Pollutant Emission Factors for a Transportable
        Detonation System for Destroying UXO

                          By

                  William J. Mitchell
                    USEPA (MD-46)
             Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
               (mitchell.william@epa.gov)
                              •„•         v
           Todd Borci, StephenYee, Alan Hicks
                    USEPA Region 1
                      Boston, MA
(borci.todd@epa.gov, yee.steve@epa.gov, hicks.alan@epa.gov)

                     Gary Simpson
           Shield Environmental Associates Inc.
       Lexington, KY (Gary_Simpson@shieldmw.com)

                     Howard Schiff
            TRC Environmental Solutions, Inc.
                      Lowell, MA
               (hschiff@trcsolutions.com)
  A Paper for Presentation At The UXO Countermine Forum
                    New Orleans, LA
                    April 9-12, 2001

-------
ABSTRACT
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) discourages the disposal of unexploded ordnance
(UXO) by open air and soil-covered detonations, because these processes cause toxic metals, organics
and explosives to be released into the environment. This paper presents the results from an emissions
testing study on an alternative UXO disposal technology (DeMil International Model T-10 transportable
contained detonation system) while it was destroying 81 -mm mortar rounds at the Massachusetts
Military Reservation.  The emissions testing showed that more than 98.8% of the Zn and more than
99.99% of the Cu, Mg, Mn, Fe and Al in the mortar rounds were retained in the T-10 and that the
particulate emissions were 150 times less than those from an open air detonation.

INTRODUCTION
       The EPA has issued an Administrative Order to the National Guard Bureau (NGB) requiring  the
remediation of contamination, including UXO, at the Massachusetts Military Reservation  (MMR). The
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USAGE) is conducting this UXO remediation effort on behalf of the
NGB. The MMR sits over the aquifer from which  communities on Cape Cod draw their drinking  water.
Before the remediation effort began, tests determined that the aquifer already had undesirable
concentrations of TNT, RDX and  metals.  Thus, destroying the UXO by open air or soil covered
detonations, traditional UXO disposal procedures,  was not a preferred approach, because it could cause
additional contamination of the aquifer. This concern was particularly heightened by the fact that many
of the UXO uncovered would be training and experimental items which might not detonate cleanly.

       In 1999, DeMil International, Huntsville, AL developed a transportable version of its Donovan
contained detonation chamber (CDC) technology for use in destroying UXO. In January 2000, the
Department of Defense Explosive  Safety Board approved DeMil's Model T-10 CDC system for
destroying ordnance containing up to the equivalent of 5.9 kg of TNT. In May 2000, the USAGE  began
using a Model T-10 for destroying UXO at the MMR.  At the same time, the USEPA and the USAGE
began to collaborate on an effort to characterize the emissions from the T-10  while it was destroying
UXO at the MMR.  The objectives of this study were: (1) to confirm (using actual UXO found at the
MMR) that the emissions from the T-10 were below the levels which would endanger human health and
the environment;  and (2) to develop emission factors which could be used to develop permit conditions
for the T-10 operating at MMR and also used at other remediation sites to obtain permits for destroying
UXO with the T-10.
       The emission testing was conducted in January 2001 while the T-10 was being used to destroy
81-mm mortar rounds.  This paper presents the pollutant emissions factors  obtained at the  MMR for the
T-10 system  and compares them to emission factors from other studies involving the detonation of
explosive containing items.

DESCRIPTION OF THE T-10 TRANSPORTABLE CONTAINED DETONATION SYSTEM
       The T-10 System at the MMR has three components: a detonation chamber; an expansion
chamber; and an air pollution control unit (APCU), i.e., a Torit Industries, Model TD573, cartridge filter
baghouse with  a 0.3 m3 hopper and a 73 mVminute fan.

       The detonation chamber has a double wall  fabricated from A-36 grade steel plate.  Its exterior
dimensions are 2.0 m wide, 2.0 m long, and 2.1 m  high.  The interior wall is lined with hardened,
abrasion resistant armor plate and the space between the walls is filled with dry silica sand. The weight
of the chamber with silica sand is approximately 18,400 kg. UXO items can be destroyed in the T-10  at
intervals as frequent as five minutes apart. During  operation, the floor of the chamber is covered with 12

-------

-------
cm (0.35 m3, 500 kg) of pea gravel and thin-walled plastic bags containing water are placed inside the
chamber. The pea gravel and water are used for two reasons. First, they attenuate the shock wave, over-
pressure and hot gases released by the detonation, thereby protecting the integrity of the chamber.
Second, they release wet dust particles and water droplets which serve as nuclei for the detonation
products to adhere to, which aids in the collection of the emission products by the APCU. Unfortunately,
the water also quenches the detonation fireball and prevents the second stage of the detonation process
(incineration) from occurring.

       The gases and particles released by the detonation vent into the single walled, steel expansion
chamber which  has interior dimensions of 2.5 m x 2.5 m x 2.5 m. This chamber is reinforced with
channel steel for strength and weighs 2,400 kg. It both attenuates the over-pressure and heat remaining
from the detonation and also aids in the removal of particles and condensible materials from the
detonation gas stream.

SELECTION OF MUNITION TO BE USED IN TEST
       The 1700 UXO destroyed to date  in the MMR T-10 included: mortars (60 and 81 mm); rockets
(2.36 and 3.5 inch); projectiles (30, 37, 57 and 75 mm); rifle grenades; and fuzes. The M-374, 81-mm
mortar was selected for the emissions tests for the following reasons. First, it has the largest explosive
mass (0.95 kg Comp B) of all the munitions destroyed at MMR. Second, it is at the upper  design limit
for fragment hazards  for the T-10  System. Third, it is one of the most frequently found UXO items at the
MMR. Fourth,  many of the 81-mm mortars found at the MMR are training and experimental rounds
which contain an inert material rather than high explosive. Theoretically, these training and
experimental rounds, many of which are painted blue to distinguish them from those containing high
explosives, should not have to be detonated. However, the reality is that some of the suspected inert
rounds found at the MMR do contain explosives. Therefore, it is standard practice to detonate all MMR
UXO items for which a positive determination can not be made. Thus, it was decided to use both regular
and suspected inert mortars in the study. The plan was to detonate regular high explosive (HE) mortars in
the first set of detonations and suspected inert training mortars in the second set of detonations and then
compare the emission products.

       The body of the 81- mm mortar is made of a mild steel  (97.5% Fe, 1.75% Mn, and trace level of
C, S, Si and P) and weighs 2.3 kg. The fin assembly is made of an aluminum-copper alloy (92.2% Al,
4.5% Cu, 0.80% Mn, 0.85% Si, 0.7% Fe, and small amounts of Mg, Zn, Ti, and Cr) and weighs 0.11 kg.
Pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) was used as the donor charge as  part of the testing effort.  For this
study, the typical mass ratio of donor charge to ordnance item charge for the T-10, which is 1:1, was
used for both types of mortar rounds.

COLLECTION OF THE PLUME SAMPLES
       Because the T-10  UXO destruction process is a batch operation, it was decided to collect 20 to
50% of each detonation plume (after it left the APCU) in a temporary, 14 m3 Plume Capture Box (PCB)
which was made by wrapping a 2 x 4 wood frame with re-enforced plastic and then to sample the
captured plume  for 15 to 25 minutes. This plume collection was accomplished as follows. After the
detonation, the APCU discharge fan was turned off. Filtered, pressurized air was then fed into the
detonation chamber for approximately four minutes to push the plume through the expansion
chamber/APCU, and  into the PCB. A 19-cm diameter duct carried the plume from the baghouse exit to
the PCB. To ensure that the quantities of the emission products collected would exceed the minimum
quantitation limits (MQL) of the analysis  methods, composite samples representing five detonation

-------
plumes were collected. (The PCB was purged with ambient air between each of the five detonations.)
To obtain both a measure of the precision of the sampling methods and to compensate for any non-
homogeneous distribution of the emission products in the box, two pollutant sampling systems of each
type located on opposite sides of the PCB were used. The nozzle of each sampling probe was extended
approximately 45-cm into the PCB at a height of 1.3 m above the ground.

       As part of the test program, Sudhakar, the USAGE contractor, and DeMil International operated
the T-10 System, while Shield Environmental Associates in conjunction with Air Tech Environmental,
LLC, performed the sample collection. Other specialty subcontractors used included; Oregon Graduate
Institute (OGI), who prepared certain sampling apparatus (TO-14 Method Trains) and performed the
laboratory analyses for CO, CO2, HE, and VOCs, and Severn Trent Laboratories(in Austin, TX and
Sacramento, CA), who performed the metals, particulates, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs)
and energetics analyses of the emissions samples.

PLUME VOLUME TRACER
       At the instant of detonation, a Tedlar bag containing a known mass of helium which was in the
detonation chamber ruptured and released He into the detonation plume. The concentration of He found
in the gas samples collected from the PCB was then used to estimate the total quantity of the detonation
plume that had been collected in the PCB, so that emission factors for each analyte could be calculated
using the methodology which is described in the CALCULATION OF EMISSION FACTORS section
later in this paper.

SAMPLING  AND ANALYSIS METHODS
       The detonation pollutant emission products were determined using USEPA sampling and
analysis methods described in 40 CFR, Part 60, Appendix A1 and EPA SW-8462.  These methods were
selected based on the composition of the 81 - mm mortars and on the results from studies which measured
the emissions from detonated explosives.3'4i 5> 6'7

PARTICULATE (PM) AND METAL EMISSION PRODUCTS.
       These samples were collected and analyzed using EPA Method 29. The target metal analytes
were Fe, Al, Mg, Mn, Cu, Ni, Zn, and Cr. PM was determined as the sum of the material collected on a
pre-weighed filter and any material recovered from the acetone rinse of the front half of the train
components.  After the PM mass was determined, the filter and any residue from the evaporated acetone
probe rinse were digested with dilute acid and hydrogen peroxide to solublize any metals present. This
solution was then filtered, combined with the impinger contents, and an aliquot was then taken and
analyzed for the target metal analytes using EPA SW-846 Method 601 OB (inductively coupled argon
plasma emission spectroscopy).

NON-EXPLOSIVE, SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (SVOCS).
       These compounds were collected using EPA SW-846 Method 0010 and analyzed by EPA SW-
846 Method 8270C .  Method 0010 consists of a heated probe, a quartz filter, a chilled condenser, a solid
sorbent resin  (XAD-2) and a series of impingers containing water. At the conclusion of sampling the
filter, XAD-2 cartridge, impinger solutions and probe wash samples were recovered and sent to the
laboratory where they were extracted in a Soxhlet apparatus using dichloromethane and the extract
analyzed by GC/MS.

-------
ENERGETIC SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS.
       These compounds were also collected and recovered in a manner similar to that used for the non-
energetic SVOC compounds (i.e., Method 0010), but they were extracted using methylene chloride  and
analyzed using a modified version of USEPA SW-846 Method 8330 (liquid chromatography/mass
spectrometry, LC/MS).

HELIUM (TRACER), CO, CO2( AND VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCS)
       These analytes were collected in Tedlar bags. At the conclusion of sampling, a pump was used
to transfer sample from the Tedlar bag into a clean, evacuated  canister until the pressure in the canister
equaled two atmospheres. The canister was then sent to the laboratory where the concentrations of the
gases present were determined with the following methods: EPA Method 25 for CO and CO2; EPA
Method TO-14 (GC/FID and GC/MS) for VOCs, including ethylene and acetylene; and GC/TCD for He.

NITROGEN OXIDES
       The NOX concentration in the PCB was measured on a real time basis using chemiluminescence
monitors operated according to the procedures in EPA Method IE. Sample gas was withdrawn from the
PCB from two locations by separate pumps and transported through Teflon tubing to monitors located in
the instrument trailer.

CALCULATION OF EMISSION FACTORS
       After the concentration of each emission product and the He tracer were corrected to 25 °C and
one atmosphere pressure, they were converted into emission factors (g of analyte/g of explosive
detonated ) using equation 1.

       EFj = (f1Ic)[analytei]/[Hej]                                 (1)

where:

       EFj            =       emission factor of target analyte i (in g/g NEW)

       fHe            =       total mass of He released over the five  detonations divided by the total
                           mass of explosive used in the five detonations

       [analyte i]      =      concentration (e.g., in mg/m3) of the analyte sample collected from theO
                            PCB for that series of detonations

       [Hej]          =       concentration (e.g., in mg/m3) of He in the PCB for the time the
                     emission sample was taken.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
       The masses of He used in the first and second set of detonations were 12.84 g and 13.88 g,
respectively and the corresponding, background-corrected He concentrations in the PCB were 47.9
mg/m3 and 48.4 mg/m3, respectively. (These He concentrations indicate that for both detonations
approximately 23% of the plume was captured in the PCB.)

       The plan was to detonate regular HE mortar rounds in  the first set of detonations and suspected
inert training mortar rounds containing wax in lieu of HE in the second, so that the emission products

-------
from the two types of mortars could be compared.  Unfortunately, based on the intensity of the blast
noise and an inspection of the metal remaining in the chamber after each detonation, both types of
mortars were detonated in each set. (After a high explosive filled round was detonated, generally only a
few very small pieces of the casing were found in the chamber. In contrast, when training rounds were
detonated, a fair amount of the tail fin and some of the casing remained along with deposits of wax.)
That is, two of the five regular HE mortars were incorrectly marked and were actually inert training
mortars, and one of the training mortar rounds turned out to be a regular HE mortar round. To
compensate for this, the NEW values used in Equation 1 for the first and second set of detonations were
7.582 kg and 5.720 kg, respectively.

        Table 1 presents the emission factors obtained from the MMR T-10 emission tests, with the
exception of the energetic results. (These latter results are not yet available because of an instrument
breakdown, but are expected to be available for presentation at the UXO Forum.)  Th emission factors
from the first set of detonations (mortars supposedly containing Comp B) are identified as MMR-1 and
those from  the second set (training mortars containing wax) are identified as MMR-2. The values in the
last column of Table 1 were obtained by dividing the MMR-1 emission factor by the corresponding
MMR-2 emission  factor, to determine if there were consistent relationships between the emission factors
from the two sets of detonations..

        An inspection of Table 1 shows that there are very noticeable differences between the MMR-1
and MMR-2. For example, the MMR-1 emission factors for Al, Cu, Mg, Mn, Fe and Zn are 2 to 46 times
larger than  the corresponding MMR-2 emission factors.  This is consistent with the observation that the
detonation completely destroyed the casing and tail fin of the explosive-filled mortar rounds, but not that
of the wax-filled ones. Also, the MMR-1 VOC emission factors are consistently larger than the
corresponding MMR-2 emission factors. This also is not surprising since Comp B was not observed in
the detonation chamber after the  detonation , but wax residues were.

        One of the primary reasons that EPA discourages using soil-covered and open air detonation of
UXO is to prevent toxic metals from entering the environment. The T-10 emission factors for the metals
clearly demonstrate that it prevented metals from entering the environment. That is, the emission factors
indicate that the following percentages of the metal in the mortar were retained in the DeMil T-10, CDC
system: (1) MMR-1 (99.99% Al, 99.97% Cu, 99.996% Fe, 99.996% Mn, 99.5% Mg and 98.8% Zn); and
(2) MMR-2 (99.999% Al, 99.999% Cu, 99.999% Fe, 99.999% Mn, 99.9% Mg, and 99.8% Zn).

        There have been a number of studies3'4| 5'6i 7 where explosives were detonated in chambers and
the emission products measured. These studies can be placed into three categories based on the extent to
which the fireball, the second stage of the detonation process, is allowed to form. The first category
(Fireball Formation Prevented) applies to studies in which the chamber dimensions and plastic bags
containing water placed in the chamber with the explosive prevented the fireball from forming, e.g., the
105 mm and 4.2 inch mortars detonated in the DeMil International D-100 stationary CDC system at the
Blue Grass  Army Depot (BGAD) and the DDI CDC system in Danvers, IL. The second category
(Fireball Partially  Suppressed) applies to studies in which the chamber dimensions shortened the life of
the fireball, e.g., the bare TNT detonations  in the ODOBi chamber at Dugway Proving Ground, UT and
the 155-mm detonations in the X-tunnel  at the Nevada Test Site (NTS).  The third category (Normal
Fireball) applies to studies in which a normal fireball is produced, e.g., those conducted in the BangBox
at Dugway  Proving Ground, UT.

-------
       Table 2 presents emission factors obtained for TNT and RDX-containing materials in these other
studies and Table 3 presents some percentages which were calculated from the emission factors in Tables
1 and 2. The information in Tables 2 and 3 has been provided to give the reader the opportunity to
compare the MMR T-10 emission factors to those obtained in other studies. To aid in this comparison,
the emission factors in Table 2 have been placed into the three categories identified in the previous
paragraph.

       A comparison of the data in the three tables provides some interesting information.  For example,
the CO and unsaturated VOC emissions from detonations in which the fireball was prevented from
forming are considerably higher than those in  which the fireball was allowed to form, but the aromatic
(VOC) and SVOC compounds are approximately the same. Also, the emission factors for particulate for
the CDC systems at MMR and BGAD, which  are equipped with baghouses, are considerably lower than
those from the other chambers studied. Table 3 also shows that in every study, 98% of the  unsaturated
hydrocarbon emissions were represented by just three compounds (acetylene (A), ethylene  (E) and
propene (P)) and that (with the exception of the BangBox tests), 98% of the aromatic compounds were
represented by just two compounds (benzene (B) and toluene (T)).

CONCLUSIONS
       Although the results reported here cover only one type of ordnance item, they demonstrate that
the detonation chamber technology  has the potential to be used for UXO clearance  at a wide variety
active and closed military facilities.  It should also be a viable alternative destruction technology to the
soil-covered and open air detonation processes which are used at some U.S. Army facilities to destroy
less than 100 tons of ordnance a year.

REFERENCES
1      Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60 - Appendix A.  Reference Methods 7E, 25
       and 29.

2.     Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical/ Chemical Methods, Volume III. SW-846
       Methods 0010, 8270, 8330. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste,
       Washington, DC.

3.     Mitchell, William J. and Jack Suggs, Emission Factors for the Disposal of Energetic Materials by
       OB/OD.  EPA Report Number - EPA/600/R-98/103. August 1998.

4.     ODOBi Air Sampling Test Report. Prepared by Radian International LLC, Oak Ridge TN for
       the U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground, UT. December  1997. (DPG POC - RJ Black, 435-831-
       3825).

5.     Department of Defense/Department of Energy Joint Demilitarization Technology Demonstration
       Program: Executive Summary of Phase I Demonstrations- Detonation of Conventional Weapons
       -  155 mm High Explosive M-107 Projectiles In the NTS X-Tunnel.  Lawrence Livermore
       National Laboratories Report Number UCRL-ID-131252.  July 1998.

6.     BGAD (Blue Grass Army Depot) Detonation Chamber Data Collection Test Report, Phases I and
       II.  Prepared for DeMil International, Inc. by El Dorado Engineering, Inc. 2964 West 4700
       South, Suite 109, Salt Lake City, UT 84118, August 2000.

-------
7.     Mitchell, William J., Thomas E. Ward and RJ Black. Improving the Environmental Safety of
       Munitions Disposal by OB and OD. In Proceedings of the Fifth Global Demilitarization
       Symposium and Exhibition, Reno, NV. May 11997.
                                          Disclaimer

The views expressed in this paper are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the United States Environmental protection Agency (EPA). Scientists in EPA have
prepared sections of this paper based on only a preliminary review of the study results, and therefore,
their sections may be revised at some time in the future.  This paper has been reviewed in accordance
with EPA's peer and administrative review policies and approved for presentation and publication.

-------
TABLE 1.  Emission Factors from the MMR T-10 Tests
ANALYTE
CO2
CO
NOx
Methane
Hydrogen
Participate
TNMHC
Acetylene
Ethylene
Propene
All Unsaturated HC
Benzene
Toluene
Styrene
All Aromatic HC
Naphthalene
Phenol
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Benzoic Acid
Aluminum
Copper
Magnesium
Manganese
Iron
Zinc
EMISSION FACTOR (g/g NEW)
MMR-1
8.4E-01
8.3E-02
6.0E-04
7.9E-03
9.3E-03
6.1E-04
1.5E-02
5.7E-03
4.7E-03
8.5E-04
1.1E-02
1.8E-03
1.7E-04
2.5E-05
2.0E-03
1.5E-05
1.5E-07
1.9E-07
1.9E-07
3.5E-07
9.6E-06
9.2E-07
1.7E-06
8.7E-07
6.5E-05
2.2E-06
MMR-2
l.OE+00
9.7E-02
8.0E-04
4.6E-03
5.1E-03
1.7E-04
l.OE-02
3.9E-03
3.7E-03
6.0E-04
8.5E-03
9.0E-04
7.5E-05
l.OE-05
l.OE-03
1.6E-05
1.9E-07
ND
ND
4.4E-07
9.3E-07
4.3E-07
4.5E-07
1.3E-07
1.4E-06
4.2E-07
MMR-1 /MMR-2
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.7
1.8
3.6
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.3
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.0
0.9
0.8
-
-
0.8
10
2.1
3.8
6.9
46
5.2

-------
TABLE 2. Selected Emission Factors (g/g NEW) from Other Chamber-based Detonation Studies
ANALYTE
CO2
CO
NOx
Paniculate
TNMHC
Acetylene
Ethylene
Propene
All Unsat'dHC
Benzene
Toluene
All Aromatic HC
Naphthalene
Phenol
Benzoic Acid
2,4-DNT
TNT
RDX
Aluminum
FIREBALL FORMATION PREVENTED
BGAD-1
a
5.7E-02
8.5E-03
3.0E-04
a
a
a
a
a
7.5E-05
1.1E-05
a
4.0E-06
l.OE-06
b
b
b
b
b
BGAD-2
a
1.7E-02
3.5E-03
1.2E-04
a
a
a
a
a
2.3E-05
2.5E-06
a
3.8E-07
b
b
b
b
b
b
DDI
b
1.5E-01
a
a
8.5E-03
1.3E-03
8.3E-04
1.2E-04
2.9E-03
9.6E-04
2.0E-04
1.1E-03
a
a
a
a
a
b
b
FIREBALL DURATION
SHORTENED
ODOBI
5.0E-01
4.7E-03
2.1E-02
a
2.4E-04
2.0E-05
1.2E-05
1.9E-06
3.6E-05
2.5E-05
2.0E-06
2.7E-05
7.4E-07
9.1E-07
4.4E-06
1.4E-05
1.5E-03
b
b
NTS
7.5E-01
4.0E-02
1.4E-05
6.2E-03
2.1E-04
3.2E-05
6.8E-05
3.3E-05
a
5.0E-05
l.OE-05
a
3.1E-06
b
b
b
b
1.4E-05
a
NORMAL
FIREBALL
1.5E+00
1.2E-02
1.5E-02
1.7E-01
7.0E-04
1.3E-04
5.4E-05
8.2E-06
3.3E-04
8.9E-05
3.3E-05
3.3E-04
a
b
b
b
b
b
7.1E-03
(NOTE - In Table 2 an (a) means that the analyte was either not measured, not calculated or not valid, and a (b)
means that the analyte was not detected.)
                                                                                                10

-------
TABLE 3. Selected Ratios From Chamber Studies
RATIOS
% C in Explosive Converted to COx
% CO/(CO + CO2)
% N in Explosive Converted to NOx
% (A + E + P)/ Unsaturated HC
% (B + T)/Aromatic HC
MMR-1
41%
9.0%
0.1%
98%
98%
MMR-2
a
8.6%
0.2%
96%
98%
DDI
a
a
a
77%
110%
ODOBi
37%
0.9%
3.4%
95%
98%
NTS
92%
5.1%
0.2%
a
a
BangBox
99%
0.8%
1.6%
95%
38%
 (NOTE - In Table 3 an (a) means that the analyte was either not measured, not calculated or not valid.)
                                                                                                11

-------
                                        Subcontractor List:

Shield Environmental Associates, Inc.
2456 Fortune Drive Suite 100
Lexington, KY 40509
(859)294-5155
Gary Simpson@shieldmw.com
Scope:  Prepared Test Plan, coordinated testing and analytical effort, collected VOCs, He, CO, and CO2 samples,
and prepared test report.

Air Tech Environmental, LLC
3714 S. Alston Avenue
Durham, North Carolina 27713-1804
(919)544-6338
answers(o>,ipass.net
Scope:  Collected metals, particulates, SVOCs, and energetic samples, analyzed particulate samples and prepared
test report.

Oregon Graduate Institute (OGI)
Department Environmental Science and Engineering
20000 NW Walker Road
Beaverton, Oregon 97006
(503)690-1077
rei@ese.ogi.edu
Scope:  Prepared TO-14 sampling trains, prepared helium tracer gas system, and analyzed VOCs, He, CO, and CO2
samples.

Severn Trent Laboratories (STL)
Austin, TX and Sacramento, CA
14046 Summit Drive, Bldg. B
Austin, TX 78728
(512)244-0855
Scope:  Analyzed metals, SVOCs, and energetic samples.

The Highland Group
POBox 161206
Austin, TX 78716-1206
(512)306-1584
dpm@flash.net
Scope:  Provided QA/QC review of analytical results (metals, SVOCs, and energetic samples).
                                                                                                  12

-------
   NERL-RTP-HEASD-O 1-035     TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
  1. Report NoEpA/600/A_01/Q28
2.
3.  Recipient's Accession No.
  4. Title and Subtitle     Pollutant Emission Factors for a Transportable Detonation
  System for Destroying Unexploded Ordnance
                                   5. Report Date: April 2001
                                                                         6. Performing Organization Code
  7. Author(s): William J. Mitchell, Todd Borci, Steven Yee, Alan Hicks
  (USEPA); Gary Simpson (Shield Environmental Inc.); Howard Schiff (TRC
  Environmental, Inc.)
                                   8.  Performing Organization Report
                                   No.
  9.Performing Organization Name and Address:
  US EPA ORD/ MD-46/ Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
  USEPA Region I/ One Congress St., Boston MA 02203
                                   10. Program Element No.:  NA
                                                                         11. Contract/Grant No.:  NA
  12.Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
  US Army Corp of Engineers
  Engineering and Support Center/ Huntsville Div./CEHND-PA
  Huntsville, AL 35807
                                   13. Type of Report and Period
                                   Covered: Symposium Proceeding,
                                   January 2001
                                                                        14.Sponsoring Agency Code
  15. Supplementary Notes: Paper to be presented at the UXO/Countermine Forum, New Orleans, LA (April 9-13, 2001)
  16.  Abstract The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) discourages the disposal of unexploded ordnance
  (UXO) by open air and soil-covered detonations, because these processes cause toxic metals, organics and explosives to
  be released into the environment.  This paper presents the results from an emissions testing study on an alternative UXO
  disposal technology (DeMil International Model T-10 transportable contained detonation system) while it was destroying
  81-mm mortar rounds at the Massachusetts Military Reservation.  The emissions testing showed that more than 98.8% of
  the Zn and more than 99.99% of the Cu, Mg, Mn, Fe and Al in the mortar rounds were retained in the T-10 and that the
  particulate emissions were 150 times less than those from an open air detonation.
                             17.  KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
 A. Descriptors: UXO, ordnance, detonation chamber, air
 toxics, emission factors
                 B.  Identifiers / Open Ended
                 Terms
           C. COSATI
  18. Distribution Statement
                 19. Security Class (This
                 Report)
                                                      20. Security Class (This Page)
                                                                                    21. No. of Pases
                                              22. Price
File: S:\HEASD\Forms\Tech-Form-2220-l

-------