Re: Four sort of demil questions...

[Peter Strauss <pstrauss@igc.org>]

Peter,

I can only reply to your first question. A "potential" downside of this
technology (i.e., using a blast box) is one that can be corrected by
design. The design must overcompensate for all unexploded ordnance that
was potentially used at the site to ensure that the box itself doesn't
blow up. Since the design must "assume" the explosive capacity of the
ordnance, it should be based on pretty good records. (This may lead to
finding an answer to another question of yours.) Another potential
downside is the emmissions from the blast chamber. These are probably
treated by a thermal oxidizer. I don't know what the products of
combustion are for the explosive compounds, but I would make sure that
someone is certain before proceeding with detonation.

Peter Strauss

>
> Four questions:
> Near the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR), a number of us are in
>
> the process of becoming more organized and informed. We have heard from
> EPA and a blast chamber vendor (Donovan) about the upside of that
> technology, and ongoing efforts to bring a portable version of that
> system here to deal with cached munitions and other UXO. Can anyone shed
>
> any light on any down sides?
>