SERDP and ESTCP UXO Initiatives

Transcription

1 SERDP and ESTCP UXO Initiatives Herb Nelson SERDP/ESTCP Program Office Arlington, VA

2 DOD s Corporate Environmental Technology Programs Basic and Applied Research Demonstration / Validation 2

3 Environmental Drivers Sustainability of Ranges, Facilities, and Operations Maritime Sustainability Threatened and Endangered Species UXO & Munitions Constituents Toxic Air Emissions and Dust Noise Urban Growth & Encroachment Climate Change 3

4 Environmental Drivers Reduction of Current and Future Liability Contamination from Past Practices Pollution Prevention to Control Life Cycle Costs Groundwater, Soils and Sediments Large UXO Liability Emerging Contaminants Elimination of Pollutants and Hazardous Materials in Manufacturing Maintenance & Operations Achieve Compliance Through Pollution Prevention 4

5 Focus Area Management Structure Weapons Systems & Platforms Munitions Management Sustainable Infrastructure Environmental Restoration 5

6 UXO Cleanup Truth Limited Info Wide Area Assessment Production Ground Survey PA* Dig List (Detection) IS IT ORDNANCE? (Discrimination) Analysis of survey data Dedicated Cued Sensor IS IT LIVE? Post excavation Partially uncovered Still buried *Preliminary Assessment 6

7 UXO R&D Goals Wide Area Assessment Detection & Classification Recovery and Disposal Land and Water SERDP Innovative Sensors and Platforms Sensor and Environmental Phenomenology Detection/Discrimination Algorithms ESTCP Field Deployable Prototypes Establish Performance Capability Transition Technologies Scientifically Based Decision Tools 7

8 Presentation Overview Wide Area Assessment Large Scale Classification Study at former Camp Sibert Underwater UXO 8

9 WAA Layered Concept LiDAR, Orthophotography 1,000 s acres per day Munitions-related Features Helicopter-based Magnetometry 100 s acres per day Ferrous Metal Detection Statistical Sampling with Ground Systems 1-10 s acres per day Munitions Detection and Characterization 9

10 Rationale for WAA 610, , , , , ,000 UTM Easting (m) 625, , , , ,170,000 UTM Northing (m) 4,175,000 4,180,000 4,185,000 4,170,000 4,175,000 4,180,000 4,185,000 NAD 83 Zone 13N

11 Pueblo PBR #2 Wyoming Nebraska Utah Colorado Kansas Arizona Otero County New Mexico Oklahoma Texas La Junta WAA Site Boundary Pueblo PBR #2 Otero County La Junta, CO DERP-FUDS B08CO

12 Pueblo PBR #2 BT 4 Helicopter-based Magnetometry 615, , ,500 T4 - AOI - 1 4,171,000 Target #4 4,171,000 UTM Northing (m) 4,170,500 T4 - AOI - 3 T4 - AOI - 2 4,170,500 4,170,000 T4 - AOI - 4 T4 - AOI - 5 NAD 83 Zone 13N 4,170, , , ,500 UTM Easting (m) 12

13 Detail of a Ship Target LiDAR Orthophoto 616, , , ,200 UTM Northing (m) 4,170,500 4,170,600 4,170, , , , ,200 NAD 83 Zone 13N 4,170,500 4,170,600 4,170,700 UTM Easting (m) UTM Easting (m) 13

14 Capabilities of Modern LiDAR 331, ,200 NAD 83 Zone 13N UTM Northing (m) 3,893,900 3,894,000 3,893,900 3,894, , ,200 UTM Easting (m) 14

15 Former Kirtland Bombing Targets Bernalillo County Colorado WAA Site Boundary Oklahoma Arizona New Mexico Albuquerque Texas Kirtland N1, N2, N3, and NDIA Bernalillo County Albuquerque, NM DERP-FUDS K06NM

16 Former Kirtland Bombing Targets 330, , , , , ,000 3,894,000 N3 3,894,000 UTM Northing (m) 3,892,000 3,890,000 N1 N2 NDIA N4 3,892,000 3,890,000 3,888,000 NAD 83 Zone 13N 3,888, , , , , , ,000 UTM Easting (m) 16

17 Simulated Oil Refinery Target 332, , , , , , , ,000 UTM Northing (m) 3,894,000 3,894, , , , , , , ,500 NAD 83 Zone 13N 3,893,500 3,894,000 3,894, , Anomalies per Acre UTM Easting (m) UTM Easting (m) 17

18 Kirtland SORT Range 1951 Enhanced Photo 2005 Orthophoto SORT Simulated Oil Refinery Target TerraSpectra Geomatics 18

19 New Demolitions Impact Area 336, , ,200 UTM Northing (m) 3,893,000 3,893,000 3,893,200 3,893,200 NAD 83 Zone 13N 336, ,000 UTM Easting (m) 337,200 19

20 K06NM0445 KIRTLAND PBR 1951 PBR N-2 NEW DEMOLITION RANGE ( unofficially used) TerraSpectra Geomatics 20

21 Walker AFB Demolition Range #35 Target Center Appears Nearly 1,600 Feet West of the Field GPS Mapped Location identified as Target Center ( ) Distinct Appearance of Ranges in Older Photos Can Provide Validation Support for Assessment of ASR Interpretations of Photos from Later Dates 1994 ASR 1954 Enhanced Photo 21

22 Presentation Overview Wide Area Assessment Large Scale Classification Study at former Camp Sibert Underwater UXO 22

23 Munitions Response Cost Breakout Indirect Cost Direct Cost Cost - $B Site Assessment Survey and Mapping Vegetation Removal Scrap Metal Removal UXO Removal & Disposal Defense Science Board Task Force on UXO 23

24 Classification Classification offers the chance to divide anomalies into those caused by targets of interest and those caused by other things Recognize that current field methods involve implicit discrimination Mag & Flag instrument sensitivity setting and human interpretation Digital Geophysics threshold selection; what is a target? Our goal is a principled, data based approach to classify targets as non hazardous or targets of interest 24

25 Former Camp Sibert, AL Tennessee St. Clair County Mississippi Alabama Georgia Gadsden Florida Former Camp Sibert Etowah and St. Clair Counties Gadsden, AL DERP-FUDS I04AL Site 18 Former Camp Sibert 25

26 Camp Sibert Site , , , , ,000 3,752,000 New figure with areas labeled will go here Historic Target 3,752,000 UTM Northing (m) 3,751,800 3,751,600 SW 100' x 100' Grid SE 1 3,751,800 3,751,600 SE 2 3,751,400 GPO 3,751, , , , , ,000 UTM Easting (m) 26

27 Classification Process The standard processing stream for detection and discrimination of UXO using geophysical data: 1. Data Collection 2. Parameter Estimation 3. Classification data Non-UXO UXO feature vector 27

28 Dig List Example Rank 1 ID 313 P clutter.999 Comment High confidence NOT munition Threshold Can t make a decision High confidence munitions N-2 506??? N ??? Can t extract reliable parameters N 1898??? 28

29 EM61 Array vs. Cart Significant discrimination ability using commercial sensor data Discrimination 100% Detection ~200 False Positives P d 0.6 Array Detection Only 100% Detection ~600 False Positives Cart Desired Performance 100% Detection No False Positives Can t Analyze Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve false positives 29

30 Berkeley UXO Discriminator 30

31 Example BUD Data medium Polarizability minimum maximum medium minimum Polarizability maximum 31

32 BUD Results 1.0 Near-Perfect ROC Curve 0.8 P d 0.6 Dig No Dig false positives 32

33 Presentation Overview Wide Area Assessment Large Scale Classification Study at former Camp Sibert Underwater UXO 33

34 Underwater UXO Similar Challenges to Land, plus: Underwater navigation/geolocation Mobility of munitions Encrustation, biofouling Current, wave action Turbidity Regulation of sensitive environments Drivers Explosive safety Environmental contaminants Potential Actions Manage sites Mitigate when necessary 34

35 What does the problem look like? Civil defense shore batteries Targets on islands (lakes and ocean) Proofing ranges Littoral training areas Bomb and artillery targets now flooded Floating targets in lakes and along shore Dumping and disposal 35

36 Underwater Formerly Used Defense Sites 36

37 Island Targets Former Culebra Training Area, Cayo Alkazar Target 37

38 Littoral Training Areas Bahia Tamarindo Hondo, Former Culebra Training Area 38

39 Flooded Ranges Former Camp Maxey 39

40 MEC Characteristics 40

41 Challenges in Underwater Environments Littoral High energy Near shore and offshore ocean BIP restrictions Lakes Submerged & sunken trees Swamps Dense vegetation, low visibility Rivers Dense vegetation, current, low visibility Estuaries Current, low visibility Assorted Complexities Variable current Variable and irregular bottom topography and vegetation Dilapidated piers Underwater utilities Abandoned cars, household appliances Sunken trees The Usual Suspects Detection limitations Positioning accuracies Discrimination limitations 41

42 SERDP/ESTCP Workshop on Underwater UXO July 31 August 1, 2007 Researchers, service site managers, regulators Understand problem and requirements SOA technology for other applications Objectives: Identify near term opportunities for demonstration Identify long term knowledge gaps requiring research 42

43 Technology Options SONAR Other Acoustic Optical Trace Chemical Magnetometer Electromagnetic Induction 43

44 Where are the programs going? Focus of Program is Shifting to Live Site Demonstrations Criteria Real world application Foster technology transfer Successful application of emerging technology Service and regulatory interest Existing contractor receptive to new technology 44

45 Home Pages Partners in Environmental Technology Symposium December 1-3, 2009 Washington DC