn [Additional Resources]
In contained burns, the energetic material is placed onto a remotely controlled loading
system for either batch or semi-continuous treatment in the thermal treatment chamber
(Figure 12). The chamber is sealed, and the material is ignited remotely by the operator.
The products of combustion are contained within the chamber. A valve meters the
exhaust gases through a pollution control system before release to the atmosphere. The
chamber is then purged with fresh air for the next contained burn cycle.
An example of this technology is the contained burn furnace (CBF) installed by El
Dorado Engineering (EDE) at Camp Minden in Louisiana that treated over 6,803 metric
tons (15 million lbs) of M6 propellant. The CBF has successfully demonstrated an ability
to destroy M6 bulk propellant in a sustainable, production-ready, demil execution
environment. DoD anticipates that the CBF is capable of destroying other bulk
propellants, however, additional testing and some modification to the pollution
abatement system would be required.
Another example is the large-scale unit that the Environmental Chemical Corporation
(ECC) installed at Letterkenny Army Depot in Pennsylvania, to thermally treat
ammonium perchlorate (AP)-based rocket motors. The unit is currently undergoing
Operational Acceptance Testing (OAT). This testing has successfully demonstrated a
viable closed-loop, environmentally acceptable solution for the demilitarization of AP-
based rocket motors. Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP)-is slated to commence later this
year with transition to full-rate demil production by early 2020.
Figure 12. Contained Bum Furnace
Photo courtesy of John Hutten and J.C, King, DoD
29
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
¦ Rotary Kiln [Additional Resources!
The cast steel retort sections of the rotary kiln have an internal helix that moves certain
munitions forward and isolates successive feeds from propagating explosions. The
rotary kiln is sealed and is equipped with a discharge system, an afterburner to ensure
complete combustion of energetic material, an air pollution control system, and an
automated control system. One example, the U.S. Army's APE-1236 rotary kiln
(Deactivation Furnace), has a thick-walled primary combustion chamber that can
withstand small detonations. The closed rotary kiln process developed by the Army has
been used for nearly 30 years in demil execution. Other rotary kilns have been
developed by Dynasafe, El Dorado, General Dynamics, and Timberline Environmental.
Rotary kilns have been successfully demonstrated in a sustainable, production-ready
demil execution environment on a wide variety of munition items.
¦ Decineration™ and Rotary Furnace [Additional Resources!
Decineration™ is a technology patented by U.S. Demil, LLC. The non-incinerative
process occurs at ambient pressure and carefully controlled moderate temperatures
(predetermined for each item to be processed) of approximately 204°C - 371 °C (400°F -
700°F) to prevent detonation or volatilization of energetic materials. Use of an externally
heated rotary furnace prevents contact between the electric heating source and
munitions components. Solid energetic materials (e.g., nitrocellulose, nitramines and
nitrate esters) are decomposed into short-chain, light hydrocarbon gases, including
methane, butane, and propane, measured as total organic vapors (TOVs). Air sampling
during production runs also measured trace amounts of dioxins (in the range of 0.18
ppb), furans, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and semivolatile organic compounds.
The gases are extracted for treatment in an emissions abatement system, typically
comprising a wet scrubber and catalytic converter. Carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water
vapor are released to the atmosphere. Metal components are discharged from the
furnace via a conveyor, meet MDAS criteria as safe, and are recyclable. This
Decineration™ technology has undergone testing via the demil RDT&E program,
culminating in being demonstrated at pilot scale at Tooele Army Depot in Utah.
According to DoD's demil enterprise, the Decineration™ technology has been proven to
work in its final form and under expected conditions. Funding continues to be requested
to demonstrate Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 9, after which it would be ready for
utilization at full scale in a production-ready demil execution environment.
Chemical Destruction
Chemical destruction technologies convert bulk energetic materials to less toxic or benign
byproducts. In most cases, bulk energetics first must be removed from cased munitions prior
to treatment by chemical destruction.
The following are examples of technologies for chemical destruction.
¦ Alkaline Hydrolysis [Additional Resources]
Alkaline hydrolysis uses a concentrated base solution at elevated temperatures (90°-
150°C) to break down explosives and propellants into non-energetic, water-soluble
materials that can be directly disposed of or treated further using biodegradation. The
process occurs in a reaction chamber, where materials are immersed in a base solution.
The system typically consists of an energetic feed system, a tank farm storing the base
solution and hydrolysate produced during the process, a hydrolysis reactor, and an air
pollution control system. An alkaline solution is deposited into the reactor containing the
30
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
energetic materials. Process water is introduced, and heating occurs. The solution is
vigorously agitated to completely hydrolyze the energetic materials.
The reaction produces hydrolysate and offgases, which are treated in the air pollution
control system before their release. The hydrolysate must be disposed of as hazardous
waste due to its high pH or treated further to reduce the pH and render it non-hazardous.
The NASEM report did not review alkaline hydrolysis, suggesting that it is not well
developed for munitions applications. However, alkaline hydrolysis was successfully
used full scale at United Technologies Corporation in San Jose, California, to treat Class
1.1 and Class 1.3 propellants, at the pilot-scale level at Los Alamos National Laboratory
to treat HMX and nitrocellulose, and the pilot-scale level to treat Composition B4 at
Holston Army Ammunition Plant, Tennessee.
¦ General Atomics Neutralization/Alkaline Hydrolysis41 [Additional Resources]
General Atomics' neutralization technology is a type of alkaline hydrolysis that involves
submerging the cased munitions in a tank of sodium hydroxide and water solution. The
basic solution dissolves the case to expose the bulk energetics. The solution hydrolyzes
the exposed energetic material, neutralizing it and decomposing it to hydrolysate
byproducts. The hydrolysates can be fed into General Atomics' industrial supercritical
water oxidation (iSCWO) units (see next section) for further treatment. As noted above,
alternative technologies involving the addition of liquids for treatment generate large
amounts of secondary hazardous wastes that must be disposed or further treated by
other processes.
Alkaline hydrolysis is a closed disposal process that has been in production at Tooele
Army Depot, Utah, for many years to treat a wide range of Cartridge Actuated Devices
(CAD) and Propellant Actuated Devices (PAD) with aluminum bodies. The system is
inactive due to lack of inventory of aluminum bodied CADs and PADs but is available for
future use. The iSCWO neutralization technology was added to treat secondary waste
streams resulting from the base hydrolysis process but eventually was not used due to
lack of capacity and reliability issues, and offsite treatment methods were found to be
more cost effective. This process has been successfully demonstrated in a sustainable,
production-ready demil execution environment on specific munition items.
¦ Industrial Supercritical Water Oxidation (iSCWO) [Additional Resources!
Supercritical water oxidation destroys energetics by mixing them with water and
subjecting the mixture to temperatures and pressures above its thermodynamic critical
point (374°C and 3,206 pounds per square inch absolute [psia]). General Atomics'
iSCWO technology exposes bulk energetics or energetic hydrolysates to very high
temperature and pressure, breaking them down into gases (oxygen-depleted, carbon
dioxide-enriched air, water vapor, and nitrogen oxide), water, and sodium salts.
Reactions take place in a vertically oriented reactor vessel, where the slurried material is
fed at the top of the vessel and travels downward towards the exit. Gases are filtered
and water can be recycled and reused by the plant in the destruction process. iSCWO
operates at 650°C and 3,400 psia to oxidize energetic hazardous wastes.
Feed containing phosphorous or halogens, which produce acids, may be neutralized by
adding sodium hydroxide. General Atomics' neutralization technology decomposes bulk
41 Note that the NASEM report classifies this technology as stationary base hydrolysis oxidation.
31
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
energetics in a sodium hydroxide and water solution, which results in hydrolysate
byproducts. iSCWO can be used to treat any organic material that is able to be
processed as a water slurry.
The iSCWO treatment reactor (Figure 13) is lined with titanium to protect against the
corrosiveness of the mixture. The longevity of the liners and associated cost of
replacement will depend on the corrosiveness of the input. Fixed and portable units are
available.
The iSCWO technology has been tested and used in the demil enterprise for many
years. Most recently, it was used to demilitarize waste streams produced from other
closed demilitarization processes operating in the Republic of Korea (ROK) in support of
demil execution of U.S. stocks still in storage in the ROK. The process was successfully
tested, demonstrated, installed and supported for over five years in the ROK by Army
personnel. Currently, there are three operating iSCWO units at Blue Grass Chemical
Agent Destruction Pilot Plant in Kentucky. While iSCWO has been successfully tested
and used, it has not yet been widely implemented at the production level because it
continues to experience frequent downtime and maintenance. This process has been
successfully demonstrated in a sustainable, production-ready demil execution
environment on specific energetic residues and waste streams but is still being
evaluated for treatment of bulk energetic materials.
Figure 13. Industrial Supercritical Water Oxidation
Photo courtesy of John llutlen and J.C. King, DoD
* MuniRem® [Additional Resources!
MuniRem Environmental produces MuniRem®, a sulfur-based reductant that can be
applied in solution or powder form to degrade bulk explosives (e.g., HMX, RDX, TNT,
DNTs, ADNTs, nitrobenzenes, N-nitroso-dimethylamine (NDMA), nitrocellulose,
nitroglycerin, PBX, PETN) and residual explosives in different materials. MuniRem® is
formulated based on the target material and mixed with the bulk explosives in a custom-
built neutralization reactor. MuniRem Environmental describes the treatment process as
"neutralization," which renders compounds inert by eliminating the explosive hazard;
additional reagent is added to achieve complete destruction.
32
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Wastewater from the treatment process may be polished in a reactive column and
subsequently reused or discharged to a municipal sewer system. Wastewater from the
treatment of bulk nitrocellulose propellants may be treated either through: (1)
biodegradation to denitrify nitrate and nitrite; or (2) by adding phosphoric acid, which
converts it to a nitrogen/phosphorous/potassium-rich chemical fertilizer. Treatment of
explosives with MuniRem® potentially yields nitrogen gas, nitrogen dioxide, carbon
dioxide, formate, and acetate.
MuniRem® has been tested and applied to demilitarization of bulk energetics and for
treating explosives-contaminated materials (e.g., production scrap and pipes).
MuniRem® has been successfully applied to treatment of underwater discarded military
munitions (DMMs) (170 items) containing black powder and nonenergetic components
(i.e., oxidizer, fuel, and binding gent) to support salvaging of the CSS Georgia. Wth
respect to bulk energetics, according to DoD's demil enterprise, the process does not
treat these materials effectively and efficiently and has not been successfully
demonstrated to date in a sustainable production-ready demil execution environment.
¦ Actodemil [Additional Resourcesl
ARCTECH's Actodemil® is hydrolysis with a highly alkalized organic water-soluble salt
of a humic acid (ActoHAX™). The solution is heated, and propellants and explosives are
gradually added (without grinding or size reduction) to the preheated ActoHAX™. The
solution is transferred to another vessel reactor fitted with a mixer for neutralization and
oxidation. Phosphoric acid is added to lower the pH to near neutral or to what is desired
based on the intended end use of the product. The reactor vessel is closed at the top,
and any NOx gas produced is swept from the headspace and directed to a wet scrubber
vessel containing ActoHAX™ reagent. The spent scrubber reagent is mixed with end
use product so that no liquid waste is generated. The method has been tested for the
U.S. Army to destroy single-, double-, and triple-base propellants and is also applicable
to explosive materials such as nitrocellulose, HMX, RDX, nitroglycerin, and other nitrate
ester-type materials. The liquid byproduct of this reaction is then turned into a humic-rich
organic fertilizer.
According to DoD's demil enterprise, the Actodemil process was tested over many years
in the Army Demil RDT&E program, but has not been used in a sustainable, production-
ready demil execution environment.
Decontamination
Fragments of metal casing remaining following treatment may contain residues of energetics. In
order to be sent to a commercial recycling facility, metal must be decontaminated to achieve
levels that meet MDAS criteria. (Some thermal treatment approaches mentioned above are
capable of processing explosives-contaminated materials, including MDEH, to MDAS without
additional steps.)
The following examples of decontamination technologies are grouped into either Thermal
Decontamination or Chemical Decontamination technologies.
Thermal Decontamination
¦ Hot Gas Decontamination [Additional Resourcesl
Developed by the U.S. Army Environmental Center, hot gas decontamination is
conducted in a sealed, insulated vessel where heated air raises the temperature of the
33
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
scrap material contaminated with explosives or propellants for a specified period of time.
Operating temperature and exposure time are site-specific, but typically, the
decontamination process holds a steady temperature of 260 C to 316°C (SOOT to
600°F) for one hour. The heat volatilizes contaminants, which are then destroyed in an
afterburner. The treated metal meets MDAS criteria. Portable units that can be brought
to the site are available. Hot gas decontamination has been successfully demonstrated
in a sustainable, production-ready demil execution environment for a wide variety of
munition items containing explosive residues only.
¦ Flashing Furnace [Additional Resourcesl
A flashing furnace uses a direct flame to heat contaminated scrap to 316 C (600°F) for
typically 45-90 minutes, depending on load size and type. Offgases are treated with a
cyclone dust collector and baghouse. Flashing furnaces thermally decontaminate
materials to MDAS Portable units that can be brought to the site are available.
According to DoD's demil enterprise, flashing furnaces have been successfully
demonstrated in a sustainable, production-ready demil execution environment for a wide
variety of munition items containing explosive residues only.
¦ Decineration™ [Additional Resourcesl
Decineration™ is a technology patented by U.S. Demil, LLC (see discussion above
under Thermal Destruction technologies) that uses an externally heated furnace (Figure
14) to decontaminate the scrap metal output to MDAS. Emissions are treated with a wet
scrubber and catalytic converter; carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor are released.
According to DoD's demil enterprise, the Decineration™ technology has been proven to
work in its final form and under expected conditions. Funding continues to be requested
to demonstrate Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 9, after which it would be ready for
utilization at full scale in a production-ready demil execution environment.
Figure 14. Decineration/Rotary Furnace
Photo courtesy of John Hiitten and J.(King, DoD
34
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
¦ Car Bottom Furnace [Additional Resources]
A car bottom furnace is an incinerator that consists of a fixed refractory-lined furnace
and a "car" that is normally rail-mounted for loading energetic materials into the furnace.
The car facilitates batch processing of large loads that would be difficult or dangerous to
load directly into the furnace. Exhaust gases are pulled from the unit and cleaned in air
pollution control systems. These furnaces are typically used for removing residual
energetics and not as a primary demilitarization method. According to DoD's demil
enterprise, the car bottom furnace has been successfully demonstrated in a sustainable,
production-ready demil execution environment for a wide variety of munition items
containing explosive residues only.
Chemical Decontamination
¦ MuniRem® [Additional Resources]
MuniRem Environmental's MuniRem® (described above under Chemical Destruction
technologies) has been used to effectively decontaminate explosives-contaminated
scrap metal. It can be used to decontaminate bomb casings, scrap metal, and projectile
fragments from which bulk explosives were removed and treated. Larger bomb casings
may be sprayed with solution, or additional MuniRem® can be added to the
neutralization reactor to achieve complete destruction. The contaminated surfaces are
soaked in high-strength solution (>15%) and allowed to react for 30 minutes to four
hours. The Army considers it to be an effective chemical process for treating energetic
residues, lightly contaminated materials, and metal surfaces contaminated with
energetics.
MuniRem® has also been applied by DoD and commercial explosive manufacturers to
decontaminate equipment, pipes, and building fixtures (e.g. Iowa AAP, McAlester Army
Depot, Lake City AAP, Indian Head, former Louisiana AAP; and internationally (Israel,
Taiwan, South Africa, and Australia). MuniRem® is also currently being used under a
DoD demilitarization contract to decontaminate scrap metal (with EXPAL USA).
¦ Actodemil® [Additional Resourcesl
ARCHTECH's Actodemil® process (described above under Chemical Destruction
technologies) also can be used to decontaminate scrap materials and other equipment
contaminated with explosives. A wet scrubber treats ammonia and nitrogen oxide
offgases. The treated residues can be used as fertilizer. According to DoD's demil
enterprise, Actodemil® has not been successfully demonstrated to date in a sustainable,
production-ready demil execution environment.
DDESB Approved Technologies
As mentioned earlier, a list of technologies approved from a safety standpoint by the DDESB is
provided here for reference. If a particular technology is not in this list, it does not necessarily
mean it is not safe for use.
The DDESB's current list42 includes the following eight technologies (parenthetical references
are to sites where use has been approved):
42 The 2015 list of eight DDESB-approved technologies was confirmed as current by Mr. M. Luke Robertson
(DDESB) in an email to EMS dated July 26, 2017. The only update to the list was an approval to a modification for
35
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
¦ Hot gas decontamination facility (Hawthorne Army Depot, NV).
¦ Industrial waste processor and Caffee Road Thermal Decontamination Area (Naval Surface
Warfare Center, Indian Head Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Division, Indian
Head, MD).
¦ Transportable controlled detonation chamber - Models T-25, T-30, and T-60
(Massachusetts Military Reservation, MA; Spring Valley FUDS, Washington, DC; Pier 90/91
FUDS, Seattle, WA).
¦ Ammunition peculiar equipment-1236 rotary kiln incinerator (Crane Army Ammunition
Activity, IN; Tooele Army Depot, UT; McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, OK; and Hawthorne
Army Depot, NV).
¦ Static Detonation Chamber 1200 (Anniston Army Depot, AL).
¦ Kobe Steel - Vacuum Integrated Chamber - DAVINCH™ DV-60.43
¦ Explosives Destruction System (EDS) Various Phase 1 and Phase 2 units for the onsite
treatment of recovered chemical warfare materials and treatment of certain rejected
stockpiled chemical munitions. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
recognizes EDS as a mobile destruction system. The EDS has been used at: Camp Sibert,
AL; Pine Bluff Arsenal, AR; Spring Valley Formerly Used Defense Site, Washington, DC;
Dover Air Force Base, DE; Rocky Mountain Arsenal, CO; and Bluegrass Army Depot, KY.
¦ Tactical Missile Demilitarization (Letterkenny Army Depot, PA).44
Citations
Atkin, 2015. The 'Insane' Plan to Burn 80,000 Pounds of Chemical Explosives, Out In the Open,
Every Day for a Year. In Think Progress. March 12.
https://thinkproqress.orq/the-insane-plan-to-burn-80-000-pounds-of-chemical-explosives-out-in-
the-open-everv-dav-for-a-year-fde32c67a634/
Bonnett, Peter C. and Bishara Elmasri, 2002. Base hydrolysis process for the destruction of
energetic materials (No. ARWEC-SP-01001). January, https://discover.dtic.mil/
Chiapello, 2017. Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board (DDESB) Organization,
Functions, and Approvals. Slide presentation by Thierry Chiapello to the National Academy of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Committee on Alternatives for the Demilitarization of
Conventional Munitions. December 11.
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/qroups/depssite/documents/webpaqe/deps 183623.pdf
Clift, 2019. Personal communication. Email from Keith Clift, Demil Capabilities Division Chief,
Demil Directorate, to Sasha Gerhard, U.S. EPA. April 16.
Static Detonation Chamber-1200, although the allowable quantity remained the same as the 2015 list. DDESB
certified the DynaSEALR detonation units for emergency response, transport, and training, but not demilitarization.
43 Approved for experimental testing using simulants.
44 Tactical Missile Demilitarization is the former name for the Ammonium Perchlorate Rocket Motor Destruction
(ARMD) Facility. The DDESB approval for the ARMD facility applies to the rocket motor preparation building, the
rocket motor segmenting building (using water cooled band saw), and the thermal treatment building (with contained
burn furnace).
36
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Crull, 1998. Prediction of Primary Fragmentation Characteristics of Cased Munitions. By
Michelle M. Crull. U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center. August 20.
https://discover.dtic.mil/
CSWAB (Citizens for Safe Water Around Badger), 2016. Open Air Burning of Munitions is
Obsolete and Dangerous. February 1.
https://cswab.orq/open-air-burninq-of-munitions-is-obsolete-and-danqerous/
Copa, William M. and Joseph A Momont, 1995. Wet Air Oxidation of Energetics and Chemical
Agent Surrogates. In Journal of Energetic Materials. Vol 13. Issue 3-4.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07370659508Q19387
DDESB, 2015. Defense Explosives Safety Board's (DDESB) Role in Approving Demilitarization
Technology for Ammunition and Explosives (AE) Information Paper. January 23.
https://www.epa.qov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/9545931.pdf
Defense Ammunition Center Technology Directorate, 2005. Demil Capabilities Matrix. Released
by James Q. Wheeler, Director, Defense Ammunition Center and Larry Nortunen, Associate
Director for Technology. September 16.
DoD, 2018. DoD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. As of September 2018.
http://www.ics.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/dictionary.pdf
DoD, 2015. DoD Instruction 4140.62, Material Potentially Presenting an Explosive Hazard
(MPPEH). August 20. Change 3 effective September 9, 2019.
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/414062p.pdf?ver=2017-10-
18-143048-107
DoD, 2011. Department of Defense Instruction 4160.28: DoD Demilitarization (DEMIL) Program.
April 7. Change 1 incorporated September 14, 2017.
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/i4160 28.pdf
El Dorado Engineering, Inc., 2005. Decontamination of Test Range Metal Debris Using a
Transportable Flashing Furnace. ESTCP Project MM-2004-12. Prepared for the Environmental
Security Technology Certification Program. October 3.
https://www.serdp-estcp.org/content/download/5511/76833/.../MM 0412 FR 01.pdf
ESTCP, ITRC, and SERDP, 2006. Survey of Munitions Response Technologies. Prepared by
the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, the Interstate Technology &
Regulatory Council, and the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program.
June.
https://frtr.gov/costperformance/pdf/monitoring/survev of munitions response technologies.pdf
Harris, Robbie, 2018. US DoD to Investigate Open Burning at Radford Arsenal. Virginia Public
Radio. August 28.
https://www.wvtf.Org/post/us-dod-investigate-open-burning-radford-arsenal#stream/0
Hilburn, Greg, 2015. Controversy Heats Up Over Open Burn at Camp Minden. In News Star.
January 8.
https://www.thenewsstar.eom/story/news/local/2015/01/08/controversy-heats-open-burn-camp-
minden/21468283/
37
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
King, J.C., 2015. Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board (DDESB) Approval Process.
Point Paper. March 6.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/9545938.pdf
Lustgarten, 2017. Bombs in Our Backyard. ProPublica. July 20.
https://www.propublica.orq/article/militarv-pollution-open-burns-radford-virqinia
McFassel, 2017. Demilitarization Overview for National Academy of Sciences. Presentation by
John F. McFassel, Product Director Demilitarization to the Alternatives for the Demilitarization of
Conventional Munitions: Committee Meeting #1. Held at the National Academy of Sciences.
Washington, DC. August.
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/depssite/documents/webpage/deps 180981.pdf
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, 2008. Handbook of Best Practices on
Conventional Ammunition. Part V, Best Practice Guide on the Destruction of Conventional
Ammunition.
http://www.osce.org/fsc/33371 ?download=true
McFassel, 2017. Optimizer Brief: Future of DSEP. May.
NAVFAC (Naval Facilities Engineering Command), 2016. Vieques Cleanup Update newsletter.
July.
https://navfac.navv.mil/content/dam/navfac/Environmental/PDFs/env restoration/vieques/Augus
t2016 Fiver English.pdf
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, 2008. Best Practice Guide on the
Destruction of Conventional Ammunition. In OSCE Handbook of Best Practices on Conventional
Ammunition.
http://www.osce.org/fsc/33371 ?download=true
Patterson, 2018. Personal communication. Phone conversation with Mark Patterson, FWDA
BRAC Environmental Coordinator, and EMS, Inc. December 4.
Picatinny Installation Restoration Program, 2005. Picatinny Record of Decision, Site 34 -
Burning Ground. January.
https://semspub.epa.gov/work/02/95834.pdf
PIKA, 2015. Final Work Plan, Munitions and Explosives of Concern Removal and Surface
Clearance Kickout Area. Prepared for U.S Army Corps of Engineers. February 6.
https://www.ftwingate.org/docs/pub/Feb 06 2015 OEW F WP MEC Removal Surface Clear
ance KQA.pdf
Poulin, 2010. Literature Review on Demilitarization of Munitions. Prepared for the RIGHTTRAC
Technology Demonstration Project. November.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/28a8/bfdfef72e94d2a718f5aca7146a945cc51ac.pdf
RCRA Online, EPA database. November 20, 2018.
https://rcrapublic.epa.gov/rcraonline/
38
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Ross, 2017. Why the Military is Still Allowed to Use Open Burning and Detonation to Destroy
Hazardous Waste Explosives in the U.S. in Newsweek. May 16.
http://www.newsweek.com/open-burninq-militarv-toxic-hazardous-waste-explosives-detonation-
environment-609619
Rustric, 2001. Depot Neighbors Are on a Short Fuse. In High Country News. August 13.
http://www.hcn.org/issues/208/10654
Safety Management Services, 2016. Developing and Testing a Desensitization Process for
Fireworks, Task 7 Final Report. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. April 13.
Shuster, 2017. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Presentation by
Ken Shuster, U.S. EPA, to the Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions:
Committee Meeting #1. Held at the National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC. August 22-
23.
http://sites.nationalacademies.oro/DEPS/BAST/DEPS 180898? qa=2.134030156.372008718.1
544489964-1768303924.1544489964
Subcommittee on Non-Atomic Military Research and Development, et al., 2003. Development of
a Protocol for EM Contaminated Sites Characterization. KTA 4-28 Final Report. Volume II.
September.
http://espace.inrs.ca/1295/1/R000652.pdf
Tavares, et al., 2015. Overview of Demilitarisation Techniques. Erasmus+ programme, "Greener
and Safer Energetic and Ballistic Systems" at the Conference on Energetic Materials.
Bucharest, Romania.
https://www.semanticscholar.orq/paper/Overview-of-demilitarisation-techniques-Tavares-
Ferreira/c6317043e42770671f547e276b55ffc4dd72c24a
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), 2019. Alternatives
for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. The National Academies Press.
https://books.google.com/books?id=JiGEDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Alternatives+for
+the+Demilitarization+of+Conventional+Munitions.&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks redir=0&sa=X&
ved=2ahUKEwit5sOirdHIAhUr1lkKHWwaBgAQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&g=Alternative
s%20for%20the%20Demilitarization%20of%20Conventional%20Munitions.&f=false
Wlkinson and Watt, 2006. Review of Demilitarisation and Disposal Techniques for Munitions
and Related Materials. Munitions Safety Information Analysis Center.
http://www.rasrinitiative.org/pdfs/MSIAC-2006.pdf
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2018. Technical Guidance for Military Response Actions. EM
200-1-15. October 30.
https://www.publications.usace.armv.mil/Portals/76/Users/182/86/2486/EM %20200-1-
15. pdf?ver=2018-10-10-144834-940
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1999. Memorandum: Small Arms Determinations, Ordnance and
Explosives (OE) Center of Expertise (CX) Interim Guidance Document 99-02. April 21.
U.S. Army, 1998. EOD Procedures/General EOD Safety Precautions. TM 60A-1-1-22. May 6.
39
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980. Final Background Document, 40 CFR part 265,
subpart P Interim Status Standards for Hazardous Waste Facilities for Thermal Treatment
Processes Other than Incineration and for Open Burning. Office of Solid Waste. April.
https ://www. I aw. cornel I. edu/cf r/text/40/part-265/su bpart- P
40
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
APPENDIX A: Glossary
bench-scale - Refers to technologies tested only in a laboratory.
cast explosive - An explosive that was melted, poured, and solidified inside the projectile's
body.
deflagration - A process in which a small amount of explosive material in an unconfined state
suddenly ignites when subjected to a flame, spark, shock, friction, or high temperatures. (The
Chemistry of Explosives, The Royal Society of Chemistry, 2004.)
demilitarization - The act of eliminating the functional capabilities and inherent military design
features from DoD personal property. Methods and degree range from removal and destruction
of critical features to total destruction by cutting, crushing, shredding, melting, burning, etc.
DEMIL is required to prevent property from being used for its originally intended purpose and to
prevent the release of inherent design information that could be used against the United States.
DEMIL applies to DoD personal property in both serviceable and unserviceable condition. (DoD,
2011)
energetic hazardous wastes - Energetic hazardous wastes exhibit the characteristics of either
ignitability or reactivity, or both. They encompass items containing energetic materials (i.e.,
propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics) such as excess, obsolete, or unserviceable military
munitions and ammunition used in law enforcement, flares, fireworks, rockets, and automobile
air bag gas generators that are determined to be wastes.
energetic materials - Are a class of material with high amount of stored chemical energy that
can be released. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enerqetic material)
full-scale - Refers to technologies deployed onsite to treat energetic hazardous wastes. Full-
scale technologies have reached the final design and construction stages and are operating or
have operated in the past. Full-scale is the result of incorporating outcomes at the bench and
pilot scale to optimize the final design.
hazardous waste - Hazardous waste is a waste with properties that make it dangerous or
capable of having a harmful effect on human health or the environment. Hazardous waste is
defined in RCRA §1004(5) and codified at 40 CFR 261.3.
improved conventional munitions - Munitions characterized by the delivery of two or more
antipersonnel or antimaterial and/or antiarmor submunitions by a warhead or projectile.
insensitive munitions - Munitions that will not react to unintentional stimuli, such as fast or
slow heating or bullet or fragment impact, in such a way as to cause catastrophic collateral
damage that impairs warfighting capability.
(https://www.dsiac.org/resources/iournals/dsiac/summer-2014-volume-1-number-1/insensitive-
munitions-where-are-we-now)
A-l
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
kickout - Whole or partial munitions or still-active energetics that are ejected from the site of a
disposal burn or detonation and that still represent a potential explosive or reactive hazard.45
material documented as safe (MDAS) - MPPEH that has been assessed and documented as
not presenting an explosive hazard and for which the chain of custody has been established
and maintained. This material is no longer considered to be MPPEH and may be released to the
public without restriction. (DoD, 2015)
material documented as an explosive hazard (MDEH) - MPPEH that cannot be documented
as MDAS, that has been assessed and documented as to the maximum explosive hazards the
material is known or suspected to present, and for which the chain of custody has been
established and maintained. This material is no longer considered to be MPPEH. (DoD, 2015)
material potentially presenting an explosive hazard (MPPEH) - Material owned or controlled
by the DoD that, before determination of its explosives safety status, potentially contains
explosives or munitions (e.g., munitions containers and packaging material; munitions debris
remaining after munitions use, demilitarization, or disposal; and range-related debris) or
potentially contains a high enough concentration of explosives that the material presents an
explosive hazard (e.g., equipment, drainage systems, holding tanks, piping, or ventilation ducts
that were associated with munitions production, demilitarization, or disposal operations). This
material may be released only to a qualified receiver Excluded from MPPEH are military
munitions and military munitions-related materials as well as non-munitions-related material,
such as rebar. (DoD, 2011)
munition - A complete device charged with explosives; propellants; pyrotechnics; initiating
composition; or chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material for use in operations
including demolitions. (DoD, 2018)
net explosive weight (NEW) - The actual weight in pounds of explosive mixtures or
compounds, including the trinitrotoluene equivalent of energetic material that is used in
determination of explosive limits and explosive quantity data arcs. (DoD, 2018)
pilot-scale - Refers to technologies that have been scaled up for application onsite (typically at
the eventual place where full-scale will be built or operated) to demonstrate feasibility. Pilot-
scale testing may also have evaluated time, cost, and ways to improve system design prior to
full-scale implementation.
primary explosive - is an explosive that is extremely sensitive to stimuli such as impact,
friction, heat, static electricity, or electromagnetic radiation. A relatively small amount of energy
is required for initiation. (https://en.wikipedia.Org/wiki/Explosive#Primarv explosive)
reactive waste - EPA considers wastes hazardous due to the reactivity characteristic if the
waste may be unstable under normal conditions, may react with water, may give off toxic gases
and may be capable of detonation or explosion under normal conditions or when heated. Waste
explosives are a hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261.23 Characteristic of reactivity, paragraphs
(a) (6), (7), and (8).
45 NASEM 2019.
A-2
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
secondary explosive - is less sensitive than a primary explosive and requires substantially
more energy to be initiated. Because they are less sensitive, they are usable in a wider variety
of applications and are safer to handle and store. Secondary explosives are used in larger
quantities in an explosive train and are usually initiated by a smaller quantity of a primary
explosive. (https://en.wikipedia.Org/wiki/Explosive#Secondarv explosive)
sustainable production-ready demil execution environment - For a given technology, the
capability has been shown that it can be successfully operated in a production environment for
extended periods without significant failures or unreasonable support costs to keep it
operational.
thick-case munitions - Items such as bombs, bomblets, warheads, rocket motors, large and
medium projectiles, grenades, mines, sectioned munitions, and missiles.
thin-case munitions - Items such as small-caliber ammunition, ranging from 0.22 to 0.50 (.22
cartridges through Cal .50 (12.7mm), medium caliber munitions (14mm thru 40mm direct fire
cartridges), cartridge-actuated devices, propellant-actuated devices, exploding bolts, fuzes,
bomblets, booster pellets, detonators, igniters, and leads.
throughput - The rate that munitions or energetic materials can be demilitarized by a
technology.
waste explosives - Waste that has the potential to detonate and bulk military propellants that
cannot safely be disposed of through other modes of treatment (40 CFR 265.382). See also,
reactive waste at 40 CFR 261.21.
A-3
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
APPENDIX B: MIDAS Family Code Definitions4
DoD's Defense Ammunition Center developed the Munitions Items Disposition Action System
(MIDAS) to identify different families of ammunition defined by two-letter codes. The codes are
used to identify ammunition groupings for planning and assessing technology applications, such
as for demilitarization of munitions. For any current assessments, the latest MIDAS codes and
information would need to be used. MIDAS is not a publicly accessible system.
MIDAS
Family
CD
CH
CP
CR
CS
DU
Fl
FP
Definition
Munitions containing dyes as a primary disposal requirement. Also bulk dye
materials.
Munitions containing hexachloroethane (HC) as the primary fill. Also bulk HC.
Includes a variety of ammunition types that contain white phosphorus (WP), or
elasticized white phosphorus (PWP) as primary fillers. Items may also contain a
high explosive, bursting charge, and/or propellant charge as well.
Usually referred to as riot control agents or munitions. Includes a variety of items
that contain lacrimatory or irritating agents. Common fillers are tear gas, mace, or
pepper gas. Common abbreviations for irritating agents are typically shown in the
item nomenclature as CS, CN, or CR.
Munitions whose primary purpose is to produce smoke. This family does not
include smoke-producing munitions that use white or red phosphorus, which are
assigned to family CP, and those munitions containing HC, which are in family
CH. This family also does not include munitions of a primarily pyrotechnic nature,
such as those used for illumination or smoke and illumination, or signal kits,
flares, and most simulators, which are included in family FP.
Includes all ammunition items using depleted uranium as the primary material for
the projectiles/penetrators. These items are typically kinetic energy projectile
penetrators that may also have incendiary or tracer devices associated.
Incendiary ammunition or devices that produce intense heat for destroying
equipment or documents. Primary fillers are thermite, thermate, triethylaluminum,
potassium perchlorate, or TPA.
Pyrotechnics/Illumination/Non-Frag/Tracers. Includes a variety of ammunition
types used for illumination, marking, spotting, signaling, simulating, or tracing.
Typical items are ground, aircraft, or marine illumination signal stars, photoflash
cartridges, personnel distress kits, and air/ground burst simulators. Does not
include items whose primary purpose is to screen, which are assigned to family
46 Source: Defense Ammunition Center Technology Directorate Demil Capabilities Matrix, released by James Q.
Wheeler, Director, Defense ammunition Center and Larry Nortunen, Associate Director for Technology. September
16, 2005.
B-l
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
CS. Does not include tracer and incendiary rounds from 20mm through 40 mm,
which are assigned to families PDLA, PDLB, or PDLC.
HA HE components/devices. Includes all high explosive detonators, boosters, or
bursting charges that are not configured within an ammunition item. Typically
hazard class/division 1.1 or 1.2 components or munitions that do not fit any other
family.
HB HE Bombs. Includes high explosive filled bombs. Items are typically air dropped,
and fillers are usually tritonal, TNT, HBX, or H-6 explosives.
HC HE Cartridges. Includes complete artillery or navy gun ammunition with a high
explosive projectile and a propelling charge. Examples are 90mm, 105mm, 3750
Cal, 81mm, 30mm fuzed or unfuzed cartridges and fuzed 20mm cartridges.
HD High Explosive "D". Includes all ammunition, regardless of type, that contains
Explosive "D" as the primary filler. Explosive "D" is also known as ammonium
picrate or Yellow "D".
HE Bulk High Explosives. Includes all bulk high explosives such as TNT,
Composition A, Composition B, Composition C-4, PBX, and RDX.
HG HE Grenades. Includes hand or rifle grenades that contain high explosive fillers.
Does not include 40mm grenades in family HC.
HH HE Depth Charges and Underwater Munitions. Includes all high explosive filled
marine depth charges and underwater mines and also the separate warheads for
these depth charges and underwater mines.
HI HE ICM/CBU & Submunitions. Includes a variety of improved and conventional
munition types containing submunitions. Items may be airdropped cluster bomb
units, projectiles, or warheads containing submunitions such as anti-tank mines,
anti-personnel/material grenades or bomb loaded units (BLU's).
HM Missiles and Rockets.
HP HE Projectiles and Warheads. Includes all projectiles, warheads, mortars, or
similar items that do not have a cartridge case, propellant, or rocket motor
associated, and that contain a high explosive filler.
HR HE Rockets. Includes complete rounds of rocket ammunition containing
warhead, fuze and rocket motor. Note that a live rocket motor with an inert
warhead would be considered a member of family PDR. This family does not
include rockets with practice warheads designed to provide a flash and smoke
signature. These types of rockets are in family FPR.
HT Torpedoes, complete.
HX Demolition Materials. Includes all demolition materials such as cratering charges,
shaped charges, flexible sheet explosives, and miscellaneous standard or non-
standard items, which could be used as donor material for open detonation of
B-2
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
other munitions items. It also includes demolition initiation items such as blasting
caps, time fuze, detonation cord, etc. Typically, the initiation items will not be
used for their intended purposes because they are in the demil account due to
defects.
HZ HE Land Mines. Includes all high explosive filled land mines emplaced by hand
or dispersing devices, and includes the dispersing devices when the mines and
the devices constitute end items. The family also includes scatterable mines
when they are packed separately from the dispersing unit (e.g., a dispenser,
projectile body, or other system).
I Inert. Includes all ammunition without any explosive or reactive material or fillers.
Items in this family are typically classified as Dummy or Blind Loaded ammunition
used primarily for training. In general, all munitions items that are inert but that
require demilitarization before being placed in the hands of the public (e.g., sold
through the DRMS) are placed in this family.
LR Large Rocket Motor. Includes solid propellant ICBM, SLBM, or space launch
booster motors. Does not include those motors that are associated with tactical
rocket or missile systems. Does not include anti-ballistic missile systems
designed to defend against theater ballistic missiles. E202 include strategic anti-
ballistic missile systems (such as Safeguard).
N No Family. Includes a variety of ammunition and components that cannot be
identified as to filler or characteristics because of incomplete supply data.
PB Bulk Propellants. Includes all propellants in bulk form that are not assembled or
configured to an ammunition item. Material is normally packaged in drums or
metal lined wooden containers. Does not include black powder, which is
assigned to family HE.
PC Propellant Charges and Increments. Includes packaged propelling charges and
propellant increments.
PD Propellant Munitions/Components. Includes a variety of ammunition types such
as rocket motors, some ejection seat components such as catapults or canopy
thrusters, ammunition of 20mm or larger with inert (except may include tracers or
incendiary mixes) orflechette projectiles, et. (Flechette projectiles containing
dyes are in family CD.) Typically hazard class/division 1.3 and 1.4 items.
SA Small Caliber Ammunition. Includes small caliber ammunition through .50 caliber.
SC Miscellaneous and Incinerable Munitions and Components. Includes munitions
and components typically assigned to hazard class/division 1.3 and 1.4 and
which do not fit into any other families. Physical dimensions and weights of items
in this family vary widely. Many of the items are relatively small and may be
demilitarized in deactivation furnaces or other incineration methods. Typical
items include small egress system components such as det cord assemblies,
initiators, actuators, etc. Also included are impulse cartridges, squibs, and delay
elements. At the other end of the scale, there are many items of large physical
dimensions and weights. Typical items include assemblies containing small
B-3
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
quantities of energetic materials, components that are primarily electronic but
that contain small squibs or initiators, guidance kits, engine starter cartridges,
etc.
Fuzes. Includes all types of fuzes related to munitions. Examples include artillery
ammunition/Navy gun fuzes, rocket fuzes, or grenade fuzes packaged separately
from the munitions.
B-4
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
APPENDIX C: Compendium of Resources
General References
Chiapello, 2017. Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board (DDESB) Organization,
Functions, and Approvals. Slide presentation by Thierry Chiapello to the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Committee on Alternatives for the Demilitarization of
Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC. December 11.
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/qroups/depssite/documents/webpaqe/deps 183623.pdf
Defense Technical Information Center, 2007. Presentations of the 2007 Global Demilitarization
Symposium & Exhibition. May 14-17.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1011255.pdf
Gobrinet, Pierre, 2013. Chapter 9. Burning the Bullet: Industrial Demilitarization of Ammunition.
In Small Arms Survey 2013. Cambridge University Press.
http://www.smallarmssurvev.orq/publications/bv-tvpe/vearbook/small-arms-survev-2013.html
King, J.C., 2015. Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board (DDESB) Approval Process.
Point Paper. March 6.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/9545938.pdf
McFassel, 2017. Demilitarization Overview for National Academy of Sciences. Presentation by
John F. McFassel, Product Director Demilitarization to the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine Committee on Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional
Munitions. Washington, DC. August.
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, 2008. Handbook of Best Practices on
Conventional Ammunition. Part V, Best Practice Guide on the Destruction of Conventional
Ammunition.
https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/qroups/depssite/documents/webpaqe/deps 180981.pdf
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, 2008. Best Practice Guide on the
Destruction of Conventional Ammunition. In OSCE Handbook of Best Practices on Conventional
Ammunition, http://www.osce.org/fsc/33371 ?download=true
Poulin, 2010. Literature Review on Demilitarization of Munitions. Prepared for the RIGHTTRAC
Technology Demonstration Project. November.
http://cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc103/p534115 A1b.pdf
Safety Management Services, 2016. Developing and Testing a Desensitization Process for
Fireworks, Task 7 Final Report. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. April 13.
Tavares, et al., 2015. Overview of Demilitarisation Techniques. Chapter in "Greener and Safer
Energetic and Ballistic Systems" prepared from the Conference on Energetic Materials.
Bucharest, Romania. http://www.mta. ro/wp-
content/uploads/2015/12/Baranda Jose GSEBS demilitarisation-technigues UC 2015.pdf
C-i
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), 2019. Alternatives
for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. The National Academies Press.
https://www.nap.edu/cataloq/25140/alternatives-for-the-demilitarization-of-conventional-
munitions
Wilkinson and Watt, 2006. Review of Demilitarisation and Disposal Techniques for Munitions
and Related Materials. Munitions Safety Information Analysis Center.
http://www.rasrinitiative.org/pdfs/MSIAC-2006.pdf
Case Opening - Reverse Assembly - U.S. Dept of the A rim/Linear Munitions Disassembly
1. U.S. Dept. of the Army, 1993. Army equipment data sheets: Ammunition peculiar
equipment. (Technical Manual No. 43-0001-47). December.
http://militarvnewbie.eom/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/TM-43-0001-47-Armv-Data-Sheets-
Ammunition-Peculiar-Equipment.pdf
2. PEO ACWA, 2010. Projectile mortar disassembly [Video], February 5.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKosZHX2Unc&index=67&list=PL-
TC5l9SvK1 XQD7auT0fzWDctp6KvxK3P
Case Opening - Fluid Jet Cutting with Abrasive Particles - Applied New Technologies AG/Water-Abrasive-
Suspension Cutting System (Germany)
1. ANT AG. High performance - Low Pressure. The Next Generation of Water Jet Cutting
[webpage], https://ant-aq.com/en/products/consus
2. ANT AG. Overview MACE (Mobile Abrasive Cutting Equipment) system [webpage],
https://ant-aq.com/en/products/amu-less-700-bar
3. Linde, M., 2017. U.S. Patent Application No. US20170106499. April 20.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20170106499.pdf
Case Opening - Fluid Jet Cutting with Abrasive Particles - Gradient Technology/Water Jet Cutting
1. Gradient Technology. Munition Demilitarization [webpage], http://qradtech.com/Demil.html
2. KMT Waterjet. Gradient Technology Waterjet Cutting Systems [webpage],
https://www.kmtwateriet.com/oem-qradient-technoloqy-info.aspx
3. Schmit, S., 2010. Portable High - Pressure Waterjet System for UXO Demilitarization [Slide
presentation], June 17.
https://ndiastoraqe.blob.core.usqovcloudapi.net/ndia/2013/IMEM/W16298 schmit.pdf
4. Stanley, L., 2012. Waterjet Cutting: Under Pressure. FF Journal. October.
http://www.kmtwateriet.com/FF%20Journal%20KMT%20Wateriet%20Cuttinq Gradient%20
Technoloqy.pdf
Case Opening - Crvofracturing - General Atomics/Cryofracture Systems (Transportable and Fixed)
1. Creedon, W.P. and M.H. Spritzer, 1993. Cryogenic size reduction of solid propellant. March.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a274844.pdf
2. Follin, John, 2017. The Use of Cryofracture for Munitions Demilitarization. Slides presented
to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine], December 10.
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/qroups/depssite/documents/webpaqe/deps 183626. pd
f
3. Follin, John, 2007. The Cryofracture Demilitarization Process: An Evolving Technology
[Slide presentation],
https://ndiastoraqe.blob.core.usqovcloudapi.net/ndia/2007/qlobal demil/SessionlVB/0915Fol
lin.pdf
4. Follin, John, 2000. Cryofracture demilitarization of munitions (Phase II). March.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a376451.pdf
C-2
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
5. General Atomics, 2017. Demilitarization-Cryofracture webpage:
http://www.qa.com/demilitarization-crvofracture
6. Huntsinger, J., P. Betts, and A. Lute, 1996. Cryofracture demilitarization of munitions.
(Phase I). September.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a315237.pdf
7. McFassel, John, 2017. Emerging Technologies Addressing Alternatives to Open Burn and
Open Detonation. Slide presentation made by John McFassel to the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. August.
http://sites.nationalacademies.orq/cs/qroups/depssite/documents/webpaqe/deps 180981. pd
f
Case Opening - Femtosecond Laser Cutting - U.S. Photonics, Inc/Femtosecond Laser Cutting
1. Baum, D. et al., 2000. Munitions Lifecycle Technology. Article in WSTIAC (Weapons
Systems Technology Information Analysis Center). Volume 1, Number 4. pp 6-7.
September, https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a385228.pdf
2. Roeske, F., Benterou, J., Lee, R., Roos, E., 2003.Cutting and Machining Energetic Materials
with a Femtosecond Laser. Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics. April 24. pp 53-57.
http://onlinelibrarv.wilev.com/doi/10.1002/prep.2003900Q8/abstract
3. Poulin, I., 2010. Literature review on demilitarization of munitions. Document prepared for
the RIGHTTRAC technology demonstration project. November.
http://cradpdf.drdc-rddc.qc.ca/PDFS/unc103/p534115 A1b.pdf
4. U.S. Photonics, Inc. Advantages of Our Ultrafast Laser [webpage],
http://www.usphotonics.eom/about.html#advultra
Case Opening - Underwater Band Saw - Dynasafe Demil Systems AB/Underwater Band Saw UWS-500
1. Dynasafe. Flexible on-site dismantling of munitions [webpage],
https://www.dynasafe.com/demil-systems/flexible-site-dismantling-munitions/underwater-
band-saw
Energetic Material Removal - Autoclave Meltout - U.S. Army/Ammunition Peculiar Equipment (APE)-
1401M2 (Autoclave Meltout System)
1. McCall, Barry C., 1996. DTIC ADA506422: Autoclave Meltout of Cast Explosives.
https://archive.org/stream/DTIC ADA506422/DTIC ADA506422 djvu.txt
2. McCall, Barry C., 1994. Autoclave Meltout of Cast Explosives. Presented at the DDESB.
August 16-18.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a507379.pdf
3. Wilkinson, Josh and Duncan Watt, 2006. Review of demilitarisation and disposal techniques
for munitions and related materials. January.
http://rasrinitiative.org/pdfs/MSIAC-2006.pdf
Energetic Material Removal - Induction Heating Meltout - El Dorado Engineering/Demilitarization by
Inductive Heating Meltout (DIHMEs)
1. Crist, Bryan, 2007. Demilitarization by Inductive Heating Meltout (DIHMEs), 2007. Presented
at the 2007 Global Demilitarization Symposium & Exhibition. May 14-17.
https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2007/global demil/Sessionl11B/1530Cri
stHaves.pdf
2. El Dorado Engineering Technology Solutions, 2017. Presentation by Bob Hayes, El Dorado
Engineering, to the Committee on Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional
Munitions. National Academy of Sciences. October 23-24.
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DEPS/BAST/DEPS 181362
3. El Dorado Engineering website.
C-3
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
https://www.eldoradoenqineerinq.com/demilitarization/conventional-weapons/
Energetic Material Removal - Washout with Water Jet
1. Getty, H., 1998. High pressure washout of explosive agents. U.S. Patent 5737709 A.
Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
https://www.qooqle.com/patents/US5737709
2. Hayes, B., 2015. El Dorado Engineering, Inc. Propellant Disposal Technology [Slide
presentation], https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
03/documents/el dorado minden contained burn slides.pdf
3. OZM Research, (n.d.). High Pressure Water Jet Wash-Out Station.
http://www.ozm.cz/en/explosives-and-ammunition-processinq-technoloqies/hiqh-pressure-
wate r- i et-wa s h-o ut-stati o n/
4. Poulin, I., 2010. Literature review on demilitarization of munitions: Document prepared for
the RIGHTTRAC technology demonstration project. November.
https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA587546
Energetic Material Removal - Washout with Liquid Nitrogen (Cryogenic Washout)
1. Wlkinson, J., Watt, D., 2006. Review of demilitarisation and disposal techniques for
munitions and related materials. January.
http://rasrinitiative.orq/pdfs/MSIAC-2006.pdf
Energetic Material Removal - Washout (Blastout) With Carbon Dioxide
1. Poulin, I., 2010. Literature review on demilitarization of munitions: Document prepared for
the RIGHTTRAC technology demonstration project. November.
https ://apps .dtic.mi l/docs/citations/A DA587546
2. Wlkinson, J., Watt, D., 2006. Review of demilitarisation and disposal techniques for
munitions and related materials. January.
http://rasrinitiative.org/pdfs/MSIAC-2006.pdf
Energetic Material Removal - Dry Ice Blasting - Automation Technologies Ltd (England)/Cryogenic (Dry Ice)
Cleaning Blasting Booth
1. Automation Technologies, Ltd. [Webpage], Cryogenic Cleaning.
http://www.automationtechnoloqies.co.uk/services/crvoqenic-cleaninq/
2. Automation Technologies, Ltd. (Webpage). Automatic Cryogenic (Dry Ice C02) Cleaning
Booth: Automated Cleaning Robotic System.
http://www.p-h-s.co.uk/automation/crvoqenic.htm
3. Poulin, 2010. Literature Review on Demilitarization of Munitions. Prepared for the
RIGHTTRAC Technology Demonstration Project. November.
http://cradpdf.drdc-rddc.qc.ca/PDFS/unc103/p534115 A1b.pdf
4. U.S. Department of the Army, 2001. Final programmatic environmental impact statement:
Transportable treatment systems for non-stockpile chemical warfare materiel. Vol. 1.
October. https://babel.hathitrust.orq/cqi/pt?id=ien.35556033411828&view=1up&seq=1
Energetic Material Removal - Ultrasonic Separation - TPL, Inc./Ultrasonic Separation
1. Emery, David F., Randal Johnson and Catherine Malins, 2007. Ultrasonic Fragmentation
and Separation of Cast Energetic Materials. Presented at the 2007 Global Demilitarization
Symposium and Exposition. May 14-17.
https://ndiastoraqe.blob.core.usqovcloudapi.net/ndia/2007/qlobal demil/SessionlB/1020Eme
rv.pdf
2. Johnson, R. and C. Malins, 2008. Ultrasonic removal of materials from containers. U.S.
Patent No. 7449072 B1. November 11.
https://www.qooqle.de/patents/US7449072
C-4
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
3. Poulin, I., 2010. Literature review on demilitarization of munitions: Document prepared for
the RIGHTTRAC technology demonstration project. November.
https ://apps. dtic. m i l/docs/citati ons/A DA587546
Energetic Material Destruction - Closed Detonation - U.S. Army/Mobile Controlled Detonation Chambers
(Models T-10, T-25, T-30, and T-60)
1. CPEO. (n.d.). Controlled Detonation Chamber (CDC).
http ://www. cpeo. orq/techtree/ttdescri pt/bl box, htm
2. Quimby, J., 2007. Current Status of Controlled Detonation Chambers (CDCs) offered by
CH2M Hill. Slides presented at National Defense Industrial Association Global
Demilitarization Symposium & Exhibition Reno, Nevada May 14-17.
https://www.epa.qov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/9545944.pdf
3. Mitchell, W.J., et al., 2001.Pollutant Emission Factors for a Transportable Detonation
System for Destroying UXO. Presentation at the UXO Countermine Forum, April 9-12.
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/tiff2png.eg i/P100P6MK.PNG?-r+75+-
q+7+D%3A%5CZYFILES%5CINDEX%20DATA%5C00THRU05%5CTIFF%5C00002344%5
CP100P6MK.TIF
Energetic Material Destruction - Closed Detonation - U.S. A rim/Stationary Controlled Detonation Chambers
(Models D-100 and D-200)
1. CH2M Hill, Inc., 2006. Structural Response, Munitions Destruction Capabilities and
Environmental Testing Results for a Large Controlled Detonation Chamber (CDC). Slides
presented by Jay Quimby at the 14th Annual NDIA Global Demilitarization Conference,
Indianapolis, Indiana.
https://ndiastoraqe.blob.core.usqovcloudapi.net/ndia/2006/qlobal demil/presentations.pdf
2. CPEO. (n.d.). Controlled Detonation Chamber (CDC).
http J/www, cpeo.org/techtree/ttdescri pt/bl box, htm
3. National Research Council of the National Academies, Committee to Review Assembled
Chemical Weapons Alternatives Program Detonation Technologies, 2009. Assessment of
Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at Blue Grass and Pueblo
Chemical Agent Destruction Plants.
https://www.nap.edU/read/12482/chapter/1
Energetic Material Destruction - Closed Detonation - Dynasafe (Sweden(/Mobile Ammunition Disposal Plant
(MEA)
1. Dynasafe. Mobile Ammunition Disposal Plant (MEA) [Webpage]
https://www.dvnasafe.com/demil-svstems/safe-larqe-scale-munitions-destruction/mobile-
ammunition-disposal-plant
2. Dynasafe. Dynasafe Demil Systems Ordnance Disposal References [Webpage],
https://dvnasafe.com/demil-svstems/references
3. Dynasafe, 2012. Reference list with selected deliveries. July 5.
http://www.dvnasafe.com/sites/default/files/publications/References%20munitions%20dispo
sal.pdf
4. Small Arms Survey: RASR, 2013. Dynamic disposal: An Introduction to Mobile and
Transportable Industrial Ammunition Demilitarization Equipment. Issue Brief. No. 3. January.
https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/159660/SAS-RASR-IB3-Dvnamic-Disposal.pdf
Energetic Material Destruction - Closed Detonation - Dynasafe/Munitions Destruction System (MDS)
1. Cobb, S., 2017. Alabama Regulatory Perspectives - Open Burning and Open Detonation
Sites [Slide presentation],
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/qroups/depssite/documents/webpaqe/deps 183625.pd
f
C-5
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
2. UXB International, Inc., 2011. Product Information SDC and MDS - Hot Detonation
Chambers [Fact Sheet],
https://www.epa.qov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/9545942.pdf
Energetic Material Destruction - Closed Detonation - Dynasafe (Sweden(/Static Detonation Chamber (SDC-
1200) (SDC-10(H))
1. Dynasafe, 2015. Dynasafe - Destruction of Chemical Munitions and Warfare [Video],
October 6.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxPQnsG86S0
2. Dynasafe, 2015. Dynasafe Demil System Ordnance Disposal References [Webpage],
https://www.dvnasafe.com/demil-svstems/references
3. Dynasafe Group, 2015. Dynasafe Demil's Static Detonation Chamber (SDC) undergoes
Factory Acceptance Testing for the Destruction of Mustard Munitions [Webpage],
https://www.dvnasafe.com/news-archive/dvnasafe-demil%E2%80%99s-static-detonation-
chamber-sdc-underqoes-factorv-acceptance-testinq
4. Dynasafe Demil Systems AB, 2012. Reference list with Selected Deliveries, Munitions
Disposal.
http://dvnasafe.com/sites/default/files/publications/References%20munitions%20disposal.pd
f
5. Garrett, T., 2017. Anniston Static Detonation Chamber Status. Slides presented to the
Committee on Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. National
Academy of Sciences. August 23.
https://slideplaver.com/slide/12705590/
6. Heaton, Harley, 2007. Overview of Worldwide Demilitarization Activities Using Dynasafe
Detonation Chambers. Presented at the 2007 Global Demilitarization Symposium and
Exposition. May 14-17.
https://ndiastoraqe.blob.core.usqovcloudapi.net/ndia/2007/qlobal demil/SessionVA/101 OHe
aton.pdf
7. NAS, 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel.
https://www.nap.edu/cataloq/13419/remediation-of-buried-chemical-warfare-materiel
8. NAS, 2010. Review of the Design of the Dynasafe Static Detonation Chamber (SDC)
System for the Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal Facility [Letter Report], August 25.
https://www.nap.edU/read/12971/chapter/1
9. UXB International Inc. (n.d.). Dynasafe Static Detonation Chamber (SDC) Demilitarization
Units [Slide presentation],
http://www.paerab.us/Tech/SDC Series.pdf
10. UXB International, Inc. (n.d.). SDC Overview: Dynasafe Mobile SDC 1200M Munitions
Detonation Chamber.
http://www.paerab.us/Tech/Dynasafe Mobile SDC 1200.pdf
Energetic Material Destruction - Closed Detonation - Dynasafe (Sweden(/Static Detonation Chamber (SDC-
2000) (SDC-1500)
1. Dynasafe, 2015. Dynasafe Demil System references [Webpage],
https://www.dvnasafe.com/demil-svstems/references
2. Dynasafe, 2015. Dynasafe - Destruction of Chemical Munitions and Warfare [Video],
October 6. https://www.voutube.com/watch?v=GxPQnsG86S0
3. Dynasafe, 2015. Dynasafe Demil Systems: Safe, Large-Scale Munitions Destruction-Static
Detonation Chambers [Webpage], http://dynasafe.com/demil-systems/safe-larqe-scale-
munitions-destruction
4. Dynasafe Demil Systems AB, 2012. Reference List with Selected Deliveries, Munitions
Disposal.
C-6
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
http://dvnasafe.com/sites/default/files/publications/References%20munitions%20disposal.pd
f
5. Heaton, Harley, 2017. The Static Detonation Chamber and Conventional Demilitarization.
Presented at Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions Committee
Meeting #2. October 22-23.
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DEPS/BAST/DEPS 181362
6. Heaton, Harley, 2017. Table of munitions treated by SDC. Presented at Alternatives for the
Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions Committee Meeting #2, October 22-23.
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DEPS/BAST/DEPS 181362
7. The National Academies, 2010. Review of the Design of the Dynasafe Static Detonation
Chamber (SDC) System for the Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal Facility: Letter report.
August 25. https://www.nap.edU/read/12971/chapter/1
8. National Research Council of the National Academies, 2009. Assessment of Explosive
Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical
Agent Destruction Pilot Plants.
https://www.nap.edU/read/12482/chapter/2
9. UXB International Inc. (n.d.). Dynasafe Static Detonation Chamber (SDC) Demilitarization
Units [Slide presentation],
http://www.paerab.us/Tech/SDC Series.pdf
Energetic Material Destruction - Closed Detonation - Dynasafe (Sweden(/Model D-100 (Mobile Disposal
System)
1. Dynasafe, 2016. Dynasafe launches its compact, mobile and ecofriendly treatment system
for the disposal of energetic materials at the Eurosatory Exhibition 2016, Paris. [Press
Release], http://mb.cision.com/Main/13137/2013516/523125.pdf
Energetic Material Destruction - Closed Detonation - Kobe Steel (JapanWacuum Integrated Chamber
(DAVINCH™)
1. Grieser, Alaine, 2011. Disposal Facility Destroys Last Mustard Agent-Filled Bulk Container.
May 17.
https://www.armv.mil/article/56634/disposal facility destroys last mustard agent filled bul
k container
2. Kobelco. (n.d.). DAVINCH detonation system...for the safe, secure and environmentally
compliant disposal of recovered, abandoned or expired munitions.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/9545947.pdf
3. National Research Council of the National Academies, 2009. Assessment of Explosive
Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical
Agent Destruction Pilot Plants.
https://www.nap.edU/read/12482/chapter/2
Energetic Material Destruction - Closed Detonation - Kobe Steel (Japan )/DAVIN C II Lite 24
1. ECBC Public Affairs, 2016. ECBC Partners with Japanese Manufacturer to Test Explosive
Destruction Technology. May 17.
https://www.ecbc.armv.mil/newspost/ecbc-partners-with-iapanese-manufacturer-to-test-
explosive-destruction-technology/
2. Kobelco. (n.d.). DAVINCH detonation system...for the safe, secure and environmentally
compliant disposal of recovered, abandoned or expired munitions.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/9545947.pdf
3. Sugiyama, A., 2015. Extensive Application for Destruction of Various Hazardous Items by
DAVINCH Lite System with High Mobility. Slides presented at CWD2015, London. May 6.
https://cwd2015.weeblv.eom/uploads/4/2/2/6/42269097/extensive application for destructio
C-7
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
n of various hazardous items by davinch lite system with high mobility -
atsushi suqivama.pdf
Energetic Material Destruction - Closed Detonation - TWB Designs/MACS (Mobile Ammunition Combustion
System) and EMACS (Environmental Mobile Ammunition Combustion System)
1. TWB Designs, Inc. Mobile Ammunition Combustion System [Webpage],
https://www.twbdesiqns.com/Environmental-Mobile-Ammunition-Combustion/MACS-Mobile-
Ammunition-Combustion-Svstem-Canadian-Version.php
2. Braithwate, Tom, 2012. TWB Designs Environmental Mobile Ammunition Combustion
System (EMACS) [Video], November 7.
https://www.voutube.com/watch?v=rqCaDSqN-MQ
Energetic Material Destruction - Closed Detonation - OZM (Czech Republic)/Hori/.ontal Detonation
Chambers (Models: KV-0.2, KV-2, KV-5, RADUGA, KVG-8, KVG-16)
1. Hanus, Marcel, 2006. KVG-16 Industrial Detonation Chamber for Disposal of Pyrotechnic
Munitions. Slides presented at the 14th Global Demilitarization Symposium, Indianapolis,
Indiana.
https://ndiastoraqe.blob.core.usqovcloudapi.net/ndia/2006/qlobal demil/presentations.pdf
2. OZM Research, (n.d.). Horizontal detonation chambers KVG-8, KVG-9 [Webpage],
http://www.ozm.cz/en/horizontal-detonatin-chambers/
3. OZM Research, 2015. Horizontal Detonation Chambers. March.
https://www.epa.qov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/9545943.pdf
Energetic Material Destruction - Contained Burn - El Dorado Engineering/Contained Burn System
1. El Dorado Engineering, (n.d.). Small-Scale Contained Burn Systems (CBS) [Webpage],
https://www.eldoradoenqineerinq.com/thermal-disposal/contained-burn-svstems-cbs/
2. Hayes, Bob, 2017. El Dorado Engineering Technology Solutions. Slides presented to the
Committee on Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. National
Academy of Sciences. October.
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/qroups/depssite/documents/webpaqe/deps 182393. pd
f
3. Hayes, Bob. (n.d.) El Dorado Engineering, Inc., Propellant Disposal Technology
[Presentation slides], https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
03/documents/9546046.pdf
Energetic Material Destruction - Contained Burn - Timberline Environmental Services/Bullet Buster Small
Arms Munitions Demil/Recycle (Thermo Deflagration Unit)
1. 2013. Bullet Master [Online Video],
https://vimeo.com/79935143
2. Timberline Environmental Services. Timberline Technologies [Webpage],
http://uxoservices.com/technoloqies.php
Energetic Material Destruction - Rotary Kiln - Timberline Environmental Services/Magilla Ordnance
Thermo Deflagration Unit
1. Timberline Environmental Services. Timberline Technologies [Webpage],
http://uxoservices.com/technoloqies.php
2. Timberline Environmental Services. Bullet Buster Small Arms Munitions Demil/Recycle
[Webpage], http://uxoservices.com/demilservices.php
3. Timberline Environmental Services. Emerging Technologies [Webpage],
http://uxoservices.com/emerqinqtechnoloqies.php
C-8
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Energetic Material Destruction - Rotary Kiln - El Dorado Engineering/Rotary Kiln Explosive Waste
Incinerator
1. Hayes, Bob, 2017. El Dorado Engineering Technology Solutions. Presentation to Committee
on Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. National Academy of
Sciences. October.
http://sites.nationalacademies.orq/cs/qroups/depssite/documents/webpaqe/deps 182393. pd
f
2. El Dorado Engineering, 2015. Explosive Waste Incinerator. March.
https://www.epa.qov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/9546051.pdf
3. El Dorado Engineering. Explosive Waste Incinerator. [Webpage]
https://www.eldoradoenqineerinq.com/thermal-disposal/explosive-waste-incinerator-ewi/
4. Hayes, Bob, 2015. Propellant Disposal Technology [Presentation slides],
https://www.epa.qov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/9546055.pdf
Energetic Material Destruction - Rotary Kiln - General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems
(OTS)/Rotary Kiln Incinerator
1. General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems. Waste Disposal Technology
[Webpage], https://www.qd-ots.com/products-services/demilitarization/munition-services-
waste-disposal-technoloqy/
2. General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, 2011. Demilitarization Capabilities:
Defense Industry and Department of Defense. April 20.
https://www.qd-ots.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Demil-Capabilities.pdf
3. State of Missouri, Department of Natural Resources, 2015. Application for Authority to
Construct a Nitrocellulose Propellant Thermal Treatment Facility. August 12.
https://dnr.mo.qov/env/apcp/permits/docs/qendvnam-carthaqe2015cp.pdf
4. State of Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2002. Missouri Hazardous Waste
Management Facility Permit Part I: Permit Number: MOD985798164. October 23.
https://dnr.mo.qov/env/hwp/permits/mod985798164/021023-finall.pdf
Energetic Material Destruction - Rotary Kiln - Dynasafe/Tunnel Furnace
1. LDEQ and Dialogue Committee Questions, 2015. March.
https://www.epa.qov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/9545985.pdf
2. Camp Minden M6 and CBI Potential Screening Information, 2015. March.
https://www.epa.qov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/9545987.pdf
Energetic Material Destruction - Rotary Kiln - U.S. Army/Ammunition Peculiar Equipment (APE)-1236
Rotary Kiln (Deactivation Furnace)
1. DDESB, 2015. Defense Explosives Safety Board's (DDESB) Role in Approving
Demilitarization Technology for Ammunition and Explosives (AE) Information Paper.
(January 23). https://www.epa.qov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/9545931.pdf
2. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, and. Remediation Technologies Screening
Matrix and Reference Guide, Version 4.0. 2.10.2.2 Thermal Treatment Technologies for
Explosives. https://frtr.gOv/matrix2/section2/2 10 2 2.html
3. Hay, K.J. et al., 2007. Fugitive Emission Control for the APE 1236 Deactivation Furnace.
March. https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA593105
4. Sullivan, Francis, 2015. A Productivity Improvement Study of the APE-1236M2 Rotary Kiln
Incinerator. Slides presented at the 2013 Global Demilitarization Symposium.
https://ndiastoraqe.blob.core.usqovcloudapi.net/ndia/2015/demil/Sullivan.pdf
5. Zaugg, Mark and Robert Anderson, 1990. APE 1236 Deactivation Furnace Upgrade to Meet
RCRA Requirements. Presented at the 24th DoD Explosives Safety Seminar. August 28-30.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a529548.pdf
C-9
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Energetic Material Destruction - Decineration and Rotary Furnace - U.S. Demil, LLC/Decineration™
1. Kautz, David, 2017. Patented Decineration Thermal Process. Slides presented at
Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions Committee Meeting #1,
Washington, D.C. http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DEPS/BAST/DEPS 180898
2. U.S. Demil, LLC, 2015. Patented "Decineration™" Thermal Process [Presentation slides],
March, https://www.epa.qov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/1175150.pdf
3. U.S. Demil, LLC. Slide presentation.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2015/demil/Kautz.pdf
Energetic Material Destruction - Neutralization/Alkaline Hydrolysis - General Atomics Electromagnetic
System s)/N cut rali/.at ion
1. General Atomics. Demilitarization-Neutralization Systems [Webpage],
http://www.qa.com/demilitarization-neutralization-systems
Energetic Material Destruction - General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems/Industrial Supercritical Water
Oxidation (iSCWO)
1. Buelow, S.J., et al., 2002. Destruction of Energetic Materials in Supercritical Water.
Prepared by Buelow, et al. (Los Alamos National Laboratory and J. C. Oxley (New Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology). June 25.
https://www.epa.qov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/9545957.pdf
2. Elliott, J., Hurley, J., Rising, S., & Snyder, R., 2005. CADs Hydrolysis/Supercritical Water
Oxidation Prototype Demil Facility. March.
https ://apps .dtic.mi l/docs/citations/A DA434333
3. Follin, John, 2017. The Use of Cryofracture for Munitions Demilitarization. Slides presented
to The Committee on Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions.
December 10.
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/qroups/depssite/documents/webpaqe/deps 183626.pd
f
4. General Atomics, (n.d.). Demilitarization-Neutralization Systems [Webpage],
http://www.qa.com/demilitarization-neutralization-svstems
5. General Atomics, (n.d.). Hazardous Waste Destruction [Webpage],
http://www.qa.com/hazardous-waste-destruction
6. National Research Council, 2013. Assessment of Supercritical Water Oxidation System
Testing for the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant. The National Academies
Press, https://www.nap.edu/cataloq/18363/assessment-of-supercritical-water-oxidation-
system-testinq-for-the-blue-qrass-chemical-aqent-destruction-pilot-plant
7. Wong, Louie, 2016. Treatment of Flame Retarded Materials Using Supercritical Water.
Slides presented to the Green Science Policy Institute. April 13.
http://qreensciencepolicv.org/treatment-of-flame-retarded-materials-usinq-supercritical-
water/
Energetic Material Destruction - Muni Rem Environmental, LLC/MuniRem®
1. MuniRem Environmental, LLC, 2017. MuniRem® Completes Explosive Neutralization and
Decontamination Project at Camp Minden, LA. June 7.
http://www.fedgov.news/art 1137.html
2. MuniRem Environmental, LLC. Case Studies [Slide Presentation],
https://cswab.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/MuniRem-Environmental-Submittals.pdf
3. MuniRem Environmental. Munirem Reagents [Webpage],
https://munirem.com/technologies/munirem-reagents/
4. Nzengung, Valentine, 2017. Chemical Neutralization Applications in Demilitarization of
Conventional Munitions. Presentation to the Committee on Alternatives for the Militarization
C-io
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
of Chemical Munitions Committee Meeting #2. National Academy of Sciences. October 24.
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DEPS/BAST/DEPS 181362
5. Nzengung, Valentine and Ben Redmond, 2015. Case Studies of Rapid Chemical
Destruction of Bulk and Residual Energetics [Presentation slides], December 22.
https://ndiastoraqe.blob.core.usqovcloudapi.net/ndia/2015/demil/Nzenqunq.pdf
6. Nzengung, Valentine, 2015. Deploying MuniRem Technologies to Neutralize Nitrocellulose
Propellants and Other Explosives [Presentation slides],
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
03/documents/munirem capabilities camp minden stakeholders.pdf
7. Nzengung, Valentine, 2014. Methods for Dissolution and Instant Neutralization of Solid
Nitrocellulose Propellants and Plasticized Military Munitions. U.S. Patent No. US8865961
B2. October 21.
https://www.qooqle.com/patents/US8865961
Energetic Material Destruction - ARCTECH/Actodemil Non-Thermal Huniic Acid Catalyzed Hydrolysis-
Neutralization Technology
1. Arctech, 2015. Actodemil: The Solution to Munitions Waste Disposition - Energetics -
Chemical Agents - Biological Agents [Webpage],
http://www.arctech.com/actodemil.html
2. Arctech, Inc., 2015. Actodemil®, a Proven Non-Thermal Technology for Safe, Rapid
Deployment and Environmental Protection for Disposition for Disposition of M6 Propellants
and CBI Stored at Camp Minden, Louisiana. Response to Question EPA Dialogue
Committee March 6. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
03/documents/9545955. pdf
3. Walia, Daman, 2015. Proven and Effective Green Sustainable - M6 Propellant Disposal for
Camp Minden, Louisiana [Presentation slides], March 4.
https://www.epa.qov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/9545953.pdf
4. Arctech, Inc., 2005. Actodemil® Technology for Recycling of Propellants and Energetic
Wates, Radford Army Ammunition Plant, Virginia. [Presentation slides]. May 13.
http://www.arctech.com/Actodemil applications
Energetic Material Destruction - Alkaline Hydrolysis
1. ARCADIS, 2008. Hydrolysis Treatment Facility (0503) Closure Certification Report. October
6.
2. https://www.hwmpenvirostor.dtsc.ca.qov/public/site documents/6413617789/Hvdrolvsis%20
Treat%200503%20Closure%20Cert%201 of4 %2010.06.2008.pdf
3. Bonnett, Peter C. and Bishara Elmasri, 2002. Base hydrolysis process for the destruction of
energetic materials (No. ARWEC-SP-01001). January.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a468309.pdf
4. Borcherding, Ron, 1998. An Alternative to Open Burning Treatment of Solid Propellant
Manufacturing Wastes. Waste Management, 17(2-3), 135-141.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X9710Q125
5. Flesner, R.L., et al., 1997. Pilot-Scale Base Hydrolysis Processing of HMX-Based Plastic-
Bonded Explosives. In International Journal of Energetic Materials and Chemical Propulsion.
Vol. 4, Issue 1-6. Pp 213-220.
http://www.dl.beqellhouse.com/iournals/17bbb47e377ce023.43cb1df7484a24f3.567d4ea154
870219.html
C-ll
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Decontamination - Hot Gas Decontamination - U.S. Army Environmental Center/Hot Gas Decontamination
System
1. DDESB, 2015. Defense Explosives Safety Board's (DDESB) Role in Approving
Demilitarization Technology for Ammunition and Explosives (AE) Information Paper. January
23. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/9545931.pdf
2. Federal Technologies Remediation Roundtable (FRTR). Transportable Hot-Gas
Decontamination System at the Alabama Army Ammunition Plant Site, Alpine, Alabama,
(n.d.).
http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual disk library/index.cqi/5315320/FID2128/abstracts/00
000039.html
3. FRTR Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, Version 4.0. Hot
Gas Decontamination.
https://frtr.qov/matrix2/section3/tabIe3 2.pdf
4. Furnari, Deborah, Wayne Sisk, and Steve Starbuck (2007). Decontamination of Explosives-
Contaminated Range Scrap Using A Transportable Hot Gas Decontamination (HGD)
System: Cost & Performance Report.
https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA478045
5. SERDP/ESTCP. Low-Cost Hot Gas Decontamination of Explosives-Contaminated Firing
Range Scrap: MR-200032.
https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Proqram-Areas/Munitions-Response/Land/Enablinq-
Technoloqies/M R-200032/M R-200032
6. U.S. Army Environmental Center, 1996. Cost and Performance Report for the Transportable
Hot-Gas Decontamination System Used to Support the Decontamination of Explosives-
Contaminated Piping and Debris.
https://frtr.gov/costperformance/pdf/Alabama.pdf
Decontamination - Flashing Furnace - El Dorado Engineering/Transportable Flashing Furnace
1. El Dorado Engineering. Transportable Flashing Furnace (TFF) [Webpage],
https://www.eldoradoengineering.com/thermal-disposal/transportable-flashing-furnace-tff/
2. Hayes, Bob, 2017. El Dorado Engineering Technology Solutions. Slides presented to
Committee on Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. National
Academy of Sciences. October.
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/depssite/documents/webpage/deps 182393. pd
f
3. Hayes, Bob, 2015. El Dorado Engineering, Inc. Propellant Disposal Technology
[Presentation slides], March.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
03/documents/el dorado minden contained burn slides.pdf
4. Houseal, Linda, 2017. PA Permitting Perspectives - OBOD at Letterkenny Army Depot
[Presentation slides],
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/depssite/documents/webpage/deps 183627. pd
f
Decontamination - Flashing Furnace - L&L Special Furnace/Industrial Waste Processor
1. State of Maryland, Department of the Environment, 2016. Naval Support Facility Indian
Head Part 70 Operating Permit. Permit No. 24-017-0040. August 1.
http://mde.marvland.gov/programs/Permits/AirManagementPermits/Test/Naval%20Support
%20Facilitv%20lndian%20Head.pdf
C-12
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Decontamination - Flashing Furnace - U.S. Army/Metal Parts Flashing Furnace (APE 2048)
1. Hunt, Brent and Michael Rondeau, 2007. APE 2048 Metal Parts Flashing Furnace for Blue
Grass Army Depot, KY. Slides presented at the 2007 Global Demil Symposium & Exhibition.
May 16.
https://ndiastoraqe.blob.core.usqovcloudapi.net/ndia/2007/qlobal demil/SessionlllA/1620Hu
nt.pdf
Decontamination - Decineration - U.S. Demil, LLC/Decineration
1. Kautz, David, 2017. Patented "Decineration" Thermal Process. Slides presented at the
Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions Committee Meeting #1,
Washington, D.C. http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DEPS/BAST/DEPS 180898
Decontamination - Car Bottom Furnace - General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems (OTS)/Car
Bottom Furnace
1. State of Missouri, Department of Natural Resources, 2015. Application for Authority to
Construct a Nitrocellulose Propellant Thermal Treatment Facility. August 12.
https://dnr.mo.qov/env/apcp/permits/docs/qendvnam-carthaqe2015cp.pdf
2. Wilkinson, J., Watt, D., 2006. Review of Demilitarisation and Disposal Techniques for
Munitions and Related Materials. January.
http://rasrinitiative.org/pdfs/MSIAC-2006.pdf
3. General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems. Waste Disposal Technology
[Webpage], https://www.qd-ots.com/products-services/demilitarization/munition-services-
waste-disposal-technoloqy/
Decontamination - Muni Rem Environmental, LLC/MuniRem
1. Nzengung, Valentine, 2017. Chemical Neutralization Applications in Demilitarization of
Conventional Munitions. Slides presented to the Committee on Alternatives for the
Demilitarization of Chemical Munitions. Committee Meeting #2. National Academy of
Sciences. October 24. http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DEPS/BAST/DEPS 181362
2. MuniRem Environmental, 2016. Case Studies: Application of MuniRem in Support of Large
Scale Demilitarization Contracts [Webpage], February 2.
https://www.munirem.com/application-of-munirem-in-support-of-large-scale-demilitarization-
contracts/
3. MuniRem Environmental, (n.d.). Munirem reagents.
https://munirem.com/technologies/munirem-reagents/
4. MuniRem Environmental, (n.d.). Building and Equipment Decontamination [Webpage],
https://munirem.com/services/building-and-eguipment-decontamination/
5. MuniRem Environmental, LLC. (n.d.). MuniRem technology case studies: Safer and Cost-
Effective Explosives Remediation and Decontamination.
https://www.munirem.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/Q3/MuniRem-Case-Studies-Booklet.pdf
Decontamination - ARCTECH/Actodemil Non-Thermal Humic Acid-Catalyzed Hydrolysis-Neutralization
Technology
1. Arctech, 2015. Actodemil: The Solution to Munitions Waste Disposition - Energetics -
Chemical Agents - Biological Agents [Webpage],
http://www.arctech.com/actodemil.html
2. Arctech, Inc., 2007. Actodemil® Technology: A Novel Approach for Recycling Energetics
into Fertilizer, Technology Overview. [Presentation slides], March.
http://www.arctech.com/PDF/Actodemil/Actodemil%20Technologv%20for%20recycling%20e
nergetics.pdf
C-13
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
3. Arctech, 2003. ACTODEMIL™ Technology a Novel R3 Approach for Neutralization of UXO
and Range Scrap. Slides presented at the 29th Environmental and Energy Symposium &
Exhibition, Richmond, Virginia. April 9.
https://ndiastoraqe.blob.core.usqovcloudapi.net/ndia/2003/environ/kaus.pdf
4. Arctech, Inc., 2005. Actodemil® Technology for Recycling of Propellants and Energetic
Wates, Radford Army Ammunition Plant, Virginia. [Presentation slides]. May 13.
http://www.arctech.com/Actodemil applications
C-14
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
APPENDIX D: Technology Matrices
D-l
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Case Opening
Vendor/Technology
DDESB
Approved
Scale
Portability
Thin-case
Thick-case
MIDAS Codes47
Facilities Applied48
Output
Case Opening
Reverse Assembly
U.S. Department of the
Army/Linear Munitions
Disassembly
N
Full
Fixed
Y
Y
CH,CP,CR,CS,HA,HB,HC,
HD,HG,HH,HI,HM,HP,HR
HT,HZ,PD,SF
Pueblo Chemical Agent
Destruction Pilot Plant (CO);
Anniston Chemical
Demilitarization Facility (AL) to
remove mustard from
projectiles and mortars.
Energetic materials and
casing/containment vessels
Pull Apart Machines
e.g., APE 2271
APE 1001M2/M3
N
Full
Fixed
Y
Y
CDC, CHC, CPC, CRC,
CSC, DUM, DUS, FPC,
HCC, HCL, HCP,
HCPS,HCS, HDC, PDLC,
PDLD, PDLE, PDLF
APE 1001: McAlester Army
Ammunition Plant (OK) used in
2016 to pull projectiles from
cartridge cases; Tooele Army
Depot (UT) not in use yet for 20
& 30mm; and Hawthorne Army
Depot (NV).
APE 2271: Crane Army
Ammunition Activity (IN) (not
yet operational) and Tooele
Army Depot (UT) for 20mm.
Projectiles, propellant, and primed
cartridge cases
47 MIDAS codes (Appendix B) were assigned to items identified as having been tested, treated or potentially treatable, based on available references and/or discussions with vendors. The
viability of treatment must be determined on a site-specific basis, however, due to the many variables involved (e.g., the configuration of the material being treated, the quantity of energetics
or NEW to be treated, and the necessary portability).
48 These facilities were noted in literature as having used the technology in a pilot test or at full scale (currently or in the past). Inclusion does not necessarily denote success. The EPA, state,
or facility personnel contacted to confirm information on usage are acknowledged at the end of Appendix D.
D-2
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Vendor/Technology
DDESB
Approved
Scale
Portability
Thin-case
Thick-case
MIDAS Codes47
Facilities Applied48
Output
Case Opening
Fluid Jet Cutting with Abrasive Particles
Applied New
Technologies AG/
Water-Abrasive-
Suspension Cutting
System (Germany)
N
Full
Semi-Portable
N
Y
hb,hc,hd,hg,hh,hi,hp,
HR,HZ
No sites were identified at the
time this report was written.
Energetic materials and
casing/containment vessels,
wastewater
Gradient
Technology/Water Jet
Cutting
N
Full
Portable
Y
Y
CS,FP,HB,HC,HD,HG,HH,
HI,HM,HP,HR,HT,HZ,LR,
SF
Sectioned UXO at Naval Surface
Warfare Center (NSWC) Indian
Head (MD); UXO at NSWC
White Oak (MD); tested for
MLRS rocket motor sectioning
at Redstone Arsenal (AL); and
to remove Explosive D from
stockpiled projectiles at NSWC
Crane (IN)
Energetic materials and
casing/containment vessels,
wastewater
Cryofracturing
General
Atomics/Cryofracture
Systems (transportable
and fixed)
N
Full
Portable/
Semi-Portable
Y
N
HA,HC,HD,HG, HI, HZ, SF
Munitions Cryofracture Tests at
Dugway Proving Ground (UT),
Tooele Army Depot (UT, and
Yuma Proving Ground (AZ).
Crushes ADAM mines at
McAlester AAP (OK); Planned
removal of sensitive
submunitions from artillery
rounds at Crane AAP (IN).
Energetic materials and
casing/containment vessels.
Emissions in case of unintentional
detonation.
D-3
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Vendor/Technology
DDESB
Approved
Scale
Portability
Thin-case
Thick-case
MIDAS Codes47
Facilities Applied48
Output
Case Opening
Femtosecond Laser Cutting
U.S. Photonics, Inc./
Femtosecond laser
cutting
N
Pilot
Fixed
Y
Y
HB,HC,HD,HH,HI,HM,HP,
HR,HT,HZ,LR
Past research conducted at
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratories
Energetic materials and
casing/containment vessels, carbon
and benign gases.
Underwater Band Saw
Dynasafe Demil
Systems
AB/Underwater Band
Saw UWS-500
N
Full
Semi-Portable
Y
Y
HB,HC,HD,HM,HP,HR,LR,
PD
No sites were identified at the
time this report was written.
Cutting debris, explosive fill, filter
elements; cooling liquid containing
heavy particles and shavings
Dynasafe Demil
Systems AB/
Underwater Band Saw
UWS-3X
N
Full
Semi-Portable
Y
Y
HB,HC,HD,HG,HM,HP,
HR,HZ,PD
No sites were identified at the
time this report was written.
Energetic materials and
casing/containment vessels
D-4
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Energetic Material Removal
Vendor/Technology
DDESB
Approved
Scale
Portability
Thin-case
Thick-case
Bulk Explosives/
Prooellant
MIDAS
Codes49
Facilities Applied50
Output
Pre-Treatment
Post-Treatment
Energetic Material Removal
Meltout
U.S. Army/Ammunition Peculiar
Equipment (APE) Autoclave
Meltout System
N
Full
Fixed
N
Y
N
HB,HC,HH,HP
Used at Naval
Surface Warfare
Center (NSWC)
Crane Div. (IN) in
early 2000s to
remove Tritonal
from 7501b bombs;
Hawthorne Army
Ammunition Plant,
(NV) to remove TNT
from munitions
Scrap metal, pink
water. Energetics for
reclamation.
Y
Y
El Dorado Engineering/
Demilitarization by Inductive
Heating Meltout (DIHMEs)
N
Pilot
Semi-
Portable
N
Y
N
HP
Tested at NSCW
Crane Div. (IN) in
2007; Subsequently
tested at
Hawthorne Army
Depot (NV) but did
not have
satisfactory
proveout.
Scrap metal,
energetic material.
Y
Y
49 MIDAS codes (Appendix B) were assigned to items identified as having been tested, treated or potentially treatable, based on available references and/or discussions with vendors. The
viability of treatment must be determined on a site-specific basis, however, due to the many variables involved (e.g., the configuration of the material being treated, the quantity of energetics
or NEW to be treated, and the necessary portability).
50 These facilities were noted in literature as having used the technology in a pilot test or at full scale (currently or in the past). Inclusion does not necessarily denote success. The EPA, state,
or facility personnel contacted to confirm information on usage are acknowledged at the end of Appendix D.
D-5
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Vendor/Technology
DDESB
Approved
Scale
Portability
Thin-case
Thick-case
Bulk Explosives/
Prooellant
MIDAS
Codes49
Facilities Applied50
Output
Pre-Treatment
Post-T reatment
Energetic Material Removal
Washout
Washout Water Jet
N
Full
Semi-
Portable
Y
Y
N
HB,HC,HD,
HG,HH,HI,
HM,HP,HT,HZ
In the late 1990s,
used to remove and
reclaim PBX-based
energetics from
munitions at NSWC,
Crane Division
Scrap metal,
energetic material,
wastewater, which
can be reused in
process
Y
Y
Washout Liquid Nitrogen
(Cryogenic Washout)
N
Bench
Fixed
N
Y
N
HB,HC,HD,HP,
HRLR
Experimental
Scrap metal,
energetic material.
Y
N
Washout (Blastout) Carbon
Dioxide
N
Prototype
Fixed
N
Y
N
HB,HC,HD,HH,
HP
Crane Army
Ammunition Activity,
(IN) See information
for Dry Ice Blasting
Scrap metal,
energetic material,
C02 gas released to
atmosphere
Y
Y
Dry Ice Blasting
Automation Technologies Ltd
(England)/Cryogenic (dry ice)
cleaning blasting booth
N
Prototype
Fixed
N
N
Y
HB, HC, HD,
HP, HZ
Constructed in 1990s
for research and
development at
Crane Army
Ammunition Activity,
(IN), but it was not
effective.
Scrap metal,
energetic material,
C02 gas released to
the atmosphere.
Y
Y
Ultrasonic Separation
TPL, Inc./Ultrasonic Separation
N
Pilot
Fixed
N
Y
N
HC,HP,HZ
Pilot tested at
Picatinny Arsenal (NJ)
for cast-loaded
explosives in medium
and large caliber
ammunition.
Scrap metal (empty
shell casings),
energetic material,
waste fluid.
N
Y
D-6
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Energetic Material Destruction
Vendor/Technology
DDESB
Approved
Scale
Portability
Thin-case
Thick-case
Bulk Explosives/
ProDellant
MIDAS
Codes51
Facilities Applied52
Output
Pre-Treatment
Post-T reatment
Energetic Material Destruction
Closed Detonation
U.S. Army/Mobile
Controlled Detonation
Chambers (Models T-30,
and T-60)
Y
Full
Portable
Y
Y
Y
CH,CP,CR,CS,
FI,FP,HA,HC,
HD,HE,HG,HP
HZ,PB,PCSA,S
C,SF
T-30 and T-60 units
are brought to Spring
Valley (Washington,
DC), as needed
Scrap metal, treated
offgas, potentially
contaminated pea
gravel.
N
Y
U.S. Army/Mobile
Controlled Detonation
Chambers (T-10) and (T-25)
Y (T-25)
Full
Portable
Y
Y
N
CH,CP,CR,CS,
FI,FP,HA,HC,H
D,HEHP,HX,
HZ,PB,PC,SA,
SC,SF
T-10: Used in 2005 at
Fort Hunter Liggett (CA);
Mare Island (CA); Naval
Weapons Station Seal
Beach/Fallbrook
Detachment (CA); and
Camp Roberts (CA).
Several deployments at
Massachusetts Military
Reservation.
Scrap metal, treated
offgas, potentially
contaminated pea
gravel.
N
Y
51 MIDAS codes (Appendix B) were assigned to items identified as having been tested, treated or potentially treatable, based on available references and/or discussions with vendors. The
viability of treatment must be determined on a site-specific basis, however, due to the many variables involved (e.g., the configuration of the material being treated, the quantity of energetics
or NEW to be treated, and the necessary portability).
52 These facilities were noted in literature as having used the technology in a pilot test or at full scale (currently or in the past). Inclusion does not necessarily denote success. The EPA, state,
or facility personnel contacted to confirm information on usage are acknowledged at the end of Appendix D.
D-7
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Vendor/Technology
DDESB
Approved
Scale
Portability
Thin-case
Thick-case
Bulk Explosives/
ProDellant
MIDAS
Codes51
Facilities Applied52
Output
Pre-Treatment
Post-Treatment
Energetic Material Destruction
Closed Detonation (continued)
U.S. Army/Stationary
Controlled Detonation
Chambers (Models D-100
and D-200)
N
Full
Fixed
N
Y
N
CD,CH,CR,CS
hc,hi,hp,lr,
PD,SF
D-100: Limited use at
Blue Grass Army Depot
(KY) due to throughput,
but recent treatability
studies suggest
increased use in future;
Milan Army
Ammunition Plant (TN)
(decommissioned);
Naval Surface Warfare
Center Crane Division,
Pilot tested, but did not
operate as intended.
MDAS scrap metal, pea
potentially contaminated
pea gravel, lead-
containing filter dust and
soot.
N
N
Dynasafe (Sweden)/Mobile
Ammunition Disposal Plant
(MEA)
N
Full
Semi-
Portable
Y
Y
N
HA,HC,HD,
HG,HZ,SA,SF
No sites were identified
at the time this report
was written.
MDAS scrap metal,
treated offgas, baghouse
filter dust and ashes for
disposal.
Y
N
Dynasafe/Munitions
Destruction System (MDS)
N
Full
Fixed
Y
N
Y
HA,HC, FP,
SA,SF
MDS is one component
of the M77 Grenade
Thermal Treatment
Closed Disposal Process
(TTCDP) at Anniston
Army Depot. Grenades
are removed from
warheads and
processed at the
TTCDP.
Scrap metal, offgas.
Y
Y
D-8
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Vendor/Technology
DDESB
Approved
Scale
Portability
Thin-case
Thick-case
Bulk Explosives/
ProDellant
MIDAS
Codes51
Facilities Applied52
Output
Pre-Treatment
Post-Treatment
Energetic Material Destruction
Closed Detonation (continued)
Dynasafe (Sweden)/Static
detonation chamber (SDC-
1200) (SDC-1000)
Y (SDC-1200,
Anniston Army
Depot, AL)
Full
Permanent/
Semi-
Portable
Y
Y
Y
CH,CP,CR,CS,
FI,FP,HA,HC,
HD,HE,HG,HI,
HP,HX,HZ,PB,
PC, SA,SC,SF
SDC-1200 at Anniston
Army Depot (AL)
(previously processed
chemical munitions
and currently
processing
conventional
explosives); Blue Grass
Army Depot (KY) for
demil of H-mustard
projectiles and future
demil of conventional
weapons; and Pueblo
Chemical Depot (CO)
(3 units in permitting
process)
MDAS scrap metal,
treated offgas, baghouse
filter dust and ashes for
disposal.
N
N
Dynasafe (Sweden)/Static
detonation chamber (SDC-
2000) (SDC-1500)
N
Full
Fixed
Y
Y
Y
FP,HA,HC,HD,
HE,HG,HI,HP,
HZ,PC,PD,SA,
SC,SF,CH,OP,
CR,CS
SDC-1500 is planned
but not yet permitted
nor constructed at
Blue Grass Army
Depot (for
conventional
munitions)
MDAS scrap metal,
treated offgas, baghouse
filter dust and ashes for
disposal.
N
N
Dynasafe (Sweden)/Model
D-100 (mobile disposal
system)
N
Full
Portable
Y
N
Y
SA, SC
Local police
departments across
the United States
Scrap metal, treated
offgas.
N
Y
D-9
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Vendor/Technology
DDESB
Approved
Scale
Portability
Thin-case
Thick-case
Bulk Explosives/
ProDellant
MIDAS
Codes51
Facilities Applied52
Output
Pre-Treatment
Post-Treatment
Energetic Material Destruction
Kobe Steel (Japan)/Vacuum
Integrated Chamber
(DAVINCH™)
Y
Full
Semi-
Portable
Y
Y
N
HB,HC,HD,HH
HP,PD,SC
Poelkapelle, Belgium
(conventional);
Deseret Chemical
Depot (UT) (installed,
but never reached
testing phase)
Water from oxidized
hydrogen, offgas, scrap
metal.
Y
Y
Kobe Steel
(Japan)/DAVINCH Lite 24
N
Pilot
Portable
Y
Y
N
CH,CP,CR,CS,
HA,HC,HD,HP
HR,HZ,SC
No sites were
identified at the time
this report was
written.
Offgas, scrap metal.
Y
Y
Closed Detonation (continued)
TWB Designs/MACS (Mobile
Ammunition Combustion
System) and EMACS
(Environmental Mobile
Ammunition Combustion
System)
N
Full
Portable
Y
N
N
SA
No large-scale
applications identified.
News story on use for
destroying ammunition
by a police department.
Expended brass cartridge
cases, loose bullets,
offgas.
N
N
OZM (Czech
Republic)/Horizontal
Detonation Chambers
(Models: KV-0.2, KV-2, KV-5,
RADUGA, KVG-8, KVG-16)
N
Full
Fixed
Y
N
Y
HC,CH,CS,FP
HA,HE,PB,PC
SA, SC, SF
No sites were identified
at the time this report
was written.
Ash residue, offgas,
scrap metal.
N
Y
D-10
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Vendor/Technology
DDESB
Approved
Scale
Portability
Thin-case
Thick-case
Bulk Explosives/
ProDellant
MIDAS
Codes51
Facilities Applied52
Output
Pre-Treatment
Post-Treatment
Energetic Material Destruction
Thermal Destruction
Contained Burn
El Dorado
Engineering/Contained
Burn Furnace (CBF)
N
Full
Fixed
Y
N
Y
HE,HI,HZ,PB,
PD,SA
Component of the
Ammonium
Perchlorate Rocket
Motor Destruction
Facility at Letterkenny
Army Depot, PA.
Large-scale turnkey
for emergency
removal action at
Camp Minden, LA.
Demonstration at
China Lake, CA.
Treated offgas. Non-
hazardous particulate
matter from exhaust is
drummed offsite
disposal. Non-hazardous
neutralized brine and
alumina solids.
Potentially scrap metal.
N
N
Timberline Environmental
Services/Bullet Buster Small
Arms Munitions
Demil/recycle (Thermo
Deflagration unit)
N
Full
Portable
Y
N
N
SA,FP
Department of
Defense Joint
Munitions Command
Residue metals, treated
offgas. MDAS bullets and
casings can be disposed
of or recycled.
N
N
D-ll
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Vendor/Technology
DDESB
Approved
Scale
Portability
Thin-case
Thick-case
Bulk Explosives/
ProDellant
MIDAS
Codes51
Facilities Applied52
Output
Pre-Treatment
Post-Treatment
Energetic Material Destruction
Thermal Destruction (continued)
Rotary Kiln
Timberline Environmental
Services/Magilla Ordnance
Thermo Deflagration Unit
N
Prototype
Semi-
Portable
Y
N
N
HI,SA,SC,SF
U.S. Army-U.S. Navy-
U.S. Air Force-USACE
(Various U.S.
contractors at BRAC
and FUDS
installations)
Scrap metal, treated
offgas.
Y
Y
El Dorado
Engineering/Rotary Kiln
Explosive Waste Incinerator
N
Full
Semi-
Portable
Y
Y
Y
FP,HA,HE,HG,
PB,PC,PD,SA,
SC,SF
Installed 24 explosive
waste incinerators
and/or pollution
control systems within
the U.S.
Scrap metal, treated
offgas, filter dust.
Y
Y
General Dynamics
Ordnance and Tactical
Systems (OTS)/Rotary Kiln
Incinerator
N
Full
Fixed
Y
N
Y
HA,HE,HG,HI,
PB,PC,SC,SF
Commercial
demilitarization
facility in Carthage,
MO (conventional
munitions and Takata
airbags)
Scrap metal, sodium
salts from reaction of
soda ash with sulfur
oxides and hydrochloric
acid in offgas treatment,
and particulates from
offgas treatment.
Y
Y
D-12
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Vendor/Technology
DDESB
Approved
Scale
Portability
Thin-case
Thick-case
Bulk Explosives/
ProDellant
MIDAS
Codes51
Facilities Applied52
Output
Pre-Treatment
Post-Treatment
Energetic Material Destruction
Thermal Destruction (continued)
Rotary Kiln (continued)
Dynasafe/Tunnel Furnace
N
Full
Fixed
Y
Y
Y
PB,HE,SA,SC
No sites were
identified at the time
this report was
written.
Scrap metal, treated
offgas, waste ash, dry
waste stream from the
pollution abatement
system, 0.2 lbs of salt per
pound of treated
ammonium perchlorate.
Y
Y
U.S. Army/Ammunition
Peculiar Equipment (APE)-
1236 Rotary Kiln
(Deactivation Furnace)
Y (Crane Army
Ammunition
Activity, IN;
Tooele Army
Depot, UT;
McAlester
Army
Ammunition
Plant, OK; and
Hawthorne
Army Depot,
NV)
Full
Fixed
Y
Y
Y
FP,HA,HE,PB,
PC,SA,SC
McAlester Army
Ammunition Plant
(OK) destroys
energetics from
ADAM mines that are
opened using
cryofracture; Tooele
Army Depot (UT);
Crane Army
Ammunition Activity
(IN)
APE-2210: Hawthorne
Army Depot (NV)
Scrap metal, offgas.
Y
Y
Decineration/Rotary Furnace
U.S. Demil,
LLC/Decineration™
N
Full
Fixed
Y
N
N
HX,PB,PC,PD,
SA,SC,SF
State of Indiana - Field
Tested; Tooele Army
Depot (Previously
used for conventional
small arms. No longer
in use.)
MDAS scrap metal, C02,
nitrogen, and water
vapor emissions.
Recovered
particulates/ash.
Y
N
D-13
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Vendor/Technology
DDESB
Approved
Scale
Portability
Thin-case
Thick-case
Bulk Explosives/
ProDellant
MIDAS
Codes51
Facilities Applied52
Output
Pre-Treatment
Post-Treatment
Energetic Material Destruction
Chemical Destruction
Alkaline (Base) Hydrolysis
N
Full
Fixed
N
N
Y
HE,PB,PC,SC
Full scale for rocket
propellant at United
Technologies (San
Jose, CA); Pilot scale at
Holston Army
Ammunition Plant
(TN) and Los Alamos
National Laboratory
(NM)
Treated offgases, soluble
inorganic and organic
salts, insoluble polymeric
and metallic materials.
N
Y
General Atomics
Electromagnetic Systems/
Neutralization/Alkaline
Hydrolysis
N
Full
Fixed
N
N
Y
CR,HD,HE,PB
Blue Grass Army
Depot (KY) demil of
GB and VX nerve
agents scheduled to
begin 2020 and 2022,
respectively; Tooele
Army Depot (UT)
destruction of CADs
and PADs ceased
operation in 2016 due
to dwindling waste
stream; Newport
Chemical Depot (IN)
pilot tested for VX
nerve agent.
C02, salts, H20, filtered
offgas.
Y
Y
D-14
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Vendor/Technology
DDESB
Approved
Scale
Portability
Thin-case
Thick-case
Bulk Explosives/
ProDellant
MIDAS
Codes51
Facilities Applied52
Output
Pre-Treatment
Post-Treatment
Energetic Material Destruction
Chemical Destruction (continued)
General Atomics
Electromagnetic
Systems/Industrial
Supercritical Water
Oxidation (iSCWO)
N
Full
Fixed
N
N
Y
HX,PB
Blue Grass Army Depot
(KY) demil of GB and VX
nerve agents scheduled
to begin 2020 and 2022,
respectively; Dugway
Proving Grounds (UT)
(chemical munitions);
Newport Chemical
Depot (IN) pilot tested
for VX nerve agent.
U.S. DoD is funding
testing of iSCWO for
treatment of tear gas
and ammonium.
Large quantities of waste
water. Offgas containing
low nitrogen oxide
(NOx), sulfur oxide (SOx),
and total organic carbon
(TOC).
Y
N
MuniRem Environmental,
LLC/MuniRem®
N
Pilot
Portable
N
N
Y
HD,HE,PD
Bench/pilot scale: Army
Laboratory, Vicksburg,
MS; Indiana Army
Ammunition Plant, IN
(nitrocellulose
propellant); Naval
Support Facility, Indian
Head, MD
Used to washout and
neutralize bulk
explosives (H-6) from
abandoned on
melter/flaker equipment
at Camp Minden, LA
Nitrogen gas, carbon
dioxide, sulfate, nitrogen
dioxide, formate,
acetate. Wastewater can
be reused or discharged
to municipal sewer.
Possible sludge in post-
treatment (via
biodegradation) of
wastewater resulting
from treatment of bulk
nitrocellulose.
Y
Y
D-15
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Vendor/Technology
DDESB
Approved
Scale
Portability
Thin-case
Thick-case
Bulk Explosives/
ProDellant
MIDAS
Codes51
Facilities Applied52
Output
Pre-Treatment
Post-Treatment
Energetic Material Destruction
Chemical Destruction (continued)
ARCTECH/Actodemil Non-
Thermal Humic Acid
Catalyzed Hydrolysis-
Neutralization Technology
N
Full
Semi-
Portable
N
N
Y
HD,HE,PD
Demonstration/prove-
out tests on
propellants at:
Hawthorne Army
Depot (NV): McAlester
Army Ammunition
Plant (OK); Radford
Army Ammunition
Plant (VA) (Fertilizer
not used due to high
levels of heavy
metals); Dyno Nobel,
Hercules Corp, Naval
EOD Technology
Division (MD).
Large quantities of
effluent, Actodemil
liquid product for land
application or offsite
disposal, and offgas. The
spent scrubber reagent
is mixed with end use
product so that no liquid
waste is generated.
Y
N
D-16
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Decontamination
Vendor/Technology
DDESB
Approved
Scale
Portability
Thin-case
Thick-case
Bulk Explosives/
Prnn^llant
MIDAS
Codes53
Facilities Applied54
Output
Pre-Treatment
Post-Treatment
Decontamination
Thermal Decontamination
Hot Gas Decontamination
U.S. Army Environmental
Center/Hot Gas
Decontamination System
Y(Hawthorne
Army Depot,
NV)
Full
Portable
Y
N
Y
Hawthorne Army Depot
(NV); Alabama Army
Ammunition Plant (AL)
MDAS scrap metal,
treated offgas.
Y
N
Flashing Furnace
El Dorado
Engineering/Transportable
Flashing Furnace
N
Full
Portable
Y
Y
N
HA, HQS
A, SC,SF
Ravenna Army Ammunition
Plant (OH); Eglin AFB (FL); Utah
Test & Training range for target
range tracers, misc. UXO and
scrap; Anniston Army Depot
(AL); China Lake Naval Air
Weapons Station (CA); Vieques
Island (PR); Kaho'olawe Island
(HI); Letterkenny Army Depot
(PA); unit brought in on a
temporary basis to destroy
dismantled fuze units at the
Talon Manufacturing Company
(WV)
MDAS scrap metal,
offgas
Y
N
53 MIDAS codes (Appendix B) were assigned to items identified as having been tested, treated or potentially treatable, based on available references and/or discussions with vendors. The
viability of treatment must be determined on a site-specific basis, however, due to the many variables involved (e.g., the configuration of the material being treated, the quantity of energetics
or NEW to be treated, and the necessary portability).
54 These facilities were noted in literature as having used the technology in a pilot test or at full scale (currently or in the past). Inclusion does not necessarily denote success. The EPA, state,
or facility personnel contacted to confirm information on usage are acknowledged at the end of Appendix D.
D-17
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Vendor/Technology
DDESB
Approved
Scale
Portability
Thin-case
Thick-case
Bulk Explosives/
Prnn^llant
MIDAS
Codes53
Facilities Applied54
Output
Pre-Treatment
Post-Treatment
Decontamination
Flashing Furnace (continued)
L&L Special
Furnace/Industrial Waste
Processor
Y (U.S. Naval
Weapons
Station, Indian
Head, MD)
Full
Fixed
Y
Y
N
Naval Weapons Station
Indian Head, MD
MDAS scrap metal, filter
dust, treated offgas.
Y
N
U.S. Army/Metal Parts
Flashing Furnace (APE 2048)
N
Full
Semi-
Portable
Y
Y
N
Tooele Army Depot (UT)
(small arms brass
processing); Blue Grass
Army Depot (KY) (remove
explosive residue from
metal parts)
MDAS scrap metal,
offgas.
Y
Y
Decineration
U.S. Demil,
LLC/Decineration™
N
Full
Fixed
Y
Y
N
500 Ib/hr pilot plant at
Tooele Army Depot (UT)
MDAS scrap metal,
treated offgas
N
N
Car Bottom Furnace
General Dynamics
Ordnance and Tactical
Systems (OTS)/Car Bottom
Furnace
N
Full
Fixed
Y
N
Y
HA,HC,P
B,PC,PD
Commercial demilitarization
facility in Carthage, MO
(conventional munitions and
Takata airbags)
MDAS scrap metal,
sodium salts from
reaction of soda ash with
sulfur oxides and
hydrochloric acid in
offgas treatment, and
particulate wastes from
offgas treatment.
Y
N
D-18
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
a>
-------
Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Opening Burning and
Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes
Facilities Applied Acknowledgements
The following people provided input on the facilities listed in the Facilities Applied column of the
Appendix D Technologies Matrices:
• Blue Grass Army Depot: Dale Burton, Kentucky Department of Environmental Quality
• Camp Minden: Karen Price and Robert Thomas, Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality
• Commercial demil facility: Nathan Kraus, Missouri Department of Natural Resources
• Crane AAA: Paula Bansch and Jeff Workman, Indiana Department of Environmental
Quality, and Doug Johnson, Crane AAA
• Deseret Chemical Depot: Jesse Newland, EPA Region 8
• Dugway Proving Grounds: Jesse Newland, EPA Region 8
• Hawthorne Army Depot: Mike Leigh, Nevada Department of Environmental Protection
• Hill Air Force Base: Jesse Newland, EPA Region 8
• Holston AAP: Terri Crosby-Vega, EPA Region 4, and Travis Blake and Jerry Swinea,
Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation
• Iowa AAP: Ruby Crysler, EPA Region 7
• Kaho'olawe Island: Amanda Cruz, EPA Region 9, Noa Klein and Paul Kalaiwaa, Hawaii
Department of Health
• Lake City AAP: Rich Nussbaum, Missouri Department of Natural Resources
• Letterkenny Army Depot: Linda Houseal, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection
• Lone Star AAP: Anna Lleras, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
• McAlester AAP: Jon Fields and Zachary Paden, Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality
• Milan AAP: Terri Crosby-Vega, EPA Region 4, and Jerry Swinea, Tennessee
Department of Environmental Conservation
• Naval Weapon Station Seal Beach: Stephen Niou, California Department of Toxic
Substances Control
• Pueblo Chemical Depot: Deb Anderson, Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment
• Radford AAP: Ashby Scott, Virginal Department of Environmental Quality
• Santa Susana Field Laboratory: Sam Coe and Paul Carpenter California Department of
Toxic Substances Control
• Schofield Barracks: Amanda Cruz, EPA Region 9, Noa Klein and Paul Kalaiwaa, Hawaii
Department of Health
• Spring Valley Superfund site: Rachel Mirro, EPA Region 3
• Talon Manufacturing: Rachel Mirro, EPA Region 3
• Tooele Army Depot: Jesse Newland, EPA Region 8
• United Technologies: Sam Coe, California Department of Toxic Substances Control
• Yuma Proving Ground: Anthony Leverock, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
D-20
------- |