FINAL BEST DEMONSTRATED AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY (BDAT)
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT FOR K046 (ADDENDUM)
Larry Rosengrant, Chief
Treatment Technology Section
Elaine Eby
Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
401 M Street, S.V.
Washington, D.C. 20460
May 1990
Hote: This background doctsaeat is a proposed addendum to the August 1988 Final Brat Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT) Background Document Cor K046.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This document was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste, by Versar Inc. under Contract No.
68-W9-0068. Mr. Larry Rosengrant, Chief, Treatment Technology Section,
Waste Treatment Branch, served as the EPA Program Manager during the
preparation of this document and the development of treatment standards
for the K046 nonwastewater in the reactive subcategory, and all K046
wastewaters. The technical project officer for the waste was Ms. Monica
Chatmon-McEaddy. Mr. Steven Silverman served as legal advisor.
Versar personnel involved in the preparation of this document
included Mr. Jerome Strauss, Program Manager; Mr. Stephen Schwartz,
Assistant Program Manager; Mr. Amanjit Paintal, Staff Engineer;
Ms. Justine Alchowiak, Quality Assurance Officer; Ms. Juliet Crumrine,
Technical Editor; and the Versar secretarial staff, Ms. Sally Gravely.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1-1
2. INDUSTRY AFFECTED AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION 2-1
2.1 Industry Affected and Process Descriptions 2-1
2.2 Waste Characterization 2-4
2.3 Determination of Waste Treatability Groups 2-5
3. APPLICABLE AND DEMONSTRATED TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES 3-1
3.1 Applicable Treatment Technologies 3-1
3.2 Demonstrated Treatment Technologies 3-2
3.2.1 Nonwastewaters 3-2
3.2.2 Wastewaters 3-3
4. PERFORMANCE DATA 4-1
5. DETERMINATION OF BEST DEMONSTRATED AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
(BDAT) FOR K046 5-1
6. SELECTION OF REGULATED CONSTITUENTS 6-1
7. CALCULATION OF BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS 7-1
8. REFERENCES 8-1
APPENDIX A - DETERMINATION OF NONREACTIVE AND REACTIVE
FORMS OF K046 A-l
ii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1-1 BOAT Treatment Standards for K046 Wastes 1-3
Table 2-1 Generators of K046 Wastes 2-2
Table 2-2 Characterization Data for K046 Wastes 2-6
Table 2-3 Characterization Data for K046 Wastes Providing
Range of the Regulated Constituent an Design
Parameters for Nonwastewaters and Wastewaters 2-8
Table 4-1 Performance Data for Stabilization Using Portland Cement
on K046 Nonreactive Nonwastewater 4-3
Table 4-2 Performance Data for Alkaline Precipitation, Settling,
and Filtration of a Mixed K062, D007, and D008
Wastewater 4-4
Table 7-1 Calculation of Treatment Standards for K046 Reactive
Subcategory Nonwastewaters 7-2
Table 7-2 Calculation of Treatment Standards for K046 Wastewaters,
Reactive and Nonreactive Subcategories 7-3
iii
-------
1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
Pursuant to section 3004(m) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) as enacted by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA)
on November 8, 1984, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
establishing best demonstrated available technology (BOAT) treatment
standards for the listed waste identified in 40 CFR 261.32 as K046
(wastewater treatment sludges from the manufacturing, formulation, and
loading of lead-based initiating compounds). If the treatment standards
presented in this document are promulgated, compliance will be a
prerequisite for placement of certain types of K046 waste in units
designated as land disposal units according to 40 CFR Part 268. The
effective date of these treatment standards would be June 9, 1990.
In August 1988, EPA established two subcategories for K046 waste--
reactive and nonreactive--and promulgated a treatment standard for non-
wastewaters in the nonreactive subcategory (see 53 FR 31138, August 17,
1988) . The development of that treatment standard was described in the
BDAT background document for the K046 nonreactive subcategory (USEPA
1988a). The treatment standard, a concentration-based standard for lead,
was based on performance data from stabilization of a nonreactive K046
waste.
This final document is an addendum to the 1988 background document,
it provides technical support for the promulgated treatment standards for
K046 nonwastewaters in the reactive subcategory and for all K046
wastewaters. For the purpose of determining the applicability of the
treatment standards, wastewaters are generally defined as wastes
containing less than 1 percent (weight basis) total suspended solids* and
*The term "total suspended solids" clarifies EPA's previously used
terminology of "total solids" and "filterable solids." Specifically,
the quantity of total suspended solids is measured by Method 209C (Total
Suspended Solids Dried at 103 to 105°C) in Standard Methods for
the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 16th Edition (APHA, AWWA, and
WPCF 1985).
1-1
31BOg
-------
less than 1 percent (weight basis) total organic carbon. Wastes not
meeting this definition are considered nonwastewaters (USEPA 1989a).
The Agency is promulgating concentration-based standards for lead in
the K046 wastes of interest. For the reactive subcategory nonwastewaters,
the BDAT is deactivation followed by stabilization using Portland cement
as a binder. The lead standard itself is based on data transferred from
stabilization of a K046 nonreactive subcategory nonwastewater. For K046
reactive subcategory wastewaters, the BDAT is deactivation followed by
alkaline precipitation and then settling and filtration. For the K046
nonreactive subcategory wastewaters, the proposed BDAT is alkaline
precipitation followed by settling and filtration. The lead standard for
both types of wastewaters is based on data transferred from treatment of
a mixed K062, D007, and D008 metal-containing waste, which is thought to
be similar to the K046 wastewaters.
Table 1-1 presents treatment standards for K046 wastes. The
treatment standard for all K046 wastewaters is expressed in mg/1 (parts
per million on a weight-by-volume basis). The treatment standard for all
nonwastewaters reflects the concentration of lead in the leachate from
the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), and the units are
mg/1. If the concentrations of lead in K046 wastes, as generated, are
lower than or equal to the BDAT treatment standards when promulgated,
then treatment is not necessary as a prerequisite to land disposal.
1-2
3180g
-------
Table 1-1 BDAT Treatment Standards for K046 Wastes
Maximum for
anv sinele
Nonwastewaters
Subcategory Constituent
Reactive Lead
Nonreactive Lead
Total composition
(mg/kg)
N/A
N/A
TCLP
(mg/D
0.18a
0.18b
crab sample
Wastewaters
Total composition
(mg/1)
0.037a
0.037a
N/A - Not applicable.
aThese treatment standards are being promulgated in May 1990 under the
Third Third Final rule.
bThis treatment standard was promulgated in August 1988 (53 FR 31138,
August 17, 1988).
1-3
3180g
-------
2. INDUSTRY AFFECTED AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
As described in 40 CFR 261.32, K046 wastes are "wastewater treatment
sludges from the manufacturing, formulation and loading of lead-based
initiating compounds." This section discusses K046 wastes, their
generation, and the industry affected by the land disposal restrictions
that apply to them.
2.1 Industry Affected and Process Descriptions
K046 wastes are generated by the explosives industry, which is
identified by the standard industrial classification (SIC) code 2892.
SIC code 2892 facilities include both commercial firms and government-
owned plants operated by private firms. In the August 1988 background
document that supported the K046 treatment standard of the First Third
rule (USEPA 1988a), the Agency estimated that 62 facilities in the United
States were actively involved in the manufacture or use of lead-based
initiating compounds and thus were potential generators of K046 wastes.
The estimation was based on information retrieved in January 1987 from
EPA's Hazardous Waste Data Management System (HWDMS) data base. More
recent information developed by the EPA, Office of Solid Waste Listing
Program indicates that only nine facilities manufacture and/or use
lead-based initiating compounds and generate K046 wastes (Versar 1987a).
Seven of these facilities manufacture lead-based initiating compounds and
use them onsite for production of finished explosive products such as
ammunition, blasting caps, and primers. The two other facilities
purchase and use the compounds to produce finished explosive products.
Table 2-1 lists the nine facilities along with their locations, products,
and operations.
Lead-based initiating compounds are produced by reacting in aqueous
solution a soluble lead salt with a soluble salt of an explosive anion.
There are three major lead-based initiating compounds: lead azide, lead
2-1
334 9g
-------
Table 2-1 Generators of K046 Wastes
Company
Facility location
Products and operations
E. I. Du Pont
Remington Arms Co.,
Inc. (E.I. Du Pont)
Remington Arms Co.,
Inc. (E. I. Du Pont)
Atlas Powder Co.
Pompton Lakes, NJ
Bridgeport, CT
Lonoke, AR
Tamaqua, PA
IRECO Inc. Port Ewen, NY
Ensign-Bickford Co. Simsbury, CT
Federal Cartridge Corp. Anoka, MN
01in Corp.
U.S. Army Lake City
Ordnance Plant
East Alton, IL
Independence, MO
Lead azide, blasting
cap production
Lead styphnate,
ammunition
Lead styphnate,
ammunition
Lead mononitroresor-
cinate, fuses
Blasting cap production
Blasting cap production
Lead styphnate,
ammunition
Lead azide, lead styph-
nate, ammunition
Ammunition
Reference: Questionnaire responses from industry, collected under
authority of Section 3007 of RCRA, as reported in Versar 1987a.
2-2
33498
-------
styphnate, and lead mononitroresorcinate. Their manufacturing processes
and the subsequent generation of K046 waste are summarized below.
• Lead azide manufacturing - A soluble azide salt is reacted with
a soluble lead salt in aqueous solution. The product precipitates
from solution, is collected by filtration, and then is washed,
dried, and packaged. Process wastewaters are collected and
treated with sodium nitrite and sodium carbonate to convert any
lead azide present to lead carbonate and to destroy any azide
ions. The resulting lead carbonate sludge is a K046 waste.
• Lead styphnate manufacturing - A soluble styphnate salt is
reacted with a soluble lead salt in aqueous solution. The product
precipitates from solution, is collected by filtration, and then
is washed, dried, and packaged. Process wastewaters are collected
and treated with sodium sulfide and sodium hydroxide to
precipitate lead as the sulfide and to destroy any remaining
styphnate ions. The resulting sulfide sludge is a K046 waste.
• Lead mononitroresorcinate products - A soluble mononitro-
resorcinate is reacted with a soluble lead salt in aqueous
solution. The product precipitates from solution, is collected by
filtration, and then is washed, dried, and packaged. The
wastewaters are collected and treated with sodium sulfide to
destroy any mononitroresorcinate ions present and to precipitate
lead as the sulfide. The resulting sulfide sludge is a K046 waste.
One of the facilities listed in Table 2-1 generates K046 from a
fourth lead based initiator production process. This waste is
contaminated with the molecular explosive tetracene. The wastewater
sludge is chemically deactivated in a hot water bath with hydrogen
sulfide (H2S) to form a lead sulfide precipitate and a biodegradable
dissolved organic compound. The sulfide reduces the nitro group to amine
group. The amine group is then biodegradable.
K046 waste is also generated by load, assemble, and pack (LAP)
operations. The lead-based initiating compounds and other components are
fabricated into ammunition, primers, and blasting caps during LAP
operations. Washdown waters from areas used for these operations are
either treated to precipitate lead and destroy any explosive ions present
or left undisturbed to allow any residues to settle out. The sludge
separated from these "operations" is a K046 waste.
2-3
33*98
-------
Filtrates and supernatants separated from the K046 sludges identified
above are also K046 wastes under the "mixture" and "derived-from" rules.
According to comments received on the proposed First Third rule and
responses to questionnaires that were distributed under the authority of
Section 3007 of RCRA (Versar 1987a), these filtrate and supernatant
wastes are typically discharged to POTWs or surface waters under an NFDES
permit, at which point they become subject to the requirements of the
Clean Water Act.
2.2 Waste Characterization
Characterization data for K046 is shown in Table 2-2, lead
concentrations is the predominant toxic metal in K046 wastes,range from
as low as 0.59 ppm to as high as 197,500 ppm. Other BDAT list metals are
not consistently present at concentrations above 10 ppm. The wastes have
few organic components; no BDAT list volatile or semivolatile organic
constituents have been detected in the sampled wastes, and the total
organic carbon content is less than 500 ppm. Assuming that organics
concentrations are negligible, percent water and total solids values
should add to 100 percent.
In all cases, not enough information is available to ascertain
whether the wastes are technically nonwastewaters or wastewaters. The
Source 5 waste, however, is identified as a supernatant from treatment
tanks from which settled K046 sludge is removed, and thus it is likely a
wastewater. The Source 4 waste also appears to be a wastewater, based on
its low total solids content (1.5 percent). Total solids concentrations
for the tentatively identified nonwastewaters (Sources 1, 2, 3, and 6)
range from 1.3 to 63 percent. Therefore, the nonwastewaters have water
concentrations ranging from 37 to almost 99 percent. The tentatively
identified wastewaters (Sources 4 and 5) have total solids (disolved plus
suspended) concentrations ranging from 1.5 to 20 percent and thus water
concentrations of 88 to almost 99 percent.
2-4
33*9g
-------
2.3 Determination of Waste Treatabilitv Groups
Sometimes in the treatment of the wastewaters from which K046 wastes
are generated, not all reactive components are adequately deactivated.
Thus, to distinguish those wastes that are reactive as initially
generated from those that are not, the Agency has divided K046 wastes
into two subcategories, reactive and nonreactive. Treatment residuals
and other "mixed" and "derived-from" K046 wastes are considered to be in
the reactive subcategory if the K046 waste from which they are derived is
reactive as initially generated.
As discussed in the preamble to the First Third Final rule,
reactivity is to be determined by a testing protocol developed by the
Department of Defense. Although this protocol does not contain official
Office of Solid Waste analytical methods, the Agency believes that the
protocol represents logical and safe analytical procedures for
determining the characteristic of reactivity. This testing protocol is
presented in Appendix A.
Both reactive and nonreactive K046 wastes are further subcategorized
into nonwastewaters and wastewaters for the purpose of determining the
applicability of the BOAT treatment standards. (See Section 1 for
definitions of nonwastewaters and wastewaters.) Characterization data
for various K046 wastes are presented in Table 2-2.
Note that the Agency believes that none of the characterization data
in Table 2-2 represent K046 reactive subcategory wastes (i.e., Analytical
laboratories do not normally handle reactive samples for safety
reasons). However, because the treatment processes that first generate
K046 wastes, whether reactive or nonreactive, are similar (the aim being
to precipitate out lead in a nonreactive form while destroying explosive
ions), the Agency believes that reactive K046 wastes, after deactivation
by specialized incineration, will be similar to their nonreactive
nonwastewater or wastewater counterparts. This subject is discussed
further in Sections 3 and 4.
2-5
3349g
-------
3352g
Table 2-2 Characterization Data for K046 Wastes
Concentration (DOT. unless noted otherwise)
Source 1
Const ituent/parameter
BOAT list metals
Ant imony
Arsenic
Bar inn
Beryl liim
Cadmium
Chromium, total
Copper
Lead
Hercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Total
0.022
<0.010
<0.200
<0.005
<0.010
<0.020
<0.025
967
0.00084
<0.040
<0.005
<0.050
<0.010
<0.050
0.295
TCLP
<0.020
<0.010
0.228
<0.005
<0.010
<0.020
<0.025
103
<0.0003
<0.040
-------
3352g
10
-j
Table 2-2 (continued)
Concentration (DOT. unless noted otherwise)
Const ituent /parameter
Other parameters
Water (X)
0 i 1 and grease
Sulfate
Total organic carbon
pH
Total solids (X)
Total dissolved solids
Chloride
Source 1
Total TCLP
95 NA
3.8 NA
190 NA
461 NA
11.91 NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
Source
Total
NA
NA
169-698
253-288
12.65-13.42
1.3-10.9
10.200-44.000
908-3.140
2 A
TCLP
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Source
Total3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
24.5-63.1
NA
NA
3
TCLP
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Source
Total3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.5
NA
NA
4 Source 5 Source 6
TCLP Total Total
NA . - 95
NA
NA -
NA -
NA 7.2-13.1
NA 4.78-20
NA -
NA
aData are reported on a wet weight basis.
NA = Not analyzed.
- = No available data.
References:
Source 1.
Source 2.
Source 3.
Source 4.
Source 5.
Source 6.
USEPA 1988a. Tables 2-3 and 2-4.
USEPA 1988d. LDRS-Reference 70.
Versar 1987a. Table 5-1. Versar 1987b. Field nos. 18439-18452.
Versar 1987a, Table 5-1. and Versar 1987b. Field nos. 18453-18457.
USEPA 1988d. LORS-References 59 and 69.
Environ 1985. K046 data. Tables 1 and 2.
-------
3352g
Table 2-3 Characterization Data for K046 Wastes Providing
Range of the Regulated Constituent and Design Parameters
for Nonwastewaters and Wastewaters
Monwastewaters Wastewaters
Total
Parameters Concentration TCLP Total Concentration
Lead 27-197.500 0.058-1870 0.059-200
Water X 95 NA
Oil and grease 3.8
Total organic carbon 253-461
pH 11.91-13.42 - 7.2-13.1
Total solids X 1.3-63.1 - 1.5-20
Source: Table 2-2
NA = Not applicable.
- - Hot available.
2-8
-------
3. APPLICABLE AND DEMONSTRATED TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
This section identifies the treatment technologies that are
applicable to K046 wastes and determines which, if any, of the applicable
technologies can be considered demonstrated for the purposes of
establishing BDAT.
To be applicable, a technology must theoretically be usable to treat
the waste in question, or to treat a waste that is similar in terms of
the parameters that affect treatment selection. To be demonstrated, the
technology must be employed in full-scale operation for the treatment of
the waste in question or a similar waste. Technologies available only at
research facilities or in pilot- and bench-scale operations are not
considered in identifying demonstrated technologies.
As discussed in Section 2, K046 wastes have been divided into
reactive and nonreactive subcategories. The difference between the two
types of wastes is that reactive subcategory wastes are reactive
according to the testing protocol presented in Appendix A. Both types of
wastes, however, contain metals and thus require treatment for metals.
3.1 Applicable Treatment Technologies
Applicable technologies for reactive K046 wastes include deactivation
followed by metals treatment. Deactivation for nonwastewaters may entail
chemical treatment, or specialized incineration. Stabilization
technologies using various binder materials (e.g., Portland cement,
lime/fly ash, and kiln dust) are applicable for treating metals in the
deactivated nonwastewaters (see K046 Background Document, August 1988).
Wastewaters can be deactivated by a variety of chemical treatments (e.g.,
adding carbonate and nitrite salts to a wastewater containing lead
azide). The deactivated wastewaters can then be treated by alkaline
precipitation followed by settling and filtration to remove metals.
3-1
3622g
-------
Applicable technologies for creating metals in K046 nonreactive
wastes are the same as those identified for the reactive wastes after
deactivation, i.e., stabilization technologies for nonwastewaters and
alkaline precipitation followed by settling and filtration for
wastewaters.
As discussed in the August 1988 background document for K046
nonreactive subcategory wastes, metals recovery was not judged to be
applicable because of the relatively low metals content.
3.2 Demonstrated Treatment Technologies
3.2.1 Nonwastewaters
EPA believes that "list" technologies for deactivation
of K046 reactive subcategory nonwastewaters are demonstrated. Chemical
treatment employing a variety of chemical reagents is used on a
full-scale basis to eliminate the reactivity of "pre-K046" wastewaters,
i.e., the reactive wastewaters from the manufacture or use of lead-based
initiating compounds from which K046 wastes are initially generated.
Reactive K046 nonwastewaters can be slurried so that they are amenable to
the same treatment as these "pre-K046" wastewaters. Therefore, chemical
treatment is a demonstrated deactivation technology for K046 reactive
subcategory nonwastewaters.
Specialized incineration is being used full-scale on a variety of
explosive-containing wastes (see the Final BOAT Background Document for
Characteristic Ignitable Wastes (D001), Characteristic Corrosive Wastes
(D002), Characteristic Reactive Wastes (D003), and F and U Wastes
containing Reactive Listing Constituents (USEPA 1990c)). Because the
Agency believes that these explosive-containing wastes are sufficiently
similar to K046 reactive nonwastewaters in terms of reactivity
characteristics, specialized incineration also is considered demonstrated
for the K046 wastes.
3-2
3622g
-------
The August 1988 background document for K046 already established
stabilization technologies as demonstrated for metals in K046 nonreactive
subcategory nonwastewaters. Because the Agency believes that K046
reactive subcategory nonwastewaters, once deactivated, will be no more
difficult to treat than the nonreactive wastewaters for which treatment
data are available. This belief is based on the premise that K046
wastes, whether reactive or nonreactive as initially generated, are
produced by the manufacture/use of lead-based initiating compounds and
that the techniques and components used in the manufacture/use do not
vary such that they have an effect on the performance of stabilization.
Lacking evidence that would disprove this belief, EPA has determined that
stabilization technologies are demonstrated for treating metals in K046
reactive subcategory nonwastewaters. (For a detailed description of
stabilization technologies, see EPA's Treatment Technology Background
Document (USEPA 1989b).)
3.2.2 Vastevaters
The Agency knows of no full-scale technologies being used to
deactivate K046 reactive wastewaters. However, in the generation of K046
wastes (as mentioned above), reactive wastewaters from the manufacture
and use of the lead-based initiating compounds are being treated by
various forms of chemical deactivation on a full-scale basis. The Agency
believes that these "pre-K046" wastewaters, though likely more difficult
to treat, are similar to true K046 reactive wastewaters in that they are
expected to contain the same types of reactive ions that are amenable to
chemical deactivation. Thus, chemical deactivation is considered
demonstrated for K046 reactive subcategory wastewaters.
The Agency has not identified any facilities that definitely use
alkaline precipitation followed by settling and filtration to remove
metals from K046 wastewaters. (The K046 wastewaters generated
concurrently with the K046 sludges are typically discharged to POTWs and
3-3
36226
-------
surface waters under NPDES permits and possibly are being treated by
these technologies.) This treatment, however, is demonstrated for other
wastewaters that are similar to K046 wastewaters in terms of available
information on metals content and other factors that would affect
selection of treatment. For example, this treatment has been
demonstrated for a mixed K062, D007, and D008 waste that contained lead
at concentrations up to 212 mg/1. (Performance data for the mixed waste
are given in Section 4.) Thus, EPA considers alkaline precipitation
followed by settling and filtration demonstrated for treatment of metals
in K046 wastewaters. (Detailed descriptions of the technologies in this
demonstrated treatment train are given in USEPA 1989b.)
3-4
3622g
-------
4. PERFORMANCE DATA
Performance data, to the extent that they are available to EPA,
include the untreated and treated waste concentrations for various
constituents, values of operating parameters that were measured at the
time the waste was being treated, values of relevant design parameters
for the treatment technology, and data on waste characteristics that
affect performance of the treatment technology.
Where data are not available on the treatment of the specific wastes
of concern, the Agency may elect to transfer data on the treatment of a
similar waste or wastes, using a demonstrated technology. To transfer
data from another waste category, EPA must find that the wastes covered
by this background document are no more difficult to treat (based on the
waste characteristics that affect performance of the demonstrated
treatment technology) than the treated wastes from which performance data
are being transferred.
For treatment of K046 wastes, the Agency has three sets of
performance data which are presented in the August 1988 background
document. These data show treatment of a K046 nonreactive subcategory
nonwastewater (generated from lead styphnate production) by
(1) stabilization using a Portland cement binder, (2) stabilization using
a lime/fly ash binder, and (3) stabilization using a kiln dust binder.
Because performance data are not available from treatment of K046
reactive subcategory nonwaste- waters, EPA is transferring these
available data from stabilization of the nonreactive nonwastewaters. The
Agency believes that reactive wastes, once deactivated, will be no more
difficult to treat than the nonreactive wastes for which treatment data
are available. This belief is based on the premise that K046 wastes,
whether reactive or nonreactive as initially generated, are produced by
the manufacture/use of lead-based initiating compounds and that the
techniques and components used in the
4-1
3623g
-------
manufacture/use do not vary such that they have an effect on the
performance of stabilization.
Although all three sets of performance data from testing K046
nonreactive nonwastewaters may be considered available for developing
treatment standards for deactivated K046 reactive nonwastewaters, only
data from the test using Portland cement are presented here in
Table 4-1. As shown in the August 1988 background document, an analysis
of variance statistical test on lead stabilization data determined that
Portland cement is most effective in reducing the leachability of lead.
Because no performance data are available from treatment of K046
wastewaters by the sole identified demonstrated treatment (i.e., alkaline
precipitation followed by settling and filtration), the Agency used data
transferred from treatment of a mixed wastewater that contained K062,
D007, and D008 wastes (see Table 4-2). The Agency believes that K046
wastewaters would be no more difficult to treat than this mixed
wastewater because the K046 wastewaters have lower concentrations of
metals, particularly lead, according to available characterization data.
(Compare the "Source 4" and "Source 5" columns of Table 2-2, with the
"treatment tank composite" columns of Table 4-2.)
4-2
3623g
-------
3352g
Table 4-1 Performance Data for Stabilization Using Portland Canent
on IC046 Nonreactive Nonwastewater
Untreated waste
Const ituent /parameter
BOAT list metals
Ant imony
Arsenic
Bar inn
Beryl linn
Cadmiun
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Other parameters
Sulfide
Sulfate
Oil and grease
Total organic carbon
PH
Total
0.022
<0.010
<0.200
<0.005
<0.010
<0.020
<0.025
967
0.00084
<0.040
<0.005
<0.050
<0.010
<0.050
0.295
1.0
190
3.8
461
11.91
TCLP
<0.020
<0.010
0.228
<0.005
<0.010
<0.020
<0.025
103
<0.0003
<0.040
<0.005
<0.050
<0.010
<0.050
0.335
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Concentration
loam]
Treated waste TCLP
Sample #1
<0.17
<0.003
1.8
<0.002
<0.005
0.033
<0.006
0.072
0.0003
<0.030
<0.002
<0.006
<0.0007
<0.008
0.036
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sample 12
<0.17
<0.003
1.8
<0.002
<0.005
<0.020
<0.006
0.100
<0.0003
<0.030
<0.002
<0.006
<0.0007
<0.008
0.027
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sample «
<0.17
<0.003
1.8
<0.002
<0.005
0.030
0.019
0.062
<0.0003
<0.030
<0.002
<0.006
<0.0007
<0.008
0.112
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Applicable
percent
recovery (X)a
95
100
100
89
96
95
81
77
94
88
87
25
_b
91
96
NA = Not analyzed.
BThe applicable percent recovery is the lower of the matrix spike recovery or matrix spike duplicate recovery
for the particular metal in TCLP extracts unless both recoveries exceeded 100 percent (in which case, 100 percent
recovery is applicable).
Ttotrix spike recoveries fell below 20 percent, the BOAT Program's limit for acceptable data (see USEPA 1989a).
Note: Operating data are as follows: binder-to-waste ratio. 1.2; dry waste plus water weight. 600 grams, binder
weight, 720 grams; and mixture pH, 12.35.
Source: USEPA 1988a. Tables 2-4 and 4-1, and USEPA 198Bc, Table 6-4.
4-3
-------
3352g
Table 4-2 Perfonnance Data for Alkaline Precipitation. Settling, and
Filtration of a Nixed K062. 0007. and D008 Vastewater
Concentration (mm)
Sannle f 1
Const ituent/parameter
BOAT list metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (hexavalent)
Chromium (total)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Other parameters
Treatment
tank cooposite
<10
<1
<10
<2
13
893
2.581
138
64
<1
471
<10
<2
<10
116
Filtrate
<1
<0.1
<1
<0.2
<0.5
0.011
0.12
0.21
<0.01
<0.1
0.33
<1
<0.2
<1
0.125
Sample 12
Treatment
tank composite
<10
<1
<10
<2
10
807
2.279
133
54
<1
470
<10
2
<10
4
Filtrate
<1
<0.1
<1
<0.2
<0.5
0.190
0.12
0.15
<0.01
<0.1
0.33
<1
<0.2
<1
0.115
Samole 13
Treatment
tank composite
-------
3352g
Table 4-2 (continued)
Concentration (pom)
Sample »5
Const ituent /parameter
BOAT list metals
Ant imony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (hexavalent)
Chromium (total)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Other parameters
Total organic carbon
Total solids
Total chlorides
Total organic ha 1 ides
Treatment
tank composite
<10
<1
<|0
<2
<5
917
2.236
91
18
1
1.414
<10
<2
<10
71
200
NA
NA
0
Filtrate
<1
<0.1
<1
<0.2
<0.5
0.058
0.11
0.14
<0.01
<0.1
0.310
<1
<0.2
<1
0.125
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sample 16
Treatment
tank composite
<|0
<1
<}0
<2
<5
734
2.548
149
<10
<1
588
<10
<2
<10
4
700
NA
NA
700
Filtrate
<1
<0.1
<2
<0.2
<0.5
_a
0.10
0.12
<0.01
<0.1
0.33
<1
<0.2
<1
0.095
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sample
17
Treatment
tank composite Filtrate
<10
<1
<10
<2
10
769
2.314
72
108
<1
426
<10
<2
<10
171
3.400
NA
NA
1.900
<1
<0.1
<1
<0.2
<0.5
0.121
0.12
0.16
<0.01
<0.01
0.40
<1
<0.2
<1
0.115
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sample
IB
Treatment
tank composite Filtrate
<10
<1
<]0
<2
<5
0.13
831
217
212
<1
669
<10
<2
<10
151
5.900
NA
NA
800
<1
<0.1
<1
<0.2
<0.5
<0.01
0.15
0.16
<0.01
<0.1
0.36
<1
<0.2
<1
0.130
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
3352g
Table 4-2 (continued)
CTi
Concentration (Dim)
Const ituent /parameter
BOAT list metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (hexavalent)
Chromium (total)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Other parameters
Total organic carbon
Total solids
Total chlorides
Total organic ha 1 ides
Sample
Treatment
tank composite
<10
<1
<10
<2
<5
0.07
939
225
<10
-------
5. DETERMINATION OF BEST DEMONSTRATED AVAILABLE
TECHNOLOGY (BDAT) FOR K046
This section presents the Agency's rationale for determining the best
demonstrated available technology (BDAT) for K046 reactive
nonwastewaters, reactive wastewaters, and nonreactive wastewaters. BDAT
for K046 nonreactive nonwastewaters was determined to be stabilization
using Portland cement as a binder (USEPA 1988a).
To determine BDAT for a particular waste, the Agency typically
examines all available performance data on technologies that are
identified as demonstrated to determine (using statistical techniques)
whether one or more of the technologies performs significantly better
than the others. If a technology is the sole demonstrated technology,
then it is automatically "best." The best technology is then evaluated
to determine whether it is "available," i.e., whether the technology is
commercially available to any generator and whether it provides
substantial treatment of the wastes, as determined through evaluation of
accuracy-adjusted data, if available.
In determining whether treatment is substantial, EPA may consider the
number and types of constituents treated, the concentrations of
constituents in the treatment residuals, and the percent reduction of
constituents achieved by treatment. Where performance data are not
available for the waste in question, EPA may consider data on the
performance of a similar waste, provided the similar waste is at least as
difficult to treat.
In the case of K046 reactive nonwastewaters, the demonstrated
technologies have been identified as follows: deactivation by chemical
treatment, or specialized incineration, followed by stabilization using
Portland cement, kiln dust, or lime/fly ash. The BDAT is stated as
deactivation followed by stabilization using Portland cement. Lacking
5-1
3624g
-------
sufficient data with which to compare performance of the various
deactivation technologies, EPA is considering deactivation widely as
best. Because any of the deactivation technologies are widely available
and they provide substantial treatment (i.e., they eliminate the
reactivity characteristics) if operated properly, deactivation is
considered BDAT.
Stabilization using Portland cement is best for treating the metals
as shown in the August 1988 background document (USEPA 1988a,
Section 5). Stabilization using Portland cement as the binder is also
commercially available, and it provides substantial treatment for lead in
K046 nonreactive nonwastewaters (see Table 4-1). As discussed in
Sections 3 and 4, the Agency believes that the K046 reactive
nonwastewaters will be no more difficult to treat than the nonreactive
nonwastewaters. Thus, stabilization using Portland cement is being
proposed as BDAT for metals in reactive nonwastewaters.
Chemical deactivation followed by alkaline precipitation, settling,
and filtration is the only identified demonstrated treatment for K046
reactive wastewaters. As the only demonstrated treatment, it is
considered best. Because such a treatment train is commercially
available, and because it would provide substantial treatment for both
the reactivity characteristic and the metals (see the performance data
for the mixed waste deemed similar in Section 4), the treatment train is
being promulgated as BDAT for the K046 reactive subcategory wastewaters.
Because it is the only identified demonstrated technology for K046
nonreactive wastewaters, the alkaline precipitation, settling, and
filtration train is considered best. Because it is commercially
available and because it provides substantial treatment (again, see the
performance data for the similar mixed waste in Section 4), this
treatment is being promulgated as BDAT for the K046 nonreactive
wastewaters.
5-2
362*8
-------
6. SELECTION OF REGULATED CONSTITUENTS
This section presents the rationale for the selection of the
regulated constituents in K046 wastes. Constituents selected for
regulation must satisfy the following criteria:
1. They must be on the BOAT list of regulated constituents.
(Presence on the BDAT list implies the existence of approved
techniques for analyzing the constituent in treated waste
matrices.)
2. They must be present in, or be suspected of being present in, the
untreated waste. For example, in some cases, analytical
difficulties (such as masking) may prevent a constituent from
being identified in the untreated waste, but its identification
in a treatment residual may lead the Agency to conclude that it
is present in the untreated waste.
3. Where performance data are transferred from one constituent to
others, the selected constituents must be easier to treat than
the waste constituent(s) from which performance data are
transferred. Factors for assessing ease of treatment vary
according to the technology of concern. For instance, for
incineration the factors include bond dissociation energy,
thermal conductivity, and boiling point.
From the group of constituents that are eligible to be regulated, EPA
may select a subset of constituents as representative of the broader
group. For example, out of a group of constituents that react similarly
to treatment, the Agency might name only those that are the most
difficult to treat as regulated constituents for the purpose of setting
treatment standards.
In the case of the K046 wastes, the Agency is regulating.only lead.
The Agency investigated the possibility of regulating other BDAT list
metals that have been detected in K046 wastes, but has declined to do so
because the available characterization data show that these metals are
present in these wastes at relatively low concentrations. Also normally
the BDAT technologies chosen should adequately treat, i.e., (immobilize)
other BDAT list metals.
6-1
3625g
-------
7. CALCULATION OF BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS
The Agency bases treatment standards for regulated constituents on
the performance of well-designed and well-operated BDAT treatment
systems. These standards must account for analytical limitations in
available performance data and must be adjusted for variabilities related
to treatment, sampling, and analytical techniques and procedures.
BDAT standards are determined for each regulated constituent by
multiplying the arithmetic mean of "accuracy-corrected" constituent
concentrations detected in the treated waste by a "variability factor"
specific to each constituent. The accuracy-corrected concentration for a
constituent in a matrix is the analytical result multiplied by the
correction factor (the reciprocal of the recovery fraction). For
example, if Compound A is measured at 2.55 mg/1 and the recovery is
85 percent, the accuracy-corrected concentration is 3.00 mg/1:
2.55 mg/1 x 1/0.85 - 3.00 mg/1
(analytical result) (correction factor) (accuracy-adjusted concentration)
Variability factors correct for normal variations in the performance of a
particular technology over time. They are designed to reflect the
99th percentile level of performance that the technology achieves in
commercial operation. Recoveries, accuracy correction, and variability
factor determination and use are discussed further in EFA's Methodology
for Developing BDAT Treatment Standards (USEPA 1989a).
The calculation of treatment standards for lead in K046 reactive
subcategory nonwastewaters (after deactivation), reactive subcategory
wastewaters (after deactivation), and nonreactive subcategory wastewaters
is presented in Tables 7-1 and 7-2. The treatment standard for the
nonwastewaters reflects the concentration of lead in the extract from the
7-1
319*8
-------
3352g
Table 7-1 Calculation of Treatment Standards for K046 Reactive Subcategory Nomastewaters
Sample No.
Untreated TCLP
concentrat ion
(«g/D
Treatment residual TCLP
concentration, as
analyzed (mg/1)
Accuracy
correction
factor
Treatment residual TCLP
concentration, accuracy-
corrected (mg/1)
Average of
accuracy-corrected
concentrations (mg/1)
Variability
factor
(VF)
Treatment
standard
(mg/1)
1 103
2 103
3 103
0.072
0.10
0.062
1/0.77
1/0.77
1/0.77
0.0935
0.130
0.0805
0.101 1.76 0.18
-------
3352g
Table 7-2 Calculation of Treatment Standards for K046 Vastewaters. Reactive and Nonreactive Subcategories
Sample Mo.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
^ JJ
GO
Untreated
concentration
to/D
64
54
<10 *
<10 "
18
<10 *
108
212
•
-------
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) (51 FR 40643,
November 7, 1986), and the units are mg/1 (parts per million on a
weight-by-volume basis). The treatment standard for wastewaters reflects
the total waste concentration of lead in the wastewater; the units are
mg/1. Note that the lead treatment standards are based on data that
resulted from using EPA-approved methods SW-846 7421 (Atomic Absorption,
Furnace Technique) for nonwastewaters and SW-846 7420 (Atomic Absorption,
Direct Aspiration) for wastewaters (USEPA 1986a).
7-4
31948
-------
APHA, AWWA, and WPCF. 1985. American Public Health Assocation,
American Water Works Association, and Water Pollution Control
Federation. Standard methods for the examination of water and
wastewater. 16th ed. Washington, D.C.: American Public Health
Association.
Environ. 1985. Characterization of waste streams listed in 40 CFR
Section 261 waste profiles, Vol. II. Final report for Waste
Identification Branch, Characterization and Assessment Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1986a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste. Test methods for evaluating solid waste, SW-846. 3rd ed.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1986b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste. Onsite engineering report of treatment technology performance
and operation for Envirite Corporation, York, Pennsylvania.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1987. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste. Generic quality assurance project plan for land disposal
restrictions program ("BOAT"). EPA/530-SW-87-Oil. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1988a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste. Best demonstrated available technology (BDAT) background
document for K046. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
USEPA. 1988b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste. Best demonstrated available technology (BDAT) background
document for K062. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
USEPA. 1988c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste. Onsite engineering report for the stabilization of waste code
K046 at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1988d. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste. Rulemaking record for land disposal restrictions proposed rule
for Second Sixths waste codes, section 2.4 - K046. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
8-1
3195g
-------
USEPA. 1988e. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste. Response to comments related to the First Third wastes
treatment technologies and associated performance. Vol. IX. Issue
code 12. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1989a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste. Methodology for developing BDAT treatment standards.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1989b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste. Treatment technology background document. Washington, D.C.:•
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1990. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste. Final best demonstrated available technology (BDAT) background
document for characteristic ignitable wastes (D001), characteristic
corrosive wastes (D002), characteristic reactive wastes (D003), and P
and U wastes containing reactive listing constituents. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Versar Inc. 1987a. Engineering analysis for the production and use
of lead-based initiating compounds in the explosives industry.
Prepared for Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, under Work Assignment 14, Contract No. 68-01-7287.
Versar Inc. 1987b. Explosives record sample analysis - K046. Prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Project 5020.004,
March 31, 1987. Contract No. 68-01-7287.
8-2
31958
-------
APPBDDCA
DETERMINATION OF NONREACTIVE AND REACTIVE FORMS OF K046
-------
APPENDIX A
DETERMINATION OF NONREACTIVE AND REACTIVE FORMS OF K046
UNITE:- STATES ENVIRONMEN.AL PROTECT.-* AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
U.S. Army Procedures to Determine Reactivity
~* 2 I ,-,,
'•* -1
David Friedman, Manager
Waste Analysis Program, WCB HIWD (V.H-565)
Betty Willis, Region IV
Hazardous Waste Section
We have reviewed the test plan submitted by the U.S.
Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency lor determining
reactivity due to explosive -roperties. Negative results
in the battery of tests outlined in their pJan would be
adequate proof that the soil sample is indeed not a
reactive waste. OSW supports the ur•-• of this -esf plan
and plans to recommend it for use bj other generators
facing such a probl-..n.
If you need any assistance in eval'- ting, the data gen-
erated during this study, please contact Florence Richardson
c£ my staff. She can be reached at 755-9187.
A-l
-------
RBG1QN IV
AiHO — Infozsal MBTD
15, 1381
."
'
TOt David ndjadnan. OW-565)
tfZ2. Axny Pxocedures to Determine Reactivity
review this and give ne a call at FTS 257-3433 oancerning
bow to handle this request.
A-2
-------
* UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
. ttP 0 t 18BJ Region IV - Atlanta, GA
j)j' 5. Army Toxic 6 Hazardous Materials Agency
'Draft Procedures to Determine Reactivity
* **& ' : Arthur 0. Lin ton
-*. £^i£'"* tfederar Activities Coordinator
»-*^^«u • r ..^fc,." ^
T. i"» JL*' •.
. ••* Janes B. Finger, Director
- ^ "."Surveillance & Analysis Division
.' y Jaaes B. Scarbrough. Chief
V Residuals Management Branch
U. S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency has
fiqnieBted that we review the three enclosures. The purpose
.oTVthis procedure is to delineate the necessary tests,
afkociated methods, and interpretation of results to
.'determine whether contaminated soil and nediments are
classified as reactive, due to their explosive properties.
-?hi* information is necessary to determine what, if any,
rV processing is required for final disposal of such soil
-'1 tediaents.
.
e .facility this procedure has been developed for is
jan Army Ammunition Plant, Milan, Tennessee. There are
eleven lagoons located at this facility that have been used
tp process waters containing nitrobodies; specifically,
what is classified as pink water. The closing out of these
'lagoons has a high priority within the Army and EPA
because groundwater has been contaminated within the arsenal
bo'undaries. There is an immediate need to develop a strategy
to plose out these lagoons, cither by filling or treating the
sediments.
M
Feel free to contact Mr. Robert A. Breschi, who is referred
•tg^in the enclosed documents. Once your review has been
~ completed, we need to develop a mutual time during which
ve* can discuss this procedure with Mr. Breschi and other
representatives of the U. S. Army Toxic and Hazardous
Hat*ri*l» Agency.
•v>*" jri-.v.;
ting that you respond to my request by
1* 1981. I am targeting a meeting with the
- Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency during
of September 21.
V^.f A-3
--:'*!»»:•>•
--'_«. i..
-•».i .jj-
IPA
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
US AJWY TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS NATEHAI.S AGEMCt
OJtOUMO.
25 AU6 1981
Mr. Art Llnton
Federal Activities Coordinator (fen 203)
Eny1ronBental Protection Agency
345 Courtlind Street
Atlanta. Georgia 30365
Dear Mr. 11 n ton:
\
In reference to our FONECON of V24 August 1981, inclosed are the draft
procedures developed by US Amy Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency (USATHAHA)
to determine the reactivity of the soils and sediment within the 11 lagoons
situated at Milan AAP.
.- . j*
Inclosures 1 end 2 are copies of the procedures to determine concentrations *
of explosives within soil and sediment. Inclosure 3 1$ a copy of the
reactivity procedures to determine whether soil and sediment are in fact
reactive.
•
If there ere questions call
-------
TEST PLAN TO DETERMINE REACTIVITY OF
EXPLOSIVELY CONTAMINATED SOIL AND SEDIMENT*
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this plan is to delineate the necessary tests, associated methods, and
interpretation of results to determine whether a contaminated soil of sediment is
classified as reactive due to its explosive properties. Such information is necessary to
determine what (if any) processing is required prior to final disposal of such soil or
sediment.
II. REFERENCE
a. Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 261, Para 261.23,
Characteristic of Reactivity.
b. EPA Publication SW 846, Test Method for Evaluating Solid Waste.
Subsection) 6-2; Definition of Explosive Materials (attached as Incl. 1).
c. Army Technical Bulletin 700-2, Chapter 3: Minimum Test Criteria for Bulk
Explosive Compositions and Solid Propellant Compositions.
d. FONECONS with Dr. H. Matsuguma, Chief, Chemistry Branch, Energetic
Materials Division, Large Caliber Weapons System Laboratory, U.S, Army
Armament Research and Development Command, SAB.
III. BACKGROUND
Due to explosives production, employment, and disposal operations performed through the
years at various military installations across the country, the Army owns property which
contains potentially explosively contaminated soils and sediments. Efforts-are underway
to begin decontamination and close-out of such sites in compliance with" Federal'
Environmental Regulations. Explosives, however, are governed by Rcf. 2a, which restricts
reactive materials from begin landfilled, including placement in. a hazardous, waste:;
landfill. By regulation, then, every Army site which contains explosive residues, which
range from low parts per million up to fifty percent in the worst cases, would require
treatment prior to final disposal. Since many sites with low levels of contamination are
not expected to exhibit any explosive properties, identifying such sites would remove
from them the requirement to treat the residues as reactive wastes. Therefore, tests are
provided in this plan which are suitable for determining whether a contaminated soil or..
sediment is reactive due to explosivity according to Environmental Protection Agency
definitions.
•Three sediment samples are obtained from each lagoon and analyzed for explosive
concentration. One sample is taken near the waste water influent point, another
near the effluent point, and the third sample is taken from the middle of the
lagoon.
A-5
-------
a. Of the eight characteristics defining a reactive waste in Rcf. 2a, the
characteristics pertaining to explosive wastes arc:
I. Capable of detonation or explosive reaction if subjected to a strong
initiating source or if heated under confinement.
2. Capable of detonation or explosive decomposition or reaction at standard
temperature or pressure.
3. Is a forbidden explosive as defined in 49 CFR 173.51 or a Class A or
Class B explosive as defined in 49 CFR 173-53 and 88.
b. Ref. 2b defined tests for explosives which address the above definitions of
reactivity as follows:
1. A Stability Test is performed by heating the residue to 75°C for
48 hours. This test defines a forbidden explosive according to 49
CFR 173.51.
2. A Detonation Test is performed by inserting a blasting cap into a sample
and observing the detonation. Reaction of the sample to a strong
initiating source and Class A explosives as defined in 49 CFR 173.53 are
tested in this manner.
3. A Spark Test is performed'by inserting a time fuze or an electric squib
into a sample and observing for deflagration or detonation. This tests
for explosives as defined in 49 CFR 173.53 (initiating explosives) and
49 CFR 173.88 (propellants).
4. An Impact Test is performed on the Bureau of Explosives Impact
Apparatus to define Class A explosives according to 49 CFR 173.53.
c. In Ref. 2d, the above tests were discussed with Dr. H. Matsuguma of the
Army's Primary Explosives Research Laboratory. Pertinent comments
regarding the above tests were as follows:
1. The tests are adequate Tor a go/no-go evaluation of reactivity, except
that the results of the Impact Tests will be misleading at low explosive
concentrations. Since impact testing is designed to be a severe test used
for ranking reactions of various explosives. It is possible to eke out
positive results even from minute quantities of explosives.
Supplementing Impact Test results with a Card Gap Test, as outlined in
Ref. 2c, will better define the ability of a contaminated sample to
propagate detonation.
2. Soil and sediment samples should be analyzed to determine the explosive
constituents and their concentrations. However, the chemical analysis
methods are not germane to the actual reactivity tests and are not
addressed in this plan.
A-6
-------
3. The Stability. Detonation. Impact, and Card Gap Tests are performed, in
a standard manner, although some minor modifications are required to
accommodate preparation of environmental samples. The Spark Test is
not a standard test for the Army, but with modification, can be
performed in the same manner as the Detonation Test.
V. TEST EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS
The following items are required to perform the necessary explosives tests on one field
sample. Ancillary laboratory equipment is not included.
a. One Bureau of Explosives Impact Apparatus.
b. One ventilated explosion-proof oven equipped to continuously record
temperature.
c. One blasting machine or equivalent.
d. Electric firing wire.
e. Electric blasting caps.
1. Five No. 8 electric blasting caps (contains 2 gms of 80/20 mixture
mercury fulminate/potassium chlorate).
2. Three-engineer special electric blasting caps.
f. Five electric match head igniters.
g. Two inch diameter by 1 inch long pressed pentolite pellet. National Stock
No. 1375-00-991-8891, as required.
h. Solid lead cylinders 1-1/2 inch diameter by 4 inches high as required.
f. One piece of mild steel plate SAE 1010 to 1030, 1/2 inch thick by 12 inches
square.
j. Mild steel plates (SAE 1010 to 1030) 6x6 inches x 3/8 inch as required.
k. Tubing, steel cold drawn seamless, mechanical, composition 1015, 1-7/8 inch
00, 0.219 inch wall thickness by 5-1/2 inch long, as required.
VI. SAMPLE PREPARATION:
A complete set of tests will require a five pound sample from each field sampling point.
Samples will generally be received wet and possibly split into multiple containers for
shipping purposes. The field sample will be prepared and split into laboratory samples as
follows:
a. Recombine samples if necessary. Samples may be mixed while wet to achieve
uniformity. Large chunks should be broken up, in a ball mill or mortar and
pestle, using an operational shield if necessary.
A-7
-------
b. The wet samples must be dried to the appropriate moisture content for testing.
1. The apropriate moisture content will be determined by taking a soil
sample from a depth of four feet at a point close to the lagoon being
sampled. That sample will then be weighed, dried in an oven until
constant weight is achieved, and then reweighcd. From this, the
moisture content will be calculated.
2. For each soil or sediment sample to be tested for explosivity, a sub*
sample will be drawn, weighed, oven dried, and then reweighcd to
determine its original moisture content. The amount of water weight
which must be removed from each sample to reach the moisture content
in 6b(l) above will then be calculated.
3. Each soil or sediment sample will then be weighed, spread in a thin
layer on a tray, and then dried in an oven at 60°C until the amount of
water weight calculated in 6b(2) above has been removed. The sample
must be monitored and reweighcd until the desired weight is reached.
c. Laboratory test samples will be prepared from the prepared field sample as
follows:
1. For the Thermal Stability, Detonation, and Spark Tests, prepare a total
of eleven samples by filling a four-ounce paper cup approximately 2/3
full. The sample should not contain large chunks and should be tamped
as it is filled to insure continuity of the sample.
2. For the Impact Sensitivity Test, withdraw an approximate 200 mg sample
from the field sample. This sample must then be carefully crushed so
that 10 mg of uniformly fine consistency can be drawn from it.
Description of the individual samples is incorporated under the Impact
Sensitivity Test.
3. For the Card Gap Test, prepare three samples by filling the tubes listed
in para. 5k with the material to be tested. Insure that the sample is
continuous by tamping. If the consistency of the sample is such that it
will not consolidate, a piece of light cellophane tape may be placed
across the lower end to retain the sample.
VII. TEST METHODS
Although it could be argued that some of these tests are not applicable to certain pure
explosives, it is possible to encounter residues from mixed explosives or environmentally
altered residues which will not behave in the classic manner. Therefore, the complete
series of tests will be performed on each sample. Test results will be recorded on a data
sheet similar to Fig. 1. Tests may be run in any convenient order.
a. Thermal Stability. Place one sample from para. 6d(I) in a constant
temperature explosion-proof oven. Raise temperature of the oven to 75°C and
maintain at 75°C for 48 consecutive hours. Temperatures will be continuously
recorded. Constant observation is not required. Record results on data sheet.
A-8
-------
b. Spark Test. Place a lead block (para. 5h) on the steel plate (para. 5i). Using a
sample from para. 6d(l). make a small depression in the sample with stick or
pencil, insert an electric match head igniter (para. 5f) into the depression and
secure (tape) the igniter wires to the cup for stability. Place the cup on the
lead block, connect the firing circuit, and remotely initiate. Deflagration will
be evidenced by the energetic burning of the sample. Detonation of the
sample will cause mushrooming of the lead block. Repeat the test five times
or until evidence of a deflagration or detonation occurs, whichever is less.
Record results on data sheet.
c. Detonation Test. Place a lead block (para. 5h) on the steel plate (para. Si).
Using a sample from para. 6d(l). press a hole about half the length of the
blasting cap into the center of the sample using a pencil, then insert a No. 8
blasting cap into the sample. A wood block with a hole drilled in it similar to
Fig. 2 may be used to support the blasting cap. Place the sample onto the lead
block, connect the firing circuit, and remotely initiate. Detonation of the
sample will cause mushrooming of the lead block. Repeat the test five times
or until detonation occurs, whichever is less. Record results on a data sheet.
d. Impact Sensitivity Test: Conduct ten individual tests using one sample (para.
6d(2)) per test in the Bureau of Explosives Impact Apparatus. Place a 10 mg
sample in the cup assembly. Drop the weight from the maximum height of the
machine. Observe the result and record on the data sheet. Conduct tests at an
ambient temperature of 25°C 5°C. Insure cup and anvil are thoroughly
cleaned and dried between test runs.
e. Gap Test
I. Assemble the following items for each test to be conducted:
a. One sample prepared according to para. 6d(3).
b. Two pentolite pellets (para. Sg).
c. One engineer's special electric blasting cap, 32 (para. 5e(2)).
d. Blasting machine and firing wire (para 5c. and d).
e. One 5x6 inch steel plate (para. 5j).
f. Plastic material, 1/16 inch thick cut into 1/2 inch squares.
2. Arrange the materials as shown in Fig. 2. The witness plate is supported
on two edges, about 6 inches above ground surface. The small plastic
squares are placed on the plate to support the pipe and maintain a 1/16
inch air gap. The squares should be under the edge of the pipe, rather
than under the explosive. The pentolite boosters are then placed on top
of the sample as shown in Fig. 2, except that the gap cards and the
cardboard tube are not used. The blasting cap is then placed on top of
the pentolite (with a wood support ring) and remotely detonated.
Detonation of the sample is indicated when a clean hole is cut in the
witness plate. This test is performed three times or until a detonation
occurs, whichever is less. Results are recorded on the data sheet.
A-9
-------
VIII. INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
For the purpose of reactivity evaluation, a positive result from any single test will
indicate that a given field sample is reactive, except that results from the Impact and Gap
Tests should be considered together.
a. A sample is considered reactive due to instability if it detonates, deflagrates,
or decomposes exothermically (as evidenced by a rise in temperature on the
recorder) during the Thermal Stability Test.
b. The field sample is considered to be reactive if one lab sample detonates,
deflagrates, or burns in a sustained flame during the Spark Test. Localized
smoldering does not indicate reactivity.
c. The field sample is reactive if one sample detonates during the detonation
test.
d. The Impact Sensitivity Test may be considered positive if detonation
(explosion, flame, noise) occurs in at least 50 percent of the ten tests.
Conversely, if detonation does not occur in at least 50 percent of the tests, the
sample is non-reactive. However, the results of the Impact Sensitivity Test are
the most difficult to interpret, since samples can exhibit partial response
under such harsh treatment. In such cases, the Gap Test should be used as a
discriminator, defining a material as reactive if it detonates once out of three
tests.
IX. CONCLUSION
The tests conducted under this plan exceed minimum requirements for determining
reactivity due to explosive properties as specified in Ref. 2b. The Thermal Stability,
Spark, and Detonation Tests are performed as specified. The Impact Sensitivity Test is
performed in a manner more stringent than specified to insure that results are safe-sided.
Since Impact Sensitivity Tests may present results which are difficult to interpret, the
Shock or Gap Test has been added as a discriminator to determine whether a questionable
material is detonable under worst-case conditions. It can be stated with certainty that a
sample which does not respond positively to these tests is not reactive due to explosive
properties as defined in Ref. 2a.
A-10
-------
SW 84B, DATED MAY 1980
"TEST METHODS FOR EVALUATING SOLID WASTE"
SUBSECTION 6.2
DEFINITION OF EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS
For purposes of this regulation, a waste which is a reactive waste by reason of explosivii
is one which meets one or more of the following descriptions:
1. Is explosive and ignites spontaneously or undergoes marked decomposition whe
subjected for 48 consecutive hours to a temperature of 75°C (167°F).
1. Firecrackers, flash crackers, salutes, or similar commercial devices which produce c
are intended to produce an audible effect, the explosive content of which exceeds 1
grains each in weight, and pest control bombs, the explosive content of which exceed
18 grains each in weight; and any such devices, without respect to explosive conten:
which on functioning are liable to project or disperse metal, glass or brittle plasti
fragments.
3. Fireworks that combine an explosive and a detonator or'blasting cap.
4. Fireworks containing an ammonium salt and a chlorate.
5. Fireworks containing yellow or white phosphorus.
6. Fireworks or fireworks compositions that ignite spontaneously or undergo marker
decomposition when subjected for 48 consecutive hours to a temperature of 75°C (167°F).
7. Toy torpedoes, the maximum outside dimension of which exceeds 7/8 inch, or toy torpcdoe
containing a mixture of potassium chlorate, black antimony and sulfur with an average
weight of explosive composition in each torpedo exceeding four grains.
8. Toy torpedoes containing a cap composed of a mixture of red phosphorus and potassiurr
chlorate exceeding an average of one-half (0.5) grain per cap.
9. Fireworks containing copper sulfate and a chlorate.
10. Solid materials which can be caused to deflagrate by contact with sparks or flame such a:
produced by safety fuse or an electric squib, but can not be detonated (see Note 1) b:
means of a No. 8 test blasting cap (see Note 2). Example: Black powder and lov
explosives.
11. Solid materials which contain a liquid ingredient, and which, when unconfined (see Not
3). can be detonated by means of a No. 8 test blasting cap (see Note 2); or which can b
exploded in at least SO percent of the trials in the Bureau of Explosives' Impact Apparatu
(see Note 4) under a drop of 4 inches or more, but can not be exploded in more than 5
percent of the trials under a drop of less than 4 inches. Example: High explosive
commercial dynamite containing a liquid explosive ingredient, primarily nitroglyceri
component.
A-ll
-------
12. Solid materials which contain no liquid ingredient and which can be detonated, wh«n
unconfincd (see Note 3), by means of No. 8 test blasting cap (sec Note 2); or which can ' j
exploded in at least 50 percent of the trials in the Bureau of Explosives' Impact Apparat
(see Note 4) under a drop of 4 inches or more, but can not be exploded in more than .v-i
percent of the trials under a drop of less than 4 inches. Example: High explosive I
commercial dynamite containing no liquid explosive ingredient, trinitrotoluene, amatc; J
tetryl, picric acid, ureanitrate, pentolite, commercial boosters.
13. Solid materials which can be caused to detonate when unconfincd (see Note 3), by conta /
with sparks or flame such as produced by safety fuse or an electric squib; or which can t
exploded in the Bureau of Explosives' Impact Apparatus (see Note 4), in more than fn
percent of the trials under a drop of less than 4 inches. Example: Initiating and primin ,-
explosives, lead azide. fulminate of mercury, high explosives.
14. Liquids which may be detonated separately or when absorbed in sterile absorbent cottor
by a No. 8 test blasting cap (see Note 2); but which can not be exploded in the Bureau c
Explosives' Impact Apparatus (see Note 4), by a drop of less than 10 inches. The liqui
must not be significantly more volatile than nitroglycerine and must not freeze sH
temperatures above minus 10°F. Example: High explosives, desensitized nitroglycerine. ,_J
15. Liquids that can be exploded in the Bureau of Explosives' Impact Apparatus (see Note 4r-1
under a drop of less than 10 inches. Example: Nitroglycerine. ' j
16. Blasting caps. These are small tubes, usually made of an alloy of either copper o
aluminum, or of molded plastic closed at one end and loaded with a charge of initiating o
priming explosives. Blasting caps (see Note 5) which have been provided with a means fo - '
firing by an electric current, and sealed, are known as electric blasting caps.
n
17. Detonating primers which contain a detonator and an additional charge of explosives, al( |
assembled in a suitable envelope.
18. Detonating fuses, which are used in the military service to detonate the high explosive
bursting charges of projectiles, mines, bombs, torpedoes, and grenades. In addition to 3
powerful detonator, they may contain several ounces of a high explosive, such a tetryl or
dry nitrocellulose, all assembled in a heavy steel envelope. They may also contain a small
amount of radioactive component. Those that will not cause functioning of other fuses.
explosives, or explosive devices in the same or adjacent containers are classed as Class C
explosives and are not reactive waste.
19. A shaped charge, consisting of a plastic paper or other suitable container comprising a
charge of not to exceed 8 ounces of a high explosive containing no liquid explosive
ingredient and with a hollowed-out portion (cavity) lined with a rigid material.
20. Ammunition or explosive projectiles, either fixed, semi-fixed or separate components which
are made for use in cannon, mortar, howitzer, recoilless rifle, rocket, or other launching
device with a caliber of 20mm or larger.
A-12
-------
21. Grenades. Grenades, hand or rifle, are small metal or other containers designed to be
thrown by hand or projected from a rifle. They arc filled with an explosive or a liquid.
gas. or solid material such as a tear gas or an incendiary or smoke producing material and
a bursting charge.
22. Explosive bombs. Explosive bombs are metal or other containers filled with explosives.
They are used in warfare and include airplane bombs and depth bombs.
23. Explosive mines. Explosive mines are metal or composition containers filled with a high
explosive.
24. Explosive torpedoes. Explosive torpedoes, such as those used in warfare, are metal devices
containing a means of propulsion and a quantity of high explosives.
25. Rocket ammunition. Rocket ammunition (including guided missiles) is ammunition
designed for launching from a tube, launcher, rails, trough, or other launching device, in
which the propellant material is a solid propcllant explosive. It consists of an igniter,
rocket motor, and projectile (warhead) either fused or unfused, containing high explosives
or chemicals.
26. Chemical ammunition. Chemical ammunition used in warfare is all kinds of explosive
chemical projectiles, shells, bombs, grenades, etc., loaded with tear, or other gas, smoke or
incendiary agent, also such miscellaneous apparatus as cloud-gas cylinders, smoke
generators, etc., that may be utilized to project chemicals.
27. Boosters, bursters, and supplementary charges. Boosters and supplementary charges consist
of a casing containing a high explosive and are used to increase the intensity of explosion
of the detonator of a detonating fuse. Bursters consist of a casing containing a high
explosive and are used to rupture a projectile or bomb to permit release of its contents.
28. Jet thrust units or other rocket motors containing a mixture of chemicals capable of
burning rapidly and producing considerable pressure.
29. Propellant mixtures (i.e., and chemical mixtures which are designed to function by rapid
combustion with little or no smoke).
Note 1: The detonation test is performed by placing the sample in an open-end fiber
tube which is set on the end of a lead block approximately 1-1/2 inches in
diameter and 4 inches high which, in turn, is placed on a solid base. A steel
plate may be placed between the fiber tube and the lead block.
Note 2: A No. 8 test blasting cap is one containing two grams of a mixture of 80
percent mercury fulminate and 20 percent potassium chlorate, or a cap of
equivalent strength.
"Unconfined* as used in this section does not exclude the use of a paper or soft
fiber tube wrapping to facilitate tests.
A-13
-------
Note 4: The Bureau of Explosives' Impact Apparatus is a testing device designed so tha_
a guided 8-pound weight may be dropped from predetermined heights so as t I
impact specific quantities of liquid or solid materials under fixed condition* '
Detailed prints may be obtained from the Bureau of Explosives, 2 Pennsylvania
Plaza, New York, New York 10001. H
Note 5: Blasting caps, blasting caps with safety fuse, or electric blasting caps ir
quantities of 1.000 or less are classified as Class 0 explosives and not subject t<—|
regulation as a reactive waste.
A-14
-------
REACTIVITY/EXPLOSIVITY TEST DATA SHEET
Installation
Sample Number and Location
Explosive Components and Concentrations
Test Result: Sample is Reactivg/Non-Reactivg (circle J>ne)
Detonation Test
No. 8 Blasting Cap Test I
Test II
Test III
Test IV
Test V
Samples: Five 4 oz. cups
Exploded
Yes No
Deflagration
Yes No
Test: One blasting cap per sample.
Spark Test
Electric Match Head Igniter
Test I
Test II
Test III
Test IV
Test V
Samples: Five 4 oz. cups
Exploded
Yes No
Burned
Yes No
Thermal Stability Test
Explosion
Yes No
Ignition
Yes No
Marked
Decomposition
Yes No
Samples: One 4 oz. cups
Test: 48 hours at 75°C in vented oven.
Card Gap Test Samples 3 Tubes
Detonation: Yes
Mo
A-IB
-------
Impact Sensitivity Test
Bureau of Explosives Impact Apparatus
Maximum Height Drop Test
10 Trials
No. of Trials Exhibiting
Explosion
Flame and
Noise
No Explosion
No Flame
No noise
Approved:
Test Director
Test Department Head
Signature
Title
Organization
A-16
-------
C«rd C»p C«ilulecc
Ac«t*t« Card*
0.01 inch ««ch
Cs«lo»iv«f Coaeoti
tioa
Cardboard Tub*
g«p
*nd VUts
Hood Stand
*•«* /(fr •Btli:*M *****
A-17
------- |