The objective of this Statement of Need (SON) is to identify methodologies to more effectively degrade plastic bonded energetics, including rocket propellants and explosives, into non-energetic products as an alternative technology to open burn and open detonation (OB/OD) that could be utilized in the future as a closed destruction technology (CDT)1 for the DoD. There is a preference for methodologies to replace open burning, with specific areas of interest including, but not limited to the following:
- Depolymerization of relevant crosslinked polymers or other methods to degrade or remove crosslinked polymer binders from particle filled composites.
- Separation of explosives and oxidizers from the remaining materials.
- Destruction of the energetic compounds in a process that would be applicable to current or new CDT after development of a process to remove the polymer binder from the energetic components.
Proposals should hypothesize fundamental concepts behind the proposed methodology for enabling processing, enabling degradation, or demilitarizing polymer-bound propellants or explosives. Methods should be proposed to assess the efficacy of the methodology to enhance processing or degradation of these materials to enable more effective energetic destruction.
New binders that are easily depolymerized are not of interest to this solicitation. The goal is to enable a process to destroy or treat the energetic materials. As such, recycling or reuse of energetic material components or any products formed is not of interest. Although it is possible to recover the explosives, oxidizers, and other components, the waste streams are not regularly produced and their pre-existing use decreases their value substantially. Yet, recycling of solvents, processing aids, reagents, or other chemicals added in the proposed process is important to enable an economically viable process and enable permitting of the process.
Proposals should include a plan to conduct a preliminary Life Cycle Analysis2 (LCA) to help indicate the life cycle cost benefit associated with the proposed process relative to current processes. Proposals should establish a lifecycle 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 life cycle analysis (LCA) would help indicate the cost benefit associated with the proposed process relative to current processes. This alternative process should be baselined to existing alternative technologies for demilitarization of energetic materials.
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 Program Office to review. In those cases, the SERDP Program 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.
DoD’s demilitarization operations need to be conducted safely, efficiently and effectively to sustain combat readiness. Alternative methods of degrading plastic bonded energetics into non-energetic products would enable higher technology readiness level development and evaluation of CDTs for lower cost and higher throughput demilitarization of rocket propellants and plastic bonded explosives.
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 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.3 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 provide excellent safety and meet or exceed regulation requirements, they have drawbacks, including low throughput, high maintenance costs, and permitting challenges.4
Some plastic bonded energetics are composite materials consisting of a polymer binder and solid particulate filler. The polymers used are not soluble in conventional solvents because they are crosslinked or designed to be chemically inert, although solvent may swell the polymer significantly. As such, it is difficult to extract the polymer or any of the components from the polymer binder.
John La Scala, Ph.D.
Program Manager for Weapons Systems and Platforms
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP)
john.j.lascala.civ@army.mil
1 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.
3 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.
4 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.
