"AD

C, CHEMICAL

RESEARCH 8R D DEVELOPMENT US Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command

C E CENTER Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21010

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ARCSL-EA43004

PROGRAMMATIC LIFE CYCLE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTFOR SMOKE/OBSCURANTS

VOLUME 2 OF 5 VOLUMES

RED, WHITE, AND PLASTICIZED WHITE PHOSPHORUS

PREPARED BY f-, I

ROY L. YON EC 15 A683

RANDALL S. WENTSEL, Ph.D.JOHN M. BANE W

ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION A

FOR

PROJECT MANAGER FOR SMOKE/OBSCURANTS

JULY 1983

APPROVED FOH PUBLIC RELEASE, DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED.

83 12 13 025

Disclaimer

The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this report are those of the* aauthors and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position,

policy, or decision, unless so designated by other documentation.

F' Disposition

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

Department of the ArmyUS Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command

Chemical Research and Development CenterAberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010

Programmatic Life Cycle Environmental Assessmentfor

Smoke/Obscurants

Volume No. 2 of 5 Volumes

Red, White, and Plasticized White Phosphorus

July 1983

Prepared by: Reviewed by:

RID W V'ANIS D. CHASEEngineer Technician Environmental CoordinatorEnvironmental Technology Division Environmental Technology DivisionChemical Research and Development Center Chemical Research and Development Center

Prepared by: Reviewed by:

RANDALL S. WENTSEL,C. C. R ED bAGRESIEnvironmental Scientist Supervisory Environmental ScientistEnvironmental Technology Division Environmental Technology DivisionChemical Research and Development Center Chemical Research and Development Center

Prepared by: Re ;iewed by:

JOHN M. BANE CHOLAS J. MEGEle-Chemist Environmental CobrdinatorEnvironmental Technology Division ARDCChemical Research and Development Center

Reviewed for OPSEC: Approved by: &

KASAI MORTON S. BRISKERDeputy Project Manager olonel, CMProject Manager SmokeýObscurants Project Manager Smoke/ObscurantsAMCCOM AMCCOM

--AT.

S~DATEi2

UNCLASIPIED ,SEcU•Yv CLASSIFICATION OP THIS PAGE (WonI in0

RUPMR DOCUMENTATION PACE WWI~ COMPKThIONGO

1. RDPORT "NDMER .GOVT ACCESSIOLH 0 . RECIPIRMT'S CATALOG wGUMDKR

ARCSL-EA- 8 300 44. TITLE (Ad &h4tWN) S. TYPE OF REPORT & PEtIOD COVEREO

Programmatic Life Cycle Environmental Assessmentfor Smoke/Obscur'ants, Volume 2 - Red, White, and Environmental AssessmentPlasticized White Phosphorus 4. PzRFouMwNG ORO. REPORT NuM9ER

7. A1JTNOM~)S OYAYOVRN UBRs

Roy L. YonRandall S. Wentsel, Ph.D.John M. Bane _

9. PERFOMInNG ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS I0. PROGRAM EL.MENT. PR .JECT, TASKAREA & OKUNIT NUMES

Commander, Chemical Researct and Development CenterATTN: DR&IC-CLT-I (A)Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21010

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 11. Re"POT DATE

Commander, Chemical Research and Development Center July 1983ATTN: DRSMC-CLJ-IR (A) IS. WUNUER OF PAGES

Aberdeen Proving Ground. Maryland 21010 7114. MONITORING AG0NCY' NAND A ADOREA('II dIffI.,t ftg C•iayIbg Offloe) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of thuj tMPO)

UNCLASSIFIEDIS*.. OEC AASIICATION/DOWNORAOING

SC14 JaI[F AINLE NAIS. iISTRIUGLTION STATEMENT (of i•ja R9E"1)

Approved for public release, distribution unlimited.

17, DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thoo e eon.eed It S•ock 20, it d9l1lrent tal k rp)

7S. SCWPLEMEwNTAMY NOTES

I. KEY WORDS (Canifnu on erover aids Itf necessary al Identify by Woek n•mbr)

smoke/obscurants screening smokewhite phosphorus environmental fatered phosphorus toxicologyplasticized white phosphorus environmental effectswhite phosphorus felt pads

AYNR'ACT (CW ,,a n0W FMM ,4--N ne, MW ifr by 19ek MWb) Phosphorus type smoke/bscurants have been used extensively in the past and will continue to be used

widely in the future. Their prime function is to obstruct the visual spectrumand conceal the movement of friendly troops in the battlefield. The environ-mental impacts associated with the use of these compounds for testing and train-ing purposes have been reviewed and compiled in this report. Based on thetoxicological data gathered and the regulatory aspects associated with the useof these smoke/obscurants it was concluded that this portion of the smoke pro--gram will not. significantly affect the quality of the enviro~nment,

00 •" W3 sO EUNCLASSIFIED

I3 SECURITY CLASFICATION OF ThIS PAGE (When Data E;aOd

PREFACE

This is the second volume of a 5-volume series of documents published to provide ageneral Enviromental Assessment (EA) of the smoke/obscuration program. This volumeprovides pertinent information on red, white, and plasticized white phosphorus. Volume 2phosphorus smokes; Volume 3, IR smokes; Volume 4, HC smokes; and Volume 5,dye/colored smokes. Volume 2-5 will be published in sequence.

This document is not site or item-specific, however, it Is intended for use as a basicdocument in the preparation of life cycle environmental documentation, as well as amajor supportive reference to environmental documentation prepared for individual site-specific operations. Henceforth, as new studies are completed and/or othersmoke/obscurants, munitions, are proposed, supplemental information will be published.

The use of trade names in this report does not constitute an official endorsement orapproval of the use of such commerical hardware or software. This report may not becited for purposes of advertisement.

Reproduction of this document in whole or in part is prohibited except withpermission of the Commander, Chemical Research and Development Center, ATTN:DRSMC-CL3-IR (A), Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21010. However, the DefenseTechnical Information Center and the National Technical Information Service areauthorized to reproduce the document for United States Government purposes.

This report has been approved for release to the public.

• 4 •.." cc'd

Si tr iLut4.~ -t 2'

' I

Iii -i

A1 v:A a

BLANK

6

ui rnn- ses

CONTENTS

Page

1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ...............

It. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION ....................................... 11

A. History .................................................... It

B. Mode of Dissemination ....................................... 11

C. Types of Phosphorus Smokes and Smoke Munitions ............... 12

i. Chemistry of White Phosphorus ........................... 12

2. Chemistry of Red Phosphorus .......................... 16

3. Chemistry of Plasticized Red and White Phosphorus .......... 18

D. Effects of Climatic/Geological Conditions on DispersionClouds ...................................... ... .... .. ...... 19

E. Dissemination Models ........................................ 20

1. Modeling Summary ...................................... 20

2. Munition Modeling ..................................... 20

UIl. REGULATORY ASPECTS ........................................ 20

A. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ................... 20

B. Toxic Substance Control Act .................................. 21

C. Federal Regulations Governing Oil and Hazardous SubstanceRelease into the Environment ................................. 21

D. Clean Air Act ....................................... ...... 22

E. Hazardous Materials Transportation Regulation ................. 23

F. Other Acts ........................................... 24

IV. TOXICITY DATA ............................................... 24

A. Mammalian ............................................... 24

B. PAquatic ................................................ . 26

C. Wildlife ....................... ...................... ....... . 27

7

Page

V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ..................................... 27

A. Research and Development Phase ............................. 27

1. Alternatives Considered ............ ....................... 27

2. Environmental lmpacts at Activities and Alternatives ........ 27

3. Adverse Effects andlor Conflicts .......................... 30

4. Recommended Mitigation ................................. 30

B. Manufacturing/Production Phase ............................... 30

1. Alternatives Considered .................................. 30

2. Environmental Impacts of Activities Action ................. 30

3. Adverse Effects and/or Conflicts ............................. 31

4. Recommended Mitigation ................................ 31

C. Training and Deployment Phase . ... . ...... .. o .................... 31

1. Alternatives Considered ..................................... 31

2. Environmental Impacts of Activities and Alternatives ........ 34

3. Adverse Impacts and/or Conflicts ......................... 37

4. Recommended Mitigation ................................ 337

D. Transportation and Storage ................................... 37

I. Transportation .......................................... 37

2. Storage .................................................. 38E. Demtlitarization/D~isposal Phase ...... o.......t.*.*............ o38

VI. AGENCIES/PERSONS CONTACTED ............................... 39

VII. CONCLUSIONS ......................... . .............. 40

8

PageAPPENDICIES

P

A. Effects of Climatic/Geologic Conditions on Dispersion

Clouds .................................................... .45

B. Sample Smoke Model ................... ..... ...... 51

C. Toxicological Data on White and Red Phosphorus ................ 55

List of Tables Page

1. Representative Concentrations of Inorganic Contaminants

in aWhIte Phosphorus ... .................. 13

2. Characteristics of aWhite Phosphorus .......................... 14

3. Crystalline Variations of Red Phosphorus ....................... 17

4. Characteristics of Amorphous Red Phosphorus ..................... 19

5. Hazardous Substances Under Clean Water Act (EPA, 1979) ........... 22

6. Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards for Certain Chemicals ........ 22

7. Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials (Code of FederalRegulations 49, 172.101) ....................................... 25

8. Environmental Fate of Phosphorus Smokes and Their CombustionProducts................................................. . 29

9. Community Exposure Estimates .................................. 36C-I Inhalation Toxicity of Smoke from Burning White Phosphorus in

Humans ....................................................... 57

C-2 Pathologic Observations Made In Acute Toxicity Studies of WhitePhosphorus in Animals .......................................... 58

C-3 Chronic White Phosphorus Toxicity in Animals ..................... 59

C-4 Inhalation Toxicity of White Phosphorus Smoke in Animals AfterOne Hour Exposure ..................... .............. 60

C-5 Toxicity Studies of Mammals of White Phosphorus Felt .............. 61

C-6 Inhalation of Red Phosphorus Smokes to Mammals .................. 62

9

Page

C-7 Acute Toxicity Values' for Elemental Phosphorus UtilizingAquatic Invltebates and Fishes Determined During StaticBlousays (nominal concentrations) ................................ 63

C4 Acute Toxicity of Elemental Phosphorus to Fishes and AquaticInvertebrates During Dynamic oassys ............................ .64

List of Fitumres

1. Production Scenario for White Phosphorus Felt Munitions ........... 32

2. Production Scenario for RP-BR ................................. 33

3. T*Wnlng Scenario ............................................. 35

B-I Dosage Contour Half-Widths .................................... 53

B-2 M/10 Downwind Distance vs. Dosage ................................. 54

10

I. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

As a result of lessons learned from the 1973 Yom Kippur War, both the US ArmyTraining and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) and the US Army Materiel Development andReadiness Command (DARCOM) are placing considerable emphasis on the use of smokesand aerosols as screens and obscurants in combat operations. That war revealed anurgent need for the development of rapid visual screening techniques. Aerosols whichblock a visual portion of the spectrum, such as white phosphorus (WP) and red p.•osphorus(RP) smokes, are important items which we must have to screen and obscure ouroperations from the enemy.

UI. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION

A. History.

White phosphorus has been used as a smoke-producing material in munitionssince World War 1. WP reacts spontaneously with air when released from munitions. Aslong as oxygen is in contact with WP, the reaction will go to completion. WP forms adense cloud of white smoke consisting primarily of phosphorus oxides (P 2 0 5, P 4 0 6 ,P4 O,o, etc.), and these oxides react with water vapor to form various phosX"oric acids.Despite the excellence of WP as a smoke-producing material, extensive field use duringthe past revealed a serious inadequacy. Upon dissemination, the resultant smoke cloudforms a pillar and rises, rather than lingering near the surface. When munitionscontaining WiP are functioned, the phosphorus breaks up into minute particles which aredispersed over a large area. Subsequent rapid oxidation of the small particles generatesa large quantity of heat wi'ch directs the smoke upward. Different approaches weremade to correct this fault. In 1944 the problem was solved by plasticizing tne WIP toreduce the extent of particle shattering when the munitions were detonated. Smallgranules of WP were added to a viscous solution of synthetic rubber in a solvent whichcoated the WP with rubber and separated the granules. The newly developed materialwas called plasticized white phosphorus (PWP). Another development in WP smoke wasthe WP felt munition. A WP felt munition consists of a felt wedge that is impregnatedwith WPI. Upon deployment, a central burster charge separat:s the wedges.

Red phosphorus is also used by the military for smoke munitions. It is areddish solid that can be a finely powdered or a massively formed material. RP is muchless reactive with air than WP and is also very insoluble in water.

B. Mode of Dissemination.

There are five basic systems for disseminating phosphorus smoke: artillery,tank guns, mortars, grenades, and aerial smoke systems.

Artillery units can provide smoke support by firing WP-tilled munitions.Artillery smoke munitions are available for 105-mm and 155-mm howitzers. These

eapon systems can provide obscuration in hard to reach areas.

Tank guns have munitions available for producing smoke for spotting andmarking targets, signaling, or dispensing obscuring smoke on small areas. WP-filledmunitions are available for 75-mm, 90-mm, and 105-mm tank guns.

The 60-mm, 81-mm, and 4.2-inch mortars can deliver WP-filled munitions forhigh-volume smoke operations at midranges.

1|

Smoke grenades are used for signaling and for screening small areas. Theyare used by the individual soldier, who can throw them about 30 to 35 meters. Grenadesare also launched by rules and grenade launchers installed on tanks.

Aerial smoke munitions consist of bombs, bomblets, and rockets. Somerockets, for example, are used in helicopter air delivery systems to produce smokescreens and to mark targets. (Experimental spherical bomblets, disseminated fromaircraft mounted dispenceries are used in producing aerial smoke.) However, this modelwas not type-classified.

C. Types of Phosphorus Smokes and Smoke Munitions.

White phosphorus, (c a- and 8 -) red phosphorus, ( a- and 8 -) and blackphosphorus are considered to be the major modifications of elemental phosphorus. Whitephosphorus and red phosphorus have military value; black phosphorus does not ar. villreceive no further consideration here. Both red and white phosphorus can be plasti.:izedwith a styrene rubber for use in munitions. In this document, WP or P4 refers to whitephosphorus. Elemental phosphorus refers to white and red phosphorus.

1. Chemistry of White Phosphorus.

Two varieties ?f WP have been identified: o-white, the high temperatureform, and C-white phosphorus. B-White phosphorus is the common form of the elementproduced commercially and that which is used in WP munitions.

and WP is prepared commercially by roasting phosphate ores with silica(SiO 2) and coke in an electric furnace. The silica reacts with the ore to formphosphorus pentoxide which is then reduced to P4 by the coke. An overall approximationof the reaction is shown by the following equation:

2CA 3(PO4 )2 + 6Si0 2 + IOC = 6CASiO 3 + P4 t + 10 CO t

Arrows (+) indicate that phosphorus (PO) and carbon monoxide (CO) are emitted as gasesor vapors. The Pt vapor (freed of dust) is cooled and condensed under water to obtainhigh purity (99.9%) solid WP. WP prepared by this procedure contains arsenic (usuallxless than 0.02%) and trace amounts of oils (hydrocarbons) as major contaminants.Arsenic and other nonhydrocarbon impurities found in a representative sample of WP areshown in table 1.

Commercially prepared WP is a yellowish, waxy solid that is similar toparaffin in appearance and texture. Solid, liquid, and vapor states all contain similartetrahedral P molecules.5 WP melts to a straw-colored liquid, which may have areddish tinge Le to the presence of a small amount of red phosphorus in colloidal form.However, extremely pure WP has either a colorless or white appearance depending oncrystal size in the mass. The solubipiy 9 f WP in selected solvents and othercharacteristics are summarized in table 2 t, 8

Condensed phosphorus vapor and melted red and white phosphorus yieldliquids that are similar and that produce WP upon cooling and solidification. Liquidphosphorus is very susceptible to super cooling, and finely divided droplets (1.0 mm orless In diameter) have remained liquid to -71.3 0 C (113.4 degrees below the freezingpoint).

12

Table 1. Representative Concentrations of Inorganic Contaminants in a%-White Phosphorus.

Metal Qutuw (U sJIm)

Soron 713

Cadmium 0.1

Magnesium 3.6

Zinc .83

Silicon 377

Copper 1.22

Nickel 0.96

Manganese 0.51

Calcium 13.3

Molybdenum 0.09

Cobalt 0.57

Aluminum 20.0

Vanadium 4.2

Chromium 0.49

Iron 94

Lead 1.23

Barium 0.45

Sodium 9.5

Arsenic 14

13

., | •. .- I

Table 2. Characv-ristics of a -White Phosphorus

Parameter Characteristics

Appearance Colorless, white, or yellow waxy solidAtomic number 15Atomic symbol PAtomic weight (chemical) 30.975 (ref 1)Autoignition temperature 300 C (moist air); higher in dry airBoiling point 290.5 0 CConductivity NonconductingCritical pressure 12.2 atmospheresCritical temperature 69° 0 CCrystal structure Cubic (56 molecules of P4 per unit cell)Density 1.821 gm/cmHeat capacity 22.11 cailmole/degree (25 0 C); 22.73

cal/mole/degree (44.1 0C)Heat of combustion 710.2 t 1.0 kcal/mole PHeat of fusion 600 t 3 cal/mole P 4 at t17.26°KHeat of sublimation 13.4 kcal/mole PIndex of refraction 1.1244 (D line, 29.2°C)Melting point 44.10 CMolecular formula Pl3.90Molecular weightSolubility*

Absolute alcohol 2.5 gm/IBenzene 21.6 gm/ICarbon disulfide 1250 gm/IChloroform 25 gm/IEther 9.8 gm/Ihot water Slightly solubleWater 0.003 grn/IAlmond oil 10 gm/IMineral oil 1.43% (room temperature)Oil of turpentine 16.7 gm/1Olive oil 12.5 gm/I

Solubility in a -white phosphorusWater 3.6 mg HO/g P4 (25 - 450 C)Mercury 0.29 mg Rg/gP (2H0C)

Sublimation pressure 0.025 mm (20°CZ1 0.122 mm (400 C)Vapor pressure 1 mm Hg at 76.6uC

*Soluble at 230 C unless otherwise indicated.

14

WP is chemiluminescent. When it is exposed to compressed air or oxygenat subatmospheric pressure, it undergoes cool oxidation and emits a green glow. Thisglow phenomenon is responsible for the element being named phosphorus.

If WP is cooled to -76.9 0 C at I atmosplere of pressure, it undergoestransition from the cubic form (density: 1.828 gm/cm ) to the more dense 5 -whitephosphorus form which crystallizes in a hexagonal system (density: 1.88 gm/cm ). Thisshrinkage could produce voids in filled munitions subjected to the above cooling.

CL-White phosphorus is by far the most reactive form of elementalphosphorus. The reaction between P4 and oxygen (oxidation) to produce phosphorusoxides is WPs most important reaction. The reaction occurs spontaneously in air and willoxidize to completion as long as P Is exposed to oxygen. Six oxides of phosphorus(P O,PO,P 0, P OP 0s and P have been postulated in the literature; however,onlty plosphoric oide,~ 10 (wr]'tteri P 0) and phosphorus trioxide, P4 0O (written

phshou pnoid c) thi ( reatio srsosbef~e dens (whittenouP0 ) have well defined 'properties. "Ttie principal product obtained by burningppohorus in excess air or oxygen is phosphoric oxide, PO0 (commonly calledphosphorus pentoxideI P0. This reaction Is responsible for tio dense white cloudproduced when VfP munitions are functioned. Combustion of WP in a confined space canproduce an oxygen-deficient atmosphere incapable of supporting life. Incompletecombustion due to lack of oxygen may produce lower oxides, especially ophosphorustrioxide. Both P4010 and P4O6 are physiologically and chemically hazardous.7

P4 + 302 * P010

P4 + 302 . P406

Both of these acid anhydrides react readily with atmospheric moisture toproduce orthophosphoric acid and phosphorus acid, respectively. The P 4 01 0 molecule isone of the most powerful dehydrating agents known. It will even remove water frommaterials such as nitric and sulfuric acids and from certain organic molecules.

P40 1 0 + 6H20 • 4H3Po4

P406 + 6H 2 0 4 4H 3 PO3

WP reacts with carbon dioxide at elevated temperatures to producephosphorus pentoxide and carbon monoxide;, therefore CO 2 probably should not be used tofight WP fires.

P4 + lOGO2 P40 1 0 + loCO

WP is considered to be a dangerous explosion hazard because of itschemical reactivity with these cheqnical classes: alkaline hydroxides, halogens,chlorates, iodates, nitrates, and others.

Therefore, these materials would not be compatible for storage with WP. A reactionbetween WP and one of the above materials also may generate highly reactive and toxicproducts. For example, the reaction with a concentrated alkali such as potassiumhydroxide (KOH) producesJohosphine (PH 3) a highly toxic gas, and hydrogen gas (H2),which is highly explosive."'

P4 + 3KOH + 3H20 PH 3 + 3KH 2 PO2

P + 4KOH+ 41H20 2H2 + 4KH 2 O2

Oxidizing agents such as chlorine and sulfur also react with WP. Inaddition, WP combines directly with nITny or most metals to form metal phosphides, andmore than 200 have been identified. Some of these phosphides react with water oncontact to produce phosphine and/or diphosphine (P2H ), which are spontaneouslyflammable. These reactions could be significant for stored WP-filled munitions.

At ordinary temperatures and pressures, WP is practically insoluble andnonrkactive with water, and it is safely stored and transported under water. However, atelevated temperatures and pressures, WP reacts with wa~er (steam) to producephosphine, phosphorus acid, phosphorus pentoxide, and hydrogen.

If WP bricks stored under water undergo prolonged exposure toultraviolet radiation (sunlight), some of the WP is converted to nodules of amorphous redphosphorus on the surface. Heating WP in a closed system also converts it to amorphousred phosphorus.

2. Chemistry of Red Phosphorus.

Red phosphorus is prepared commercially by heating WP at 3500 - 4000 Cin a closed vessel for several hours. The structure of RP varies from an amorphous to acrystalline solid depending on the method of preparation and subsequent treatment. Itsproperties vary according to changes in structure; both vapor pressure andthermodynamic effects changed significantly when samples of RP prepared at differenttemperatures were compared. Commercial RP is primarily an amorphous solid; it isconverted to a different crystalline structure upon heating. Interelationships amongknown and susp cted allotropic modifications of RP are based on the tabulation by VanWazer (table 3).'

Commercial RP varies In color from pale yellowish-red to dark violet-red• depending primarily on crystal size. The most finely divided crystals tend to appearscarlet-red, while large crystals appear purple when viewed en masse. Surface impuritiesalso affect appearance.

The conversion of liquid WP to RP is "catalyzed" in the Initial stages bythe addition of iodine (0.01% to 0.1%) or sulfur (0.3% to 1.3%). Molecular structuresuggested for amorphous RP includes orderly polymeric chains and random networks of Patoms.

P P P P_

- 1

- i

3'

Table 3. Crystalline Variations of Red Phosphorus

Crystalline Heat ofVariation structure sublimation Preparation

kcallmore

Red I Amorphous 19.7 Commercial product

Red 2 Indefinite 24 Heat I to 4600 C(Hexagonal?)

Red 3 Indefinite - Heat 2 to 520°C(Hexagonal?)

Red 4 Tetragonal 28 Heat 3 to 400rC

Red 3 Triclinic 28.3 Not determined.

Red 6 Indefinite - Heat elemental phosphorusat 3000 C and 3000atmospheres pressure.

Brown Indefinite Decomposes Condense hot phosphorusvapor on a liquid-nitrogencold-finger.

17

Although RP is not nearly as reactive as WP, it undergoes many similarreactions and yields similar products. Under proper conditions, it will combine directlywith halogens, metals, and sulfur; however, it does not react with aqueous alkali.

Commercial RP is moderately unstable under normal ambientconditions. 6 It reacts slowly with atmospheric moisture and oxygen to produce phosphinegas and a mixture of acids. The reaction is exothermic, and the rate of reactionIncreases as temperature increases. Heat from this reaction might cause spontaneouscombustion if RP is stored in sufficiently large piles. The presence of smallconcentrations of copper, bismuth, silver, iron, and nickel accelerate RP oxidation rateconsiderably; cadmium and tin have a moderate effect while lead and chromium havelittle effect.2 Aluminum and zinc inhibit atmospheric oxidation. Hydrated aluminumoxide prepared in the presence of RP will inhibit RP's atmospheric oxidation.Commercial RP normally contains iron (approximately 250 ppm) and copper(approximately 30 ppm). Purification of RP to remove these oxidation acceleratorsgreatly increases its resistance to spontaneous combustion.

Since RP is less reactive than WP, reaction conditions are usually moresevere. For example, a higher temperature may be required, as in the reaction betweenRP and chlorine. However, RP is still sufficiently reactive so that an explosion mayresult upon contact with or Iriction between it and oxidizing agents such as chlorates,permanganates, or peroxides.

The polymeric nature of amorphous RP tends to reduce its solubility incommon solvents, decrease its vapor pressure, etc. relative to WP. Properties of RP aresummarized in table 4.

3. Chemistry of Plasticized Red and White Phosphorus

Both red and white phosphorus have been plasticized with a styrene-butadiene rubber (US Military Specification Mil-R-5: 209 (MU) September 11, 1964) foruse in munitions. In the plasticization process, finely divided particles of phosphorus arecoated with rubber. The rublpr is a hydrocarbon of high molecular weight and consists ofthe following repeating unit:"

H H H H

-C-C C-C-C-C-

H H H H H

The ring structure in the molecule is a phenyl group (C 6 H5 ).

The styrene-butadlene rubber itself is a very inert material; however, itis capable of supporting combustion when it is finely divided. It is very slowly degradedin the atmosphere through reaction with ozone or attack by microorpanip ms. Reactionproducts include lower molecular weight hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide.1

Upon exposure to the atmosphere or upon ignition, the white and red

phosphorus contained in these compositions are capable of undergoing the reactionsdescribed above and in sections III.A.l. and III.A.2, respectively.

IS

Table 4. Characteristics of Amorphous Red Phosphorus

Appearance Reddish-brown, amorphous solid

Autoignition temperature 2600 C

Boiling point 290.5 0 C

Critical pressure 43.1 atm

Critical temperature 589.50C

Density 2.34 g/cm3

Heat of combustion 703.2 + 0.5 kcal/mole

Heat of sublimation 19.7 kcal/mole

Melting point 589.5 C at 43.1 atm

Molecular formula Highly polmeric

Chemiluminescence None

Solubility in cold water Very slightly soluble

Sublimation temperature 416 0 C

Plasticized is referred to by some writers 3 as butyl rubber/redphosphorus. Similarly, others" refer to it as red phosphorus-butyl rubber (RP-BR). Autylrubber is actually a copojymer, such as lsobutylene(97%) and isoprene (3%) orIsobutylene and b~tjdiene.W The copolymer of butadiene aqr styrene |A known variouslyas styrene rubber," styrene-butadiene rubber,Q GRS rubber," Buna-S,L1 etc.

Plasticized white phosphorus has not been produced since 1965. Presentplans for the production of plasticized red phosphorus specify the use of butyl rubber.This material is environmentally more acceptable than butadiene-styrene rubber, sinceneither it nor its degradation products would contain the benzene ring structure (phenylgroup).

D. Effects of Climatic/Geologlc Conditions on Dispersion Clouds. 12 , 13

The effects of we.ther, particularly wind speed and direction, andterrain conditions must be considered in smoke screening operations. The movement ofsmoke depends upon the speed and direction of the wind. Wind direction and velocitydetermine where to deploy munitions for effective smoke operations. Other factors tobe considered are temperature, temperature gradient, humidity, precipitation, and cloudcover. Geological conditions also are critically important to the behavior of dispersionclouds. Details are presented in appendix A.

19

II

E. Dissemination Models.

I. Modeling Summary.

Computer model HAZRD2 14 has been developed to predict downwinddosage of aerosols resulting from the operation of one or more smoke-disseminationdevices. The program output is suitable for Pddressing questions of environmentalimpact and hazard to personnel. A data base of US Army smoke/obscurant systems isbuilt into the model with a provision for user override. Basic program outputs includetotal dosage as a function of downwind distance, dosage contour half-width dimensions,total areas for the dosages of interest, and a graphic display of dosage contours. Asample is shown in appendix B.

2. Munition Modeling.

Dispersion modeling is available for the following phosphorus munitions:

M2 4.2-inch WP/PWP mortarM328A! 4.2-inch WP/PWP mortarMilO 155-mm howitzer, WP projectile, (MJII E2)M57 SI-mm WP mortar, (M57AI)M375 SI-mm WP mortar, (MS75AZIM37)MK4 5-inch PWP navy rocketM60 105-mm howitzer, WP projectile, (M6 A2)M302 60-mm WP mortarLgAI RP Grenade, (12)M313 90-mm WP gurM416 105-mm WP gunM308 57-mm WP rocket, (M3 SAI)M311 75-mm WP rocket, (M311A1)CBU-S8 RP bombXM819 81-mm mortar, 28 RP wedgesXM825 155-mm WP/felt wedge projectileM1I6MI 155-mm howitzer, HC, (MI16BI)M259 2.75-inch WP wedge rocket

111. REGULATORY ASPECTS

A. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), Public Law(PL) 94-580, is the statuatory basis for federal regulation of solid and hazardous waste.The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated regulationsimplementing RCRA (40 CFR 260-264; 265-267) that identify and provide managementrequirements for the disposal of solid and hazardous wastes and promote resourceconservation and recovery. The regulations list approximately 400 hazardous chemicalwastes and 85 process wastes. If not specifically listed, a waste may be hazardous if itexhibits one of the following characteristics (as defined by the regulation): reactivity,corrosivlty, ignitability, or toxicity. State and local regulations may also impose morestringent requirements not present in the federal regulations.

The disposal of WP and RP is regulated as hazardous under RCRA becausethey are ignitable. However, red phosphorus butyl rubber does not display the

20

characteristics of a hazardous waste. Ph.osphorus munitions are not considered hazardouswastes until they are programmed for disposal. The demilitarization of WP and RPsmokes will form polyphosphoric acids, other less toxic compounds, or other hazardouswastes.

B. Toxic Substance Control Act.

The Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 (PL94-469) mainly addressesthe commercial manufacture, use, and distribution of chemical substances. The actauthorizes EPA to obtain toxicity testing before manufacture and the generation ofsufficient data on a chemical to predict any environmenal hazards associated with itsproduction or use. A manufacturer must notify EPA 90 days prior to commericalproduction of a new chemical substance.

The use of smoke munitions by the Army for testing and training should notbe effected by the TSCA because present smoke materials were developed before theTSCA became effective and were inventoried on the initial TSCA Inventory list (45 FR505444, 29 July S0).

C. Federal Regulations Governing Oil and Hazardous Substance Release into theEnvironment.

The policy and procedures for control of discharges of oil and hazardoussubstances into the environment are detailed in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act(FWPCA) (PL95-576) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (PL96-5l0). Section 311 of FWPCA describesrequirements for the handling of spills of oil and hazardous substances. A "spill" isdefined as the release or discharge of regulated pollutants not covered by permit bypumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, leaking or dumping. "Harmful quantities" of ahazardous substance are defined as any discharge that violates state water qualitystandards adopted by the state and approved by EPA pursuant to section 303 of FWPCA.

EPA has promulgated regulations under the FWPCA which identify andestablish reporting requirements for approximately 270 hazardous substances. Reportingrequirements are based on harmful quantities as defined by the regulation.

Each Army installation with the capability for a release of a reportablequantity of oil or hazardous substance to the environment is required pursuant to AR200-1 to prepare, maintain, and implement a Spill Prevention and CountermeasureControl (SPCC) Plan and an Installation Spill Contingency Plan (ISCP). These plansestablish procedures to prevent spills and to ensure prompt reporting, containment, andcleanup of spills. Procedures for spill events are outlined in Army Regulation 200-1, 15July 1982.

CERCLA also establishes reporting requirements for the release of hazardoussubstances into tne environment, including land, air, and water, when release occurs inamounts equal to or greater than the reportable quantity. "Hazardous substance" asdefined by CERCLA includes any substance designated or listed in the FWPCA, section307 and 311; RCRA, section 3001; CAA, section 112; and TSCA, section 7. Thereportable quantity for any hazardous substance is one pound, unless otherwise specifiedIn section 311 of the FWPCA.

21

Elemental phosphorus compounds (WP, RP) are the most stringently regulated

compounds with limits of one pound (table 5).

Table 5. Hazardous Substances Under Clean Water Act (EPA, 1979)53

Compound Reportable Quantity per 24-hour Period

phosphorus (elemental) 1 lb (.454 kg)phosphoric acid 5000 lb (2270 kg)

D. Clean Air Act.

The Clean Air Act (CAA), PL89-206 as amended, establishes NationalAmbient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the control of criteria air pollutants toprevent adverse effects to national air resources and to protect human health and theenvironment. Among criteria pollutant standards, those most likely to affect thesmoke/obscurants program are presented in table 6.

Table 6. Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards for Certain Chemicals(Code of Federal Regulations 1979)

Chemical National Standards

Particulate Matter (A) 75 micrograms per cubic meter annual geometricmean

(B) 260 micrograms per cubic meter - maximum 24 hourconcentration not to exceed more than once per year

Carbon Monoxide (A) 10 milligrams per cubic meter (9 ppm) - maximum 8hour concentration not to exceed more than once peryear

(B) 40 milligrams per cubic meter (35 ppm) maximum 1hour concentration not to exceed more than once peryear

22

Under the CAA, the country is divided into 247 air-quality control regions(AQCRs) to provide basic geographical units for air pollution control. States are requiredto prepare State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to implement and enforce criteria pollutantstandards in those regions. State standards are often more stringent than federalstandards, and vary from one AQCR to another. AQCR's that have attained the NAAQSfor a criteria pollutant are considered to be in "attainment" for that pollutant. AQCR'sin violation of NAAQS for a criteria pollutant are considered "non-attainment" for thatpollutant. Most standards s.oecify two types of limitations - long-term standards whichcannot be exceeded on an annual average and short-term exposures which cannot beexceeded for brief periods (e.g., 3 hours and/or 2' hours). By definition, whensmokes/obscurants are used in training and testing, the standards for certain criteriapollutants may be temporarily exceeded in the area of the test or training site. TheArmy environmental coordinator at the individual test or training site should beconsulted for coordinating the smoke exercises with the local regulatory agencies forpermits or variances as required.

E. Hazardous Materials Transportation Regulation.

1. Transportation.

The transportation or shipment of WP, RP, and PWP must comply withthe following federal regulations:

a. Department of transportation regulations.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) formulates theregulations for safe transportation of hazardous materials, poisonous substances,explosives, and other dangerous articles including phosphorus. These regulations arebinding upon all carriers engaged in the transport of the above mentioned materials andare in accordance with the best known practices for assuring safety in transit. Theseregulations also cover the packing, marking, handling, and loading of the hazardousmaterials to be transported or shipped. The modes of transportation covered by theregulation are surface, air, and water carriers.

(1) The DOT regulations for surface and air carriers governingthe safe transportation of hizardous materials, such as phosphorus, and explosiveparticlesy surface and air modes are in accordance with title CFR 49, parts 171-190,and 297.1

(2) All commercial water carriers transporting haftrdousmaterials are governed by DOT regulations as specified in CFR 46, parts 146-149.

b. Military regulations.

Explosives and other dangerous particles such as phosphorus,shipped or transported by the military services are subject to the applicable regulationsof the military service involved. Modes of transportation covered by the regulations areas follows:

23

- ' • -s-= I I II y.-tJr- ..

(1) Surface carriers.

AR 55-3•5 regulates the movement of military cargo withinthe US by commercial vehicles. AR 55.; 6 regulates the shipment of chemical agentsunder which WP, PWP, and RP are listed.1

(2) Air shipments.

Air shipments are regulated by TM 38-250 for safe transportof hazardous articles. 20 Ars

(3) Water shipments.

AR 55-228 regulates shipment and transport of dangtous andhazardous articles by water in conjunction with the US Coast Guard regulations.

c. Other regulations.

In addition to federal laws governing the transportation ofexplosives and hazardous materials, each state and some municipalities have laws orordinances regulating the transportation of hazardous articles within their jurisdiction.

White and red phosphorus are listed as hazardous materials by DOT(table 7).

F. Other Acts.

Regulations on endangered species or historic preservation are primarily sitespecific. The environmental quality coordinator for the installation of interest should becontacted.

DA, DARCOM, and TRADOC prohibit the open burning of WP. DARCOMpolicy is contained in para 4-4f, DARCOM Supplement I to AR 200-1. Any request forexception to this policy should be forwarded to the Commander, DARCOM, ATTN:DRCSG, with appropriate justification.

IV. TOXICITY DATA.

A. Mammalian.

1. White Phosphorus.

The oral ingestion of WP in humans can be lethal at levels of I mg/kg olbody weight. Amounts as low as 0.2 mg/kg of body weight can cause severe effects.Acute phosphorus toxicity has a two stage pattern. The Initial stage is gastrointestinalIrritation with nausea and vomiting. In the second stage the symptoms take on a moresevere form. Death can result from cardiovascular collapse.

24

rig I I

!I

Cd#

25

-4J

Human inhalation of smole from burning WP has produced throatirritation at levels between 199-500 mg/m . Tably C-1 summarizes the inhalation dataon humans. A threshold limit value of 0.1 mg/gn' has been e tablished for WP. Skincontact can produce a severe bum and destroy underlying tissue.'

No toxicity data for humans are available on RP-Bk or Pv/P.3 However,their toxicities should not be greater than that of WP.

3A literature review, presented a good summary of the toxicity of WP in

mammals. Tables which summarize toxic effects of *P and RP are presented inappendix C. In tabile C-2 the acute toxicological eflects of WP are listed. Oral LL)50values for mice and rats were 4.82 and 3.03 mg/kg respectively. Other sublethal acuteeffects are also presented. The eftects on mammals of chronic exposure to WP are intable C-3. Reductions in weight gain and bone growth were observed in rats. Kenal anohepatic tissue degeneration were also noted.

Data on the inhalation toxicily of WIP, in mammals is presented in tableC-4. At smoke concentrations of 110 mg/nm for one hour, 4 of 20 mice died within 10days after exposure.

Toxicity stllies specific for the combustion of WP felt are presented intable C-5. Brown et al., ooserved no lethal effects from WP tel smoke on ratsexposed for 15 minute's a-day for 65 days to a concentration of 600 mg/mr.

2. Red Phosphorus.

Data on the inhalation tlicity of RP and RP-BR smokes in mammals ispresented in table C-6. Weimer et al., 3 observed no cumulative toxi effects in ratsexposed to approximately 1300 mng•i'jn 3 for 60 days. Weimer et I.,2reported LCt5Ofor rats exposed to 222,715 mg min/m of RP-BR. Henry et al., reported no lethaleffects when rats were given 6810 mg/kg oral does of red phosphorus. Only I death in 10was observed when rats were given oral doses at 10,000 mg/kg of red phosphorus.

a. Aquatic.

The aquatic toxicity of WP, P4 , has been difficult to quantitate•due to thereactivity o the chemical. The water solubility of P4 is 3.3 mg/.',1 Lai andRosenblatt determined the half-life of WP in water to oe between 3.5 and 6 hours.Their data indicate that the rate is dependent on dissolved oxygen, temperatuce,, andpH. Another sqly found the half-life of WP in water to be 0.85 hours at 300 •."b Laiand Rosenblatt" found that the predominant oxidation products for P4 in water wereH PO2 and H PO The most recen and most reliable study on the aquatic toxicity ofa was conduct, ty Bentley et al. who detailed the analyti, methods and qualihcontrol procedures. For a detailed review, see Burrows et al.% or Sullivan et al.' 7

Tables C-7 and C-S present the acute toxicity of WP in several aquatic organisms fromstatic water and flowing water toxicity tests. The most sensitive species was the bluegiilsunfish (Lepomis macrochirus), with a 192-hour LC50 of 0.6 lig/L (ppb) in a flow-throughtest.

Bentley et al.,27 also conducted chronic, 241-day tests on fathead minnows(Pimephales 'promenel-. They found that the eggs spawned from fish exposed to 0.40and 0.71 Vg/L of WP did not hatch. Based on the effels of WP on hAtchaoility at 0.4

ig/L and applying a safety factor of 0.1, Bentley et al., recommended a water qualitycriterion for WP of 0.04 uj g/L to protect freshwater aquatic life.

26

Zitko et al.,30 evaluated the toxicity of WP in marine organisms. They foundthat the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) was the most sensitive species tested with a static96-hour LC30 of 2.3 6L. -

When WP and RP smokes are burned, they form variousfhosphorus oxides.5

While phosphorus oxides have a low toxicity in aquatic organisms, elevated levels inaquatic systems can cause algal blooms and increase the eutrophication of the systems.

C. Wildlife.

ly primary contaminants from phosphorus smokes are oxidized phosphoruscompounds.Bs These reacted compounds have a low toxicity and wil be rapidlycomplexed by cations in the soil.5

Coburn et al., 3 1 reported on the acute oral toxicity of WP in black ducks andmallards. A single dose of 3 mg/kg of WP was lethal to ali ducks in 6 to 33 hours. Themammzs!ian toxicity data indicated thatjprolonged exposure of widdlife to levels of WPsmoke above approximately 1000 mg/mr may cause sublethal effects. Animals couldreceive lethal doses of elemental phosphorus if they ingested unreacted smokematerials.

V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

A. Research and Oeveiopment Phase.

Army R&D is subdivided into two phases: L)emonstration/Vnlidation and FullScale Development. During the demonstration/validation phase, smoke generation testsare generally conducted at installations throughout the US and ab oad that are selectedspecifically for their climate and test site (e.g., suitable location, personnel, remoteness,etc.). Site-specific environmental assessments are maintained that describe theenvironmental setting, including local flora and fauna, and any other features and uses ofthese installations, such as testing facilities. Decisions regarding full-scale developmentdepend in large part upon the results of the demonstration/validation testing.

1. Alternatives Considered.

No action

Continuation of current R&D on WP, PWP, WP-felt, KP, and RP-i3R

2. Environmental Impacts at Activities and Alternatives.

a. No action.

If the R&D effort for phosphorus munitions was stopped, the Armywould have one existing type classified munition. Safer and more effective phosphorusmunitions would not De developed.

b. Continuation of current R&D of phosphorus munitions.

The research on phosphorus munitions will involve laboratory andfield testing of WP and RP formulations. Impacts on the air, soil systems, aquaticsystems, and solid-waste generation must be considered when conducting the tests.

27

.. •r, ni• •p~~m-• =• .• •m•L•F;.p.,•• pNi

Impacis associated with the use of these formulations in conjunction with thedevelopment of hardware are addressed generically in this programmatic environmentalassessment. S-ecific impacts resulting from the development of a particular smokemunition will be addressed in more detail in the Life Cycle Environmental Assessmentfor that item.

(1) Air.

P4 will spontaneously oxidize when it is exposed to air. Katzet al.,15 conducted laboratory studies to determine the comnbustion products of WP?-feltVerges. They found the major combustion products to be polyphosphoric acids (H3 P0 4 ,H4P20 7, etc.) Katz et al., also attempted to determine the amount of unreactedphosohorus (P ) in the smoke cloud; however, poor experimental design and widely variedresults made t4e data of limited value. In addition, they found that only 40 of the #1PIn the felt wedge burned during the experiments. They observed an oxidized crust on thepads, but had no data on the amounts of oxidized phosphorus and unreacted WP remainingin the pads.

A summary of the environmental fate of phosphorusmunitions and their combustion products are presented in table 8.

(2) Soil systems.

The phosphorus combustion products which are deposited onsoils will be rapidly complexed and inmobilized by metals such as aluminum, absorbed bysoil particles, or absorbed by biota.• Any toxicity of the metal phosphates will dependon the metal Other than burning vegetation in a localized area, no data on toxic effectsof unreacted P4 on soil systems are available.

(3) Aquatic systems.

Aquatic toxicity data on WP are presented in section IV.fUpon release into aquatic systems, soluble P4 is rapidly oxidized. Lai and Kosenblattfound that P had a half-life in water between 3.5 to 6 hours and that P• was convertedprimarily to HPO2 and H 3PO 3. Phosphorus oxides In water will be organically bound (bygreater ttlan 90%i. Eventually the phosphorus compounds are concentrated in thesediment and organically bound or complexed with metals such as aluminum or calcium.

Prolonged exposure to elevated phosphorus levels in aquaticsystems will cause adverse effects. Phosphoric acids may lower water pH in systemswith low water hardness. A pH below 3 can be toxic to aquatic organisms. The elevatedlevel of phosphorus compounds in aquatic systems will cause algal blooms and increasedvegetative growth. This occurs because phosphorus is usually the limiting nutrient inaquatic systems. The increased nutrient supply to an aquatic system, or eutrophicationof the system, will cause detrimental effects on the fish population. Fish kills can occurover the winter due to low oxygen levels. The fish kills occur because themicroorganisms utilize the available oxygen in the system Dy degrading the increasedamount of organic matter.

28

016f nlii

:~ +!

I i<i 1111

+ +++ 0 + "+i I !ii ii

29

(4) Solid waste.

Unburned elemental phosphorus and oxidized phosphorus willremain on the surface of the metal parts and in the felt wedges after the munition hasfunctioned. This material could be a contact hazard to personnel or wildlife.

3. Adverse Effects and/or Conflicts.

Research and development of phosphorus munitions, wnen conducted inthe field, will have several short term (less than 1 month) environmental effects. Whenthe munitions are ourned, vegetation in the test area will also be burned. However, thevegetation should be able to grow back. %VUdlife may be irritated by the smoke clouditself. Also, WP is toxic to aquatic organisms at levels lower then I pg/L (ppo).Localized fish kills could occur if fragments containing WP fall into an aquatic system.Testing of munitions containing WP should be conducted to minimize the potential forcontamination of a water body. RP is not as reactive as %/P and will present much lessdanger to aquatic organisms.

4. Recommended Mitigation.

Information is need in the following areas

a. Identification of combustion products of RP

b. Measurement of deposition rates of combustion products

c. Measurement of deposition of P4 onto soil

d. Measurement of the amount of unreacted P 4 in felt wedges

e. Measurement of how long unreacted P4 remains in the wedges

f. Measurement of how long P4 remains in the smoke cloud

g. Monitoring test areas for soil errosion control, if extensive areas ofvegetation are burned

B. Manufacturina/Production Phase.

1. Alternatives Considered

a. Current production methods

b. No action

2. environmental Impacts of Activities Action.

a. Impacts on environment.

WP is produced by Monsanto Chemical Corp., and RP-BR iscurrently produced in Great Britain. The phosphorus smoke munitions are formulated andloaded at Pine Bluff Arsenal (PBA). Detailed descriptions of the impacts of PBA go tieenvironment are presented in the Pine Bluff Environmental Assessment Statement,"- andby Berkowitz et al., and Pearson et al.,.3

30

Flow diagrams illustrating the treatments for air, water, and solidwastes generated from the production of WP and RP-BR munitions at PBA are presentedIn figures 1 and 2. The waste recovery systems and waste treatments are identified forWP. Wastewater and solid wastes from the production of RP-BR munitions were notIdentified.

b. No action.

Not producing phosphorus munitions would reckke the release ofphosphorus In the area around PSA; however, the needs of the military for such munitionswould not be met.

3. Adverse Effects la!/or Conflicts.

a. Effects.

The formulation and loading of WP and RP-BR munitions areregulated by National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Thesepermits set limits for the release of compounds In the effluents from PBA. The limitsestablished by the FederW Government are judged to have limited adverse environmentaleffects. Pearson et al.,-' examined the Impact of phossy water (wastewater streams) onreceiving water 'f•ie the NPDE.S permits became fully effective. Fish klUs andexcessive phosphorus levels had been observed in receiving waters.

b. No action.

No action would result in no adverse environmental effects.

4. Recommended Mitilation.

The Army Is currently moving toward the increased use of RPmunitions. When VP munitions are required, a dry fill process has been developed whichis safer for loading personnel and lessens the impact on the environment by greatlyreducing the amount of phosphorus-contaminated wastewater.

PBA operations are governed by federal and state air and water qualityregulations; therefore, no significnt Impact should occur from the operation of thisfacility.

C. Training and Deployment Phase.

I. Alternatives Considered.

a. Inside testing

b. Continuation of cutrent training and deployment phase

c. No action

i

311

I ___ ___

II•

32

• • • -• - • • . -i r - '••• • -l Jj••- . • - t,• - • • . . . .• • v_ _._ .. .:1 . .. . . • . .•x•

Sj 96

a

4-44

04 44

eas

~ 0 q.4~33

2. Environmental Impacts of Activities and Alternatives.

a. Inside testina.

Testing inside would not give personnel a realistic trainingexercise. However, in projects concerning only equipment operation, inside testing couldbe considered.

b. Continuation of current training and deployment phase.

The environmental impact of phosphorus munitions during trainingIncludes the impacts outlines in section V.A.2.b.

Training and deployment with phosphorus munitions will typicallyinvolve a greater amount of material than does research field testing. Environmentalimpacts for a "wors,-case" deployment of WP-Felt smoke during training was calculatedby Berkowitz et al.,' 4 They made the following assumptions:

Training site area = 10,000 m 2 (2.47 acres)*

Frequency of use I hr/week, 52 weeks/yr

Deployment criteria: Maintain obscuring smoke concentrations(0.288 mg/m ) for I hr, neutral stability in a 3 m/s wind.

Deployment frequency: 1 shell/50 sec or 72 shells for the 1-hour

training session

Shell fill weight: 5,980 gm of smoke formulation (PO)

Deployment results in uniform distribution over the training area.

Residual on the ground = 1% of the formulation

With these assumptions, a residual of 0.43 gm/m 2 of unreacted P4is deposited on the surface. When this material oxidizes, some vegetation will be burned;however, other than that the predicted effects on the soil, as described in sec V.A, willbe relatively short-term and reversible.

If the P4 falls into a water body, Berkowitz et al., 3 4 estimated thatwater concentrations of 0.43 gm/m or mg/L of P4 will occur. Thies levels are 0^,000times higher than those estimated as safe for aquatic organisms2 7 These data emphasizethe need for restricting the tests of WP munitions rnar water bodies.

Concentrations of P20 in the air were also estimated (table 9).Downwind distances of 5000 m were judged to be safe for humans exposure.

It should be stressed that these calculations were estimated oyBerkowitz &1...34 Little if any field data went into the calculations. The study byKatz et al., determined that 60% of the phosphorus remained in the felt wedge. Theamount oTP 4 remaining in the wedge has not been measured.

*See figure 3

34

Trainin; -Area

__Airborne Dispersaland ueposition

10,00002

2.47 Acres

1003

Deployment

72 shells/hour Waterborne Dispersalof Residual

loom

5,980g/shell Smoke formulation fill weight

430,560g/hr Hourly deployment

4,306S 1% residual

0.43 $/m 2 Uniform Distribution

0.43 S/a3 Dilution in lm3 R20

22.4 g/m2 Annual Dose (52 hours)

Figure 3. Training Scenario 34

35

Table 9. Community Exposure Estimates34

Distance downwind Maximumfrom deployment cocentratlons (P 200) Health effects

100) m 1.46 x 105 lntoierablq concentration:100 Us/m.

Minimum harassing concentra-tion, rVasks mandatory = 7 x i05U g/m

200 m 6.95 x 104

300 m 4.36 x 10i Lowest toolc concentration z

400 m 3.06 x 104

500 m 2.26 x 10#

600 m 1.84 x 104

700 m 1.51 x 104

$00 m 1.26 x 104

900 m 1.10 x 104

1000 m 9.42 x 103

5000 m 9.63 x 102 Photporic acid TLVY 103lAS/rn

3'

c. No action.

If testing or training with phosphorus munitions is not performed,the phosphorus load on soils, in the air, and in local water bodies will be reduced.However, military personnel will not be familiar with the uses of phosphorus smokemunitions.

3. Adverse Impacts and/or Conflicts.

a. Inside testin.!

If air emissions were controlled, testing inside would not have asignificant environmental impact. However, inside training would not be practical formost operations.

b. Continuation of current training and deployment phase.

Training with phosphorus munitions produces several adverseeffects. Unreacted elemental phosphorus will Initially be present in the area on metaldebris from the munition and on the soil surface of. the test area. WP Is hazardous andwill burn personnel or wildlife passing through the area If they come in contact with It.Terrestrial vegetation will be burned, creating areas of bare soil that will result in soilerosion. Runoff from the test area will contain elevated levels of phosphorus oxides thatcould cause unwanted nutrient enrichment In the receiving water bodies (see secV.A.2.b). If training is conducted in an area containing a natural water body, fish killscould result from WP contamination.

4. Recommended Mitigation.

The adverse effects from training could be alleviated by the followingareas, which are outlined in section V.A.2.b.(4).

Grasses and shrubs that have been burned will recolonize in most areas.However, a desert or arctic environment may require more time for recolonization.Burning of large land areas or larger vegetation should be avoided.

Soil erosion may result if vegetation is burned over a large area. Thedegree of erosion will depend on terrain, soil type, and weather. Immediate action shouldbe taken to control erosion if it occurs.

D. Transportation and Storage.

I. Transportation.

During the transport of WP or RP, accidental release can occur. RP isrelatively stable but will Ignite with heat or friction. It will not ignite spontaneously inair. The recommended procedure for RP spill Is to cover with an Inert filler (sand, clay,etc.) and sweep up. WP is spontaneously flammable upon contact with air; however, andafter extinguishing with fog rozzles, re-ignition should be prevented by covering withwet sand or foam. After a fire, the residual elemental phosphorus should be treated asthrough It contained WIP. Any water used on the fire is probably contaminated with WPIand should not be allowed to drain into a water body.

37

2. Storage.

a. Chemical groups,

For purposes of storing and handling chemical agents are dividedinto four groups. The definition and description and each group is based on the action ofthe agent and the degree and type of protection required. Phosphorus munitions are inGroup C.

Group C includes materials which are spontaneously combustible(WP and PWP) and for which special fire-fighting techniques and materials are required.Personnel protection must protect against fire and heat. Toxic fumes are a minimalhazard.

At present WP and PWP are the only two chemical fillers in thisgroup. WP filled munitions become liquid at approximately 1 100 F. This low meltingpoint sometimes causes WP to liquify in stored munitions. If WP-filled munitions are notstored on base in an upright position, when the filler solidifies the center of gravity willshift and produce an erratic trajectory when fired.

b. Quantity distance.

Quantity distance requirements foj safe storage of WP munitionsare class 1.2 or 1.3 as defined in DARCOM Reg 38-o100.6

c. Storage compatibility group.

Munitions filled with WP are listed as Group K in DARCOMRegulation 385-100. Storage incompatibilities are listed in section IC.

d. Impacts of storage.

Spillage and leaking phosphorus munitions in storage are handled inaccordance with DARCOM Regulation 383-100 and the Installation's Standing OperatingProcedure (SOP).

E. Demilitarization/Disposal Phase.

Demilitarization and disposal operations of WP, PWP, and RP munitions willbe in Ifcordance with criteria established in the DOD demilitarization/disposalmanual, and by Demilitarization and Technology Branch, Defense AmmunitionDirectorate, ARRCOM, Rock Island, Illinois.*

PBA has on-line demilitarization facilities consisting of a download facility, aWP demilitarization facility, an incinerator cluster and support facilities. TheIncinerator cluster consists of an incinerator with a fluldized bed, a rotary kiln, a chaingrate furnace, an afterburner, scrubbers, and related fixtures. The PBA DemilitarizationFacilities are designed to handle demilitarization of Army chemicals and disposal ofcontaminated solid-waste munition parts in an environmentally acceptable manner.* Theash after demilitarization is not classified as a hazardous waste.

*3akabowski, J. Personnel Communication, 11 February, 1983.

"38

ARRCOM will soon have on-line a relocatable white phosphorus munitionsdemil plant for the recovery of white phosphorus as phosphoric acid in anenvironmentally acceptable manner.

VI. AGENCIES/PERSONS CONTACTED

A. Chemical Systems Laboratory. Aberdeen Provirg Ground, MD 21010.

1. Mr. 3. E. Norton, DRDAR-CLN, Munitions Division2. Mr. R. 0. Pennsyle, DRDAR-CLY-A, System Development Division

B. Tralning and Doctrine Command Headquarters, Fort Monroe, VA 23651.

1. Mr. T. E. Newkirk, HQ TRADOC, DESENGR2. LTC 3. L. Young, HQ TRADOC, ATEN-FN3. Mr. S. Wolford, THREAT, Dir, ATEN-FN

C. Training and Doctrine Command Fort McClellan. NBC Defense School,Alabama.

1. Mr. Ray Clark, USACMLS, DCD2. Mr. E. W. Davis, USACMLS, DCD3. Capt M. Ward, USACMLS, DCD4. Capt H. E. Sutton, USACMLS, DOTD

D. US Army Forces Command, Fort McPherson, Georgia.

Mr. James Fletcher, AFEN-MSE

E. US Army Test and Evaluation.

1. US Army Dugway Proving Ground, Utah.

M. Dale King, Environment and Life, Science Laboratory, Material TestDivision

2. White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.

M. A. 3ohnson, Environmental Coordinator

39

VII. CONCLUSIONS

The impact of the use of phosphorus munitions on the environment is typicallyshort term and reversible. The reasonable use of phosphorus munitons during research ortraining should not have any long term effects. The loading of phosphorus munitions atPBA is regulated by various safety and environmental laws and permits. If PBA operateswithin stated limits, the environmental effects from the loading of phosphorus inunitonsshould be minimal. Phosphorus munitions are hazardous materials are strictly regulatedduring transportation and disposal. If regulations are followed, the environmental impactof the munitions during these phases of use should not be signficant.

The amount of phosphorus released into the environment oy the Army is smallwhen compared to its release from detergents and fertilizers. The environmentalreactions and products from phosphorus munitions are known (table 8). the phospnatesresulting from the munitions will act as nutrients to the receiving systems;

The information generated from this environmental assessment supports a Findingof No Significant Impact (FNSI). A statement o No Significant Impact with mitigationwill be published in accordance with Title 40, Code of Federal kegulationls, part1508.13. Information on phosphorus munitions is needed in the following areas:

a. identification of combustion products of RP

b. measurement of deposition rates of combustion products

c. measurement of the deposition of P4 onto soil

d. measurement of the amount of unreacted P4 in felt wedges

e. measurement of the half-life of unreacted P4 in the wedges

f. measurement of the half-life of P4 in the smoke cloud

g. monitoring test areas for soil errosion control, if extensive areas ofvegetation are burned

h. toxicology and environmental fate of RP-BR

These data will give the Army a more complete picture of the environmentaleffects of phosphorus munitions. However, the lack of this information does not meanthat there are significant and uncertain environmental effects produced from the use ofphosphorus munitions.

40

LITERATURE CITED

1. Farr, T. D. Phosphorus. Properties of the Element and Some of Its Compounds.Chemical Engineering Report No. 8, 2 Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle Shoals,Alabama. 1950.

2. Van Wazer, J. R. Phosphorus and Its Compounds. Vol. II. Interscience Publishers,Inc., New York, NY. 1961.

3. Wasti, K. et al. A Literature Review - Problem Definition Studies on SelectedToxic Chemicals. Vol 2 of 8. Occupational Health and Safety Aspects of PhosphorusSmoke Compounds. Final Report. Contract No. DAMD-17-17-C-7020. April 1973.

4. Berkowitz, 3. B., and G. S. Young. Occupationa' and Environmental HazardsAssociated with the Formulation and Use of White Phosphorus - Felt and RedPhosphorus-Butyl Rubber Screening Smokes. Draft Final Report for US Army MedicalBioengineering Research and Development Laboratory, Fort Dietrick, MD. Contract No.DAMD 17-79-C-9139, 24 March, 1981.

5. Corbridge, D.E.C. Phosphorus, An Outline of Its Chemistry, Biochemistry andTechnology. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, New York, NY. 1978.

6. Dean, 3. A. Lange's Handbook of Chemistry. 12th Edition. McGraw-HUl Book

Co., New York, NY. 1979.

7. Windholz, M. The Merck Index Ninth Addition, Merck and Co., Inc. 1976.

8. Hawley, G. G. The Condensed Chemical Dictionary, 10th ed. Van NostrandReinhold Company New York, NY. 1981

9. Sax, N. I. Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. Fifth Edition. VanNostrand Reinhold Company. New York, NY. 1979.

10. Hildebrand, 3. H., and R. E. Powell. Principles of Chemistry, 6th ed. pg 330. TheMacmillan Book Company. New York, NY. 1952.

11. Kirk, R. E., and D. F. Otihmer. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol 2, pg669. The Interscience Encyclopedia, Inc. New York, NY. 1948

12. FM 3-50. Chemical Smoke Generator Units and Smoke Operations. 3anuary 1959.

13. TM 3-240. Field Behavior of Chemical Agents. 15 April 1969.

14. DARCOM Supplement to AR 200-1. 29 June 1981. US Army ARRADCOM,Chemical Systems Laboratory, Report 8203-9E50.06-201, Computer Program forSmoke/Obscurant Hazard Predictions (HAZRD2). May 1922.

15. Katz, S. et al. Physical and Chemical Characterization of Military Smokes. PartIll. White Phosphorus - Felt Smokes. USAMRDC, Ft. Detrick, MD, 1981. ADA115657.

41

16. Code of Federal Regulations National Primary and Secondary Ambient AirQuality Standards, Revised, July 1, 1979 Title 40: Protection of the Environment, Part50, 1979.

17. Code of Federal Regulation Transportation Title; 49 Parts 171-177 (1981).

19. Code of Federal Regulations Title 46: Parts 146-149, 1981.

19. AR 55-355. Military Traffic Management Regulation. 15 March 1969.

20. TM 38-250. Preparation of Hazardous Materials for Military Air Shipment. 22March 1976.

21. Brown, Beriard 3., Garnett E. Affleck, Edmund G. Cummings, Richard L. Farrand,William C. Starke, John T. Weimer, Muhammed S. Ghumman, and Ronald 3. Pellerin. TheSubchronic Effects of Repeated Exposure to White Phosphorus/Felt Screening Smokes inRats. May 1981. ADB08049SL.

22. Weimer, John T., Affleck, Garnet E., Richard L. Farrand, Fred K. Lee, and Ronald3. Pellerin. The Acute and Chronic Effects of Repeated Exposures to United KingdomRed Phosphorus Screening Smokes in Rats, Mice, Guinea Pigs, and Rabbits. July 1980.UNCLASSIFIED Report. ADB0I834L.

23. Weimer et al. ARCSL-TR-770S2. The Acute Effects of Single Exposures toUnited Kingdom ed Phosphorus Screening Smoke in Rats, Guinea Pigs, Rabbits, andDogs. August 1977. UNCLASSIFIED Report. B020755L.

24. Henry M. C., 3. 3. Bankiley, and D. C. Rowlett. Mammalian ToxicologicEvaluation of Hexachloroetiume Smoke Mixture and Red Phosphorus, US Army MedicalBioengineering Research and Development Laboratory. Fort Dietrick, MD. ContractDAMD- 17-78-C-8086. 1981.

25. Lai, M., and Rosenblatt, D. Identification of Transformation Products of WhitePhosphorus in Water. DAMDl7-77-C-7027. USA Medical Research and DevelopmentCommand, Ft. Detrick, MD. January 31, 1977. UNCLASSIFIED Report. ADA041068.

26. Addison, R. F. Analysis of Elemental Phosphorus and Some of Its Compounds byGas Chromatography. Proc. int. Symp. Identification Measurement EnvironmentalPollutants. Ottawa, Ont., June 14-17, 1971.

27. Bentley, R. E.. 3. W. Dean, T. A. Hollister, G. A. Leblanc, S. Sauter, B. H. Sleight,III, and W. G. Wilson. Laboratory Evaluation of the Toxicity of Elemental Phosphorus(P') to Aquatic Organisms. DAMD-17-78-C-4101. USA Medical Research andDevelopment Command, Fort Dietrick, MD. Final Report, June 1978. UNCLASSIFIEDReport. ADA0617SS.

28. Burrows, D. et al. Mammalian Toxicology and Toxicity to Aqua~ic Organisms ofWhite Phosphorus and "Phossy Water." AD-777-901 A Waterbone MunitionsManufacturing Waste Pollutant - A Literature Evaluation." Associated Water and AirResources Engineers, Incorporated. Prepared for: Army Meoical Research andDevelopment Command. November 1973.

29. 3. H. Sullivan et al. A Summary and Evaluation of Aquatic Environmental Data inRelation to Establis1E/1ijWater Quality Criteria for Munitions-Unique Compounds. Part3. White Phosphorus. April 1979. UNCLASSIFIED Report. ADA083625.

42

30. Zitko V., D. E. Alken, S. N. Tibbo, K. W. T. Bosch, and 3. M. Anderson. Toxicityof Yellow Phosphorus to Herring (Clupea harengus), Atlanta Salmon (Salmo Salar),Lobster (Homarus americanus), and Beach Flea (Gammarus oceanAcus). 3. Fish. Res. Ed.Canada. 27, 21-29 (1970).

31. Coburn D., Dewitt, 3., Derby, 3., and Ediger, E. Phosphorus Poisoning inWaterfowl. 3. Am. Pharm. Assoc. 39. 11-18. (1930).

32. Smith, R. Ecology and Field Biology, Harper & Row, New York, NY. 1974.

33. T. Shook. Environmental Assessment Statement Pine Bluff Arsenal, Pine BluffArkansas, March, 1979.

34. Berkowitz, 3. B. et al. Occupational and Environmental Hazards Associated withthe Formulation and UsT---"lWhite Phosphorus - Felt and Red Phosphorus - Butyl RubberScreening Smoke. US Army Medical Bloengineering Research and DevelopmentLaboratory, Fort Dietrick, MD. Contract No. DAMD 17-79-C-9139. March 1981.ADA 169 56.

35. 3. G. Pearson,et al. EO-TR-76077. Effects of Elemental Phosphorus on the Blotaof Yellow Lake, Pineluff Arsenal, Arkansas, March 1974 - 3anuary 1975. December1976. UNCLASSIFIED Report.

36. DARCOM Regulation 385-100. Safety Manual.

43

BLANK

APPENDIX A

EFFECTS OF CLIMATIC/GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ON DISPeRSION CLOUDS

Pmvvlum--I41L~toxJ

BLANKt

IL-;

.!

i ,, 1

1. Effects of Weather.

a. Winds.

Prevailing (steering) winds have the greatest influence on smokeoperations. These winds exist between 9 and 800 meters above the ground surface. Whenproduced smoke moves to the level of the prevailing winds. The data on prevailing windsare commonly measured at 16 meters.

b. Wind Seed,

The prevailing wind speed determines how far the smoke-producingequipment should be placed from the vital area to be screened/obscured. Wind speedsranging from 5 to 15 knots per hour are considered best for producing militarily effectivesmoke. Some types of smoke behave differently in different winds. For example, WPsmoke tends to pillar if wind speed is less than 9 knots. Wind speeds in excess of 15 knotsper hour carry the smoke rapidly from its source; therefore, more smoke equipmentand/or material are required to produce the desired results.

c. Wind Direction.

Wind direction Is defined as the direction from which the windblows. The direction determines the location of the smoke line to cover the vital area.Wind direction is classified as head wind, tail wind, and flank and quartering winds. Heaciwinds blow away from the smoke objective or vital area and directly to the smoke-producing source. Tail winds are the opposite of head winds. Flank winds blow acrossthe smoke objective and smoke source. Quartering winds blow between the other winds.Another system for surface wind designation relates wind direction to cardinal andintermediate points of the compass (north, northeast, east, southeast, south, southwest,west, and northwest).

d. Temperature Gradient.

There are three types of temperature gradients that affect smokescreens: inversion (complete sky coverage), neutral (30% or 70% sky coverage), and lapse(clear to less than 30% sky coverage). An estimate of temperature gradient is used topredict the stability of the air. Temperature gradients are measured by subtracting theair temperature 0., meter above the ground surface from the air temperature 4.0 metersabove the surface.

(1) Inversion (stable).

A stable condition exists when the air temperature increaseswith an increase in altitude. This condition creates stable air currents and causes smoketo linger for long peedods. Under stable conditions, smoke streamers tend to travelparallel downwind for long distances before they spread and merge into a continuousblanket of smoke. Even after merging, this blanket of smoke lies low to the ground andreduces visibility at ground level. Stable conditions may keep smoke from rising highenough to cover the tops of building or other tail objects.

(2) Neutral.

When there Is little change in temperature based on altitude,conditions are neutral. Under neutral conditions, smoke streamers have steadierdirection and there is less tendency for them to rise than when conditions are unstable.

Appendix A

IS GLANK

Also, streamers tend to spread and rise more quickly than under stable conditions.

Therefore, neutral temperature gradients are best for smoke purposes.

(3) lpse (unstable).

Unstable conditions exist when air temperature decreaseswith an increase in altitude. Unstable conditions cause smoke breakup because the air ismoving. in low winds, the smoke streamer may rise abruptly from the source. In higherwinds, the streamer may pass only a short distance downwind before rising and becomingdiffused. Therefore, a lapse condition is considered poor for the use of smokes.

e. Humidity.

The WP smoke particles absorb moisture and increase in size,thereby increasing their mass density and making the smoke more effective. Most smokemunitions produce a denser smoke when the humidity is high, therefore, high humidity isalways favorable for smoke employment of WP.

f. Preceiptation.

Light rains decrease visibility; therefore, less smoke is needed forconcealment. Heavy rain and snow so reduce visibility that smoke is rarely necessary toprovide concealment.

g. Cloud Cover.

When the sky is more than 70 percent covered with clouds, neutraltemperature gradient conditions usually prevail. The atmosphere is moderately stable,and conditions are generally favorable for smoke.

2. Genlojlcal Conditions.

a. Terrain.

Since smoke is carried by the wind, it normally follows the earth'scontours. On flat or unbroken terrain and over water, smoke streamers take longer tospread out and mix. On the other hand, trees and buildings tend to mix smoke streamersand increases smoke coverage. Large hill mases and rugged terrain cause strongcrosscurrents which disperse smoke, causing holes and unevenness.

b. Arctic.

Smoke operations In arctic regions or other cold weather areaspresent special problems common to all types of units. On clear days, stable conditionsexist over snowy surfaces. This condition is strongest about sunrise. Smoke tends toremain near the surface and may travel for long distances before dissipating. Underextremely cold conditions, smoke clouds last longer than under moderate temperatures.Snow and fog so rpduce visibility that much less smoke is required for effectivescreening

c. Desert.

All deserts have certain characteristics in common - lack ofsurfam water, little vegetation, large areas of sand, extreme temperature ranges, andbrilllant sudnligt. Because of meteorological conditions and the vast areas usually

A ppwl A~ L Z 5

available for dispersing and maneuvering troops, it is difficult to make beneficial use ofsmoke units. However, smoke can be used effectively for screening and deception.Smoke may be employed to screen an installation or the breaching of barriers andmineflelds and to cover artillery positions at night to reduce muzzle flash. Desert sandsabsorb heat from the sun and cause appreciable differences in horizontal temperaturewhich In turn may cause whirlwinds. The soil is heated during the day to such an extentthat smoke operations become extremely difficult because of strongly unstableconditions. Smoke tends to pillar because of rising air currents. High winds and duststorms occur throughout the year. Smoke is more effective in early morning and lateevening or on an overcast day when neutral atmospheric conditions exist.

d. Mountain.

Mountain operations are characterized by the difficultiesencountered due to terrain. Generally, inadequate road nets found In mountain areas

i Ienhance the military value of existing roads and add importance to high ground thatdominates other terrain. Smoke generators can screen artillery positions, supply routes,and preparations for installations and entrenchments. Smoke can also reduce the enemy'sability to use high ground for observation. Small smoke units are often required tooperate for extended periods with limited resupply in mountain operations because oftransportation difficulties. Steep hills split winds so they eddy around and over the hillThermally induced slope winds occur throughout the day and night. These conditionsm. Ve it extremely difficult to establish and maintain smoke screen. Wind currents,ed , and turbulence must be continuously studied and observed.

e. 3unale.

The jungle ordinarily a,..rds concealment from air and groundobservaton. Smoke screens may be employed in jungle operations to screen aircraftlanding areas, to help prevent observed fire on helicopters approaching landing zones, andto screen landing zones while troops debark helicopters.

In many instances, smoke use may be limited to coastal regions toconceal landings. In other areas, smoke may be used to conceal river crossings or toprovide coverage of rivers used as routes of communication. Smoke used in densevegetation tends to spread slowly downwind and downslope and follow creek beds andgullies. 3ungle weather is usually hot, humid, and characterized by sudden changes.Within only a few minutes, clear, hot weather may change to torrential downpour.Windspeed in jungle areas normally does not exceed 3 kilometers per hour.

Appendix A49

BLANK

30 -

APPENDIX B

SAMPLE SMOKE MODEL

1OU5PAGW

51

BLANK

52]

J.t

cnR

m1im

L.1

q

599z 4w

Z 0

vj.. S

- 9

PREIOUS PA09App&dix 5 IS*AK

'3{

00

t -l"ISSI*Im (%

CDC

`3SV-gApi di 5 540

APPENDIX C

TOXICOLOGICAL DATA ON WHITE, AND RED PHOSPHORUS

55

KM A

[.i

WI I!ifil

U..

' 3

Appendix C 57 7-

I !!!ItiiI+ll1i t

+I I. ++ +

I. II ;+ + I

Table C-3. Chronic White Phosphorus Toxicity In AnimalUs3

Species Doas and Route Duration of Eff ects Observed Referenceof Administration Administration

Dogs 0.1 mg/kg 56 days Hydropic rental Buch~an,body weight/day degeneraton et ,.a

(subcutaneous)Dogs 0.2-0. k mg/k$ 37 days Shifts In 11lama Lang and 13

body weight/day proteins Frenreisz

(oral

Rats 0.0027 mg/k$ 25 weeks Slight reduction SoUman14

body weight/day In weight gain(oral)

Rats 0.0032 mg/kS 22 weeks No Ill effects Sollman14

body weight/day until 13 weeks,(oral) then a slight re-

duction In weightgain.

Rats 0.012-0.07 m.,/kg 22 weeks Reduction in Soliman1'

body weiht/day weight gain(oral)

Rats 0.01% in cod 22-37 Reduction In weight Adarms1gndliver oil gain and retard.- Sornat•(oral) tloa of longitudinal

bone growth.

Guinea pigs 0.6-1 mg/kg 4 months Liver cirrhosis Mallory 16

and rabbits body weight/day(oral)

Guinea pigs 0.75 mg/kg 33 weeks Destruction of Aslurn etbody weight four hepatic parenchyma at.days/week (oral)

Rabbits 0.3 mg/kg 117 days Reduction in weight Adams •dbody weight/day gain and retardation Sarnat,oral of longitudinal bone

growth

Rabbits 0.2-1 ml of 1% solu- 15 weeks Nerve degeneration Fe irro ettion of phosphorus in central nervous I."In oU twice or three systemper week (intravenous)

Appendix C'9

Table C-4. Inhalation Toxicity of White Phosplrus SmokeIn Animals After One Hour Exposure

Swcis Concentration of Effects Observed

Smoke

m/m•-

MWoe 110 No deaths during exposure; 4/20 animals diedat 24 hr, 49 hr, 3 days, and 10 days postexposure, respectively.

900 No deaths during exposure. Some animals died24 hr to 10 days post exposure.

1230 3/20 animals died during exposure; more deaths24 hr to 10 days post exposure.

1310 3/20 animals died during exposure; more deaths24 hr to 10 days post exposure.

Death in all cases was due to respiratoryfailure. Other effects observed were hemorrhaein the lungs and occasional cloudy swelling ofthe heart, liver, and kidney cells.

Rat$ 380-400 Only 1/10 died during exposure (4530 mg/m 3 )

380-2150 No deaths during exlT4ure; only one death(1/10) at 1330 mg/rn during 24-48 hours postexposure.

40-4910 5/10 died 1-10 days post exposure.

Autopsy findings showed pulmonary congestion,edema, occasional atelectusis and cloudyswelling of the liver and kidney cells.

Appendix C60

V% v V

U.

dli sli

Al b .oi

ApeS C 6

N~ ell0 0

09 OR NN

uI j

Ag;i ;()0

I = I-

+1

,..d

Apeni C 62

Table C-7. Acute Toxicity ValueO for Elemental Phosphorus UtilizingAquatic Invertebrates and Fishes Determined uring

Static Bloassays (nominal concentrations"

Toxicity values ( IWgf O

Species 24 hr 4$ hr 96 hr

Q3hnia _,m... 34 30 -(water flea (2 5-41)b (25-37)

Gammarus fasclatus > 420 < 560 250(scud) (190-310)

Aseilus militaris > 420 > 560 -

(Sowbug)

Chironomus tentans 260 140(miae) (210-330) (110-190)

Lep is macrochirus 27 9 6(blugill) (22-32) (5-16) (4-9)

Salmo iairdneri 61 28 22r ow trout) (39-98) (16-48) (15-32)

Ictalurus 22nctatus 152 97 73(channel catfish) (99-232) (69-109) (33-99)

Pimeehals promelas 101 34 20(fathead minnow) (73-141) (24-46) (16-23)

a Acute toxicity values are expressed as effective concentrations causing immobilization(EC50) after 24 and 48 hours for invertebrates, and lethal concentrations (LCS0) after24, 498, and 96 hours for fishes.

b Confidence interval of 95 percent

Appendix C 6 63t

Table C4. Acute Toxicity of Elemental Phosphorus to FiJhesand Aquatic Invertebrates During Dynamic Bloassays.z!

LCSOa (p g/1)

Spaces 24 hr 48 hr 96 hr Incipientb

No" .. •ta > 50 > 50 - II(water flea (3-24)c

Chironomus tentans >240 II1 - 20(midge) (31-399) (4-99)

Leoomis macrochirus > 3.2 2.4 0.6bluesgil) (1.7-3.5) (0.4-1.1)

Ictawurus ntatus > 19 > 19 4.2tchannel catfish) (3.3-5•.4)

a LC5O values are based on nominal concen,.ration for water flea, midge, and bluegill and

on mean measured concentrations for channel catfish.

b Incipient LC5O estimated after 192 hours for water flea, 120 hours for midge, 192 hoursfor bluegill, and 624 hours for catfish.

C Confidence Interval of 95 percent

App& x C64

LITERATURE CITED

1. Lee, C., 3. V. Dilley, 3. R. Hodgsonq D. 0. Helton, W. 3. Wlegand, D. N. Roberts, B.S. Anderson, L. M. HaLfpap, L. D. Kurtz, and N. West. Mammalian Toxicity of MunitionCompounds. Phase 1. Acute Oral Toxicity, Skin and Eye Irritation, Dermal Sensitization,and Disposition and Metabolism. Report No. 1, Midwest Research Institute. Preparedfor US Army Medical Research and Development Command, Washington, DC 3uly 22,1975. ADBO1IIS0L.

2. Pani, P., E. Gravela, C. Mazzarino, and E. Burdino. On the Mechanism of FattyLiver in White-Phosphorus Poisoned Rats. Exp. Mol. Pathol 16 201-209. (1972).

3. Williamson, C. S., and F. C. Mann. Studies on the Physiology of the Liver. V. TheHepatic Factor in Chlorogorm and Phosphorus Poisoning. Am. 3. PhysioL 65. 267-276.(1923).

4. Buchanan, D. 3., M. V. Sigal, C. S. Robinson, K. Pope, M. E. Ferguson, and J. B.Thomison. Studies of Phosphorus Intoxication. Arch. Ind. Hyg. Occup. Med. 9(1). 14,(1954).

5. Bodansky, M. The Production of Hypoglycemia in Experimental Derangements oft;-e Liver. Am. 3. Physiol. 66., 373-379. (1923).

6. Scott, W. 3. M. Experimental Mltochondrial Changes in the Pancreas In PhosphorusPoisoning. Am. 3. Anat. 20.0 237-253. (1916).

7. Neubauer, E., and 0. Porges. Adrenal Insufficiency in Phosphorus Poisoning.Blochein. Z. 32, 290-307. (1911). German.

8. Ben-Hur, N., A. Giladi, L. Neuman, B. Shugerman, and 3. Appelbaum. PhosphorusBurns; A Pathophysiological Study. Br. 3. Plast. Surg. 23) 238,-244. (1972).

9. Bowen, T. E., T. 3. Whelan, Jr., and T. G. Nelson. Sudden Deaths After PhosphorusBurns: Experimental Observations of Hypocalcemia, Hyperphosphatemia andElectrocardiographic Abnormalities Following Production of a Standard White PhosphorusBurn. Ann. Surg. 174. 779-784. (1971).

10. Maruo, T. Poisoning Due to Gas of Phosphour. Part 3. The Hemogram of Rabbits.Fukuoka Acta Med. -46 60-615. (1953).

11. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Registry of Toxic Effects ofChemical Substances. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1975.

12. TM 38-250. Preparation of Hazardous Materials for Military Air Shipment. 22March 1976.

13. Lang, S., and 1. Frenrcisz. Influence of Chronic Poisoning on Plasma Proteins.Ztschr. fur des Ger. ExptL Med. 9.9 124-130. (1933) German.

14. Sollmann, T. Studies of Chronic Intoxications on Albino Rats. VIII. YellowPhosphorus. 3. Pharm. Exp. Ther. 24. 119-122. (1923).

Appendix C

65

15. Adams, C. 0., and B. G. Sarnat, Effects of Yellow Phosphorus and Arsenic Trioxideon Growing Bones and Growing Teeth. Arch. Pathol. 30j 1192-1202. (1940).

16. Mallory, F. B.. Phosphorus and Alcoholic Cirrhosis. Am. 3. Pathol. 9 557-567.(1933).

17. Ashburn, L. L., A. 3. McQueeney, and R. R. Faulkner: Scarring and Precirrhosis ofthe Liver in Chronic Phosphorus Poisoning of Guinea Pigs. Proc. Soc. Exper. Biol. Med.67 351-358. (194*).

18. Ferraro, A., G. A. 3ervii, and W. K. English. Pathological changes in the brain inCases of Experimental Phosphorus Intoxication. Psychiat. Quart. 12. 294-305. (1938).

19. Brown, Bernard 3., Garnett E. Affleck, Edmund G. Cummings, Richard L. Farrand,William C. Starke, 3ohn T. Weimer, Muhammed S. Ghumman, and Ronald 3. Pellerin. TheSubchronic Effects of Repeated Exposure to White Phosphorus/Felt Screening Smokes inRats. May 1981. ADBO50048L.

20. Manthei, 3. H., Fred K. Lee, M. Donnelly, and 3. T. Weimer. ARCSL-TR-79056.Preliminary Toxicity Screening Studies of 11 Smoke Candidate Compounds. April 1980.Confidential Report. C021764L.

21. Brown, 3. Bernard, Weimer, 3ohn T., Affleck, Garnet E., Richard L. Farrand, Dale H.Heitkamp, and Fred K. Lee. ARCSL-TR-80013. The Acute Effects of Single Exposuresto White Phosphorus Smoke in Rats and Guinea Pigs. September 1980. UNCLASSIFIEDReport. AD410323. (1980).

22. Weimer, John T., Garnett E. Affleck, Richard L. Farrand, Fred K. Lee, and RonaldJ. Pellerin. ARCSL-TR-79053. The Acute and Chronic Effects of Repeated Exposures toUnited Kingdom Red Phosphorus Screening Smokes in Rats, Mice, Guinea Pigs, andRabbits. 3uly 1980. UNCLASSIFIED Report. ADB0OI$34L.

23. Weimer et al. ARCSL-TR-77052. The Acute Effects of Single Exposures to UnitedKingdom Red Phosphorus Screening Smoke in Rats, Guinea Pigs, Rabbits, and Dogs.August 1977. UNCLASSIFIED Report. B020755L.

24. Bentley, R. E., 3. W. Dean, T. A. Hollister, G. A. Leblanc, S. Sauter, B. H. Sleight,Ill, and W. G. Wilson. Laboratory Evaluation of the Toxicity of Elemental Phosphorus(P4 ) to Aquatic Organisms. DAMD-17-74-C-4101. USA Medical Research andDevelopment Command, Fort Dietrick, MD. Final Report, 3une 1978. ADA061785.

25. Wasti, K. et aL A Literature Review - Problem Definition Studies on Selected ToxicChemicals, Vol 2 of 8. Occupational Health and Safety Aspects of Phosphorus SmokeCompounds. Final Report. Contract No. DAMD-17-17-C-7020. April 1978.

Appendix C66

DISLri L i nC I='m - ARCCL-tA-83O04

SCopies Nm s Copies

QCi1CAL SYSTUS LA3R40M Office of the DirectorDefense Research and ftginering

ATM!: Demc-me (A) 1 ATTN-: Dr. T.C. Walsh, Ps 3D-1079ATTNI: DR-L5-C (A) 1 weswhiuton, DC 20310ATIN: DI•C-Lb.-P (A) 1ATTN: DROE-CL-PS (A) 1 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agm=7AT!!t: Dm8EC-C13-R (A) I AT!!: Dr. TegmeliaATr!!: uI C-CLB-T (A) I Washington, DC 20301AT!!: DR•mc-CLB-TK (A) IATM!: DLS.-CLO-B (A) 1 Advmaned Rseach Projects AencyATllz DRSMC-CLC-C (A) 1 1400 Wilson BoulevardATTN: mmc-C (A) I Arlington, VA 22209ATTN: 1RI9M-CLJ-fL (A) 2ATTN: DIRN-CJ-IR (A) 1 DEPA82MM OF TER ARMYATTN: Dv*C-CLJ-M (A) IATTN!: mDS-W-P (A) I U(g)ATTN: D10MC-CL (A) I ATM!: DMO-ROC 1ATTN: DLSC-CL&-S (A) I ATTN: DM4I-FIT 1ATIN: IC-C-ft (A) WI S V DC 20310ATM': IS•D-CLT (A) IATTN: DRS•C-CLT-I (A) 1 QAT!": T3SC-MJW-C (A) 1 Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff forATTN: DNiC-CLY-A (A) (Pemnyle) I Research, Develolnt & AcquisitionATM: !RMC-CLE-I (A) I ATMT: DAM--CSS-C 1ATTN: DRSSMC-ýY-R (A) 1 AMT: DM-ARZ (Dr. Verdome) 1

Washington, DC 2031000PIES NE AD'R(S)

DSBMC-L=- (A) 100 HQ Sixth US AzWRE0O• MPQY: 133C-CLT-A (A) 1 ATM': AVKC-OP-ISC

Presidio of San Francisco, CA 94129Commder

Defense Technical Information Center Inut"(, TATMI": DTIC-DDA-2 12 ATT'N: DI5T-STICameron Station, Buildin g5 Bo5 48, APO New York 09710Alexandria, VA 22314

CmianderDirector USASATCVDefense Intelligence A4p•.. y ATr!': KU MikeworthATTN!: DB-4GI 1 APO San Francisco 96328Washington, DC 20301

H, 5th Infantry DivDeputy Under Secretary of Defense for ATT!t Div C1 Off

Research and Ragineering (MAT) Ft Polk, VA 71459AT!!: Dr. ssa 1AT!!: GM Friday 1ATTHt: CL Winter 1ATm!: Mr. Thmas Dashiell 1Washington, DC 20301

67

US ARM MARIEL DVELOPWEr ANDArmy Research Office READINESS AOMMNDATTN% DIXU-CB (Dr. R. Ghirardelli) IATMil DSI&-G 1 CommanderATYNh Dr. W. A. Flood 1 HIQ, DAROCM OP.O. Box 12211 ATrN: DRCED-D (BC Robinson)Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 5001 Eisenhower Ave.

Alexandria, VA 22333SC IUSA (OR)

ATM*: Dr. R. Fallin 1 CinanderWashington, DC 20310 USA Materiel Development and

Readiness CoiandHcIA (WO-FD) ATTN: DRaCE-OM 1AMh: MAJ C. Collat 1 ATrN: DRI IWashington, DC 20310 ATTN: I3CSF-P 1

AT'rN: DRCSF-S 1iQDA, OCR ATTN: DRCDL (Mr. N. Klein) 1

AMW: DAEN-BM (Dr. Gomez) ATN: DRCDMI-ST (Mr. T. Shirata) 1Massachusetts Ave, NW 5001 Eisenhower AveWashington, DC 20314 Alexandria, VA 22333

Colander Comiander89th Medical Group (P) 1 USA Foreign Science & Technology Center3130 George Washington Blvd ATMN: DRXST-.3 1Wichita, KS 67210 ATTN: DLXST-Mr3 (Poleski) 1

220 Seventh St., TIEOFFICE OF THE SURGEZO CMZRAL QCarlottesville, VA 22901

Cvmder DirectorUSA Medical Research aid Human Engineering Laboratory

Development Coand ATITh DRXZ-IS1ATmN: S "-UBD-AL (Bldg 568) 1 Aberdeen Proving Ground, HD 21005ATIN: SGC-UBG (Hr. Eaton) IATTHi: SM-UBO-0T (,r Bratt) 1 ColanderATIt LTC Don Gensler 1 USA Natick Research andFort Detrick, HD 21701 Development Laboratories

ATM: DRH-A-I (Dr. Roy w. Roth)Cmmander Natick, MA 01760USA Medical Bioengireering Research

and Dvelopment Laboratory DirectorATIT: SGM-UVBW-AL, Bldg 568 1 DARJOM Field Safety ActivityFort Detrick, Frederick, MD 21701 ATrM: DRXDS-SE (Mr. Yutmeyer)

Charlestown, IN 47111Ccmnder

USA Medical Research Institute of PM 9moke/ObscurantsChemical Defense ATIT: DBCPMH-S-E (A. Van de Wal) 1

ATrNi SGRD-UV-L 1 ATTN: DRMPH- 4-l 1Aberdeen Pro-ring Ground, MD 21010 ATMN: DRCPM-SIK-T (Walter G. Kiimek) 1

Aberdeen Proving Ground, ND 21005

68

Director USA *MJICkATItIS-&XTFCIC=S CHKAUSA Materiel Systems Analysis ActivityATrN: DRXSY-MP I CommanderAT•N: DRXSY-CR (Mr. Meta) 1 USA Commnications-Electronics CmmedATTlN: DRXSY-FJ (0. O'Bryon) I ATNI: DRSEL-WL-S (Mr. J. Ctuwlton) IAmTN: DRXSY-GP (Mr. Fred Campbell) I ATrI: DSSEL-SS-tf (Mr. Chris Keacik) IAberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005 Ft. Motmouth, NJ 07703

USA AVIATION RESEARCH AND CcanderDEVOILAPMWCT04AND USA Elctronics Research md1

Develoment C mDirector ATrN: DIDEL-0(= (Dr. J. Scales) IApplied Technology Lab ATTN: DELD-~r-CB (Dr. Sztankay) 1USARTL (AVRADCX0M) AdeIphi, MD 20783ArM: DAVDL-ATL-ASV IATTIN: DAVDL-ATL-ASW I ComanderA0rN: DAIDL-EV-M9S (Mr. Gilbert) 1 Harry Diamnd LaboratoriesFt. Eustis, VA 23604 ATTN: DRXDO-RCB (Dr. Donald Wortman) I

ATIrN: IRXDO-RC (Dr. Clyde Morrison) 1Commander ATMN: DRXDO-iDC (Mr. D. Giglio) 1USA Avionics R&D Activity 28C0 Powder Mill RoadATI": DAVAA-E(M. E. Sonatag) 1 Adelphi, MD 20783Ft. Monmouth, NJ 07703

CinmmderUSA MISSILE COMAD USA Materials & Mechanics Reoearch Center

ATrN: DRXMR-KA (Dr. Saul Isserov) 1Commander Watertown, MA 02172USA Missile CmandDirector, Energy Directorate CmmanderAITT: DRSMI-RHFT I USA Cold Region Research Engineering LaboratoryATMN: DRSI-RBST I ATIN: George Aitken 1AMTN: DRSMI-YLA (N. C. Katos) 1 Hanover, N4 03753Redstone Arsenal, AL 35809

Comander/DirectorCommander Combat Surveillance and TargetUSA Missile Caimand Acquisitiou LaborateryRedstone Scientific Information Center ERADC1ATrN: DRSII-REO (Mr. Widenofer) I ATrN: -ý-CS-R (E. Frost)Ar•I: fLhU-RGT (HMr. Matt Maddix) 1 Ft. Moraxuth, NJ 07703ATfrN: D•SMI-L (Dr. W. Wharton) IATM: WDaI-CGA (Dr. B. Fowler) 1 DirectorAT•It DMI-TE (Mr. H. Anderson) I Atmospheric Sciences LaboratoryRedstone Arsenal, tL 35809 Am.tl DmLAS-AR (H. Holt) 1

ATrN: DELAS-AS (Dr. Charles Bruce) 1

Comander ATrN: DELAS-AS-P (Mr. Tom Pries) 1USA Missile Command ArTm: DnIS-EO-EN (Dr. Donald Snider) 1Redstone Scientific Information Center ATI9; DELAS--E-N (Mr. James Gillespie) IATTN: DRSMI-RPR (Documents) I ATTN: DELAS-EO-1M (Dr. Frank Niles) IRedstone ,Arsenal, AL 35809 ATiN: DELAS-EO-M* (Dr. Ronald Pinnick) I

AMTN: DELAS-EO-MD (Dr. Melvin Heaps) 1ATTN: DEIAS-EO-MD (Dr. R. Sutherland) 1ATINr: DELAS-EO-S (Dr. Louis Duncan) IWhite Sands Missile Range, N1 88002

69

US AM AMWWM, KITIM AMI Coanding OfficerCHEMICAL 0(mffi Armamt Research and Development Center

USA AHMCUtComilnmder AITTN: DRSHC-qAC-D (A) (Mr. Franc is) IUSA Amm• t, tnmitions and ATIN: DR24C-Q" (A) I

Chmical Comand Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010Arm: DRaC-ASN (a) IATTNII: SC-IRI-A (R) I Co anding OfficerATIN: I3--LIP-L (00 1 Ar mmnt Research and Dve loment Center (BIL)ATMI: DRH-4F (R) I USA AH=~lock Island, l. 61299 ATIri 1Rl-BLB (A) I

ATrt: DLRW.C-TSB-S (A) 1Coander Aberdeen Proving Ground, HI) 21005USA nzgway Provins GroundATIN: Technical Library (Docu Sect) 1 US ARMY TRAINUiG & DOCMIM CONWK)Dugway, UT 84022

ComundantUS ARi1 ARIMMWf RESSAR AND USA Infantry School

MV•y [ fplW cun ATrN: CTfD, CSD, NBC BranchFort Benning, GA 31905

CommanderArm•m•nt Research and Develomsnt Center CmmandantUS AMCD= USA Missile & Munitions CenterATTN: NS1C-LCA-L (D) I and SchoolAfI:t NbI0-= (D) (Hr. Scott Morrow) I ATTr: ATSK-C4AXT": m3C-LC-C (D) I Redstone Arsenal, AL 3580ATnM: MC-LO-M- (D) IATMI: DRmC-PSE-W (D) (Hr. N. Margel) I CommanderAfIl: DISC-SCA-'T (D) I USA Logistics CenterATMI: MM3SCC (D) I ATm: IAT-L-AT.: orC-P (D) I Fort Let, VA 23801A~rNs DRC-C (D) 1ATrm, D •fC- (D) (Dr. D. Gyoro&) I G.mmwsndtAITWI• IDlLW-TSS (D) 2 USA Chemical School

ATIN: MCMT (D) I A7-: -C IDover, NJ 07801 AIT: TI-C-AM-FL 2

ATTN t A*-CN-ý= (Dr. J. Scully) IArmment Research and Development Center Fort McClellan, AL 36205USA MC0IAITN: RC-TSE-OA (Robert Thresher) 1 CommnderNational Space Technology Laboratories USAAV"CHM Station, M 39529 ATr": ATZQ-D45

Fort Rucker, AL 36362Requirments and Analysis OfficeForeign Intellience and Threat Cndmmder

Projection Division USA Combined Arms Centcr andATrN: 3UIC-RAI-C (A) 1 Fort LeavewmorthAberdeen Proving Ground, 10 21010 A7It AThZL-CA4-TI

Fort Leaveworth, KS 66027

70

MOM "0100M WIN"

0Cmi~r CnamnderUSA Infantry Center Nuway Proving GroundAT"iW: hA9U-CD--C 1 ATMlq: STKrE'-Mr (Dr. L. Solmn) 1ATIl: AkSH-CD- F-F I ATMlI: S -KT-W-A-M (Mr. E. Rangers) IATITNt ATZ-DPT-PO-N1C 1 bigway, Ur 84022Fort ieaning, G. 31905

DEPARTMUT OF THE NAVYCo~mmawr

USA Training and Doctrine Com d CommanderATrN: ATC-N I Naval Research LaboratoryATTUS ATa[}-TC (Dr. M. Pastel) 1 ATIT• Code 5709 (Mr. W. S. Hwlll) 1ATN: -. A -Z 1 A7TIt Code 6532 (Mr. Curcio) 1Fort Monroe, VA 23651 ATMH: Code 6532 (Mr. Trusty) 1

ATTN: Code 6530-2 (Hr. Gordon Stin) 1Cmmander ATM: Code 8320 (Dr. Lothar Ruhnke) 1

USA Armor Center ATTN: Code 8326 (Dr. Jams Fitzgerald) 1ATiM: ATZK-CD- 1 ATI•N: Code 43202 (Dr. Hermeam Gerber) 1ATTN: hTZK-M-PD-C 1 4555 Overlook Avenue, SWFort Kox, KY 40121 Washington, DC 20375

Coander Chief, Bureau of Medicine & SurgeryUSA TRADDC System Analysis Activity Departmunt of the NavyATrN: AIAA-SL 1 ATrM: H)M 3C33AMrU: ATAA-DBI (L. minguez) 1 Washington, DC 20372White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002

Comander

Cinu-der Naval Air System CiandUSA Field Artillery School ATIN: Code AIR-301C (Dr. H. Rosenwasser) 1ATMI: ATSF-)-A 1 ATm: Code AIR-5363 (D. C. Caldwell) 1Ft. Sill, OK 73503 Washington, DC 20361

Director CommanderUSA Concepts Analysis Agency Naval Sea System ComandATTN: DCCA-SI (Hal Hock) 1 ATr~t SEA-67Y13 (LCDR Richard Gilbert) 18120 Woodmt AveOWae A7T: SEA-62Y21 (A. Kanterman) 1Bethesda, M4 20014 ATTUs SEA-62Y21 (LCDR W. Major) 1

Washington, DC 20362US ARS TEST & EVALUATION 00"MAN

Project Manager

Comander Theatre Nuclear Warfare Project OfficeUSA Test & Evaluation Comd ATTNt PM-23 (Dr. Patton) 1ATIiM: D31-04-F I •tIM TN-09C 1Ar1: st DR5 r-CT 1 Nav" DepartmentATIlt MM.-AD4- (Warren Baity) 1 Washington, DC 20360Aberdeen Proving Ground, HD 21005

CoimWerCoanldAr Naval Surface Weapons CenterUSA VG Dahlgren LaboratoryA•TNs STP-**--IS I AT•ts MX-21 1AlTl: STWP-Nt-DS (CT Decker) 1 ATTN: Mr. R. L. Hudson 1Yt. Huachuca, AZ 85613 ATTM: P-56 (Mr. Doubgla Marker) 1

ATlas 0-35 (Mr. William V. Wishard) IDahlgren, VA 22448

71

Comander AFAML/TSNaval Intelligence Suport Center ATM': - OL JohnsonATIT: Code 434 (H. P. St.Aubin) 1 Wright-Patterson AFB, OR 454334301 9uitlmd RoadSuitland, MD 20390 AWAL/FIEC (Wendell Banks)

Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433CmmanderNaval Explosive Ordnance Disposal HQ AFSC/SDZ1

Technology Center ATIN: CPT D. RiedigerATrN: A0-3 1 Andrews AhB, HD 20334Indian Read, 1D 20640

USREDO*IOff icer-in-Charge Anl: RCJ3-OS (MAJ Holt)Marine Corps Detacimnt 1 MscDill AFB, FL 33603Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal

Technology Center USAF TAWC/TaLIndian Head, MD 20640 Eglin AFB, FL 32542

CAmander USA0 SCNaval Air Development Center ATTN: AD/YQ (Dr. A. Vasiloff) 1ATTN: Code 2012 (Dr. Robert Helebold) 1 ATM: AD/YQO (MAJ Owens) 1Warminster, PA 18974 Eglin An, FL 32542

moander AD/X INaval Weapons Center Eglin Ah5, FL 32542ATTN: Code 3893 (L. A. Mathews) 1ATMiI: Code 3882 (Dr. C. 1. Dinerman) 1 CmmanderAf1N: Coda 3918 (Dr. Alex Shianta) 1 Hanscom Air Force BaseATI1t Code 3263 (fr. L. Josephson) 1 ATrN: AFCL/LYC (Dr. Barnes) 1China Lake, CA 93555 ATTK: AICL/POA (Dr. Frederick Volt) 1

Bedford, MA 01731Comanding OfficerNaval Wapona Support Center HeadquartersApplied Sciences Deparinnt Tactical Air ComandAT": Code 500, Bldg 190 1 ATIt: DRPATIV: Code 502 (Carl Lahks•) 1 Langley AFB, VA 23665ATTN: Code 5063 (R. Farren) 1Crane, IN 47522 AFO61/U

ATM: MAJ H. WinsorUS MAlINE ORS Boiling An, DC 20332

Cao nding General 0UTSIDE CNIESMarine Corps Developmnt and

Education Co•mand OSV Field Office 1ATrIt fire Powr Division, X091 1 P.O. Box 1925Quantico, VA 22134 Eglin All, FL 32542

DEARTMENT OF THE AIR FORC Battelle, Columbus LaboratoriesArNh TACrC

Department of the Air Force .505 King AvMenHeadquarters Foreign Technology Division Colubus, ON 43201ATni: TQTR1Wright-Patterson AFB, ON 45433

72

ftzicology Informtion Center, JR 652 McDonnell Douglas Astro Cowatioal Research Council 1 ATTi: John Adam (A-3-210,11-1)2101 Constitution Ave., 1N 5301 Bolee AveWashirgton, DC 20118 Humtington Beach, CA 92647

Los Alamos National laboratory IND Program OfficeATII: T-DOT, tA 3279 (S. Gerstl) 1 AT"N: Dick McAtee, Do. 7S14Lee Am, 1sA 87545 5001 Bisechover Ave

Alezandria, VA 22333

Institute for Defense Analysis 1

1801 N. Beuregard Street Dr. W. Michael Farner, Assoc Prof, PhysicsAlexandria, VA 22311 University of Tennessee Space Iuntitute I

TullshoIa, TN 37388ADDITIONAL ADDRESSKIS

Qander2Office of Missile Electronic Warfare Tooelle ADA•TN: DEIZW-WT-AC (Ms Arthur) 1 ATTN: SDSTE-AE (Dr. J.L. Bishop)White Sands Missile Range, 1S 88002 Tooele, UT 84074

USA Mobility Equipmeut Research and AUGDevelopment Center Operating Activity Center

ATi: •WH-rr (Mr. 0. 1. Kezer) 1 ATII: B-MAI-E/Bldg E6810fort lelvoir, VA 22060 Aberdeen Proving Ground, HD 21010

Director CommanderUS NiSht Vision and SO Laboratories USA Enviroumntal Hygiene AgencyATTN: 8EL-NV-Vl (Dr. R. G. Buser) 1 AkTI: Librarian, Bldg 2100ATIm: UIL-NV-VI (Mr. 1. Dergmm) 1 Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010ATIu: Duv-v1 (Luamw Obert) IATTN: DELNV-L (D. Y. Specto') 1Fort lelvoir, VA 23651

OkmandantAcademy of Health Sciences, US ArmyATTN: HS•A-SSI 2Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234

Science Applications Inc.ATTN: Dr. Frederick G. Gebhardt 13 Preston CourtBedford, MA 01730

Science Applications Inc.ATT: Mr. Robert S. Turner1010 Woodman Drive, Suite 200Daytog, CI 45432

Creative Optics25 Washiqston StBedford, HA 01730

73