The objective of this statement of need (SON) was to identify safe, scalable, and cost-effective technologies to treat (i.e., demilitarize) waste explosives and gun propellants used within conventional military munitions. The proposed technologies were viable^[1] closed disposal technology (CDT)^[2] alternatives to currently used thermal treatment methods that include open burning (OB), or contained burning of waste explosives and propellants. Proposed technologies had the propensity for (1) reduced environmental impacts compared with OB, (2) increased treatment rates and lower operation costs compared with CDT, and (3) similar (or reduced) safety risks compared with existing thermal treatment methods. 

In particular, cost-effective and safe technologies were needed for treatment of explosives that occur in large quantities within the Department of Defense (DoD) arsenal, such as bulk propellants and main-charge explosives. Of interest to this SON were novel technologies/methodologies that do not involve burning of the material (i.e., combustion). Proposed research may have involved the use of biological, chemical, and/or mechanical processes to safely break down the energetic materials into non-explosive products. Thermal processes that do not cause combustion of the energetics also were considered.

This SON was targeting one or more of the following explosive groups: 

• Gun Propellants: Of interest were nitrocellulose; single-base propellants, which are nitrocellulose with small amounts of non-energetic additives that aid in long-term stability, and other requirements; double base propellants, which are composed of nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin combined with small amounts of non-energetic additives. 
• Main-Charge Explosives: Of interest were bulk conventional explosives and/or explosive mixtures composed primarily of RDX, HMX, and/or TNT with minor non-energetic additives. 
• IM Formulations: Of interest were explosives that are specifically designed to limit their ability to detonate, such as IMX-101. 

Proposals only focused on the disposal of the bulk explosive material; the removal of explosive materials from the munition casing was beyond the scope of this SON. This SON specifically excluded focus on plastic bonded explosives and solid or liquid rocket propellants. This SON was not interested in recycling or reuse of the components or any products formed. 

Proposals included a plan to conduct a Sustainability Analysis^[3] of appropriate proportion to the proposed research and development to help indicate the economic and environmental cost benefit associated with the proposed process relative to current processes. Proposals established a lifecycle framework that can mature as the technology or process advances through the acquisition process. 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 Sustainability Analysis could 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. This alternative process had to be baselined to CDT. 

Given the subject matter, all proposal teams had to have appropriate licenses/approvals to work with explosives. It was also possible that a proposal to this SON contained CUI. However, we recommended that the proposal not include CUI to enable proposal review from the scientific community, while an addendum document should have been provided that included the relevant CUI for the SERDP Program Office to review. CUI was kept at the Distribution C level to enable review by other federal representatives, while Distribution D was accommodated if necessary. Distributions B and E and classified proposals were not accepted. As an alternative to Distribution C or D, the following Distribution F authorization was 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 ensured all personnel being provided this document meet eligibility criteria to access and protect CUI. 

Demilitarization operations should evaluate and re-evaluate safe alternative technologies instead of open burning (OB).^[4] The currently available technologies include variations of contained thermal treatment systems. Many CDTs are not proven, are expensive to build, permit, and operate, are typically energy intensive, and have lower treatment rates compared with open burning. Alternative demilitarization methods of propellants and explosives, if successfully developed, would position the DoD to demilitarize munitions at a lower cost in a dynamic regulatory environment, and would reduce or eliminate open burning of waste explosives resulting in low emissions of hazardous air pollutants and green-house gases. 

Military munitions that become unserviceable and are deemed a waste exhibit an increased explosive risk due to degraded components. Therefore, it is critical for the DoD to expeditiously demilitarize waste explosives to protect human health, the environment, and DoD infrastructure. One method capable of safely and efficiently treating explosives is open burning, which is an environmentally regulated waste treatment process due to the potential generation of hazardous air pollutants and greenhouse gases. A second method for treating waste explosives involves the use of CDTs that include closed disposal chambers. Several examples of potential CDTs have been identified by the National Academy of Sciences.^[5] CDTs typically involve the burning and/or detonation of energetic materials within a hardened chamber with the emissions being filtered prior to release. While these types of CDTs provide excellent environmental protection, they have many drawbacks. Closed disposal chambers for detonation typically treat full rounds of munitions and have a treatment rate on the order of tens to hundreds of pounds per hour, which is not sufficient for large operations, such as DoD OB operations. Because of lower throughput rates and additional handling typically required with CDTs, acute risks to human health increase. They are expensive to build, permit, and operate. They are also expensive to dismantle and clean once the facility has closed. Furthermore, CDTs can be energy intensive, requiring the use of fossil fuels to provide constant heat for thermal treatment. 

Plastic bonded energetics are composite materials consisting of a polymer binder and energetic particulate fillers. The polymer binder adds complications to the demilitarization process. As such, proposed technologies for this SON do not need to be applicable to plastic bonded energetics. 

Although it is possible to recover the explosives and other parts of these formulations, the waste streams are not regularly produced and their pre-existing formulation decreases their value substantially. As a result, this SON is not interested in recycling or reuse of the components or any products formed. 

A preliminary life cycle analysis (LCA) would help indicate the economic and environmental cost benefit associated with the proposed process relative to current processes. This alternative process should be baselined to closed demilitarization technologies (CDT). Thus, it is highly recommended that some work within the project focuses on a preliminary LCA. 

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. Two options are available: 

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 $250,000 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 J. La Scala, Ph.D.
Program Manager for Weapons Systems and Platforms
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP)
4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 16F16
Alexandria, VA 22350-3605
E-Mail: john.j.lascala.civ@army.mil

[1] Viability for Determination of Applicability of Existing Alternative Technology in Lieu of OB or OD: In the Military Munitions Rule, EPA recognized the longstanding expertise and responsibility the DoD Explosives Safety Board (DDESB) has with respect to maintaining safety for personnel involved in military munitions-related operations as well as for the public which may be exposed to the hazardous effects of the unintended consequences of military munitions. As such, the DDESB as the trusted agent, must have the final determination from an explosives safety perspective of what alternative technologies (alt tech) to OB and OD are suitable for each specific military munition designated for treatment as a waste. Viability should take into account: explosives safety requirements (e.g. quantity distance requirements, demil system performance specifications, periodicity of system inspection due to the high stress and pressures of internal combustion and contained explosions, honoring the Cardinal Rule (i.e., handling the minimum amount of explosives for the minimum amount of time while exposing the minimum number of people), maturity of alt tech, and fiscal reality of implementing an alt tech solution in relation to the quantity of waste treated at each specific permitted facility.

[2] CDT is also referred to as contained disposal technology in some reports. Closed demilitarization technologies and contained disposal technology are effectively synonymous.

[3] https://www.denix.osd.mil/esohacq/home/dod-guidance/dod-sustainability-analysis-guidance/OSD-AS%20SA%20Guidance%20v7%20-%20final%20June%202020.pdf

[4] U.S. EPA Memorandum “Open Burning and Open Detonation (OB/OD) of Waste Explosives Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,” June 7, 2022.

[5] https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25140/alternatives-for-the-demilitarization-of-conventional-munitions