Complete Permit application Vol 1_Rev_1_6-8-18 PART 4.pdf

VOLUME III

RCRA Permit Renewal Application

Part A and B Main Base

Hawthorne Army Depot Hawthorne, Nevada

Permit No. NEV HW0032, EPA ID #NV1210090006

Prepared by:

Redhorse Corporation

1370 India Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101

March 2018 – Revision 1, June 8, 2018

Appendix Q

U.S. Army Test Study, 1992 mleigh Highlight mleigh Highlight

HEADQUARTERS

U.S. ARMY ARMAMENT,

MUNITIONS AND CHEMICAL COMMAND

FINAL REPORT

DEVELOPMENT OF

METHODOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY

FOR

IDENTIFYING AND QUANTIFYING

EMISSION PRODUCTS

FROM

OPEN BURNING AND OPEN DETONATION

THERMAL TREATMENT METHODS.

FIELD TEST SERIES A, B, AND C

VOLUME 1

TEST SUMMARY

JANUARY 1992

Maintenance Management Division

Demilitarization and Technology Branch

Rock Island, Illinois 61299-6000

DSN: 793-3980/5534

Commercial: 309-782-3980/5534

I

SECURITY CLA$$IFI(A TIO N 0;: THIS PAGE

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

form ADDtO"lt d OMS N o 0104 ·0 188 d REtrfVc~§St~~I F ICATION Ib RE>TRICilvE MARK INGS None l~ 5E~RITY C1A551r1CA nON AUTIo40RITV / A

. ) DISTRIBUTION' AV4ILA81lfl'Y 0' REPORT lb OECLA5SIFICA flON I OOWNGRADING sc~ DULE Unimited N/ A

4 PERFORMING ORGA.NIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) S MONITORING ORGAN1ZA TION REPORT NUMBER(S)

6 • . NA.ME O~ PERFORMINGORGANIZATlON 6b OFFICE SYMBOL h NAME OF MONITORING ORGANllA TlON Andrulis Research Corporation (If ~pp/lnble) STEOP·MT-TM·A Sal Lake City Office Dugway Proving Ground

6c. ADDRESS (Ci t)'. Sr.r • • If'Id l'I' Cod. , 7b. ADDRESS (City. Sr. r •• 'M l'I'Codt'

600 EaS1-Wesl Highway. Suite 900 Dugway. Utah 84022-6000 Bethesda. MD 2081 .

8i1 NAME OF FUNDING I SPONSORING 8b OHICE SYMBOL 9 PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT JDENTlFlCA TlON NUMBER ORGANIZATION U.S. Army Armament. (II ~pplic.IbI.'

Munltions and Chem\caJ Command AMSMCOSM·O Contract 0AA009-87 ·O~

at. ADDRESS (Cit)'. St. t ••• M 1'1' C~) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUM8ERS

Maintenance Ma~ement OMsion, PRO(;AAM PROJECT TASK WORI( UNIT Demilitarization a Tec~ Branch tLEMENl' NO NO NO ACCESSION NO Rock Island. illinois 61

11 . TlbE~'~/tm S.CUsN/~~tJ~ . . ' . e e opment 0 e and Technology for Identifying and Quantifying Emission Products from Open Burning and Open Detonation Thermal Treatment Methods. Field Test Series A. B. and C - Volume 1.

P~O~L ~TH~~(~ r. ac ona ohnsen

13. rpPE fA REPORT Ina . epon Illb. TIME ff~ED

FROM TO 1·92

rc OATE OF !!EP5RT IY,..,. Monti\, O.tyJ f 5 PAGE COUNT 92 anuary

" SUPPLEMENTARY NOTAnON

17 COSAn cooes Ifl. SUBJE<tiuTEr,M5 «(OMf,,§: 01'1 "'"lWd~'i15tr'~ ;o.fI~ffy by blO<k number) FIelD GROUP SU8-GROUP open m ng: Open etonat on; / ; ; double base propelJant.

manufacturers resldue propellant; air emissions; thermal treatment:

carbon bala.nce; emission factor; (Cont'd on reverse)

19, ABSTRACT «(ontinu. on ,.v.rs. if MeeJUry .nd identify by block number)

The report covers the OB/OO field tests A. B. and C using the methOOciogy and technology developed In the BangBox (BB) test for use on the fixed-wing aircraft ~AC). Fteld test A was a checkout of the equipment and sampling selected from the BB test. and the development of procedures for sampling the TNT detonation crater SOil. and the partide fallout In the surrounding area. Triple-base propellant was also burned In pans wtth the area sampled to 30-m with fallout pans. The analytes In both the air emission and the soU were identified and quantified. Field test B used TNT as the explosive and manufacturing residue as the bum material. Air sampling with the FWAC and soB sampling provided estimates of emission factors (EF) and soD contaminates that were detected above background levels. Suspended TNT detonations and manufacturing residue bums were also characterized for emission products. Phase C test using refinements in sampling and analysis from the previous phases provid&d data for TNT. composition B. explosive D. and RDX detonations and manufacturing residue single-base (M1.M6) propellant bums. The EF data from the TNT field tests were examined and compared with BB data; the results were comparable in the analytes detected and the level of analytes detected. The results indicate an efficiency for the detonation >92 percent (Continued on reverse)

- DISTRIBUTION I AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT

J UNCLASSIFIEDIUNLIMITED 0 SAME AS RPT.

JI . AME Of ~E.SPO~S I 8j.E tNDIVIOVAL Mr. MacDonald Johnson

DO Form 1473, JUN 86

22b . TELEPHONE (lncltm Ate. CoM) 22c. OFFICE SYMBOL

(309) 782-3980/5534 AMSMC·OSM·D

I'r~v;ous ~dit;ons .r~ obso/.t~ . SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

I

18. (Cont'd) supercritical fluid chromatography; SFC; demUitarization; munition disposal; explosive disposal: environment; BB; air building; explosive 0; composition B; RDX; single-base propellant (M1,M6): triple-base propellant(M30).

19. (Cont'd) based on the conversion of the carbon in the explosive material to CO2, The semivoiatUes in the soil were identified.

quantified and a comparison made between background levels and after detonations levels. Similarity in analyte detected and the levels of analytes measured for TNT. RDX, explosive D. and composition B lead to the conclusion that OB/OD can be and effective means of treatment. Based on TNT the BB EF are comparable to field EF. The propellant burns all resulted in extremely efficient conversion of material carbon into CO2 > 99 percent.

FOREWORD

A test planning directive to conduct the OBjOD test in support of U.S. Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command (AMCCOM) was issued by U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command

(TECOM) on 28 April 19881

• A Technical Steering Committee Symposium was convened in July

1988. The requirement for identifying and quantifying emissions from the open detonation of explosives and open burning of propellants was discussed in detail by authorities from throughout the military, academic, and commercial communities. Conclusions and recommendations developed during the symposium are reported in proceedings of the symposium2

A series of TNT detonations and propellant burns were characterized in a BangBox (chamber) in

December 1988 and January 1989 for the purpose of developing methodology and technology for large scale detonations and burns in the field. The BangBox test is reported in a three volume set.

The report covers the details of the methods and technology development and would be useful for those desiring more detail on such things as the carbon balance method, the emission factors from a nonhomogeneous and homogeneous detonation or burn cloud, the samplers selected for future use in the fIXed wing aircraft, and the techniques used in extracting and assaying samples.

The field tests took place in 1989 and 1990 and are reported in three volumes.

Volume 1. A summary which describes the planning phase, the conduct of trials, sample analyses and results, and the conclusions and recommendations. It is useful for those who need only a quick review (executive summary) and those who need a detailed description of the conduct and results of the Field Tests Phases A, B, and C.

Volume 2, Part A. A stand-alone document which covers the quality assurance and quality control procedures, the blind spiking of samples, the on site challenges of equipment and lLetter, AMSTE-TA-F, Headquarters, U.s. Army Test and Evaluation Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, 20 April 1988, subject: Test Planning Directive for Special Study of Open Burning/Open Detonation (OB/OD), Phase n, TECOM Project No 2-CO-210-000-017.

2Proceedings of the Technical Steering Committee Symposium 6-8July 1988, Headquarters, United States Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command, Rock Island, illinois, August 1991.

personnel, the conclusions, and the recommendations.

Volume 2, Part B. The quality assurance (QA) program plan which was developed specifically to support phase .C" field testing. While directed to phase "C" testing, it also represents the procedures and techniques and QA philosophies which were used during OB/OD field testing phases "A" and wB" and is based on experience gained during these two earlier field tests.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD

ACKSOWLEDGEMEt-.'TS

ABSTRACT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION .. ,

1.1 Demilitarization Stockpile Situation

1.1.1 Size, Storage, and Treatment

1. 1.2 Environmental Issues and RCRA Permitting

X\!I

XXI

XXlIl

1-1

1-1

1-1

1-1

1. 1.3 Alternative Methods for Demilitarization ......................... 1-2

1.2 Background ............................................... . ...... 1-2

1.2.1 Interim Study ................ '" .................... , .......... 1-2

1.2.2 Symposium - Technical Steering Committee ........................... 1-3

1.2.3 The BangBox Test Series ......................................... 1-3

SECTION 2 SCOPE OF TEST. . . . . . . . .. ..... ... 2-1

2.1 Overall Test Program ............................................... 2-1

2 1. 1 Purpose .................................................. 2 -1

2.1.2 Objectives ..................................................... 2-1

2.2 BangBox Test ...................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 Purpose

2.2.2 Objectives ..................................................... 2-2

2.2.3 Test Matrix .. ............................. . .................. 2-3

2.3 Field Test Phase A ................................................ . 2-4

2.3.1 Purpose ................................................. 2-4 iii

~.3.~ Objectives ..

2.3 3 Test Matrix

2.4 Field Test Phase B

2.4.1 Purpose

~--i

2-6

2-6

2.4.2 Objectives ................................ ........... 2-6

2.4.3 Test Matrix ........................................ 2-7

2.5 Field Test Phase C .............................................. 2-8

2.5.1 Purpose

2.5.2 Objectives

2.5.3 Test Matrix

2-8

2-8

2-9

SECTION 3. SPECIFICATIONS .................... 3-1

3.1 Description of Facilities/Site 3-1

3.1.1 BangBox ................................................ . .. 3-1

3.1.2 DPG Test Grids

3.1.3 Sampling Platform - FW AC .................................... , . 3-19

3.1.4 Soil and Fallout Sampling ........................................ 3-33

3.2 Explosive and Propellant Material ..................................... 3-33

3.2.1 TNT ...................................................... . 3-33

3.2.2 Composition B ................................................. 3-36

3.2.3 Explosive D ................................................... 3-37

3.2.4 RDX ..................................................... .. 3-38

3.2.5 Single-Base Propellant .......................................... 3-39

3.2.6 Double Base Rocket Propellant .............. ' ...................... 3-41

3.2.7 Triple-Base Propellant - Field Test Phase A .......................... 3-42

3.2.8 Composite Propellant - BangBox ................................... 3-43

3.2.9 Manufacturing Residue .......................................... 3-43

3.3 Analyte List - Detection Levels ....................................... 3-47

3.3.1 Discussion of Detection and Quantification Limits. . .. ................. 3-49

3.4 Sampling/Analysis ................................................. 3-49

3.4.1 Volatile Organics

3.4.2 Semivolatile Organic Sampling and Analysis

iv

3-49

3-50

343 Real-Time Gases -:5 i

344 Airborne Paniculate Maner 3-5..+

3.4.5 Aircraft-Based Video ................. ..... 3-55

3.4.6 Meteorology ............... _

SEmON 4 DATA COLLECfION, ANALYSIS. AND RESVLTS 4-1

4.1 General Methods ......... _ ....... _ ..... _ . . . . . . . . 4-1

4 1.1 Carbon-Balance Method ......... _ .. _ .. _ .. _ . . . . . 4-1

4.1.2 Analytical Methods for Semivolatile Organics ......... ... 4-2

4.1.3 Soil and Fallout Samples ................................... 4-3

4 1.4 Emission Factors .... .......................... .. 4-5

4.2 Explosives ........................................ _ .. .... . . . 4-5

4.2.1 TNT Tests - Phases A, B, and C ........... ................. 4-6

4.2.2 Composition B Test - Phase C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-29

4.2.3 Explosive D Test - Phase C ................................ ..... 4-42

4.2.4 RDX Test - Phase C ......................................... ., 4-55

4.3 PropellanL.:, ................................................. . . . 4-69

4.3.1 Single Base Tests - Phase C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... 4-69

4.3.2 Triple Base Test - Phase A ....................................... 4-83

4.3.3 Manufacturing Residue Tests - Phases B and C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-86

4.4 Comparison of BangBox and Field TNT Detonations ............... ....... 4-99

4.5 Dispersion Model Screening Analysis .................................. 4-102

SEmON 5, SUMMARY OF OA AcrMTIES FOR OB/OD PROGRA\M .. , 5-1

5.1. Overview ......................................................... 5-1

5.2. Inorganic Gases .......................................... ........ 5-3

5 3. Flow Rate of Particulate and VOST Samplers ................... . ....... 5-3

5.4. Volatile Organic Samplers ..................................... ..... 5-4

5.5. Semivolatile Organic Samplers .................................... .... 5-4

5.6. SVOCs Particulate from Sampler (Aircraft) and Fallout Pans ....... . ....... 5-5

5.7. Metals by XRF ................................................. .. 5-7

5.8. Eelemental and Volatilizable Carbon .................................... 5-8 v

5.9. Real Time Panicle Measurements (Aircraft)

5.10. HCN. NH 3, HCL Samplers

5.11. Fallout and Burn Pan Sampler Placement and Recovery

5. 12. Paniculate Weight Determination

SECTION 6. CONCLUSIONS

6.1. Background

6.1.1. Bang Box

6.1.2. Field Test Phase A

6.1.3. Field Test Phase B

6.1.4. Field Test Phase C

6.2. General Overall Test Program

6.2.1. Purpose

5-8

5-8

5-8

5-8

6-1

6-1

6-1

6-\

6-2

6-4

6-5

6-5

6.2.2 Objectives and Responses ...................................... 6-5

6.3. Air Emissions .................................................... 6-7

6.3.1. Detonation/Combustion Efficiency .................................. 6-7

6.3.2. Carbon Distribution ................................ ....... .,. 6-9

6.3.3. Scaling Issues .................................................. 6-9

6.3.4. Source Pollutant Dispersion Modeling ............................. 6-10

6.4. Soil Deposition of OB/OD Emissions.................................. 6-11

6.4.1. aD Emissions ..................................... , ........... 6-11

6.4.2. OB Emissions ................................................. 6-11

SEmON 7. RECOMMENDATIONS ................... 7-1

7. 1. Multiple Continuous Detonations ...................................... 7-1

7.2. Buried Detonations ................................................. 7-1

7.3. Soil Extraction and Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7-1

7.4. BangBox Design and Construction ...................................... 7-1

7.5. Models ........................................................... 7-2

7.6. Technical Steering Committee ...................................... .. 7-2

7.7. International Cooperation .......................................... 7 -2 vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3 1 SNL BangBox Test Facility Containing Sampling and Real-Time Analysis

Equipment

3.2 SNL BangBox Interior OB/OD Sampling Instrumentation and Equipment.

Figure 3.3

3.4

Figure 3.5

Figure 3.6

Figure 3.7

Figure 3.8

Figure 3.9

Figure 3.10

Figure 3.11

Figure 3.12

Figure 3.13

Figure 3.14

Figure 4.1

BangBox Airlock Instrumentation and Sampling Equipment.

OB/OD Test Grid Location. . ............................ . 3-7

OB/OD Phase A Soil and Fallout Sampling Location

OB/OD Phase B Surface TNT Detonation Location Relationships. ..

OB/OD Phase B Surface TNT Detonations Fallout Pan Layout

3-9

3 10

3-11

OB/OD Phase B Soil Sampling Plan for Suspended TNT Detonations. .. 3-l3

OB/OD Propellant Burn Grid Showing Spuner and Fallout Pan Layout. .. 3-14-

Field Test Phase C Locations of Surface Detonations, Suspended Trials, and

Propellant Burns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. '" . 3 -16

Field Test Phase C Relationship of the Seven Surface Detonation Sites

Contained in Sites A, B, C, and,D of Fig. 3.10. .................. 3-17

Field Test Phase C Fallout Pan Layout for a Detonation. . ........... 3-18

SNL Twin Otter Instrumented Fixed-Wing Aircraft for Open-Air OB/OD

Sampling and Real-Time Gas Analysis. .......................... 3-21

Schematic Diagram of Sampling Aircraft Instrumentation. . ......... , 3-24

Ground Level Peak: and 15 min Average Concentration of Benzo[a]pyrene

Downwind of a lOoo-kg Surface Detonation of TNT. ............ . . . .. 4-104 vii

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 2.1

Table 2.2

Table 2.3

Table 2.4a

Table 2.4b

Table 2.4c

Table 3.1

Table 3.2

Table 3.3

Table 3.4

Table 3.5

Table 3.6

Table 3.7

Table 3.8

Table 3.9

Table 3.10

Table 3.11

Table 3.12

Table 3.13

LIST OF TABLES

Explosive Detonations: Average Emission Factors for Inorganic, and Volatile

Analytes. ................................................... xxx

Explosive Detonations: Maximum Emission Factors for Semivolatile Analytes. . XXXl

Explosive Detonations: Semivolatile Analytes Detected and Maximum Recov.ery in

Soil Ejecta (ng/g). .............................................. XXXIl

Propellant Burns: Average Emission Factors for Inorganic and Volatile

Analytes. . ............................................. . . . xxxiii

Propellant Burns: Maximum Emission Factors for Semivolatile Analytes. xxxiv

Propellant Burns: Semivolatile Analytes Detected and Maximum Recovery in Fallout

Pans (ng/g). .................................................. xxxv

BangBox Test Schedule

Field Test Phase A Test Matrix.

Field Test Phase B Test Matrix.

2-3

2-5

2-7

Field Test Phase C Test Matrix. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9

Field Test Phase C Test Matrix ................................... 2-10

OB/OD Phase C Test Matrix. . .................................. 2-11

Nominal Composition of Composition B Explosive. ................... 3-37

Nominal Composition of Explosive D. ............................. 3-38

Nominal Composition of PBXN-6 ................................. 3-39

Nominal Composition of Ml Propellant. ........................... 3-40

Nominal Composition of M6 Propellant.

Composition of NOSIH-AA-2 Propellant.

M30 Triple-Base Gun Propellant Composition

NOSIH-EC Propellant Composition

3-41

3-42

3-42

3-43

Manufacturing Residues Burned in Field Test Phase B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-44

NOSIH-AA6 Propellant Composition. . ............................ 3-45

"Propellant A n Composition. .......................... ......... 3-45

"Ignition Propellant" Composition

Cellulose Acetate Inhibitor Composition viii

3-46

3-46

Table 3.14 Manufacturing Residues Burned in Field Test Phase C. 3-4~

Table 3 15 Composition of N5 Propellant. ......... . .... . 3-47

3-48 Table 3.16 Analyte List and Limits of Detection for Phases A, B. and C TestS

Table 3.17 OB/OD Real-Time Continuous Monitors Installed on the Aircraft. 3·52

Table 4.2.1 Gas Emission Factors for Surface TNT Detonations. 4-7

Table 4.2.2 Gas Emission Factors for Suspended TNT Detonations. 4·7

Table 4.2.3 Summary of Total Particulate Mass Concentrations for Surface and Suspended

TNT Detonations. 4-10

Table 4.2.4 Volatile Organic Compound Emission Factors for Surface TNT Detonations. 4·11

Table 4.2.5 Volatile Organic Compound Emission Factors for Suspended TNT

Detonations. ................................... . 4·12

Table 4.2.6 Maximum Semivolatile Organic Emission Factors Measured for Surface TNT

Detonations. ............................................. 4-13

Table 4.2.7 Maximum Semivolatile Organic Emission Factors Measured for Suspended TNT

Detonations. ............................ ... .-............... 4-14

Table 4.2.8 OBIOD Detonation Crater Dimension,Volume, and Weight of Displaced

Soil. ....................................................... 4-16

Table 4.2.9 Summary of Phase A Pretest and Ejecta Soil Samples for Semivolatile

Organics. 4-17

Table 4.2.10 Summary of Semivolatile Organic Concentrations from Phases B and C

Pretest and Ejecta Soil Samples, Based on the Weight of Sample. 4-18

Table 4.2.11 Summary of Semivolatile Analyte Concentrations Detected in Soil Samples in

Phase A TNT Detonations. 4-19

Table 4.2.12a Summary of Semivolatile Organic Concentrations from Phases B and C

Fallout Soil Samples, Based on Weight of Sample. • ~ • • * • • • • • • • • • • • • 4-21

Table 4.2.12b Summary of Semivolatile Organic Concentrations from Phases B and C

Fallout Soil Samples, Based on Weight of Sample. ................. 4-22

Table 4.2.13a Summary of Semivolatile Organic Concentrations from Phases B and C

Fallout Soil Samples, Based on Area Sampled. .................... 4-24

Table 4.2.13b Summary of Semi volatile Organic Concentrations from Phases B and C

Fallout Soil Samples, Based on Area Sampled. .................... 4-25 ix

Table 4.2.14

Table 4.2.15

Table 4.2.16

Table 4.2.17

Table 4.2.18

Table 4.2.19

Table 4.2.20

Table 4.2.21

Table 4.2.22

Table 4.2.23a

Table 4.2.23b

Table 4.2.24a

Table 4.2.24b

Table 4.2.25

Table 4.2.26

Table 4.2.27

Table 4.2.28

Summary of Semivolatile Organic

Suspended Detonation Soil Samples.

Concentrations from Phase B T!'-:T

4-26

Summary of Fallout and 2,4-Dinitrotoluene Concentration by Weight and

Area .................................................... 4-27

Concentration and Deposition Area Used to Determine Fallout Amount for

2,4-Dinitrotoluene. ........................................ . 4-28

Gas Emission Factors for Composition-B Surface Detonations. ........ 4-29

Average Particulate Matter Concentrations Measured During Multiple

Aircraft Sampling Passes of Composition-B Detonation Clouds. ....... 4-30

Volatile Organic Compound Emission Factors Measured for the Composition-

B Detonation Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4-31

Maximum Semi volatile Organic Emission Factors Measured for Surface

Composition B Detonations. ................................. 4-32

OB/OD Detonation Crater Dimension, Volume, and Weight of Displaced Soil for Composition B. ......................................... 4-33

Composition B, Summary of Semivolatile Organic Concentrations from Phase

C Pretest and Ejecta Soil Samples, Based on the Weight of Sample. .... 4-34

Composition B. Summary of Semiv6latile Organic Concentrations from Phase

C Fallout Soil Samples, Based on Weight of Sample. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4-36

Composition B. Summary of Semivolatile Organic Concentrations from Phase

C Fallout Soil Samples, Based on Weight of Sample. .............. .. 4-37

Composition B. Summary of Semivolatile Organic Concentrations from Phase

C Fallout Soil Samples, Based on Area S~pled. .................. 4-40

Composition B. Summary of Semivolatile Organic Concentrations from Phase

C Fallout Soil Samples, Based on Area Sampled. .................. 4-41

Gas Emission Factors for Explosive-D Surface Detonations. .......... 4-42

Average Particulate Matter Concentrations Measured During Multiple

Aircraft Sampling Passes of Explosive-D Detonation Clouds. ......... 4-43

Volatile Organic Compound Emission Factors Measured for the Explosive-D

Detonation Tests. .......................................... 4-44

Maximum Semivolatile Organic Emission Factors Measured for Surface

Explosive D Detonations. .................................... 4-45 x

Table 4 = 29

Table 4.2.30

OBIOD Detonation Crater Dimension, Volume, and Weight of DisplJ~ed S\ltl for Explosive D

Explosive D: Summary of Semivolatile Organic Concentrations from

Pretest and Ejecta Soil Samples, Based on the Weight of Sample. '"

C

4-47

Table 4.2.31a Explosive D, Summary of Semivolatile Orgmic Concentrations from Phase C

Fallout Soil Samples, Based on Weight of Sample. .. .., 449

Table 4.2.31 b Explosive D, Summary of Semi volatile Organic Concentrations from Phase C

Fallout Soil Samples, Based on Weight of Sample. ... ... . . . . . . . .. 4-50

Table 4.2.32a Explosive D, Summary of Semivolatile Organic Concentrations from Phase C

Fallout Soil Samples, Based on Area Sampled. ..... ......... .. , 4-53

Table 4.2.32b Explosive D, Summary of Semivolatile Organic Concentrations from Phase C

Fallout Soil Samples, Based on Area Sampled. .................... 4-54

Table 4.2.33 Gas Emission Factors for RDX Surface Detonations. ............ 4-56

Table 4.2.34 Average Particulate Concentrations Measured During Multiple Aircraft

Sampling Passes of RDX Detonation Clouds. ..................... 4-57

Table 4.2.35 Volatile Organic Compound Emission Factors Measured for the RDX

Detonation Tests. ................................... .. . .. 4-57

Table 4.2.36 Maximum Semivolatile Organic Emission Factors Measured for Surface RDX

Detonations. .............................................. 4-59

Table 4.2.37 OB/OD Detonation Crater Dimension, Volume, and Weight of Displaced Soil for RDX. ................................................. 4-60

Table 4.2.38 RDX, Summary of Semivolatile Organic Concentrations from Phase C Pretest and Ejecta Soil Samples, Based on the Weight of Sample. ............ 4-61

Table 4.2.39a RDX, Summary of Semivolatile Organic Concentrations from Phase C Fallout

Soil Samples, Based on Weight of Sample. ....................... 4-63

Table 4.2.39b RDX, Summary of Semivolatile Organic Concentrations from Phase C Fallout

Soil Samples, Based on Weight of Sample. ....................... 4-64

Table 4.2.4Oa RDX, Summary of Semivolatile Organic Concentrations from Phase C Fallout

Soil Samples, Based on Area Sampled. .......................... 4-67

Table 4.2.4Ob RDX, Summary of Semivolatile Organic Concentrations from Phase C Fallout

Soil Samples, Based on Area Sampled. .......................... 4-68

Table 4.3.1 Gas and VOC Emission Factors for M-I Single Base Propellant. ......... 4-70 xi

Table 4.3.2

Table 4.3.3

Table 4.3.4

Table 4.3.5

Table 4.3.6

Table 4.3.7

Table 4.3.8

Table 4.3.9

Table 4.3.10

Table 4.3.11

Table 4.3.12

Table 4.3.13

Table 4.3.14

Table 4.3.15

Table 4.3.16

Table 4.3.17

Table 4.3.18

Table 4.3.19

Table 4.3.20

Semivolatile Organic Emission Factors for M-l Single Base Propellant. 4-72

Summary of Semivolatile Organic Concentrations from M-I Propellant Burn.

Spuner Pan Sampling. ............................. ......... . 4-73

Summary of Semi-volatile Analyte Concentrations from M-1 Propellant Burn, Fallout Pan Sampling. ...................................... 4-74

Summary of Semivolatile Analyte Concentrations from M-I Propellant Burn, Burn Pan Residue. . ........................................ , " 4-75

Gas and VOC Emission Factors for the M-6 Single Base Propellant. ..... 4-77

Semivolatile Organic Emission Factors for M-6 Single Base Propellants. . .. 4-79

Summary of Semivolatile Analyte Concentrations from M-6 Burn, Spuner Pan

Sampling. ................................................... 4-80

Summary of Semivolatile Analyte Concentrations from M-6 Burn, Fallout Pan

Sampling. . ............................... ,............... . 4-81

Summary of Semivolatile Analyte Concentrations From M-6 Burn, Burn Pan

Residue. ................................................ 4-82

Gas Emission Factors for Triple Base Propellants. ................. 4-84

Volatile Organic Compound Emission Factors for Triple-Base PrL~el1ant. 4-85

Gas Emission Factors for Phase B Manufacturing Residue Burns. ..... 4-88

Volatile Organic Compound Emission Factors, Phase B, Manufacturing

Residue Burns. ............................................ 4-89

Semivolatile Organic Emission Factors, Phase B, Manufacturing Residue

Burns .................................................... 4-90

Summary of Semivolatile Analyte Concentrations, Phase B, Manufacturing

Residue Burn, Sputter Pan Sampling. ........................... 4-91

Summary of Semivolatile Analyte Concentrations, Phase B, Manufacturing

Residue Burn, Fallout Pan Sampling ........................... " 4-92

Gas Emission Factors for the Phase C Manufacturing Residue Burns. " 4-94

Volatile Organic Compound Emission Factors for the Phase C Manufacturing

Residue Burns. ............................................ 4-95

Maximum Semivolatile Organic Emission Factors Measured for the Phase C

Manufacturing Residue Burns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 4-96 xii

Table 4.3.22

Table 4.3.23

Table 4.4.1

Table 4.4.2

Table 4.5.1

Table 5 1

Table 5.2

Table B.I

Table C-l

Table C-2a

Table C-2b

Table C-3a

Table C-3b

Table D-l

Table D-2

Table E-Ia

Table E-lb

Table E-lc

Table E-2a

Table E-2b

Manufacturing Residue Burn: Summary of Semivolatlle

Concentrations, Sputter Pan Sampling, Phase C. ........... . . 4-97

Manufacturing Residue Burn: Summary of Semivolatile Anal vte

Concentrations, Fallout Pan Sampling, Phase C. ................. 4-98

Manufacturing Residue Burn: Summary of Semivolatile Analyte

Concentrations, Burn Pan Residue, Phase C. . . . . . . .. . .... 4-99

Average Emission Factors for the Volatile and Semivolatile Analytes from the

Bang Box and Open-Air Detonation with TNT. . . . . . . . . . .. ...... ... 4-\ 00

Distribution of Carbon Emissions by Pollutant Category for BangBox and Open-

Air Surface and Suspended TNT Detonations. ......... ... ........ 4-102

Input Data and Downwind Ground Level Pollutant Concentrations for Selected

Cases Using the DPG Volume Source Dispersion Model. ............. 4-105

Schedule of Quality System Audits During OB/OD Program ...... .... 5-10

Schedule of EPA Quality Performance Audits During OB/OD Program. 5-11

OBIOD Phase B Soil Sample Data. .................. .......... . B-2

Example of Voltage Data from Gas Instruments During Sampling from Bag

Filled During M-l Propellant Burn, Mon, 6 Sep 90. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-4

Summary Instrument Voltage Data From All Calibrations, Test Flights, and

Background Flights Conducted on 6 Sep 90 ........................... C-5

Summary Instrument Voltage Data from All Calibrations, Test Flights, and

Background Flights Conducted on 6 Sep 90 ........................... C-6

Summary Gas Instrument Data That Includes Zero, Span, and Sample Data For

M-l Propellant Burn on 6 Sep 90. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ..... C-7

Summary Gas Instrument Data That Includes Zero, Span, and Sample Data For

M-l Propellant Burn on 6 Sep 90. ................... .... . ....... C-8

Filter Weight and Volume Data. ............................ . .... D-2

Total Background Corrected Carbon Content in Air Samples. . ........... D-3

Volatile Organic Compound Background Data for M-l Propellant . . . . .. E-3

Volatile Organic Compound Background Data for M-l Propellant. ........ E-4

Volatile Organic Compound Background Data for M-l Propellant

Volatile Organic Compound Test Data for M-l Propellant. .............. E-6

Volatile Organic Compound Test Data for M-l Propellant. .............. E-7 xiii

Table E-2c

Table F-l

Table F-:2

Table G.!

Table G.:2a

Table G.2b

Table G.2c

Table G.2d

Volatile Organic Compound Test Data for M-l Propellant. E-8

Semivolatile Target Analyte Loadings on Background and Test Filters for 6 Sep

90 M-l Propellant Test. ................................. F-4

Air Volume and Gas Concentration Data or 6 Sep 90 M-l Propellant Test. F-5

Sample Identification and Weight of Particles in Sample. ......... . G-2

Data of the Supercritical-Fluid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry and Gas

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry for the RDX Detonations. . G-3

Data of the Supercritical-Fluid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry and Gas

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry for the RDX Detonations. . .... G-4

Data of the Supercritical-Fluid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry and Gas

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry for the RDX Detonations. . ......... G-5

Data of the Supercritical-Fluid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry and Gas

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry for the RDX Detonations. . . G-6

XIV

Equation 3. I

Equation 4 I

Equati,m 4.2

Equation A.I

Equation A.2

Equation A.3

Equation C.1

Equation C.2

Equation E.l

Equation F-I

Equation F-2

LIST OF EQUATIOl\S

Gas Data Calculation

Calculation of Emission Factor

Volume of Crater

Pitot Tube Velocity and Pressure

Density Correction Factor.

Volumetric Flow rate.

Bag Gas Concentration Calculation.

Final Bag Gas Concentration Calculation

Emission Factor Calculation.

Emission Factor Calculation for Semivolatiles.

3-53

4-1

4·4

A-I

A-I

A·2

C-3

C-3

E·2

F-2

Calculation of Total Weighted Average Carbon Concentration. ...... F-3 xv

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A - FILTER SYSTEM FLOW MEASUREMENTS

APPENDIX B - SOIL AND FALLOUT SEMIVOLA TILE ORGANIC DATA

APPENDIX C - GAS SAMPLE DATA REDUCTION PROCEDURES

APPENDIX D - PARTICULATE MA ITER DATA REDUCTION

APPENDIX E - VOLA TILE ORGANIC COMPOUND DATA-REDUCTION

APPENDIX F - SEMIVOLA TILE ORGANIC DATA REDUCTION

APPENDIX G - SEMIVOLA TILE ORGANIC ASSAy

APPENDIX H - REFERENCES

APPENDIX I - ABBREVIATIONS

APPENDIX J - GLOSSARY ................................ .'

A-I

. B-1

C-I

D-I

.. E-I

. .. F-I

. G-l

H-I

" 1-1

J-1

APPENDIX K - OBIOD PROGRAM SYNOPSIS ........................... K-I

APPENDIX L - DISTRIBUTION ............................................. L-I

xvi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The following organizations and individuals are recognized for their contributions to the planning and conduct of Field Test Phases A, B, and C; data and sample collection and analysis; and preparation of plans and reports.

Mr. MacDonald Johnson, U.S. Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command

(AMCCOM) was Program Manager.

Mr. Dean Sevey, U.S. Army Annament, Munitions and Chemical Command served as

Chairman of the Management Steering Committee.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided technical guidance and support during both the test planning and execution phases of this test. Mr. Chester Oszman, Office of

Solid Waste, Washington, D.C., provided programmatic and technical guidance to the AMCCOM program manager and arranged for a series of technology-transfer seminars at all EPA regional headquarters for Federal and state environmental staffs, and industrial representatives. Dr. William

Mitchell, and the staff of the Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory

(AREAL), Research and Monitoring Evaluation Branch, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, provided planning guidance, quality assurance and quality-control support, and field and laboratory monitoring and audit support. The AREAL group also provided all the spik.ed samples for the air and soil performance audits. AREAL along with the Environmental Monitoring Systems

Laboratory, Los Vegas, Nevada 89199 provided input on soil spiking and sampling. Ms. Deborah

Sherer and Mr. Terry Brown, EPA Region vm, offered technical and regulatory advice at the test site and during participation in technical conferences.

The Utah Environmental Health Division facilitated the Open Burning/Open Detonation

(OB/OD) planning and permitting processes, and monitored field test execution. Mr. William

Sinclair and Mr. Richard Page represented the Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste, and Mr.

David Koptka represented the Bureau of Air Quality.

U.S. Anny Dugway Proving Ground (DPG) provided technical, materiel, administrative, and xvii budgetary support. Mr. Kenneth Jones and Mr. John Woffmden, the DPG project officers (PO), prepared the detailed test plans for Field Test Phases Band C and were responsible for the execution of all field testing respectively. Captain David Coxson served as test officer (TO) during

Phases A and B, and Captain Kevin Janes served as TO throughout Phase C. Mr. James Bowers provided meteorological and modeling advice throughout all field testing and participated in specialized-data requirements conferences. Captain Bernie Stansbury and Master Sergeant CG.

Eberhardt were responsible for the Escort and Disposal Unit placing all explosives and propellants and preparing them for detonation or burning. The Atmospheric Science Laboratory DPG detachment provided field meteorological support throughout field testing.

Mr. David Guzewich, Mr. Bruce Pringle, and Ms. Rosemary Austin U.S. Army Toxic and

Hazardous Materials Agency, provided valuable support for the EPA sponsored technology-transfer seminars and review of the OB/OD reports.

Mr. Dennis Wynne, Major Craig Myler, Mr. Martin Stutz, and Mr. Erik Hangeland U.S. Army

Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency, provided valuable support and technical input during the planning, execution, and review phases.

Mr. Curtis Bond and Mr. James Wood, U.S. Army Environmental Health Agency, assisted m determining sampling needs and procedures and relating data to environmental regulatory requirements.

Mr. Daniel LaFleur and Mr. Randy WaskuL U.S. Naval Ordnance Station, Indian Head, Maryland, provided technical advice and propellant samples and manufacturing residue for the open burning portions of this test for the Department of the Navy.

Consultants who assisted as key members of the Technical Steering Committee included Dr.

H. Smith Broadbent (chemistry and technical direction of the committee), Dr. Dale Richards

(statistics), Mr. Wayne Ursenbach (explosives), Dr. Nolan Mangleson (chemistry), Dr. Randy Seeker

(environmental issues), and Mr. Gene Start (air sampling).

Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company provided the personnel, supervised by Mr.

xviii

Lamont Law and Mr. James Stephens, to prepare test areas, fabricate test and sampling equipment, collect and preserve soil samples, and transfer soil samples to the assay laboratory.

Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), Albuquerque, New Mexico, provided the test facilities, technical support (including instrumentation and sampling), real-time gas and particulate sample analysis, and onsite administrative support. Mr. Wayne Einfeld served as the principal SNL investigator. Dr. Brian MokIer, MokIer Associates, Albuquerque, New Mexico, provided technical assistance during calibration and operation of real-time analyzers.

Alpine West Laboratories, Provo, Utah, provided supercritical fluid chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis of samples for determination of semivolatile organic compounds. Dr. Milton

Lee supervised preparation of filters, extraction, assay of extracts, and interpretation of results.

Dr. Rei Rasmussen, Oregon Graduate Institute of Science & Technology (formerly the

Oregon Graduate Center), Beaverton, Oregon, participated in planning and provided evacuated air sampling canisters and laboratory assay of sampler extracts for a large number of volatile organic compounds.

Environmental Labs, Incorporated, Provo, Utah, conducted quality assurance support. sample audit trail, and quality control monitoring activities under the direction of Dr. Gary Booth.

Lawrence-Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, California, performed X-ray fluorescence analysis of filter samples for the presence of metals.

Mr. Robert A. Cary, Sunset Laboratory, Forest Grove, Oregon, provided thermal analysis of filter samples for organic, elemental, and inorganic carbon.

Andrulis Research Corporation was responsible for test plan preparation, overall data analysis, and preparation of this final report. Data analysis and plan and report writing were accomplished by Mr. Cecil Eckard, Dr. Ray Bills, Dr. Kenneth Zahn, Mr. Douglass Bacon, Mr.

Duane Long. Mr. A. Lacy Hancock, and Mr. Joseph Kohlbeck. Mr. Ken Morrison provided technical editing. and Ms. Teresa Jensen and Ms. Cheri Martens provided administrative support.

xix

INTENTIONALLY BlANK xx

Disposition Instruction

Destroy this report when no longer needed. Do not return to the originator.

Destruction Notice

Destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of the document.

Trade Names Statement

The use of trade names in this document does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial hardware or software. This document may not be cited for purposes of advertisement.

~l j

ABSTRACf

The development, testing, and evaluation of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Office of Solid Waste/Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory) validated and accepted method for the characterization of emissions from open burning (OB) and open detonation (OD) thermal treatment operations is presented. The methodology utilizes an innovative carbon balance technique to calculate accurate emission factors (Efs) of combustion products in diffusing clouds and a combination of supercritical fluid chromatography (SFC), gas chromatography (GC), and mass spectrometry (MS) to detect and quantify potential air and soil contaminants. These methods were used to achieve maximum sensitivity/identification of volatiles and serruvolatile organic compounds. The SFC-MS was able to measure the thermally labile semivolatile organics such as RDX and

N-Nitrosodiphenylamine which are subject to breakdown into other compounds with GC-MS.

Confirmation of the methodology included closed-chamber tests to check out instrumentation, technology, and analytical procedures proposed for follow-on large- scale open air tests conducted on a fixed wing aircraft flying through the plume. Comparable EFs were obtained from the BangBox (BB) and open air tests for 1NT. Because of the similarity in analytes detected, EFs, and concentrations between 1NT, composition B, explosive D and RDX, it is reasonable to expect that BB can provide results that will be useful in permit applications.

Materials characterized during the OB/OD study included the explosives 1NT, RDX, Explosive D, and Composition B; propellant manufacturing residue; and single-, double-, triple-base, and composite types of propellant. The study and emerging results were briefed as part of a nation-wide EPA-sponsored seminar, on "Incineration and Alternative Treatment of Energetic Compounds to MininUze Effects to Air, Soil and Water Supplies". The seminar was presented to all EPA regions during the period of April-September 1990. The study has confirmed the methodology, technology, and procedures necessary to obtain a portion of data required to obtain permits under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA), subpart X. Such permitting is required for continuation of all Department of

Defense OB/OD operations after 8 November 1992. It is recommended that the methodology and procedures be used in a follow-on program to acquire characterization data on specific munitions, explosives, and propellants that are included in the DoD inventory.

xxi

The data obtained will be used to demonstrate that OBjOD units can be operated lfl a manner so as to meet the environmental performance standards.

xxii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Open burning (OB) and open detonation (OD), thermal treatment methods are currently the primary means of demilitarization employed by the Department of Defense (DoD) for the treatment of explosive residue, propellants, and munitions. Increasingly stringent requirements for environmental documentation of potential pollution/contamination from combustion products under such acts as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA), resulted in a critical need for technology development to be able to collect data to use as a basis for making informed decisions to determine: (1) the limitations/restrictions of OB/OD thermal treatment methods, (2) the development of alternative treatment methods for munitions/propellants for which OB/OD is not acceptable, and (3) developing and maintaining the most effective, economical, and environmentally safe means of accomplishing required demilitarization/ treatment.

The objective of this phase (I) of the OB/OD thermal emission study was to develop and demonstrate the utility of the technologies and methodologies needed to provide the data required for these critical decisions. (See Appendix K)

Under the sponsorship of the Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition within the DoD, a symposium was conducted in July 1988 (Reference 1) to develop planning concepts necessary to address the technical problems associated with an accurate environmental characterization of the

OB/OD processes. Authorities from governmental, academic, and private research organizations discussed sampling and sample analysis technologies, data analysis processes, test organization, and preparation of reports that would be acceptable to Federal and State environmental regulatory agencies. Expertise represented included field sampling. instrumentation, field and laboratory analyses, environmental documentation, atmospheric dispersion modeling and sampling, data management, combustion and explosive phenomenology, and quality assurance/quality control. A technical steering committee composed of recognized experts in their respective disciplines was formed under the leadership of the U.S. Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command

Program Manager.

xxiii

A list of volatile and semivolatile organic compounds and metals which are potentially hazardous contaminants if they were produced in either the soil or atmosphere from OB/OD processes was developed. A closed chamber (BangBox or BB) test was conducted at Sandia National Laboratories

(See Reference 2) to check out instrumentation, technology, methodology, and analytical procedures that were proposed for follow-on large scale field tests to be sampled by a fixed-wing aircraft

(FWAC) flying through OB/OD-generated plumes. Representatives of the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) (Office of Solid Waste at Washington DC, Region VIII at Denver, CO, and the Quality Assurance Division at Research Triangle Park, NC) served as members of the technical steering committee to provide technical guidance and quality assurance/quality control support during test planning and execution phases, and to review data collection and analytical procedures throughout the entire program. In addition, representatives from the Office of Solid and Hazardous Waste from the State of Utah participated throughout the entire planning and testing period. Real-time and near real-time particulate and gaseous concentration measurements were achieved. These data were correlated with the samples collected on filters and gaseous containers and held for subsequent laboratory analysis. A methodology of using carbon balance to calculate EF factors of combustion products in diffusing clouds was developed. Laboratory analyses of samples utilized innovative supercritical fluid chromatography (in addition to gas chromatography) and mass spectrometry, one of the techniques which attain the lowest possible detection limits for the selected semivolatile analytes.

The BB tests evaluated EF from the open detonation of 2,4,6 trinitrotoluene (TNT), and open burning of a double-base and a composite propellant. The tests confirmed the technologies, methodologies, and analytical procedures employed. These processes were further successfully proven during the conduct of large-scale tests during field tests Phases A, B, and C.

Emissions and residues from propellant manufacturing residue, single- and triple-base, and composite propellants; and TNT, explosive D, RDX and composition B were characterized during the field trials conducted at Dugway Proving Ground (DPG) between June 1989 and September

1990.

Emerging results of the current study were briefed as part of a nationwide EPA-sponsored seminar on "Incineration and Alternative Treatment of Energetic Compounds to Minimize Effects to Air, xxiv

Soil, and Water Supplies." The seminar was presented to all EPA regions within the continental

United States during the period of April to September 1990. The EPA representatives have accepted the methodology, technology, and procedures as an effective approach to obtain data required for permitting of DoD OBjOD thermal treatment operations.

Results of the study that have direct application to critical decisions on future planning and funding of the DOD demilitarization/treatment program are summarized below:

Comparable EFs were found during BB and field testing for TNT. Additional similarities of the

EF, combustion products, and combustion product concentration levels resulting from the OD of

TNT, composition B, explosive D, and RDX were observed during large-scale field testing. These two sets of relationships indicate that small-scale BB-type OD tests may be capable of providing the data needed for characterizing large-scale field OD thermal treatment operations and supporting permit applications.

The study also suggests that the bulk explosives and propellants examined during field testing may be treated in an " ,vironmentally safe manner by surface OBjOD methods. While these results are encouraging, site-specific testing is needed to provide data to support risk assessments. Only after these risk assessments are completed maya definitive statement be made concerning the effect (if any) OBjOD operations have on human health and the environment.

The advantages of conducting tests in properly designed chambers as opposed to field testing include:

( 1) Costs are reduced and can be more precisely controlled.

(2) The test environment can be standardized.

(3) Results may be obtained rapidly.

(4) Sampling may continue until sufficient quantities of targeted analytes obtained have been collected to meet or exceed minimum quantification level of the analytical methods being used.

xxv

(5) Secondary reactions and the decay rate of primary and secondary products of combustion can be studied.

(6) The number of samples necessary for calculating statistically valid EFs (and the uncertainty

(imprecision) associated with these EFs) can be acquired under repeatable and well controlled conditions. With this information, a very conservative EF such as the maximum probable EF

(upper 95% tolerance level) can be calculated.

(7) Testing delays caused by adverse weather conditions will be minimized.

(8) PEP materials requiring alternative treatment technologies can be rapidly identified.

For those materials that cannot be safely treated by other modes of treatment, the results obtained from chamber testing can be combined with dispersion modeling and health risk assessment information to determine the following:

(1) The type and quantities of pollutants that will be released to the environment from specific

PEP items.

(2) Identification of PEP materials for which OBjOD thermal treatment methods are environmentally acceptable.

(3) Those PEP materials that cannot be safely treated in an environmentally safe manner by

OBjOD thermal treatment methods, require the development of alternative technologies.

( 4) Effective focussing of alternative technologies development.

(5) The design and placement of the monitoring systems that will be required to ensure that the quantities of pollutants released to the environment from…