National Academies Press: OpenBook

Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions (2019)

Chapter: 8 Comparative Assessment of Demilitarization Technologies

« Previous: 7 Applicability of Treatment Types to Munitions and Energetic Types
Suggested Citation:"8 Comparative Assessment of Demilitarization Technologies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×

8

Comparative Assessment of Demilitarization Technologies

OVERVIEW

Chapter 4 reviews alternative demilitarization technologies, and Chapter 7 identifies a number of examples of alternative technologies that could be used in lieu of open burning (OB) or open detonation (OD). This chapter compares those alternative technologies to OB or OD in terms of each of the evaluation criteria defined in Chapter 5. Contained burning (CB) and contained detonation (CD) comprise most of the alternative technologies evaluated, but other technologies are included if they can be used in lieu of OB/OD. The demilitarization technologies that the committee concluded could be used in lieu of OB or OD are summarized below in Table 8.1, and the committee’s technology comparison ratings are summarized in Tables 8.2 and 8.3. In the comparison tables, a “0” rating is applied to OB and OD for each of the nine criteria and then each alternative is evaluated against that baseline. A “–” indicates that, in the committee’s judgment, a particular technology performs less effectively than either OB or OD in terms of that specific criterion. A “+” indicates that, in the committee’s judgment, a particular technology performs better or more effectively than either OB or OD in terms of that specific criterion. A “0” indicates that, in the committee’s opinion, a particular technology is substantially the same as OB or OD in terms of that specific criterion. In the case of one criterion, throughput capacity, the rating is dependent on the munition(s) being treated; in that case, the rating provided is “D,” indicating that whether an alternative technology would have a better or worse throughput than OB or OD depends on the munition being treated.

Rankings of + and – do not indicate how much more or less effectively technologies perform relative to OB and OD, only that, in the committee’s judgment, they are qualitatively better or worse, or more or less effective, than the baseline. A rigorous, quantitative evaluation of each technology against OB and OD would require a great deal of information that was not available to the committee.

ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES EVALUATED

As discussed in Chapter 7, there are several alternative CB technologies that can be used in lieu of OB and several alternative CD technologies that can be used in lieu of OD. It should be noted, however that

  • Some alternative technologies can be used to replace both OB and OD. For example, rotary kiln incinerators (RKIs) and the Static Detonation Chamber (SDC) are both classified by the committee as CB systems, but they both also have the potential to replace either OD or OB, depending on which munitions are being demilitarized.
  • Some alternative CB and CD technologies can be used to process an entire munition of one type, but would need one or more preprocessing steps for other munition types, depending on munition physical size, net explosive weight (NEW) content, internal components (e.g., submunitions), and other factors.

The following section describes the organic and industrial alternative technologies evaluated by the committee that can be used for demilitarization instead of OB and OD.

Technologies That May Be Used to Replace OB

CB Chambers

As shown in Chapter 7 and based on its research and analysis, the committee believes that most of the energetics and other material currently being treated by OB at the stockpile sites can be demilitarized in CB chambers. Applicable alternative (contained disposal) technologies include the following:

  • CB chambers with pollution abatement systems (PASs) similar in concept to the one used at Camp
Suggested Citation:"8 Comparative Assessment of Demilitarization Technologies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×

TABLE 8.1 Summary of CB and CD Demilitarization Technologies That Can Be Used to Replace OB or OD

Technology Description
Energetic materials CB Energetics incineration with PAS (e.g., a batch system similar to that used at Camp Minden)
Rocket and missile motor CB Rocket and missile motor firing in contained chamber with PAS
Bulk Energetics Disposal System (BEDS) CB Slurried bulk energetics incineration in rotary kiln incinerator with PAS
iSCWO Slurried energetics oxidation/mineralization
MuniRem Cleaning of contaminated surfaces using sulfur reduction chemistry
Alkaline hydrolysis Energetics hydrolysis in sodium hydroxide
SDC Energetics deflagration/detonation in externally heated confined chamber with PAS (no donor charge)
RKIs Incineration in contained chambers with PAS
Flashing furnaces Burning of energetics on metal surfaces with PAS
CDC Contained detonation using donor charge
DAVINCH Contained detonation using donor charge
Decineration process Destruction of small munitions in externally heated commercial process with PAS

TABLE 8.2 Comparison of OB and Technology Alternatives to OB (Does Not Include Treatment Trains)a

Technology Throughput Capacity Environmental and Public Health Impactsc Personnel Safetyd Coste Maturity and Permitabilityf Monitorabilityg Public Confidence in Technologyh
OB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Energetic materials CB Db + 0 - 0 + +
Rocket and missile motor CB D + 0 - 0 + +
Bulk Energetics Disposal D + 0 - 0 + +
System CB
iSCWO D + 0 - - + +
MuniRem D + 0 - - + +
Alkaline hydrolysis D + 0 - - + +
SDC D + 0 - 0 + +
Rotary kiln incinerators D + 0 - 0 + +i
Flashing furnaces D + 0 - 0 + +

a OB serves as the baseline for comparison with a “0” rating for each criterion, “−” indicates that the alternative technology performs less effectively than OB, “+” indicates that the technology performs better than OB, and “0” indicates the technology is about the same as OB in terms of each criterion.

b D, depends on treatment technology capability, munitions characteristics, and permit restrictions.

c All alternative technologies are enclosed and have lower emissions than OB, so perform better in terms of environmental and public health impacts.

d All alternative technologies are assumed to have been reviewed by the Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board (DDESB), so are equivalent in terms of safety.

e Alternative technologies are considered more expensive than the relatively low-tech OB, based solely on the need to site, design, install, and operate new facilities.

f Alternative technologies that have been permitted are assumed to be mature and as easy to permit as OB, but if a technology is not mature and has not yet been permitted, it will be more difficult to permit than OB.

g Unlike OB, alternative technologies can be engineered with a PAS, so are more easily monitorable.

h Public confidence is a function of technologies’ characteristics and potential risks, as well as people’s assessments of their management and related decision-making processes, which are site-specific and difficult to predict, but the committee believes that, in general, alternative technologies may be more acceptable to the public than OB.

i Despite the long history of public opposition to incineration, that opposition may no longer apply in specific instances to incinerators with newer state-of-the-art pollution abatement technologies.

Suggested Citation:"8 Comparative Assessment of Demilitarization Technologies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×

TABLE 8.3 Comparison of OD and Technology Alternatives to OD (Does Not Include Treatment Trains)a

Technology Throughput Capacity Environmental and Public Health Impactsc Personnel Safetyd Coste Maturity and Permitabilityf Monitorabilityg Public Confidence in Technologyh
OD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CDC Db + 0 - 0 + +
DAVINCH D + 0 - 0 + +
SDC D + 0 - 0 + +
Rotary kiln D + 0 - 0 + +i
incinerators
Decineration D + 0 - 0 + +
furnace

a OD serves as the baseline for comparison with a “0” rating for each criterion, “−” indicates that the alternative technology performs less effectively than OD, “+” indicates that the technology performs better than OD, and “0” indicates the technology is about the same as OD in terms of each criterion.

b D, depends on treatment technology capability, munitions characteristics, and permit restrictions.

c All alternative technologies are enclosed and have lower emissions than OD, so perform better in terms of environmental and public health impacts.

d All alternative technologies are assumed to have been reviewed by the DDESB, so are equivalent in terms of safety.

e Alternative technologies are considered more expensive than the relatively low-tech OD, based solely on the need to site, design, install, and operate new facilities.

f Alternative technologies that have been permitted are assumed to be mature and as easy to permit as OD, but if a technology is not mature and has not yet been permitted, it will be more difficult to permit than OD.

g Unlike OD, alternative technologies can be engineered with a PAS, so are more easily monitorable.

h Public confidence is a function of technologies’ characteristics and potential risks, as well as people’s assessments of their management and related decision-making processes, which are site-specific and difficult to predict, but the committee believes that, in general, alternative technologies may be more acceptable to the public than OD.

i Despite the long history of public opposition to incineration, that opposition may no longer apply in specific instances to incinerators with newer state-of-the-art pollution abatement technologies.

  • Minden, Louisiana, for destruction of energetics, but at a smaller scale;
  • Rocket and missile motor CB systems, such as the Ammonium Perchlorate Rocket Motor Destruction (ARMD) facility at Letterkenny Munitions Center (LEMC) used for ammonium perchlorate-based propellants, and similar chambers that have been used elsewhere; and
  • Energetics disposal systems involving water slurry feed of bulk propellants into a rotary kiln incinerator for contained burn.

Other Energetics Destruction Technologies

The following technologies are not CB technologies in that they do not thermally treat materials with a burner, but are capable of chemically treating slurried energetics and contaminated surfaces. All have limited throughputs for most munition types, however. These are

  • industrial supercritical water oxidation (iSCWO) for slurried energetics,
  • MuniRem for energetics, and
  • Alkaline hydrolysis.

Technologies That May Be Used to Replace OD

Demilitarization technologies that can be used instead of OD consist of CD chambers where an initiating (donor) charge is used to detonate explosive materials in the munitions. Their throughput capacities and NEW containment limitations vary with the munition and the size of the CD chamber. For example, the Controlled Detonation Chamber (CDC) models T-60 and D-100 are approved for NEW capacities of 40 lb and 49.3 lb, respectively. The Detonation of Ammunition in a Vacuum Integrated Chamber (DAVINCH) model DV-60 is approved for a NEW capacity of 132 lb, and the smaller DAVINCH lite is approved for 53 lb NEW. For these technologies, the NEW rating includes that of the donor charge, which can be a significant fraction of the total NEW per cycle, thus limiting the munition NEW to be destroyed in the chamber.

CB Technologies That May Be Used to Replace Both OB and OD

Several technologies have the potential to be used as replacements for both OB and OD, depending on the munition (described as dual-use technologies in Chapter 4). These are

Suggested Citation:"8 Comparative Assessment of Demilitarization Technologies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×
  • The SDC;
  • Various RKIs such as the ammunition peculiar equipment (APE) 1236, the Explosive Waste Incinerator, and the General Dynamics Rotary Kiln Incinerator; and
  • The Decineration process.

All of these have explosion containment capabilities that depend on the feed rate (number of feed cycles per hour) and the NEW of the munitions or munition components being processed per cycle. NEW capacities for these technologies range from 300 to 600 lb per hour.

Industrial Capabilities as Alternatives to OB/OD

Demilitarization of conventional munitions is also carried out by private sector Army contractors that are not allowed to use OB or OD as demilitarization methods. Those companies demilitarize munitions in processing lines, where they perform automated disassembly of complex munitions, remove shaped charges and other internal components, thermally destroy energetics, clean the munition bodies, and use a PAS to treat offgases and other process effluents.

TECHNOLOGY COMPARISONS

CB and CD treatment alternatives that the committee determined could be used to replace OB and OD are summarized in Table 8.1 and evaluated qualitatively in Tables 8.2 and 8.3, respectively, using OB and OD as the baselines for comparison and the evaluation criteria described in Chapter 5. The committee did not evaluate munitions preparation technologies separately (e.g., technologies used for size reduction such as water jets, cryofracture, and band saws) because those technologies cannot replace OB and OD. They are also completely mature and currently in use for munitions demilitarization. Appropriate munitions preparation technologies can be evaluated based on their specific demilitarization requirements.

Explanation of OB/OD and Comparable Technologies Ratings

Throughput Capacity

Throughput capacity refers to the nominal rate at which munitions can be processed. The committee rated throughput capacity D (dependent) in all cases because throughput is dependent on many factors, some of which may offset each other. Those factors include the capability of the treatment technology, the characteristics of the munitions or munition components being treated, and permit requirements, as follows:

  • Treatment technology capabilities vary with capacity, quantity of material fed per cycle, number of feed cycles per time period, thermal capabilities of the technology, ability of reactions to go to completion (for chemical treatment), effectiveness of PASs, physical size of munitions or components fed per cycle, and the explosive containment capacity of the technology, whether expressed in NEW allowed per cycle or per hour.
  • Munition characteristics vary according to size, shape, ability to be disassembled, energetic deflagration potential, and the need for pre- and post-processing steps. Physically small munitions, for example, with NEWs that fall within the capabilities of the technology, may be processed with minimal or no pretreatment. Munitions containing large explosive charges, shaped charges, propellant, and perhaps submunitions require one or more preprocessing steps to separate components and reduce NEW content.
  • Permit requirements generally constrain the frequency of OB and OD operations according to meteorological conditions, limiting the rate at which munitions may be destroyed. Permit conditions can also limit processing rates for alternative technologies with requirements such as NEW limitations and operating restrictions (e.g., cool-down).

Although in general alternative technologies may be expected to have lower throughput rates than OB or OD, the ability of a CB or CD chamber to operate on a more predictable schedule, unconstrained by meteorological conditions, could result in a higher overall throughput rate over the life cycle of the unit for a specific feed or technology when compared to OB or OD operations.

Environmental and Public Health Impacts

This criterion refers to the potential environmental and public health impacts of emissions and discharges to all environmental media (air, water, soil) during operations, to discharges of any secondary waste streams generated during processing, and to the ability to prevent or manage them during or after operations. It also refers to community impacts of vibration, noise and shock, and odor. Regulators consider permitted OB/OD operations to be protective of public health and the environment.

During OB, thick plumes of smoke and particulates are often visible, continuing for some time after the event. OD typically results in large amounts of debris and potentially contaminated soil spread over a large area. In the case of OD, a covered pit may limit the range of fragments. The control of emissions is dependent upon a number of factors, however, each of which is controlled to some extent under the permit conditions for OD events at a particular facility (DoA, 1982). As evidenced by the demilitarization program’s practice,

Suggested Citation:"8 Comparative Assessment of Demilitarization Technologies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×

Department of Defense (DoD) policy requires installations to have reuse, recovery, and recycling programs that properly and cost effectively manage materials in accordance with the DoD pollution prevention hierarchy (DoD, 2016).

Because all the alternative technologies are enclosed and almost always involve some form of PAS, community impacts and emissions to the environment are typically smaller and pose less risk than OB/OD.

Personnel Safety

The Office of the Product Director for Demilitarization has stressed, and the committee concurs, that preventing worker injury is paramount in any demilitarization operation. However, no demilitarization process is without risk. OB and OD require that personnel handle munitions and, for OD, donor charges, thereby exposing themselves to explosive hazards. In general, more munitions handling and more personnel contact is required when demilitarizing munitions via an alternative process, depending on the extent to which automation has been implemented for activities such as disassembly; CB and CD technologies typically involve more handling of munitions. A notable exception to this generality is the SDC, which involves less munitions handling than OB/OD for munitions that meet the NEW requirement for direct insertion into the SDC.

For most munitions and processes, personnel safety issues are addressed through appropriate engineering (e.g., prevention through design) and through the development of, and strict compliance with, technology-specific standard operating procedures, as currently required by the Office of the Product Director for Demilitarization and the DDESB. However, OB, OD, and all the alternatives involve some degree of risk to personnel. The committee believes that the currently required DDESB safety approvals for both OB/OD and CB/CD and their associated demilitarization processes are adequate to minimize explosive accidents and injuries. For this reason, the committee has rated all technologies that it evaluated as “0”—that is, unlikely to differ substantially from OB/OD.

Additionally, some shock sensitive or unstable munitions may not be safe to handle or transport for treatment by alternative technologies; thus, the capability for OB/OD will always be needed.

Cost

The Army has estimated that the operational cost of OB/OD is $750/ton, which is lower than the operational cost of CB/CD, estimated by the Army as $2,000 to $20,000/ton.1 The committee estimated that the operational cost of the Camp Minden emergency propellant CB was about $3,500/ton,2 which would likely be reduced under nonemergency conditions. In that case, the cost of propellant CB could be cost-competitive with OB.

Actual costs of demilitarization are not limited to operational costs, however, and include capital (startup), operational, environmental monitoring, and closure costs. DoD guidance specifically requires consideration of life cycle costs (LCCs), not just operational costs. According to DoD guidance, life cycle cost is defined as “the cost to the government of a program over its full life, including costs for research and development; testing; production; facilities; operations; maintenance; personnel; environmental compliance; and disposal.”3 The committee was unable to obtain sufficiently detailed information to address and compare the LCC of OB/OD or the alternative technologies. Estimates of capital, monitoring, and closure costs for the alternative technologies or the existing OB/OD units at the seven depots were also largely unavailable. The committee believes that the capital (startup) costs of the alternatives would likely be considerably higher than those for OB/OD, while the closure costs associated with the alternative technologies would likely be considerably lower than those for OB/OD. Adequate data to perform a quantitative analysis were not provided, however.

The committee did obtain some information about the LCC of the Camp Minden operation based on the contractor’s project proposal (EPA, 2015). In that case, the cost of mobilization and site preparation, destruction of 15,700,000 lb of M6 propellant and 320,000 lb of clean burning igniter, basic pollution abatement and environmental monitoring, and site restoration produced an estimate for demilitarization of about $3,500/ton.

The committee also concluded that if a demilitarization facility, whether OB/OD or an alternative, is operated for decades, the cost of closure and cleanup as a function of dollars per ton demilitarized would likely decrease to the point where it becomes less significant compared to total cost.

Maturity and Permitability

Maturity is how far a technology has developed to ensure reliable operation. Permitability is the ability to obtain an operating permit. The two are very much related. If a technology is not mature, it is unlikely to have a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) operating permit. Among other things, a series of tests, calculations, assessments, and evaluations are needed to obtain a permit. The more locations

___________________

1 J. McFassel, product director for demilitarization, PEO AMMO, and O. Hrycak, chief engineer, Office of PD Demilitarization, PEO AMMO, “Emerging Technologies Addressing Alternatives to Open Burn and Open Detonation,” presentation to the committee on August 22, 2017.

2 Based on cost estimate found in contractor’s proposal for removal and disposal operations involving 15,700,000 lb of M6 propellant at $0.90/lb (EPA, 2015).

3 Life cycle cost (LCC) definition, https://www.dau.mil/acquipedia/Pages/ArticleDetails.aspx?aid=e8a6d81f-3798-4cd3-ae18-d1abafaacf9f.

Suggested Citation:"8 Comparative Assessment of Demilitarization Technologies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×

at which a technology has been permitted, the more likely regulators will be familiar with the technology. In that case, the permit requirements needed to ensure a technology is implemented in a manner that protects human health and the environment are fairly well established. Of course, both OB and OD are mature technologies, both being used for decades and both having been permitted at a number of locations. Those alternative technologies currently permitted at various locations are also considered mature.

Monitorability

Monitorability is the degree to which effluents can be monitored during and after demilitarization activities. Monitoring characterizes environmental releases, personnel exposures, and public exposures, should they occur, thus providing information about how well a technology is meeting permit requirements. The committee concluded that each of the alternative technologies evaluated would be more easily monitorable than OB/OD. Although permits for OB/OD operations include monitoring requirements, those pertain to the monitoring of environmental media following operations. Each of the alternative technologies that could be used to replace OB or OD can be engineered with a PAS that includes monitoring of the process effluents to ensure that emissions do not exceed regulatory limits. Although a hold-test-release design could confirm that emissions standards are being met, hold-test-release was developed for demilitarization of chemical weapons due to their high acute toxicity; the committee believes that this capability is not needed or appropriate for conventional munitions.

Public Confidence

Public confidence in both the alternative technologies themselves and how their operations are likely to be managed by the Army can impact implementation of alternative technologies at particular sites. One impetus for this committee’s report was public interest groups’ concerns about potential environmental and public health impacts associated with OB and OD. By reducing environmental impacts (e.g., through using contained systems), reducing potential public health risks (e.g., through lower emissions), and implementing some level of monitoring capability, alternative technologies can better address public concerns. Addressing public concerns in a meaningful manner can promote public confidence, and thus support acceptance and legitimacy for new demilitarization technologies. However, a strong caveat is required. Public confidence is a function of technologies’ characteristics and potential risks, as well as people’s assessments of the technologies’ management and related decision-making processes, which are difficult to predict (see Chapters 9 and Appendix D). Public confidence is site specific and reflects the public’s understanding and beliefs about the history of the technologies’ management at particular sites. In general, however, the committee believes that alternative demilitarization technologies will be more acceptable than OB/OD.

In the case of incineration, there has been a long history of public opposition. Concluding that there will necessarily be community opposition in the future to incineration technologies that use state-of-the-art PAS controls is inappropriate, however. The assumption that there will be opposition is based on historical experiences that may no longer apply.

Finding 8-1. Each of the alternative technologies that the committee evaluated as potential replacements for OB and OD 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.

Finding 8-2. Throughput capacity for OB and OD and alternative technologies is dependent on many factors, some of which may offset each other. These factors include the capability of the treatment technology, the characteristics of the munition or munition component being treated, and permit restrictions.

Finding 8-3. Most of the alternative technologies that could replace OB and OD are mature and many have already been permitted.

Finding 8-4. The alternative technologies that could replace OB and OD could pose either more or less risk to personnel depending on the munition and on the extent to which munitions handling is required. The safety approvals currently required by the DDESB for both OB/OD and CB/CD and their associated demilitarization processes are adequate to minimize explosive accidents and injuries.

Finding 8-5. Hold-test-release capability is neither necessary nor appropriate for technologies treating conventional munitions and associated wastes because of the difference in acute toxicity between chemical warfare agents and the components of conventional munitions.

Finding 8-6. The committee requested but was unable to obtain sufficient data to draw general conclusions regarding the relative LCC of OB and OD and the alternative technologies, although the capital (startup) costs of the alternatives will likely be higher while the costs of environmental monitoring and closure will likely be lower. Operating costs of the alternatives appear to vary widely and in some cases may be competitive with OB/OD.

Suggested Citation:"8 Comparative Assessment of Demilitarization Technologies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×

REFERENCES

DoA (U.S. Department of the Army). 1982. TM 9-1300-277. Technical Manual General Instruction for Demilitarization/Disposal of Conventional Munitions. Section 2-2(7). https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/9545926.pdf.

DoD (U.S. Department of Defense). 2016. DoD Instruction 4715.23. Integrated Recycling and Solid Waste Management. http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/471523_dodi_2016.pdf.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2015. Preliminary List of Potential Technologies for the Destruction of M6 at Camp Minden, draft 2/22/15. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C.

Suggested Citation:"8 Comparative Assessment of Demilitarization Technologies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"8 Comparative Assessment of Demilitarization Technologies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"8 Comparative Assessment of Demilitarization Technologies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"8 Comparative Assessment of Demilitarization Technologies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"8 Comparative Assessment of Demilitarization Technologies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"8 Comparative Assessment of Demilitarization Technologies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"8 Comparative Assessment of Demilitarization Technologies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25140.
×
Page 91
Next: 9 Barriers and Other Considerations »
Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $75.00 Buy Ebook | $59.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The U.S. military has a stockpile of approximately 400,000 tons of excess, obsolete, or unserviceable munitions. About 60,000 tons are added to the stockpile each year. Munitions include projectiles, bombs, rockets, landmines, and missiles. Open burning/open detonation (OB/OD) of these munitions has been a common disposal practice for decades, although it has decreased significantly since 2011.

OB/OD is relatively quick, procedurally straightforward, and inexpensive. However, the downside of OB and OD is that they release contaminants from the operation directly into the environment. Over time, a number of technology alternatives to OB/OD have become available and more are in research and development. Alternative technologies generally involve some type of contained destruction of the energetic materials, including contained burning or contained detonation as well as contained methods that forego combustion or detonation.

Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions reviews the current conventional munitions demilitarization stockpile and analyzes existing and emerging disposal, treatment, and reuse technologies. This report identifies and evaluates any barriers to full-scale deployment of alternatives to OB/OD or non-closed loop incineration/combustion, and provides recommendations to overcome such barriers.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!