EP A/600/A-96/057
96-TA35.02
Techniques To Improve
The Environmental Safety Of OB and OD Operations
William J. Mitchell
US Environmental Protection Agency
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
James L. Wilcox and Chris Biltoft
West Desert Test Center
Dugway Proving Ground
Dugway, UT 84022
Elaine S. Oran and Jay P. Boris
Laboratory for Computational Physics and Fluid Dynamics
US Naval Research Laboratory
Washington DC 20375
l

-------
96-TA35.02
INTRODUCTION
During the Cold War, the United States of America, its allies and the former Soviet Union
accumulated over 9,000,000 k>ns of conventional propellants, explosives (includes munitions)
and pyrotechnic (PEP) materials. With the ending of the Cold War, the United States, as well
as these other countries, are now faced with disposing of large inventories of unneeded or
unserviceable PEP (energetic) materials in an environmentally sound manner. For example,
the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has 450,000 tons in its "demil inventory" and this
inventory has been increasing by 40,000 to 50,000 tons per year1.
The three methods commonly used to dispose of unneeded PEP materials are: (1)
incineration; (2) disassembly, recovery and recycling (DRC); and (3) burning or detonating in
the open (OB, OD). Although, incineration and DRC are the environmentally-preferred
methods disposal, they cannot presently be used on many of the items in the inventory for
one or more of the following reasons. First, the composition is either unknown, unstable,
obsolete or has degraded. Second, they cannot be safely disassembled. Third, the financial
and environmental expense of developing a recovery and reuse technology for them cannot be
justified based on the quantity in the demil inventory or the commercial value of the material
that would be recovered. For these materials, OB and OD are the only disposal techniques
currently available and, thus, they continue to be an integral part of all nations PEP demil
programs.
The disposal of PEP materials by OB and OD is regulated under Subpart X of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (Subpart X of 40CFR264)2. A Subpart X permit is required
for OB and OD because of concerns about: (1) the degree to which they convert PEP
materials to innocuous chemicals; (2) the toxicities and dispersion in the environment of the
ash, soil and chemical pollutants released; and (3) the impact of the blast waves and sound
waves released. Because of these concerns the Subpart X permits that have been issued are
very restrictive in terms of the meteorological conditions under which OB and OD can be
carried out and the quantities that can be destroyed at one time, and over selected periods2.
For example, at many DoD facilities, the Subpart X permit requires the facility to bury the
munitions under one to three meters of soil before they are detonated. This mitigates the
blast noise and blast effect. However, burial likely increases the quantities of potentially
dangerous chemicals released because it reduces the 02 available for combustion of the
molecular fragments released by the detonation. Burial also increases the dirt and dust lofted
into the air. Such restrictions have contributed to the increase in the demil inventory1.
To obtain a Subpart X permit, a facility must, at a minimum, provide the following
information to the regulatory agency. First, the identity and quantities of pollutants and
debris that will be released per event and over time. Second, the intensity of the blast waves
and sound waves that will be generated. Third, a description of how these pollutants, debris,
blast waves and sound waves will be distributed in the environment. Fourth, the degree to
which the health of humans and the environment may be endangered in the short term (event
basis) and over the lifetime of the OB and OD program.
Because OB and OD have been used to dispose of unneeded or unserviceable PEP materials
for over 150 years, one might expect that it would be easy to compile this information.
However, this is not the case, because OB and OD technologies have been developed almost
2

-------
96-TA35.02
exclusively through a "cut and try" approach, where the primary objective was to ensure that
the PEP material is completely destroyed and noise is controlled. There was little concern
about the pollutants released. Consequently, the dynamics of the OB and OD processes are
not well-characterized and the technology is not optimized to ensure that all the energetic
material is converted to innocuous compounds.
The project described in this paper is developing computational and experimental methods to
identify and quantify the emission products released by OB and OD activities as a function of
such variables as: type and quantity of energetic material; stacking configuration; site geology
and meteorology; and pollutant and noise reduction procedures. Its objectives are: (1) to
obtain an understanding of the chemical and physical processes which occur when PEP
materials are destroyed by OB and OD; (2) to combine this information with that from
previous studies to develop methods that minimize and control the noise, heat, shrapnel, blast
wave and toxic inorganic and organic compounds released by OB and OD activities; (3) to
modernize the OB and OD technologies; and (4) to expand the range of meteorological
conditions and locales where OB and OD can be carried out.
If these objectives are accomplished, OB and OD technologies could be environmentally safe
methods to destroy large quantities (tons) of PEP materials over short periods of time and on
a routine basis, while also protecting the health of humans and ecosystems. This will allow
DoD to reduce substantially the demil inventory to a manageable level through a balanced
demil program and at a much lower cost per ton than that for the current technologies.
This OB and OD characterization emissions project is being directed by Dugway Proving
Ground (DPG) with financial support from DoD's Strategic Environmental Research and
Development Program (SERDP) and technical support from the United States Naval Research
Lab (NRL), Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL) and the Office of Research and
Development of EPA (EPA/ORD).
HISTORICAL BASIS FOR OB AND OD CHARACTERIZATION
Earlier Studies
In 1989-1990, the U.S. Army detonated 225 g quantities of TNT, RDX, Explosive D and
Comp B and burned 2 kg quantities of M-6 propellant, M-l propellant, and a triple-based
propellant in a 950 m3 chamber and determined the identities and concentrations of the
compounds emitted3 4. The chamber was located at Sandia Laboratories in Albuerquerque
NM. The following classes of compounds were measured: inorganic gases (C02, CO, NO,
N02, 03, HCN); particles; volatile organic compounds (VOC); and semivolatile compounds
(SVOC).
The emission factors (the ratio of quantities of compounds released to the quantities of the
PEP material detonated or burned) obtained in the tests at Sandia were then compared to the
emission factors obtained when 900 kg of the same explosives were detonated and 3,200 kg
of the same propellants were bumed in the open at DPG, UT in 1989-19905. Most of the
detonations at DPG were done with the explosive on the ground, but some of the TNT
detonations were also done with the TNT suspended approximately 10 m above the ground;
all bum tests were done with the propellant in steel, open-top pans.
3

-------
96-TA35.02
The test results showed that the identities and quantities (emission factors) of the compounds
released during the chamber detonations and bums were very similar to those released in the
field detonations and bums2. It was concluded that BangBox tests provided emission factors
which are statistically equivalent to those from field tests. These studies also demonstrated
that small scale chamber tests could be done at a fraction of the cost required to conduct field
tests and that the BangBox results could be interpreted as upper bounds on the emission
factors.
Acceptance Of the Methodology By USEPA
In 1991, the U.S. Army submitted their results to the USEPA with the recommendation that
they accept the emission factors obtained from chamber tests as being equivalent to those that
would be obtained from detonating and burning much larger quantities of the same materials
in the open. In 1992, the EPA concurred with this recommendation This concurrence was a
major boost to DoD's efforts to determine the emission products from OB and OD activities
on PEP materials. Using chamber studies to simulate field test results provided the DoD the
opportunity to: (1) characterize ten or more PEP materials at a cost comparable to conducting
field tests on one PEP material; (2) collect sufficient sample to meet the minimum
quantitation limits of the pollution measurement systems for the target compounds (analytes);
(3) study the decay rates of the primary and secondary products released from detonations and
bums; (4) minimize testing delays due to adverse weather conditions; and (5) obtain the
minimum number of detonations and bums required to calculate statistically valid emission
factors on each type of PEP material under repeatable and controlled conditions.
This last advantage is very important because it allows one to calculate the statistical
uncertainty associated with each emission factor and, thus, to statistically compare the
emission factors from different PEP materials or for the same material detonated or burned
under different conditions. Thus, one can evaluate the affect that procedural changes have on
the emission products released from OB and OD operations. For example, an underground
detonation could be simulated in the chamber by detonating the PEP material in an 02-
deprived environment. Similarly, the effect of adding an oxygen-rich substance with the PEP
material to be detonated could be simulated in the chamber by using an 02-enriched
atmosphere.
Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) Assessments of Detonations and Burns
The flexibility, speed, scalability and multiphase, reactive flow capabilities of CFD modeling
make it an ideal tool to study the processes that occur in detonations and bums. Time-
dependent CFD has been applied to: nuclear blasts and detonations; flow-structure and shock-
structure interactions such as flows involving ships, planes, submarines, buildings and ground
topography; the interaction of blasts with objects; multiphase and reactive effects in
underwater blasts; safety and hazard evaluations; fire initiation, propagation, and quenching;
design of propulsion devices such as ramjets and seramjets; and inertial confinement fusion6
In 1995, DPG funded scoping studies7 8 to assess the value of applying CFD to the open-air
detonation and open-air burning of PEP materials. It was concluded that CFD could be used
effectively with BangBox tests and the air pollution dispersion models being developed in
another SERDP project to: (1) gain an understanding of OB and OD process dynamics; (2)
modernize these teclinoJogies; and (3) determine accurately such parameters as initial
buoyancy of the plume, the propagation and intensity of the blast wave, the type and amounts
4

-------
96-TA35.02
of pollutants released and the plume dimensions as a function of time, model confinement and
mitigation strategies.
Two CFD programs, FAST3D7 (a DoD-developed program) and ALE3D8 (a DOE-developed
program), were selected for use in this study. These CFD programs have had extensive use in
solving three-dimensional, time-dependent, compressible, multiphase, reactive-flow problems
in geometrically complex configurations similar to those which occur when a PEP material is
detonated. They have been optimized to run on computers ranging from work stations to
massively parallel supercomputers. One of them, FAST3D, was selected as one of the CFD
projects in the DOD Common HPPC Support Software Initiative (CHS SI) and will be made
generally available in the DOD software library to all DOD personnel.
EXPERIMENTAL
Description Of DPG BangBox Facility
In 1993, the U.S. army constructed a 950 m3 chamber at DPG (Figure 1) similar to the one at
Sandia Laboratories and installed the pollutant sampling instrumentation which had been
developed and validated during the earlier study. This facility (BangBox) sits on a concrete
pad and has two sections: an inflatable, 16 m diameter hemisphere (test chamber) made from
plastic-coated nylon fabric and a 5.5 x 2.1 x 2.5 m building (airlock) made from plywood.
The test chamber is kept inflated by a blower with its volume maintained at approximately
950 m3 by adjusting a damper at the oudet to the blower. Air is circulated in the test
chamber by six fans spaced 60 degrees apart. Presently, the test chamber contains the
following pollutant sampling equipment: three high volume samplers for collecting total
particulate, metals and selected semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC); a TEOM PM-10
automated particle sampler and three high volume based PM-10 samplers for measuring
particles in the inhalable range; and three EPA semi-VOST samplers for collecting selected
SVOC and volatile organic compounds (VOC). It also contains a "suppressive shield" (to
permit detonating fragment/shrapnel-generating PEP materials in the chamber) constructed
from 5.1-cm angle iron and a pollutant gas sampling probe which exits into the airlock The
maximum net explosive weight, NEW, of PEP material which can be detonated in the test
chamber is 225 g and the maximum quantity of PEP which can be burned is 2.2 kg.
The airlock contains the following pollutant sampling equipment: C02, CO; 03; NO; N02;
HC1; HCN; and canisters (for VOCs, C02 and CO). Passage into the test chamber from the
airlock is through a power-operated door; this door is closed when testing is being conducted.
PEP Materials Tested In The BangBox In 1993-1995
Seventeen propellants, 12 explosives and 3 pyrotechnics commonly found in the demil
inventory were tested in 1993-1995. The 17 propellants and 3 pyrotechnics were burned and
the 12 explosives were detonated in a normal atmosphere, i.e., 21% 02,
The following special studies were also done: (1) bums of TNT, propellant manufacturing
waste, diesel-soaked dunnage and impulse cartridges (ARN 446); (2) detonations of amatol
(50% TNT : 50% NH4N03 and tritonal (80% TNT : 20% Al) in contact with plastic bags
containing 200 g of water; (3) detonation of tritonal in the presence of a small amount of
calcium stearate (an inhibitor); (4) detonations of two synthetic explosive mixtures which
approximated poorly prepared/degraded HBX; (5) release of HC1 from a container while a
5

-------
96-TA35.02
propellant (M31A1E1) which did not contain chlorine was burned; and (6) a study to
determine the applicability of an extractive FTIR systems (with a folded-optical path cell
equivalent to a 100 m open path) for measuring inorganic gases and light hydrocarbon gases
in the BangBox.
The TOT and impulse cartridge trial bums were done to compare the compounds emitted
when explosives are burned to those emitted when they are detonated. Manufacturing waste
was burned because this is the traditional means used to dispose of it and dunnage was
burned because it is commonly used as an initiator when PEP materials are open burned.
The detonations of amatol and tritonal in the presence of water were done to provide
preliminary emission factor data on a blast and noise suppression technique developed in the
U.S.9, and refined in Europe10-11 and South Africa 12. This technique, which involves
detonating the munition with plastic bags containing water touching it, reduces the blast noise
by more than 90% when compared to an equivalent unrestricted detonation10. However, the
water also quenches the fireball which could reduce the overall destruction efficiency of the
detonation process. Amatol and tritonal were selected for this experiment because they
represent two extremes in the oxygen content of commonly used explosives. When detonated,
amatol, an oxygen-balanced explosive, contains sufficient oxygen to convert its carbon to
C02, whereas tritonal contains only 20% of the oxygen required to convert all its carbon to
C02,
The HC1 release was done to determine if HC1 released when chlorine-containing propellants
were burned was lost to the walls and floor of the BangBox. The FTIR study was done to
determine if this multi-pollutant analyzer could yield improved data collection and quality
with respect to the single-pollutant, inorganic pollutant measurement and the VOC
measurement systems being used in the BangBox.
BANGBOX TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The TNT and impulse cartridge burns yielded emission factors for HCN, CO, particles and
many SVOCs which were higher than those obtained when these materials were detonated.
This was expected, because the quantities burned were small and combustion started slowly.
Had larger quantities been burned, the emission factors would likely still be higher than for a
detonation, but the differences would likely have been smaller.
The detonations of amatol and tritonal in the presence of water also yielded emission products
for HCN, CO, VOCs and SVOCs which were markedly higher and C02 emission factors
which were lower than those resulting from the corresponding unrestricted detonations.
Substantially more soot was also evident from the detonations in the presence of water
compared to the corresponding unrestricted detonation. Relative to the corresponding
unrestricted detonation, the emission factors for the oxygen-deficient tritonal changed
considerably more than those for the oxygen-balanced amatol.
The results from the HC1 release showed that HC1 emissions could be measured in the
BangBox. The results from the FTIR study indicate that the FTIR system had lower
sensitivities than most of the single-pollutant analyzers already in use in the BangBox.
6

-------
96-TA35.02
The results from these special studies and from the 32 PEP materials are now being compiled
and statistically examined to determine if PEP materials can be classified into "emission
product families" based on the chemical composition of the PEP material. The statistical
analysis will also determine: (I) if the number of background samples and/or field samples
collected for each PEP material can be reduced or should be increased; (2) if the target
analyte list, sampling methods or the sample-collecting times should be changed; and (3) if
there are artifact pollutants which should be removed from the test data. A database
management system which will provide access to the BangBox data via DoD's Munitions
Items Disposition Action System (MIDAS), is also being developed.
FUTURE EXPERIMENTS
The BangBox will continue to be used to characterize the emissions from PEP materials.
However, as noted earlier, the maximum quantities of PEP materials which can be detonated
and burned in the BangBox are 0.22 kg and 2.2 kg, respectively. While these limits are
adequate for determining the chemical emission products from many of the small items in the
demil inventory, they are inadequate for most of the large items (e.g., cluster bombs (CBUs),
artillery shells and rocket motors). These latter items represent more than 70% of the items
in the demil inventory. These weight limits and the construction materials of the BangBox
also prevent us from determining the effectiveness of many of the procedures used or
proposed for use in controlling the noise, blast effect, shrapnel and pollutants (e.g., soil
particles, soot, chemical compounds, etc.) released by OB and OD operations.
Preliminary Design Of Large Detonation Chamber
We plan to characterize the OD emissions from some of these large items and emission
control procedures using a large detonation chamber (ODOBi), which will be built at DPG in
the summer of 1996. CFD modeling, the results from the BangBox studies and from other
studies9-10'11*13 are being used to design this facility which will take advantage of the
incineration benefits from partially confining the plume with the fireball. As viewed from
above, the ODOBi will likely be conical or octagonal in shape; stand approximately 9 m high
and have a 1 to 3 m diameter opening at the top. A side view of an octagonal-shaped
structure is given in Figure 2. The floor of the chamber will be a steel pan; the materials of
construction for the sides have not yet been determined. The PEP material to be detonated
will be lowered into the ODOBi by a crane and suspended approximately 2 m above the
floor. The pan comprising the floor will contain approximately 0.25 m of water. Hie ODOBi
will be sealable immediately after the detonation and it will have sampling ports for collecting
plume samples. To protect the ground water, the ODOBi will be sited to ensure that any
water that escapes from the ODOBi is collected. More details concerning the dimensions,
materials of construction, operating procedures, will be available in April 1996.
Technologies To Be Studied In The ODOBi
We plan to evaluate the performance of the following technologies in the ODOBi.
Hydro Abrasive Cutting/Low Temperature Thermite Initiated Burning. The Defence
Test and Evaluation Organization (DTEO) of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
United Kingdom has developed a demil procedure which allows them to bum large quantities
of munitions (e.g., 16 tons of bar mines at one time)111314. They use this procedure when OD
is not feasible because of noise concerns, the nature of the munition, etc. Their procedure
7

-------
96-TA35.02
involves the following steps: (1) the munition is cut into pieces (to expose the explosive)
using a low pressure (3,500 psi) remotely-operated, hydro-cutting system Colt Industrial
Services Ltd., Hull, U.K.); (2) the exposed explosive is then covered with plastic caps and
moved to the bum site; and (3) the munitions pieces are then stacked together and one ol the
pieces is ignited using low temperature thermite. (The thermite, which is manufactured by
Disarmco, Barling Magnia, Essex, U.K., bums for 5 min. at 250°C- a temperature below the
detonating temperature of many military explosives.) DTEO has never had a spontaneous
detonation occur with this procedure.
This technique has great potential for destroying large quantities of explosives located at
bases and depots in close proximity to densely inhabited areas (such as the 231,800, 3.5-inch,
HE, shaped-charge bazooka rounds at Seneca, NY), but first the emission products (e. g.,
unbumed propellant, soot, HCN, SVOC, VOC and metals) must be determined to be within
acceptable limits.
Use Of Water In Bags To reduce Noise From OD Activities. Salter and Parkes10, Keenan
and Wager9, Barrett12 and the DTEO11 have shown conclusively that water can be used to
substantially reduce the noise, peak pressure (blast wave), shrapnel travel and soil particles
released when explosives are detonated. Salter and Parkes in cooperation with the U.K.
Ministry of Defence have done extensive field tests on using water to mitigate the noise
generated when large quantities of explosives are detonated in the open. They have
developed a technology which involves covering the explosive to be detonated with either
water-containing, polyethylene bags or with a thick water mist. (This technology is available
from Dell Explosives, Edinburgh Scotland.) Preliminary BangBox tests, conducted with
amatol and tritonal in DPG's BangBox, indicate that when the water-containing bags are in
contact with the explosive, the combustion process is inhibited. However, others have
shown9'10'11 that some reduction in the noise, blast wave and shrapnel travel distance can still
be obtained when an air gap exists between the water and the munition. Therefore, it should
be possible to use water to achieve some reduction in the total emissions from OD operations.
We plan to use CFD modelling with experimental confirmation in the ODOBi facility to
develop an engineering model DoD and DOE facilities can use to customize this technology
for use at their facilities.
Use of Ceramic Fillers To Reduce Pollutants Released From OB And OD Operations.
The DTEO (U.K.) has also developed a technology in which the PEP material is burned in an
aerated steel cage with ceramic filter elements attached to the sides of the cage11. The
ceramic filters are flexible and are contained in a modular system that is easily attached to the
cage. The temperature achieved in the cage is high enough to destroy a large percentage of
the VOCs and SVOCs, and the ceramic filters remove the majority of the particulate matter to
approximately 10 microns. DTEO has successfully completed small scale prototype tests on
this system and are now actively working on conducting full scale equipment and tests. To
date only small quantities of a few PEP materials have been studied. We are arranging with
the U.K. Ministry of Defence to bring this technology to DPG for further evaluation in the
ODOBi or another DoD facility.
Assisted OB and OD Operations. The most commonly used procedure for "assisted OB and
OD operations" is bundling. In bundling, an easy-to-detonate energetic material (donor
charge), such as C-4, PETN or high density TNT block, is used to ensure the destruction of
8

-------
96-TA35.02
an energetic material which, by itself, is difficult to destroy by OD. Some of these latter PEP
materials are: CBUs; improved conventional munitions (ICM); encapsulated PEP materials in
which the propellant, the explosive or both are either unknown or have degraded; rounds in
which the fuse cannot be removed; and colored smokes containing potentially carcinogenic
dyes. The "assisting" energetic material, which is placed in contact with the "problem"
material, produces temperatures and pressures sufficient to cause the "destruction" of the
"problem" material. Another "assisted detonation/bum procedure" places an 02-enriched
material (e.g., Na02, 02-enriched air) in contact with the "problem" material to ensure the
more complete destruction of the latter.
These and other "assisted" OB/OD procedures have been developed through "cut and try"
approaches rather than from fundamental detonation and combustion theory. Assisted-
destraction procedures hold great promise as a means to destroy the large quantities of
degraded, damaged, PEP of unknown composition that are in the demil inventory and could
provide a cost effective use for the explosives and propelIants recovered from other items in
the demil inventory. We plan to use CFD modeling in conjunction with chamber experiments
to maximize the destruction efficiency of these procedures while protecting human health and
the environment.
Engineering And Operation Models For Second Generation ODOBi
We anticipate that the DPG ODOBi detonation facility will also serve as the prototype for an
OD and OB chamber which can be installed at any demil facility. This latter chamber will
likely use a combination of the technologies evaluated in the ODOBi and CFD modelling to
substantially reduce the noise, blast effects, entrained soil, shrapnel and potentially-toxic
pollutants released when PEP materials are destroyed by OB and OD processes. Since this
detonation chamber will be designed to hold the fireball in contact with the plume for a
longer time than that which occurs when a PEP material is detonated in the open or
underground, the destruction efficiency of the fireball will increase. We also anticipate that
the use of this chamber will simplify modeling the emissions from OB and OD activities
because plume rise and travel distance will be reduced and this should increase the frequency
at which detonations can be conducted.
When used in conjunction with the air pollutant dispersion models and upper air
meteorological measurement systems being developed in a companion SERDP project (# 96-
251)15, the engineering design and operation models developed in this project should allow the
siting and permitting of above ground, full-scale OD activities even for facilities which are
close to inhabited areas. Each DoD and DOE unit will be able to use these specifications and
procedures to construct and operate detonation chambers customized for its own situation.
REFERENCES
1.	Joint Demilitarization Study. Joint Ordnance Commanders Group. Demil Technology
Office, U.S. Army Defense Ammunition Center and School, Savanna, IL 61074-9639,
September 1995, 128 pp.
2.	Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 264, Subpart X, Miscellaneous Units.
9

-------
96-TA35.02
3.	M. Johnson, Development of Methodology and Techniques for Identifying and
Quantifying Products from Open Burning and Open Detonation Thermal Treatment Methods -
Bang Box Test Series, Volume 1 (Test Summary). U.S. Army, AMMCOM, Rock Island, EL
61299-6000, January 1992.
4.	M. Johnson, Development of Methodology and Techniques for Identifying and
Quantifying Products from Open Burning and Open Detonation Thermal Treatment Methods -
Bang Box Test Series. Volume 2 (Test Plan Development). U.S. Army, AMMCOM, Rock
Island, IL 61299-6000, January 1992.
5.	M. Johnson, Development of Methodology and Techniques for Identifying and
Quantifying Products from Open Burning and Open Detonation Thermal Treatment Methods -
Field Test Series A. B and C. Volume 1 (Test Summary). U.S. Army, AMMCOM, Rock
Island, IL 61299-6000, January 1992.
6- Proceedings of the International Conference on Microscopic and Macroscopic Approaches
to Detonations. St. Maol (France), 1994; S. Odiot, Ed.; Le Editions de Physique, Paris France.
7.	E.S. Oran, J.P. Boris, and C. Kaplan, Recommendations for the elimination of explosives
and propellants through environmentally sound Open-air detonations. Report prepared for the
U.S. Army (Dugway Proving Ground, UT) by the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory,
Washington DC, September, 1995, 56 pp.
8.	R.C. McCallen, R.G. Couch, et. al., SERDP munition disposal source characterization pilot
study. Report prepared for the U. S. Army (Dugway Proving Ground, UT) by Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore CA, September 1995, 40 pp.
9.	W.A. Keenan and P.C. Wager, "Mitigation of confined explosive effects by placing water
in proximity of explosives," in the Proceedings of the 25th U.S. Department of Defense
Explosive Safety Seminar. Anaheim, CA, August 1992, pp. 311-339.
10.	S.H. Salter and J.H. Parkes "The Use of Water-filled bags to reduce the effects of
explosives," in Proceedings of the 27th U.S. Department of Defense Explosive Safety
Seminar. Miami, FL, August, 1994.
11.	A.E.A. Wilkinson and P. Goddard, "Explosive ordnance engineering at the Defence Test
and Evaluation Organization's Shoeburyness facility in the UK." Paper presented at the 1995
COPEX Conference. Washington, D.C., May 1995
12.	G. Barrett, "The use of water in the mitigation of explosives," Realtor. October 1988, pp
51-52.
13.	A.E.A. Wilkinson and C.J. Withers, "Design and operation of the United Kingdom
Ministry of Defence demilitarization facility and compliance with the U.K. national
environmental legislation," in the Proceedings of the Third Global Demilitarization
Symposium and Exhibition. St. Louis, MO, May 1995, pp 273-278.
10

-------
96-TA35.02
14.	D, Miller, "Abrasive water jet technology for demilitarization in Europe," in the
Proceedings of the Third Global Demilitarization Symposium and Exhibition, St. Louis, MO,
May 1995, pp 445-455.
15.	I.C. Weil, B. Templeman and W.J, Mitchell, "Progress in developing an OB/OD air
pollutant dispersion model," Paper presented at the Air & Waste Management Association
89th Annual Meeting & Exhibition. Nashville, TN, June 23-28, 1996.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work described in this paper was funded under the Compliance Thrust Area of the
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) of the U.S.
Department of Defense (SERDP Project 247).
11

-------
IAI 9 IAI G
IAI S
IAI 0
IAI 0
IAI P
IAI 6

-------

-------
' TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instruction on the reverse before eomp
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA/600/A-96/057


4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Techniques to Improve the Environmental Safety of
OB and OD Operations
S. REPORT OATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORIS)
William J. Mitchell, James L. Wilcox, Elaine Oran
and Jay Boris
B. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Dugway Proving Ground, UT 84022
EPA/NERL, RTP, NC 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
NA
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
NA
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA/NERL
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT ANO PERIOD COVERED
Symposium Presentation
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Work funded through DoD/EPA IAG (SERDP)
16. ABSTRACT
This paper describes a RDT&E effort by the United States Army and Navy and the
Environmental Protection Agency which is focused on reducing the noise,
pollutants, entrained soil, blast wave and shrapnel released when conventional
propellants, explosives and pyrotechnics (PEP) are destroyed by open-air
burning (OB) and detonation (OD). This cooperative effort is using
computational and experimental methods to identify and quantify the emission
products released by OB and OD activities as a function of such variables as:
type and quantity of energetic material; stacking configuration; site geology
and meteorology; and pollutant and noise reduction procedures. Its objectives
are: (1) to obtain an understanding of the chemical and physical processes
which occur when PEP materials are destroyed by OB and OD; (2) to combine this
information with that from previous studies to develop methods that minimize
and control the noise, heat, shrapnel, blast wave and toxic inorganic and
organic compounds released by OB and OD activities; and (3) to modernize the
OB and OD technologies.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATi Field/Group
Munitions
Open Burning
Open Detonation
Risk Assessment


18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (This ReportJ
21. NO. OF PAGES
20 SECURITY CLASS (This page)
22. PRICE
IPA F*n» 2220-1 (R«». 4-77) previous coition is obsolete

-------