UNCLASSIFIED

AD4 603 6 3

DEFENSE DOCUMENTATION CENTERFOR

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION

CAMERON STATION ALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA

0UNCLASSI FIED

NOTICE: Mlen goverment or other dramings, speci-fications or other data are used for any purposeother than in connection with a definitely relatedgovernment procurement operation, the U. S.Government therety incurs no responsibility, nor anyobligation whatsoever; and the fact that the Govern-ment may have forualated, furnished, or in any aysupplied the said drawings, specifications, or otherdata is not to be regarded by implication or other-wise as in any manner licensing the holder or anyother person or corporation, or conveying any rihtsor permission to manufacture, use or sell anypatented invention that may in any way be relatedthereto.

Kc- 441,

I~ r, 'T

11+ -;,

.. .. .A . A I

4N4

4,:

-A V

ý414

r k

l,'7 'of

TECHNICAL REPORT 3223

SAFETY HAZARD CLASSIFICA IONOF

WATER-WET EXPLOSIVES

BY

DARRELL KITE, JR.

FEBRUARY 1965

AMC 4110.16.3053.12AMC 4110.16.2913.12AMC 4110.16.2140.1.01.53

SUBMITTED BY: EVIEWED BYQ~.f.'S~rY D. KATE aChief, High Explosives Chief, Processand Loading Section Engineering Laboratory

APPROVED BY: 5 FAlJ. J. MATTChief, Ammunition Production &Maintenance Engineering Division

AMMUNITION ENGINEERING DIRECTORATEPICATINNY ARSENALDOVER, NEW JERSEY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

SUMMARY 1

CONC LUSIONS 3

RECOMMENDATIONS 3

BACKGROUND 5

STUDY 7

hEFERENCE 13

APPENDICES

A. Tables 15

B. Figures 19

TABLE OF DISTRIBUTION 23

ABSTRACT DATA 25

(i)

SUMMARY

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the propersafety hazard classification of in-process water-wet explosivs a atthe manufacturing plant. Eighteen water-wet explosives werestudied to determine whether they could support detonations. Ofthe 18 explosives tested, 15 sustained detonations when "saturated"with water. ("Saturated" in this instance is defined as the conditionwherein the spaces between the loosely packed explosive granulesor crystals are completely occupied by water.) These 15 explosivesare:

RDX Class ARDX Class BRDX Class CRDX Class DRDX Class ERDX Class FRDX Class G

Composition C-4Composition A-3

PBX 9404

PBX Type BPBX 9010

HMX Class AHMX Class CHMX Class DHMX Class F

The other three explosives did not sustain detonatio-s undersaturated conditions. However, they did sustain detoneti-ns atthese water levels:

PBX-N3 @ 25%o waterHMX Class ' @ 4476 waterHMX Class E @ 407% water

All explosives tested were found to sustain detonations at waterlevels that could be encountered in manufacturing operationsfollowing the filtering operation. Therefore, the filtered explosivesshould be assigned a safety hazard classification of Class 9.

CONCLUSIONS

All materials tested .stained detonations at high watercontents. As handled i., manufacturing plants, after filtering,these explosives should be assigned a safety hazard classificationof Class 9. These explosives are:

RDX Class ARDX Class CRDX Class DRDX Class ERDX ClasR FRDX Class G

HMX Class AHMX Class BHMX Class CHMX Class DHMX Class EHMX Class F

Composition C-4Composition A-3

PBX 9404PBX Type BPBX 9010PBX-N3

RECOMMENDATIONS

Since all explosives tested under this program sustaineddetonations at high water contents, the filtered explosives (ashandled in manufacturing operations) should be consideredClass 9.

3

BACKGROUND

At U. S. Army Materiel Command explosive manufacturingworks, protection is afforded to personnel and facilities bylimiting the amount of explosives that may be present at a givenlocation under various conditions. Factors considered are:distance to inhabited buildings, type of barricades, interlinedistance, dangers inherent in the specific explosives involvedand other safety factors. Information regarding the quantitylimitations of explosives is contained in Section 17 of theOrdnance Safety Manual (Reference 1).

At Holston Army Ammunition Plant (HAAP), Kingsport,Tennessee various explosives are filtered from a water slurryto yield water-wet explosives. In the absence of data that wouldestablish the hazard of these filtered materials, they have beenconsidered to be Class 9 explosives -- mass-detonating, bulkexplosives. This safety hazard classification limits the amountof explosives that can be in operating buildings. This result is alinr'tation on manufacturing efficiency and increased cost ofext .osives.

Since manufacturing operations could be more efficientlyperformed if the explosive hazard classification could be safelyreduced, Picatinny Arsenal undertook to establish the safetyhazard classification of various water-wet explosives.

5

STUDY

Test Vehicle

The test procedure used in this study was designed to showwhether the explosives are mass detonatable. As defined in theOrdnance Safety Manual, mass detonation is: "Detonation ofseparated quantities of explosives or ammunition occurring sonearly at the same time that the effect on the surroundings is thesame as if the several quantities were not separated." For thepurpose of this study it was assumed that any bulk materialcapable of sustaining a detonation is potentially mass detonatingand therefore should be assigned a safety hazard classification of-Class 9.

In this investigation the water-wet explosives were loadedinto plexiglas tubes, initiated and observed by means of aframing camera to determine whether detonations occurred, andto establish the approximate rate of detonation. Plexiglas tubeswere chosen as containers because they enable a visual check onthe quality of the loading operation.

A schematic .f the test vehicle is shown in Figure 1. Alltubes were 1-3/4 inches inside diameter. Wall thickness fthetubes was either 1/8 or 1/4 inch. Explosive column length wasabout 10 inches in some cases and about 20 inches in others.The booster usually was one 33-gram tetryl pellet. However, 40-grain RDX wafers were used on occasion.

Loading Methods

The materials loaded were bulk explosives procured fromHAAP. These were granular explosives taken from the productionline following the filtering operation. The materials were notdried prior to shipment. At Picatinny Arsenal, the explosiveswere water-washed and loaded into the test vehicles. The loadingmethods used are:

7

Method A - Water Displacement Method -- The washedexplosives were covered with water. The test vehicles werefilled with water. Wet explosives were loaded into the testvehicles, displacing the water. Excess water was removedfrom the top of the explosive column, leaving a columnconsisting essentially of explosive and water. This methodwas used when it was desired to test explosives, of medium-to-large granulations, at maximum water contents.

Method B - Saturated Explosive Method -- Theexplosives were washed and excess water filtered off or allowedto drain off leaving an explosive paste. The paste (consisting ofwet RDX or HMX of small particle size) was loaded into the testvehicles. Excess water rose to the top of the column and wasremoved, leaving a column consisting essentially of explosiveand water. This method was used to load explosives of finegranulation at high water levels. Method A was not suitable foruse with explosives having fine granulation because they settledout too slowly and formed non-uniform explosive columns.

Method C - Partially Dry Method -- The washedexplosive was retained on filter cloth. Air was drawn through topartially dry the explosive, which was then loaded into the testvehicles. Using this loading method, air was present. Thismethod was used when it was desired to test explosives at lessthan maximum water levels.

Determination of Explosive Water Content

Two methods were used for determining the water content ofthe wet explosives being tested. They are:

Method I - Direct Calculation -- This method is based onthe simultaneous solution of two equations. The equations are:

We Ww VWe + Ww = Wt and - + - = Vt

De Dv

We = Weight of explosiveWw = Weight of waterWt = Weight of explosive + waterDe = Density of explosiveDw = Density of waterVt = Volume of ex~losive column

8

In this method, the volume and total weight of the explosive-watermixtures contained in the test vehicle are determined. Then forthose mixtures which contain no air, and for which the explosivedensity is krnown, the amount of water present is calculated.Since Wt, De, Dw and Vt are known, We and Ww can becalculated. This method was used to determine the amount ofwater present in RDX-water mixtures and HMX-water mixturesthat contained no air. The densities used were:

RDX, 1.82 grams per ccHMX, 1.9 grams per cc

In actual practice, percent water vs. bulk density curves -%ereconstructed andused to determine water present in the RDX-waterand HMX-water mixtures.

Method II - Moisture by Analogy -- Method I is notsuitable for determining the amount of water present in thoseexplosives mixtures containing air or those mixtures in whichthe density of the explosive is unknown. In these cases, thedeterminations were made by analogy. Two or more testvehicles were loaded in a similar manner. One or more of thevehicles were then analyzed to determine ýhe amount of waterpresent. The amount of water p•esent in the dried vehicle wasassumed to be about the same as in the vehicle that was testfired. A rough check on this could be made by determining thebulk density of the wet explosives in the dried and fired vehicles;the assumption being that if the bulk densities were the same,the amount of water present was likely fo be about the same. Ingeneral, there was good agreement between the two bulk densities.

The percent of water pr,: "ent in the RDX test vehicles isreported in Table 1. The water present in the fired vehicles wasdetermined by Method I. There is one exception. In the case ofRDX Class E, Shot 16A, there is a significant difference betweenthe calculated amount of water present and that determined byanalogy. The calculated amount of water present is 46%, byanalogy the amount is 39%. In this case, some air may have beenpresent -- causing the amount of water present to appear high whenit was calculated. The probable correct value is 39%.

The percent of water present in the HMX test vehicles isreported in Table 2. The water present in the fired vehicles wasdetermined by Method I.

9

The percent of water present in the explosive compositionsis reported in Table 3. The amount of water present in thefired vehicles was determined by Method II.

Determination of Approximate Rate of Detonation

Detonation or lack of detonation was determined by twomethods. One was simply by observation of the test Rite todetermine if the test vehicle and holding stanchion weredestroyed. Iri a second method, a series of photographs weremade by means of a framing camera; the movement of thewavefront through the explosive could be followed by observationof these photographs.

Figure 2 is a series of photographs taken by the framingcamera and shows the progre'ss of a detonation wave. In thiscase, HMX Class E, containing 58% water was initiated by a33-gram tetryl pellet. It can be seen that the explosion died outalmost immediately. The series of photographs in Figure 3shows the progress of a detonation through PBX-N3 that had a28% water content. The photographs show that the detonationdied out after it had traveled a short distance through the wetexplosive column. Since the detoy •tion died out before itpassed through the entire length o '.e column, it is concludedthat under the test conditions used, PBX-N3 will not sustain"a detonation at the 28% water level.

Figure 4 is a series of photographs showing the progress of"a detonation wave through HMX Class E containing 40% water.It is seen that the column detonated throughout its length. Shownin back of the test vehicle is a graph having alternating dark andlight lines two inches wide. Since it is known that 4.27x 10"seconds elapsed between picture frames, the approximatevelocity of the detonation wave can be calculated. In this case,the detonatio? front moved about 12 inches in 10 time-intervals --in 4.27x5 0- seconds. The detonation front moved at a rate of2.81 x 10 inches per second (or 7,150 meters per second). Allreported detonation velocities were approximated by this method.

10

Effect of Booster

Two different attempts were made to detonate two PBX 9404charges containing 34% water. The known difference between thetwo tests is that in one case the booster used was a 40-grainRDX wafer; in the other case the booster was a 33-gram tetrylpellet. When the 40-grain RDX wafer was used, the PBX 9404failed to detonate; when the 33-gram tetryl pellet was used, thePBX 9404 detonated. The test was not repeated and thereforethe data is limited; however, as would be expected, the importanceof donor selection is indicated. It appears that under these testconditions the wet PBX 9404 will sustain a detonation once it hasbeen strongly initiated. Apparently the 40-grain RDX wafer wasnot powerful enough to initiate the wet explosive.

Effect of Explosive Confinement

The diameter of an explosive column is in some cases animportant factor in determining if a detonation will be sustained.In general, for a given explosive and set of test conditions inwhich the diameter of the explosive column is varied, there is acritical diameter below which a detonation will not be sustained.This critical diameter can generally be decreased by increasingthe strength of the containing wall. In the case of PBX-N3, atthe 25% moisture level, the explosive column failed to sustaina detonation when contained by a plexiglas tube having 1/8-inch-thick walls. However, in a similar test when the wall thicknesswas increased to 1/4.-irch, a detonation was sustained. Again,this is only indicative since the data is limited.

Classification of Explosives Tested

The data generated under this study pertinent to establibhingthe safety hazard classification of water-wet explosives is inTables 1-3. In evaluating this data it has been considered thatbulk water-wet material capable of sustaining a detonation ispotentially mass detonatable and consequently should be assigneda safety hazard classification of Class 9.

Using this criterion, tht. following 15 materials should beclassified Class 9 since detonations were sustained in mixtureswhich consisted essentially of explosive and water. Theexplosives and water content are:

11

Explosive Percent Water

HMX Class A ............ 22HMX Class ........... 19HMX Class D......... .. 26HMX Class F ........... 25

RDX Class A ........... 27RDX Class C ........... 21RDX Class D ........... 24RDX Class E ........... 39RDX Class F .......... 23RDX Class G ........... 23

Composition C-4 ........ 20Composition A-3 ........ 31

]-'BX 9404 .............. 34PBX Type B ............ 35PBX 9110 o.............. 36

Three other explosives were tested: PBX-N3, HMX Class Band HMX Class E. It was found that PBX-N3 sustained adetonation at a 25% water level. In other tests, in which lighterwalled test vehicles were used, PBX-N3 failed to sustaindetonations at 25% and 28% water levels. HIMX Class B sustaineda detonation at the 44% water level; it failed to do so at the 49%level. HMX ClasL E supported a detonation at the 40% water level;it failed to do so at the 58% level. Thus, water levels wereestablished at which these explosives failed to sustain detonations.However, these tests were not adequate to show that theseexplosives will not sustain detonations at the higher moisture levels.For example, if they were to be confined in tubes stronger than theplexiglas tubes used or if tubes of greater diameter were to be used,perhaps detonations would be sustained. In any case, it was foundthat they sustain detonations at water levels generally higher thanthose of filtered explosives. For these reasons, these explosivesshould be considered Class 9.

Formulation of the explosive compositions is given in Table 4.

12

REFERENCE

1. Ordnance Safety Manual, ORD M7-224, Ordnance Corps,Department of the Army, 1951.

13

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

TABLES

4 ý4

cn r- o n n f

V -49

.- 4 CN V0)i N 10 a0 %0w.. m 0' 0' 00 00 ch m

ra a, a a, co co a'

-_4

1-4

a - r -4 e'n fo ' 4 nC-4 C- q en 04 V4 4

FT4 -4

to. 4.J C

-4 r.- q

cdu a 'a0 4)

44 '0 r'14 'r-44

4.)

.14 ~ 4 4 0 4)

~~$ to 'aa '

___ ___ ___ ___ ___ __ 41 Ato ao31 ~*ýa

ta ~ ~ ~ ao U t

> 0 fa~ too4 t

x 9. 0

M~ M cn fn M en C

CM0 -0 0- % oo I-

N% C ý40

.44

"0 V

4,0

444U0

-.4

414

-41

U 4 4 ý4 .4 4 IA 4 N

4444.'4

,44 -to M

be 1 .0

-,4 adv14 41

N 4 m cl 1~4 NlC44

41.4.i.4 0

161

'0 W 0 ~ '

14 )0 0

A 4j 4j 4.) 44

60 60 bau w o 0 b 0 F

14 1 1 4 1 4 14 04 M4w 40 0 0 40% 40, 40 4 0 0

0120

14 44

Nj eq en r. Lm a,

,4 X o a 0 Go L A I

P4 0

14 4EnA00

1.14

4j 44

414 14

, )0 01 0 04 t t in 0D n V OD >

-,4

0 -ul~,4

-A__ _____________ 4j*0,C

14 41

14 414 V 01

.- 4~~~, ,-4 to-N -4 - I J

Ajý

g 14)0

14 CLAe

to CA4

.4 04'4 0 0 4 '

pa 17 4

-40 1w1?

TABLE 4

FORMULATION OF EXPLOSIVE COMPOSITIONS

Explosive Nominal Composition Percent

Composition C-4 RDX 90.5

Polyisobutylene Binder 9.5

Composition A-3 RDX 91

Wax 9

PBX 9404 HMX 94

Nitrocellulose: Tris-betachloroethyl phosphate binder 5.9

Diphenylamine 0.1

PBX Type B RDX 90

Polystyrene binder 10

PBX 9010 RDX 90

Kel-F binder 10

PBX-N3 (Classified)

18

APPENDIX B

FIGURES

ELECTRIC INITATOR

BOOS, TER

WATE WET EXPLOSIvES

X X X

X K K -PLEXIGLAS TUBEK K K

x x x

x X xK 00

PLXxA EN DISC

Fiur0SCHEATI OF TETVEIL

x x19

Initiatiun 3-

12.-8 46.8

2! 63.8

Time after initiation isshown in microseconds

Figure 2Attempted Detonation of 341 Containing 58% Water

20

Init at on 49.2

16.4 65.6

82

Time after initiation isshown in microseconds

Figure 3Attempted Detonation of PBX-N3 Containing 28% Water

21

Initiation 34

8.5 47

2. •9.8

Time after initiation isshown in microseconds

Figure 4

Detonation of HMX Class E Containing 40% Water

22

TABLE OF DISTRIBUTION

TABLE OF DISTRIBUTION

Copy Number

1. Commanding GeneralU. S. Army Materiel CommandWashington 25, D.C.

ATTN: AMCAD-ST 1-2

2. Commanding GeneralU. S. Army Munitions CommandDover, New JerseyATTN: AMSMU-SS 3

AMSMU- RE 4

3. Commanding OfficerPicatinny ArsenalDover, New JerseyATTN: SMUPA-VA6 5-9

SMUPA- DX 1 10SMUPA- DE2 11-20SMUPA-G 21

4. Department of DefenseArmed Services Explosive Safety BoardArlington, Virginia 22-23

5. Chief, Bureau of Naval WeaponsMunitions Building, Room 2134Washington 25, D.C.ATTN: Code RUME-4 24

6. Commanding OfficerHarry Diamond LaboratoriesWashington 25, D.C.ATTN: Library 25

7. Comni-ndantU. S. Army Ordnance Center and SchoolAberdeen Proving Ground, MarylandATTN: AISO-SL 26

8. Holston Army Ammunition PlantKingsport, Tennessee 27-28

23

TABLE OF DISTRIBUTION (Cont'd)

Copy Number

10. Radford Army Ammunition PlantRadford, Virginia 29-30

11. Commanding OfficerAmmunition Procurement & Supply AgencyJoliet, IllinoisATTN: SMUAP-AE 31

SMUAP- AM 32-33SMUAP-S 34

12. Commar-ding OfficerU. S. Army Engineer Research & Development

LaboratoriesFort Belvoir, VirginiaATTN: STINFO Branch 35-36

13. Defense Documentation CenterCameron StationAlexandria, Virginia 37-56

24

ABSTRACT DATA

UNCLASSIFIEDSecuity Classification

DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA - R&D(Saecuriy classification of fille. body of abittect and indean4 annote.,mc must he entered wl~,• t bveraIl report to cilssihoeoj

I ORICGINATING ACTIVUIY (Corporate author) 20 MEPORT SECURITY C LiASISIPICATION

,Picatinny Arsenal UNCLASSIFIED"bDover, New Jersey 'b GRouP

3 REPORT TITLE

SAFE'Y HAZARD CLASSIFICATION OF WATER-WET EXPLOSIVES

4 DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (Type .o report and inc/usive datee)

5 AUTHOR(S) (Last none. first name, Initial)

KITE, Darrell, Jr.

6 REPORT DATE 7a TOTAL NO OF PAGFE 7b NO OP REPI

February 1965 26la CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. 90. ORIGINATOR'S REPORT NUMiER(S)

b PROJECT NO.AMC 4110. 16. 3053.12 Technical Report 3223

AMC41l0.16.2913.12

AMC 4110.16.2140.1.01. 5 3 s NO(s) (Aep oth. .. u.b.,.thta h. ... *,,a

d

10 AVA IL AUILITY/LIM:TATION NOTICES

II SUPP•'EMENTARY NOTES 12 SPONSORING MILITARY ACTIVITY

Picatinny ArsenalU. S. Army Munitions CommandDover, New Jersey

3 ABSTRACT

Eighteen water-wet explosives were studied to determine whether theycould support detonations. Of the 18 explosives tested, 15 sustained

detonations when saturated with water.

All explosives tested were found to sustain detonations at water levelsthat could be encountered in manufacturing operations following the

filtering operation. Therefore, the filtered explosives should be assigneda safety hazard classification of Class 9.

D DD FAN 1473 UNCLASSIFIEDsecuntr Cla.sstfication

25

UNCLASSIFIEDSrci r iy (I LINK . ..... "

KEY WOROS LINK A LINK 8 LICK

ROLE WT jTOLE wr ROLE *T

RDX

Composition C-4 and A-3PB3XHMXWater-wet explosivesMass detonatingSafety hazardManufacturing cost

INSTRaJCTIONS

I. ORIGINATING ACTIVITY: Enter the name and address 10. AVAILABILITY/LIMITATION NOTICES: Enter any Urn-of 'he contractor, subcontractor. grantee. Department of De- itations on further dissemination of the report, other than thoseten1.. ai/tiviiy or other organr.itlon (cororiers author) issuing Imposed by security classification, using standard statementsthe tq.por* such on:

2a. REPORT SECUIaTY CLASSIF!C.AT1ON: Enter the over- (1) "Qualified requesters may obtain copies of thisall security classification of the report. Indicate whether report from DDC.""Restricted Data" is included. Marking is to be in accerd-ance with appropriate security regulations. (2) "Foreign announcement and dissemination of this

21,. GROUP: Automatic downgrading is specified in DoD Di- report by DDC Is not uuthorlzed.'

rective S200. 10 and Armed Forces Industrial Manual. Enter (3) "U. S. Government agencies may obtain copies ofthe group number, Also, when applicable, show that optional this report directly from DDC. Other qualified DDCniarktigs h•ave been used for Group 3 and Group 4 as author. users shall request through

3. REPORT TITLE: Enter the complete report title in all (4) "U. S. military agencies may obtain copies of thiscapital letters. Titles in all cases should be unclassified. report directly from DDCi Other qualified usersIf a meaningful title cannot be selected without classifica- shalt request throughtion, show title classification in all capitals in parenthesisimmediately following the title, .

4. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES: If appropriate, enter the type of (5) "A'I distribution of this report is controlled. Qual.report, e.g., interim, progress, summary, annual, or final, ifled DDC users shall request throughGive the inclusive dates when a specific reporting period is ."covered.

If the report has been furnished to the Office of Technichl5. AUTHOR(S): Enter the name(s) of author(s) as shown on Services, Department of Commerce, for sale'to the public, inl-or in the report. Enter last namre, first name, middle initl,,, cate this fact and enter the price, If known.If military, show rank and branch of service. The name ofthe principal author is an absolute minimum requirement. It. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES: Use for additional explana-

:. tory notesb,. REPORT DATE. Enter the date of the report as day.month, year; or month, year. If more than one date appears 12. SPONSORING MILITARY ACTIVITY: Enter the name ofon the report, use date of publication. the departmental project office or laboratory sponsoring (pay-7a. TOTAL NUMBER O' PAGES: The total page count Ing for) the research and development. Include address,

should follow normal pagination procedures, i.e., enter the 13, A13STRACT: Enter are abstract giving a brief and factualnumber of pages containing information, summary of the document indicative of the report. even though

R Eeit may also appear elsewhere In the body of the technical re-7h. NUMBER OF REFERENCES: Enter the total numb~er of port, If additional space is required, a continuation sheetreferences cited in the report. - hall be attached.

Mt,. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER: If appropriate, enter It Is highly desirable that the abstract of classified re-the applicable number of the contract or grant under which ports be unclassified. Each para*-raph of the abstract shallThe report was written, end wilth an indication of the military security classification

8h. &-, & 8d. PROJECT NUMBER: Enter the appropriate of the information in the paragraph, represented as (TS), (S),mirhtlry department identification, such as project number, (C), or (U)-subpro)ect number, system numbers, task number. etc. There is no limitation on the length of the sbstr"•. How-

9,.. ORIGINATOR'SREPORT NUMBER(S): Enter the offi- ever, the suggested length is from 150 to 225 wnrds.CIdl report number by which the document will be identified 14. KEY WORDS: Key words are technically meaningful term-sand controlled by the originating activity. This number must or short phrases that characterize a report and may be used a!,be unique to this report. index entries for cataloging the report, Key word; mo-.t be

Ob. OTHER REPORT NUMBER(S): If the report has been selectee# so that no security classification is required. Iden-

assigned any other report numbers (either by the originator tiers. such as equipment model designation, trade name, mnili

or bh the sponsor), also enter this number(s). tarv project code name, geographic location, may he used askey words but will be followed by an Indication of technicalcontext. The assignment of linkst rules, and w,-irhtn i1io}ptional,

UNCLASSIFIEDSecurity Cf-assirfic ion

26