폭약 이 생태 계 에 미치 는 영향 ( Table 3 - 5 . Potential Effects of Explosive Chemicals and Compounds on Ecological Receptors ) Contaminant ( 폭약 ) Potential Toxicity and Ecological Effects ( 생태 계 독성 ) TNT 식용 가든 식물 , 수생식물 및 나무 들 은 TNT 가 오염 된 토양 분 을 빨 아 드린다 . 수컷 동물 들 이 TNT 농도 가 높 은 식물 을 섭취 했 을 때 생식계통 에 심각 한 영향 을 주 며 , 또한 기능 장애 , 전 율 , 경련 과 같 은 질환 도 TNT 중독 신호 임 . 야생 포유 동물 과 새 의 독성 기준치 는 ORNL ( 미 옼리지 국립 실험실 ) 과 CHPPM ( 미 육군 건강 촉진 예방 의약 센터 ) 에 기술 되 어 있 다 TNT can be taken up by plants from contaminated soil , including edible varieties of garden plants , aquatic and wetland plants and tree species . Male animals treated withhigh doses of TNT have developed serious reproductive system effects ; signs of acute toxicity to TNT include ataxia , tremors , and mild convulsions . Screening benchmarksof toxicity for mammalian and bird wildlife species have been developed by ORNL and CHPPM . RDX ( COMP - B , C ) ATSDR ( 독성 물질 및 질병 등록 국 ) 에서 는 RDX 폭약 이 물고기 나 사람 에게 해 롭 지 않 다고 결론 을 내렸 다 . 아이오 와 AAP 에서 실시 한 공공 건강 평가서 에서 농작물 은 RDX 폭약 을 생체 내 축적 하 지 않 으므로 인체 에 안 전하 다고 결론지 었 다 . 추가 로 미 육군 설비 실험 연구실 에서 는 여기 부터 === ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease RegistryATSDR studies conclude that RDX does not build up in fish or in people . Public health assessments conducted at the Iowa AAP concluded that crops are not bioaccumulating RDX and that they are safe for human consumption . In addition , studies at other Army facilities and laboratory studies suggest that deer and cattle do not bioaccumulate RDX in their tissue . However , research does conclude that RDX is taken up by plants from contaminated soils and could be a potential exposure route for herbivorous wildlife . Screening benchmarks of toxicity for mammalian and bird wildlife species have been developed by ORNL and CHPPM . It should be noted that a particular technology or combination of technologies will never have the highest effectiveness , best implementability , and lowest cost at every site . In other words , there is no “ " silver bullet ” " detection technology . It is also important to note that no existing technology or combination of existing technologies can guarantee that a site is completely UXO free . As discussed in Section 4 . 2 below and in Chapter 7 , a combination of information from a variety of sources ( including historical data , results of previous environmental data collection , and knowledge of field and terrain conditions ) will be used to make decisions about the detection system to be used , including the particular sensor ( s ) , the platform on which it is deployed , and data Synopsis of Objectives and Results of Jefferson Proving Ground Technology Demonstration Program , Phases I through IV Phase I , 1994 Objective : Evaluate existing and promising technologies for detecting and remediating UXO . Results : Limited detection and localization capabilities and inability to discriminate between ordnance and nonordnance . Average false alarm rate was 149 per hectare . Airborne platforms and ground penetrating radarsensors performed poorly ; combination electromagnetic induction and magnetometry sensors were the best performers , but also had modest probabilities of detection and very high false alarm rates . Phase II , 1995 Objective : Evaluate technologies effective for detecting , identifying , and remediating UXO , and measuring these results against the Phase I baseline . Results : Significant improvement in detection capabilities with commensurate increases in false alarms among better performing technologies . Continued inability to distinguish ordnance from nonordnance . Again , airborne platforms and ground penetrating radar sensors performed poorly ; combination electromagnetic induction and magnetometry sensors were the better performers , but continued to have very high false alarm rates . Phase III , 1996 Objective : Develop relevant performance data of technologies used in site - specific situations to search , detect , characterize , and excavate UXO . Four different range scenarios were used , which had typical groups of UXO . Results : Improvement in detection , but continued inability to distinguish ordnance from nonordnance . Localization performance for ground - based systems improved . Probability of detection is partially dependent on target size . False alarm rates ranged from 2 to 241 per hectare . Phase IV , 1998 Objectives : Demonstrate the capabilities of technology to discriminate between UXO and non - UXO ; establish discrimination performance baselines for sensors and systems ; make raw sensor data available to the public ; establish state of the art for predicting ordnance “ " type ” "; direct future R & D efforts . Results : Capability to distinguish between ordnance and nonordnance is developing . Five demonstrators showed a better than chance probability of successful discrimination . 5 . 0 CLEANUP TECHNOLOGIES 2 Ordnance and explosives ( OE ) , which may include buried munitions , UXO , or explosive soil , 3 not only pose explosive hazards but also present disposal challenges to personnel conducting range 4 clearance . Treatment technologies have been developed to destroy the explosive material , reduce 5 the amount of contaminated material at a site , remove the component of the waste that makes it 6 hazardous , or immobilize the contaminant within the waste . However , different forms of energetic 7 material require different technological approaches to their treatment and disposal . The types of 8 explosive hazards are divided into the following three categories : 9 • UXO 10 • Explosives - contaminated soils and debris 11 • Buried munitions 1213 The most commonly used technique for treating OE at CTT ranges is in - place open 14 detonation ( OD ) , also known as “ " blow - in - place . ”" In OD , the explosive materials in UXO are 15 detonated so that they no longer pose explosive hazards . However , OD is controversial because of 16 the concerns of the regulatory community and environmentalists that harmful emissions and residues 17 will contaminate air , soils , and groundwater . This chapter also addresses several alternative 18 treatments for OE . 19 Explosive residues found in soils and debris can pose hazards equal in magnitude to those 20 of the munitions themselves . The treatment of these wastes can be extremely difficult because they 21 may be prone to detonate when disturbed or exposed to friction or heat , depending on the nature and 22 extent of explosive contamination . However , treatments have been developed that allow explosives 23 contaminated soil and debris to be decontaminated to levels that make it safe to dispose of them or 24 leave them in place . 25 5 . 1 Treatment and Disposal of OE : An Overview Excavating UXOThere are three general techniques used to excavate subsurface UXO once it is detected : manual , mechanized , and remote control . The selection of a retrieval method or , frequently , a combination of retrieval methods , is based on the types and characteristics of UXO detected , their depth , and site - specific soil and geological conditions . All retrieval actions should be conducted in the presence of explosive ordnance disposal ( EOD ) personnel or qualified UXO technicians . The only equipment used in manual excavation are shovels and / or other digging tools to move the top layers of soil . Manual excavation is extremely labor - intensive and can be hazardous to workers , as there is no barrier protecting them from an accidental explosion . When using manual retrieval methods in heavily vegetated areas , the vegetation should be removed in order to increase surface visibility and reduce the possibilities of an accidental explosion . Also , additional UXO detection activities are usually performed when using these methods in order to confirm target removals and increase the probability of clearing all UXO in the area . Manual excavation methods are best suited for surface and near - surface UXO and are most effective when retrieving smaller UXO items , such as small arms munitions , grenades , and small - caliber artillery projectiles . UXO located in remote areas , areas with saturated soils , and areas with steep slopes and / or forest may be best suited for manual methods . The retrieval of larger , more hazardous UXO items at greater subsurface depths should be reserved for mechanized retrieval methods , as the excavation involved is much more labor - intensive and hazardous . Mechanized UXO retrieval methods involve the use of heavy construction equipment , such as excavators , bulldozers , and front - end loaders . Excavation below the groundwater table might require pumping equipment . Mechanized methods are generally faster and more efficient than manual retrieval methods , and they tend to be less hazardous than manual methods , as the machinery provides some separation between workers and UXO . Mechanized methods are best suited for excavation efforts where large UXO items are buried at significantsubsurface depths , such as 1 - 3 meters below ground surface . Mechanized methods work most efficiently in easyto - access areas with dry soils . Site preparation , such as vegetation removal and the construction or improvement of access roads , may be required as well . It should also be noted that large excavation efforts , usually performed by mechanized methods , can have a significant negative impact on the environment , as they can destroy soil structure and disrupt nutrient cycling . The effective use of remote - controlled mechanized methods generally requires site conditions similar to those required for mechanized excavation . The primary difference between the two methods is that remote - controlled systems are much safer because the operator of the system remains outside the hazardous area . Remotely controlled retrieval methods may involve the use of telerobotic and / or autonomous systems with navigation and position controls , typically a real - time digital global positioning system ( DGPS ) . DGPS signals , however , can be obstructed by trees and dense vegetation , limiting the accuracy and implementability of remote - controlled systems . Remote - controlled systems are still being developed and improved . Two remote - controlled systems weredemonstrated at the Jefferson Proving Ground Technology Demonstration Program , Phase III . The systems weregenerally adept at excavating large items ; however , they did not reduce the time or cost of UXO retrieval . Remotecontrolled systems are best suited for relatively flat , dry , easy - to - access grassy or unvegetated areas ; they tend to have problems with hard soil , rainy weather , rough terrain , and deep targets . 저작 자표 시비 영리 동일 조건