The goal of this SON is to develop a safe, scalable1, and durable processes to reduce the size of energetic materials to enable treatment of energetic materials through a closed destruction technology (CDT)2. Proposals should address various considerations:
- Identify the targeted munition(s) and describe the size and composition of the energetic material that will be processed. Note, it is recommended to apply this technology to energetic materials in one or two munition types, yet the choice of munition should be justified.
- Use of actual munitions is not required. Laboratory non-energetic and energetic surrogates are appropriate for use. Note that use of non-energetic surrogates is recommended for initial trials, but must transition to use energetic materials within the project.
- Hypothesize how the proposed technology or process will reduce the particle size of the energetic material while preventing detonation or deflagration under possible circumstances.
- Technologies and processes can include mechanical, chemical, thermal, or other methods to reduce the size of energetic materials from multi-centimeter-scale that can be found in munitions (e.g., energetic warhead fill, propellant fill, pyrotechnic charge) to no larger than 1 millimeter.
- Deliverable(s) for the project should provide measured durations and engineering details needs to perform these size reductions, and estimates for these durations and engineering details for processes at relevant scales for demilitarization operations.
- All chemical/material flow needs to be examined theoretically in the proposal. Proposed work should characterize all outputs from the process to provide details on waste streams and to ensure the proposed process eliminates all energetics.
- Proposed technologies should minimize or eliminate the use of TSCA-restricted chemicals and CERCLA hazardous substances.3
- Efforts must be proposed to ensure that there is no explosion or deflagration risk associated with the technology and processing.
Proposals should include a plan to conduct a preliminary Life Cycle Analysis4 (LCA) to help indicate the life cycle cost benefit associated with the proposed process relative to current processes. Proposals should establish a life cycle framework that can mature as the technology or process advances through the development and acquisition processes. This tiered approach aims to develop and document a minimum data set at each stage of research and development that can be used to make informed decisions and streamline transition to an acquisition program. The LCA may include varying depths of data and information that can inform: the goal and scope of an analysis; the identity and quantity of relevant inputs and outputs to the system; and the estimation of life cycle impacts and costs. A preliminary LCA would help indicate the cost benefit associated with the proposed process relative to current processes. Any proposals that do not include an LCA should provide a reason for exclusion.
Given the subject matter, all proposal teams must have appropriate licenses/approvals to work with explosives. It is also possible that a proposal to this SON will contain CUI or information that SERDP will treat as CUI. However, to enable proposal review from the scientific community, the proposal should not include CUI or information that SERDP will treat as CUI. If it is necessary to include CUI or information that SERDP will treat as CUI, an addendum document should be provided that includes the relevant CUI for the SERDP Office to review. In those cases, the SERDP Office will appropriately mark the document to ensure protection of the CUI from public release and enable review by other federal representatives and SERDP designated subject matter experts for the express purpose of facilitating peer review or scientific/technical assessment of this proposal. Information should be kept at the Distribution C level to enable review by other federal representatives, while Distribution D will be accommodated if necessary. Distributions B and E and classified proposals will not be accepted. As an alternative to Distribution C or D, the following Distribution F authorization may be acceptable: Distribution authorized to SERDP and their designated support contractors; employees of other federal agencies and their designated support contractors; and SERDP designated subject matter experts for the express purpose of facilitating peer review or scientific/technical assessment of this proposal. SERDP must ensure all personnel being provided this document meet eligibility criteria to access and protect CUI.
Safely reducing the size of energetic materials is necessary to enable more expansive use of CDT for energetic demilitarization. Department of War’s (DoW) demilitarization operations need to be conducted safely, efficiently and effectively to sustain combat readiness. Alternative methods of safely reducing the size of energetic materials would enable degradation of energetics into non-energetic products, and support higher technology readiness level development and evaluation of CDTs for lower cost and higher throughput treatment of energetic materials in the Demilitarization Stockpile.
Military munitions that become unserviceable and are deemed a waste must go through demilitarization to eliminate energetics hazards. One method capable of efficiently treating explosives is open burning, which is a regulated waste treatment process. A second method class for treating waste explosives involves the use of CDTs that include contained destruction chambers. Several examples of potential CDTs have been identified.5 CDTs typically involve the thermal degradation and/or detonation of energetic materials within a hardened chamber, and the gases formed within the chamber are filtered prior to release. While these types of CDTs meet safety requirements and exceed regulation requirements, they have drawbacks, including low throughput, high maintenance costs, and permitting challenges.5
Bulk propellant, plastic bonded explosives, pressed explosives and pyrotechnics, and cast cure propellant charges in munitions have dimensions that are many centimeters in length, width, and/or height. Use of large form factor energetics can pose greater explosion risk as it is well known that detonation temperature decreases as the size of the energetic increases. The low surface to volume ratio results in low effective decomposition reaction rates in CDTs. There are a number of technologies that are used to aid in demilitarization of energetics, including cryofracturing of the case and water jet cutting.5 Application of these technologies to reduce the size of energetics has been done to a small degree, but is not proven for use for general CDT demilitarization processes. As such, there is significant need to develop existing and new concepts towards size reduction processes to enable more effective CDT.
The cost and time to meet the requirements of this SON are at the discretion of the proposer. Proposers submitting a Standard or Limited Scope Proposal must provide the rationale for the proposed scale. The two options are as follows:
Standard Proposals: These proposals describe a complete research effort. The proposer should incorporate the appropriate time, schedule, and cost requirements to accomplish the scope of work proposed. SERDP projects normally run from two to five years in length and vary considerably in cost consistent with the scope of the effort. It is expected that most proposals will fall into this category.
Limited Scope Proposals: Proposers with innovative approaches to the SON that entail high technical risk or have minimal supporting data may submit a Limited Scope Proposal for funding up to $350,000 and approximately one year in duration. Such proposals may be eligible for follow-on funding if they result in a successful initial project. The objective of these proposals should be to acquire the data necessary to demonstrate proof-of-concept or reduction of risk that will lead to development of a future Standard Proposal. Proposers should submit Limited Scope Proposals in accordance with the SERDP Core Solicitation instructions and deadlines.
John La Scala, Ph.D.
Program Manager for Weapons Systems and Platforms
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP)
1At a throughput comparable to Demil Stockpile quantities
2 CDT is also referred to as contained disposal technology, closed disposal technology, contained destruction technology, closed destruction technology, closed demilitarization technology in some reports. These terms are synonymous.
5 U.S. EPA, “Alternative Treatment Technologies to Open Burning and Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes,” Final Report, EPA 530-R-19-007, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Dec 2019.
