Explosive Hazardous Wastes

On this page:

About Explosive Hazardous Wastes
Treatment Technologies
- Alternative Treatment Technologies
- Open Burning and Open Detonation
Resources

About Explosive Hazardous Wastes

Explosive hazardous wastes or “waste explosives” include wastes that have the potential to detonate and bulk military propellants which cannot safely be disposed of through other modes of treatment. Explosive hazardous wastes include, but are not limited to, a range of explosive items, such as:

Munitions.
Fireworks, flares, and hobby rockets.
Automobile airbag propellants.

Munitions

Munitions contain propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics in many different forms, including bombs, warheads, grenades, mines, missiles, and ammunition. More information about munitions and the explosives they contain, as well as how they can be treated when they become wastes, can be found in the Explosive Hazardous Wastes Treated by OB/OD section of the report "Alternative Treatment Technologies to Open Burning and Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Wastes."

Regulations Specific to Military Munitions

In 1997, EPA finalized regulations that identify when conventional and chemical military munitions become a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and that provide for the safe storage and transport of such waste. This rule is known as the Military Munitions Rule (pdf)(333 KB). The regulations created by this rule can be found in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 266, Subpart M.

Fireworks, Flares, and Hobby Rockets

Every year, the United States generates tons of waste explosives in the form of commercial and consumer fireworks; marine, roadside and signal flares; and hobby rockets that are unused, damaged, fail to function or some other reason that causes them to become a waste. These wastes may be hazardous waste due to their reactivity, ignitability (because many contain oxidizer chemicals), and/or toxicity characteristic due to their metal content.

There are safety concerns with handling, transporting, and treating or destroying of waste fireworks. Find more about the safety concerns, best management practices and standard operating procedures for waste fireworks in EPA's July 2017 memorandum. Although the scope of the Safe Handling, Storage and Treatment of Waste Fireworks memorandum focuses on waste fireworks, the principles outlined may also be considered for other explosive and pyrotechnic material meeting the definition of hazardous waste such as marine, roadside and other signal flares; automobile air bag explosives; and hobbyist rocket propellants that are hazardous waste when discarded. EPA prepared a brochure that accompanies this memorandum.

Automobile Airbag Propellants

Undeployed airbag modules and airbag inflators frequently exhibit the hazardous waste characteristic of reactivity (D003) and/or ignitability (D001) due to the propellant contained in the inflator. Deployment of the airbag module consumes the propellant and removes the reactivity and ignitability characteristics.

Regulatory Status of Undeployed Automotive Airbag Modules and Airbag Inflators

In July 2018, EPA issued a memorandum clarifying the regulatory status of undeployed automotive airbag modules and airbag inflators, including both those that have never been installed in vehicles and those removed from vehicles.

Interim Final Rule on the Safe Management of Recalled Airbags

In November 2018, EPA published an interim final rule on the safe management of recalled airbags that exempts the collection of airbag waste from some RCRA requirements as long as certain conditions are met. This exemption is in addition to the exemptions and exclusions described in the memorandum above, which continue to be in effect.

Treatment Technologies

Explosives hazardous wastes are often treated by open burning and open detonation which is considered a treatment technology under RCRA. However, more enclosed alternative treatment technologies are preferred, and are increasingly becoming available to treat these wastes as well. Read about EPA’s general ban on open burning and open detonation.

Alternative Treatment Technologies

For decades, OB/OD has been used to treat hazardous waste explosives. Unlike technologies that are designed to capture and treat the treatment byproducts prior to release, OB/OD occurs in the open, and the majority of treatment byproducts are released directly into the environment. Members of the public, particularly residents living near operating OB/OD units, have expressed concern over the impacts of OB/OD on human health and the environment.

EPA published a report in December 2019 which identified and described alternative treatment technologies available at that time that potentially could be used in place of OB/OD. Many of the developed technologies had been tested, and their capabilities had been demonstrated for the types of waste explosives they could destroy safely. The report also identified the extent to which individual technologies had been developed and implemented and the locations where they had been used. EPA used this report, along with the 2019 NASEM report (refer to the side box), as supporting information to develop its 2024 proposed rulemaking.

EPA maintains a compendium of treatment technologies that have been identified or implemented to safely treat certain types of waste explosives. This compendium draws on information from several sources, including completed alternative technology evaluations and RCRA permits for alternative technologies. This document is intended to provide a starting point for OB/OD facility owners/operators, RCRA permit writers, and others in reviewing available information on potential alternative treatment technologies for explosive waste streams. If you would like to submit information or feedback for EPA’s consideration, please email [email protected].

Open Burning/Open Detonation and RCRA Permitting

In 1980, because of the potential hazards to human health and the environment, EPA banned open burning, including open detonation, of hazardous waste with one exception – EPA allowed OB/OD for waste explosives “which cannot safely be disposed of through other modes of treatment.” This exception, or variance, from the ban on OB/OD was not intended to be indefinite. At the time, EPA also committed to monitoring development of new technologies (read the Alternative Treatment Technology section above.)

Owners and operators of OB/OD units must demonstrate and periodically redemonstrate that they are eligible and remain eligible for the exception to the prohibition against OB/OD. Owners and operators of OB/OD units that identify safe available alternatives for their waste explosives must use those alternative technologies instead of OB/OD.

On December 10, 1987, EPA finalized permitting standards for a broad category of waste management units, including OB/OD units, that were not already covered in the regulations (refer to volume 52 of the Federal Register starting on page 46946 (pdf)(62.9 MB). The standards can be found in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 264, Subpart X – Miscellaneous Units. 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. Under Subpart X, a miscellaneous unit “must be located, designed, constructed, operated, maintained, and closed in a manner that will ensure protection of human health and the environment.” Learn about the Subpart X requirements.

As noted above, EPA and NASEM issued reports that identify available technologies that can safely treat most, if not all, wastes currently open burned and many wastes currently open detonated. In light of this, EPA issued a memorandum that reinforces existing requirements and provides guidance with respect to permitting OB/OD units under RCRA. EPA proposed a new rulemaking to improve implementation of these requirements; however, in the interim, permitting authorities must act on the existing requirements and should consider EPA’s guidance contained in this memorandum to ensure protection of human health and the environment.

EPA Memorandum: Open Burning and Open Detonation of Waste Explosives Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

According to records in EPA’s RCRAInfo database, approximately 225 treatment storage or disposal facilities have or had OB/OD units in the U.S. This is the cumulative total of OB/OD facilities that have operated under RCRA since the 1980 standards for owners and operators of TSDFs were finalized. Of the 225 TSDFs, 65 facilities were still operating under either interim status or a permit as of September 2024. These 65 OB/OD facilities are operated by both the private sector and public sector.

Operating Open Burning/Open Detonation Facilities

EPA developed a map showing operating facilities within the U.S. and its territories that treat hazardous waste explosives by open burning or open detonation and are subject to permits under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

OB/OD Impacts on Communities and the Need for Community Engagement in the Permitting Process:
EPA is committed to improving the health of communities and advancing equity in environmental protections, working in collaboration with our state and territorial partners. Community groups have raised concerns to EPA about OB/OD units and exposure to contaminants through inhalation from plumes of smoke migrating into communities and ingestion from contaminants deposited onto soil and leached into groundwater used for irrigation and drinking water. Community groups have also indicated that many communities near operating OB/OD units are communities with environmental justice concerns and may face additional pollution burdens that increase their vulnerability. It is important to engage with communities on a site-specific basis on permitting activities for these facilities, to learn about residents’ concerns and share information so that they can effectively participate in the permitting process, and so that our permitting actions can fully consider and address issues that impact community health. EPA recommends that EPA Regions, states, and territories work with the facility to develop a public participation/community engagement/public notification plan. Recognizing the public’s important role in the RCRA permitting process, EPA regulations create opportunities for public input to incorporate valuable information and ideas that improve the quality of agency decisions. Specifically, the pre-application meeting, public comment and response periods, and public hearings are all instances where residents, permit applicants, and regulators can engage in dialogue to ensure protectiveness and transparency. The RCRA regulatory requirements, discussed in detail in the memorandum, provide that alternative technologies must be evaluated and used where available; and that RCRA permits issued to alternative technologies and, where needed, OB/OD units, must be designed to protect human health and the environment. Use of safe alternative technologies in general represents a greater level of control and more complete treatment, resulting in better protection of nearby communities and the environment. Any permits issued to OB/OD facilities must include conditions that protect the health of communities. This includes, for example and as appropriate, protective distance requirements, limits on duration and timing of OB/OD events, monitoring of environmental media, engineering controls to reduce off-site impacts to communities, and noise and vibration thresholds.

OB/OD Impacts on Communities and the Need for Community Engagement in the Permitting Process:

EPA is committed to improving the health of communities and advancing equity in environmental protections, working in collaboration with our state and territorial partners.
Community groups have raised concerns to EPA about OB/OD units and exposure to contaminants through inhalation from plumes of smoke migrating into communities and ingestion from contaminants deposited onto soil and leached into groundwater used for irrigation and drinking water.
Community groups have also indicated that many communities near operating OB/OD units are communities with environmental justice concerns and may face additional pollution burdens that increase their vulnerability.
It is important to engage with communities on a site-specific basis on permitting activities for these facilities, to learn about residents’ concerns and share information so that they can effectively participate in the permitting process, and so that our permitting actions can fully consider and address issues that impact community health. EPA recommends that EPA Regions, states, and territories work with the facility to develop a public participation/community engagement/public notification plan.
Recognizing the public’s important role in the RCRA permitting process, EPA regulations create opportunities for public input to incorporate valuable information and ideas that improve the quality of agency decisions. Specifically, the pre-application meeting, public comment and response periods, and public hearings are all instances where residents, permit applicants, and regulators can engage in dialogue to ensure protectiveness and transparency.
The RCRA regulatory requirements, discussed in detail in the memorandum, provide that alternative technologies must be evaluated and used where available; and that RCRA permits issued to alternative technologies and, where needed, OB/OD units, must be designed to protect human health and the environment.
Use of safe alternative technologies in general represents a greater level of control and more complete treatment, resulting in better protection of nearby communities and the environment.
Any permits issued to OB/OD facilities must include conditions that protect the health of communities. This includes, for example and as appropriate, protective distance requirements, limits on duration and timing of OB/OD events, monitoring of environmental media, engineering controls to reduce off-site impacts to communities, and noise and vibration thresholds.

Resources

Map of Current OB/OD Facilities.
EPA Proposed Revisions to Standards for OB/OD of Waste Explosives.
Memorandum: OB/OD of Waste Explosives Under RCRA.
"Compendium of Potential Alternative Technologies to Open Burning and Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous Waste."
Subpart X Permits: Although alternative treatment technologies are preferred to OB/OD, EPA recognizes that there will be a need to maintain OB/OD units for which there are no safe available alternatives. EPA will continue to maintain a list of examples of hazardous waste permits for both alternative treatment technologies and OB/OD regulated under 40 CFR, Part 264, Subpart X, Miscellaneous Units.