I’m a retired Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) technician with over 30 years of experience. The 1st priority with unexploded ordnance incidents always is protecting lives; the 2nd priority is then protecting property.
For incidents such as the one at Exeter, it is always preferable to render ordnance fuzing safe in situ and then safely transport an item elsewhere for disposal (explosively). However, there are situations where it impossible, because of a variety of factors, to perform fuze render safe procedures. In these cases, the only viable alternative is blowing ordnance in place using substantial tamping.
Whilst there is now a tremendous amount of science underlying how ordnance items, both un-tamped and tamped, behave when detonated, the detonation behavior of an explosive item can still be wildly unpredictable. An EOD team will do their utmost to mitigate potential undesirable effects of a detonation such as the one at Exeter but things can occur with a detonation that are beyond an EOD team’s, or anyone’s, human control.
Assuredly, there will be a thorough investigation of the Exeter incident and there will be accountability if errors were made; however, given the exceptional training EOD personnel receive along with the high levels of professionalism and competency this work demands, it’s highly unlikely the team made errors and instead what occurred was well beyond the team’s control.
Best regards,
Jay
|