EPA-600/2-78-012
February 1978
Environmental Protection Technology Series
STATE OF THE ART STUDY:
Demilitarization of
Conventional Munitions
hnfastrfal Environmental Research Laboratory
pffice of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-78-012
February 1978
STATE-OF-THE-ART STUDY:
DEMILITARIZATION OF CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS
by
Norman I. Shapira
James Patterson
John Brown
Kenneth Noll
American Defense Preparedness Association
Washington, D. C. 20005
Grant No. R-804401
Project Officer
Herbert S. Skovronek
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory - Cincinnati
Edison, New Jersey 08817
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
For ule by the Superintendent of Document!. U.S. Government
Printing Office, •••hington, D.C. 20402
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environ-
mental Research Laboratory-Cincinnati (Edison, NJ field
station), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed,
converted, and used, the related pollutional impacts on our
environment and even on our health often require that new and
increasingly more efficient pollution control methods be used.
The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory - Cincinnati
(IERL-CI) assists in developing and demonstrating new and im-
proved methodologies that will meet these needs both efficiently
and economically.
The report reviews the technology currently in use by the
military for disposal of obsolete, unsafe, and excess explosives
and propellants and, to the extent possible, characterizes the
air, water, and solid wastes generated by these operations. The
study outlines the present environmental problems of the indus-
try, the technology in use to control these problems, and the
research needed to upgrade the pollution abatement technology.
In addition to being directly pertinent to the explosives in-
dustry segment of EPA's R&D program, many of the concepts and
technologies noted may have wider bearing on pollution abate-
ment in other chemical industry segments. The Industrial Pollu-
tion Control Division should be contacted for further discussion
of this project.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
111
-------
PREFACE
This is the second State-of-the-Art Study conducted for
EPA by the American Defense Preparedness Association. The first
study, entitled "Military Explosive and Propellants Production
Industry" (EPA 600/2-76-213), dated October 1976, presents a
detailed description of military explosives and propellents, as
well as the processes for their manufacture and pollution abate-
ment practices. The reader is referred to this prior study for
basic background information.
The purpose of this summary is to summarize preliminary
conclusions and recommendations, which are as follows.
DEMILITARIZATION PROCESSES
Although complete conclusions and recommendations are not
within the scope of this Phase I Report, nevertheless some
brief, preliminary conclusions can be drawn regarding the de-
militarization processes and the effluents produced therefrom.
This section deals only with the processes themselves. Pre-
liminary conclusions regarding treatment are presented in sub-
sequent paragraphs. Six categories of demilitarization are
addressed in this section: washout; deactivation furnace; open
detonation; open burning; new developments; and advanced tech-
nology in chemical demilitarization.
a. Washout
This is an effective process for removal of most explo-
sives, such as TNT and Comp B. It is not effective for removal
of many propellants as in rocket motors, or plastic bonded ex-
plosives (PBX). In addition, this is an energy-intensive
process . Under the present circumstances of decreasing supply
and increasing cost of energy, alternative processes should be
investigated to minimize energy consumption.
b. Deactivation Furnace
This is an effective process for demilitarization of small
munitions. Although energy consumption is involved, safety is
iv
-------
also a paramount consideration, and this may be judged as the
most cost-effective process for small munitions demilitarization
when all considerations are taken into account.
c. Detonation
This is a simple,, safe and cost-effective process for de-
militarization of many munitions which are obsolete, or unsafe
to handle otherwise. No additional energy consumption is in-
volved. The quantities involved are small when compared with
the commercial blasting industry (over one million tons/year)
(129). Use of this process will always be required to a certain
degree.
d. Open Burning
This is also a simple, safe and cost effective process for
demilitarization of munitions which are obsolete or unsafe to
handle otherwise. Potentially adequate alternatives to open
burning are under development, and their implementation will
depend upon the relative balance among cost, energy implications,
and environmental factors.
e. New Developments
Current military plans for development and demonstration of
new or improved demilitarization processes are sufficiently
comprehensive to provide a range of alternatives, provided that
adequate funding is made available for the implementation of
these development programs. A potentially useful study could
be initiated to examine systematically the energy implications,
environmental aspects and cost effectiveness of various alterna-
tive new demilitarization development programs. This would be
a program which would merit EPA funding support.
f. Advanced Technology
The U. S. Army has developed and demonstrated at Rocky
Mountain Arsenal and Tooele Army Depot the most advanced tech-
nology presently available for the safe disposal of energetic,
toxic and hazardous substances. A potentially useful program
could be initiated by EPA to investigate the application of this
technology to the disposal of toxic and hazardous industrial
substances as contemplated in the recently enacted legislation
in PL 94-469.
v
-------
TREATMENT OF AIR EFFLUENTS
With respect to the major current demilitarization processes,
the following preliminary conclusions can be drawn with respect
to air effluents.
a. Washout
Although minimal amounts of explosive may escape through
the scrubbers in the APE 1300 washout plant, this is not con-
sidered to constitute an environmental problem.
b. Deactivation Furnace
Addition of the APE 12?6 fabric filter particulate collec-
tion system to the APE 1236 deactivation furnace constitutes a
significant improvement in air pollution control and should
satisfy environmental quality standards.
c* Detonation
Until the same environmental criteria are applied to the
use of explosives in the commercial blasting industry, there is
no reasonable basis for criticism of demilitarization of obso-
lete or unsafe munitions by detonation. Principal products
appear to be C02, H20 and N2, all of which are non-pollutants.
Covering of the munitions by earth substantially reduces noise
and particulates.
d. Open Burning
Alternatives to open burning are in various stages of
development, and given sufficient funding, should provide ade-
quate options for the elimination of the environmental problems
associated with this process. These alternatives are reviewed
in Chapter III. Support of these development efforts by EPA
funding is recommended, as well as more detailed evaluation of
alternative processes.
e. Advanced Technology
The air pollution control systems in use at Rocky Mountain
Arsenal and Tooele Army Depot constitute the most advanced tech-
nology currently available for treatment of air effluents associ-
ated with the safe disposal of toxic and hazardous materials.
vi
-------
EPA should take an active role in technology transfer in apply-
ing this technology to the solution of problems in industry.
TREATMENT OF WASTEWATER
The APE 1300 hot water washout system is the only major
demilitarization process with potential for water pollution
(pink water), and the degree of potential pollution varies with
the terrain and climatology of the facility. Development pro-
grams encompassing carbon column and polymeric resin treatment,
under investigation by several Army and Navy organizations, will
provide effective treatment technology if adequately funded and
properly designed. In addition, new processes are under in-
vestigation which involve pretreatment for removal of suspended
solids, as well as total dissolved solids. These would permit
significant opportunities for water re-use. High pressure cold
water washout is also an alternative with potential advantages
for energy savings. Continued evaluation of alternative options
is recommended.
SOLID WASTES
Additional study is needed to determine whether solid wastes
from demilitarization constitute an environmental problem, and,
if so, to what degree.
VII
-------
ABSTRACT
This study was undertaken:
To review the technology in use by the military to dispose
of obsolete, excess, and unsafe explosives and propellants; to
characterize, at least in a preliminary manner, the air, water
and solid wastes generated during such operations; to identify
technology in use or under development to control or eliminate
the environmental insult from these operations; and to identify
areas where additional research may be needed to more fully
characterize the wastes or to develop necessary pollution abate-
ment technology.
The study found that four basic "demilitarization" tech-
niques are in common use: washout or steamout; confined deto-
nation or burning in a rotary kiln; open burning; and open
demolition. More sophisticated processes are under development.
Air pollution consists primarily of fine particulates and,
to some extent, NOX, from burning or detonation operations.
Control is being achieved with scrubbers and baghouses.
Water pollution, primarily as dissolved explosives and
other components, arises during washout and steamout operations
and, to a lesser degree, from the use of scrubbers. Recycle of
wastewater is widely practiced as is the use of evaporative
ponds. Newer technology is also under development.
Solid waste consists primarily of dunnage and scrap shells.
Burning of combustibles, resale of scrap metal, and land dis-
posal of sludges are common practices.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant No.
R-8C4401 by an AdHoc Committee of The American Defense Pre-
paredness Association under the sponsorship of the U. S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency. The report covers the period
of March 1976 to March 1977, and work was completed as of
August 1977.
viii
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ..... .
Preface .............................................. lv
Abstract .................................................. viii
Figur e s [[[ x
Table s [[[ xi
Acknowledgments ........................................... xiii
Introduction ........................................... 1
Demilitarization Processes and Equipment ............... 9
Standard processes in general use ................. 9
Processes in local use ............................ 21
Processes under development ....................... 24
Current demilitarization facilities ............... 31
Planned new demilitarization facilities ........... 34
Special demilitarization facilities ............... 38
Preliminary conclusions and recommendations ....... 43
Air Effluents ................. . ........................ 46
Air pollution sources and characteristics ......... 46
Air pollution control ............................. 58
Review of development trends in explosives and
propellants waste incineration .................. 70
Economic analysis ................................. 75
Preliminary conclusions ........................... 80
Wastewater Effluents ....................... ........... 83
Wastewater sources and characteristics ............ 83
Wastewater treatment and disposal ................. 94
Solid Wastes ........................................... 107
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 APE 1300 Explosive washout plant schematic
diagram 12
2 APE 1300 Water reclamation system 13
3 APE 1300 Photograph of washout section 14
4 APE 1236 General assembly 16
5 APE 1236 Discharge assembly 17
6 Demilitarization locations 32
7 Western Demilitarization Facility, Naval
Ammunition Depot, Hawthorne, Nevada 35
8 Pilot model air pollution control system 61
9 Process diagram - DARCOM depot disposal system.... 65
10 Comparison of operating costs (250 Ib/hr) 78
11 Comparison of operating costs (1000 Ib/hr) 79
12 APE 1300 Water reclamation system 97
13 Basic selection chart carbon vs. resin 106
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Military Demilitarization Installations .............. 2
2 Principal Ingredients of Explosive and Propellant
Formulat ions ....................................... ^
3 Uncontrolled Emissions for Combustion of Munitions... ^-8
4 Detonation Products of Confined and Unconfined
Explosions ......................................... 49
5 Emissions from Explosives Detonations ................ 50
6 Emissions from Burning of Energetic Materials ........ 53
7 Estimated Daily Pollution Emissions from Burning
Explosives ......................................... 54
8 1975 Monthly Emissions from PEP Waste ................ 55
9 1975 Monthly Emissions from PEP-Contaminated Waste... 56
10 Summary of 1975 Emissions ............................ 57
11 Air Pollution Control System for Deactivation
Furnace - Installation Schedule .................... 59
12 Particulate Emission Data ............................ °2
13 Washout Plant Effluent Control ....................... 64
14 Summary - Developmental Incinerator Systems .......... ?4
15 Cost Factors for the 250 Ib/Hr Case .................. 76
16 Cost Factors for the 1000 Ib/Hr Case ................. 77
XI
-------
Number Page
17 Munitions Processed in Army Depot Washout Facilities. 84
18 Chemical Characterization of Letterkenny AD TNT
Washout Wastewater 8?
19 Chemical Characterization of Letterkenny AD Comp B
Washout Wastewater 87
20 Summary of Washout Wastewater Characteristics 90
21 Military Facilities with Steamout Capability 91
22 NWSC Crane Scrubber Water Characteristics 94
23 Adsorption Capacity for XAD-4 101
24 Wastewater Characteristics 101
25 Ultimate Disposal Methods for Washout Effluents 103
26 Demilitarization Facilities Ultimate Disposal
Methods 104
27 Economics of Demilitarization Water Pollution
Control 105
28 Characterization of Cyclone Dust Samples 110
29 Characterization of Baghouse Dust Samples Ill
xii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was conducted for EPA by The American Defense
Preparedness Association (ADPA) under Grant No. R-804401. The
purpose of this paragraph is to identify the principal partici-
pants, and their relationships.
a. Sponsor. The study Sponsor was The Office of Research and
Development of The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. The
program officer within EPA was Dr. Herbert Skovronek of the
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory., at Edison, New
Jersey.
b. ADPA. The American Defense Preparedness Association
assembled an AdHoc Committee from the industrial and educational
communities for the specific purpose of conducting this study.
c. Department of Defense. The study would not have been pos-
sible without the full cooperation of the Military Services, and
their support was generously and enthusiastically provided,
specifically by the following commands:
(1) Headquarters, U. S. Army Materiel Development and
Readiness Command (DARCOM)
(2) Headquarters, U. S. Naval Material Command
(3) Joint Conventional Ammunition Program Coordinating
Group (JCAP)
(4) Headquarters, U. S. Army Armament Command
(5) Headquarters, U. S. Navy Sea Systems Command
(6) U. S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency
This study is based substantially upon data and factual
information provided by the Military Services.
xiii
-------
d. In particular, the following persons are cited for their
valuable and significant contributions:
(1) Mr. John Pace., Environmental Control Office,
Headquarters, U.S.A. DARCOM
(2) Mr. Edward J. Jordan, Executive Director, JCAP
(3) Mr. Daniel Quagliarello, Headquarters, U. S. Naval
Material Command
(4) Mr. Kenneth Range, Demilitarization Coordinator,
Headquarters, U. S. Naval Sea Systems Command
(5) Col. A. D. Kneesy, U. S. Army Environmental Hygiene
Agency
(6) Mr. John Byrd, U.S.A. DARCOM Ammunition Center,
Savanna, Illinois
(7) Mr. Frank Crist, U. S. Army Ammunition Equipment
Office, Tooele, Utah
xiv
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1. BACKGROUND
This study was conducted by the American Defense Prepared-
ness Association (ADPA) for the Office of Research and Develop-
ment of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. This study is
one of many which ADPA has conducted for the U. S. Government.
The study was initiated in March 1976, and completed in March
1977.
2. PURPOSE
The purposes of Phase I of this study were as follows:
a. First, to define and characterize the typical air, solid and
wastewater effluents from explosives and propellants demilitar-
ization. This has been done primarily by the assembly of data
already available within the Military Services.
b. Second, to identify explosive and propellant air, solid, and
wastewater effluent treatment processes, including those now
being used as well as those under investigation.
The purposes of Phase II of this study were:
a. First, to study reports collected in Phase I, collate data,
analyze the above mentioned wastewater, air and solid effluent
treatment processes and evaluate their effectiveness, and pre-
pare conclusions and recommendations.
b. Second, to define RD&D programs which EPA might support in
order to make available to the explosives and propellants demil-
itarization industry the most effective and economical treatment
technology for achievement of the effluent quality prescribed by
the U. S. Congress.
-------
3. SCOPE
The scope of the study can be defined in terms of:
o Military organizations,
o Munitions,
o Demilitarization processes,
o Effluents, and
o Treatment technology.
The military organizations are tabulated in Table 1. Demilitar-
ization processes are described in Chapter II. Effluents and
treatment technology are discussed in Chapters III-V.
TABLE 1. MILITARY DEMILITARIZATION INSTALLATIONS
U. S. Army
Depots (AD)
U. S. Army
Ammunition Plants (AAP)
U. S. Navy
Installations
Anniston AD
Letterkenny AD
Lexington-Bluegrass AD
Pueblo AD
Navajo AD
Ft. Wingate AD
Red River AD
Seneca AD
Sierra AD
Tooele AD
Umatilla AD
Savanna AD
Iowa AAP
Ravenna AAP
Joliet AAP
Cornhusker AAP
Newport AAP
Longhorn AAP
Pine Bluff Arsenal
Milan AAP
Kansas AAP
Lone Star AAP
Volunteer AAP
Sunflower AAP
Holston AAP
Radford AAP
Indiana AAP
NWSC Crane
NAD Hawthorne
NAD McAlester
NAD Earle
NWS Yorktown
NWS Seal Beach
NWS Charleston
NTS Keyport
NOS Indian Head
NWSC - Naval Weapons Support Center
NAD - Naval Ammunition Depot
NWS - Naval Weapons Station
NTS - Naval Torpedo Station
NOS - Naval Ordnance Station
a. "Demilitarization" is the process of rendering inert or re-
moving the energetic ingredients contained in munitions which
are defective, obsolete, unsafe, 'or otherwise no longer required
in the military inventory. Demilitarization also includes re-
moval of aging inert ingredients when the casings are desired
for reuse for refill with new explosives or propellants.
-------
b. The organizations encompassed in this study include: the
U. S. Army; the U. S. Navy; and the U. S. Air Force. From
Table 1, it can be seen that twelve U. S. Army Depots are in-
cluded , as well as nine U. S. Navy installations, and fifteen
U. S. Army Ammunition Plants. The Army and Navy conduct essen-
tially all demilitarization for the U. S. Air Force.
c. Department of Defense has designated the U. S. Army as
"Single Service Manager" for the production, load, assembly and
pack of all Army, Navy and Air Force explosives, propellants,
pyrotechnics, smokes, and conventional munitions. Demilitariza-
tion is included within this Single Service Manager responsi-
bility. As a consequence, NWSC Crane, NAD Hawthorne and NAD
McAlester will come under Army cognizance effective in October
1977.
d. The principal explosive and propellant ingredients filled in
military munitions are listed in Table 2. In addition, there are
primers, detonators, smokes and pyrotechnic formulations.
e. The munitions products included in this study are:
(1) Bulk explosives and propellants,
(2) Explosive warheads,
(3) Rocket motors (propellant),
(4) Small arms ammunition, and
(5) Pyrotechnics, smokes and illuminants.
f. The munitions categories are as follows: shell and missile
warheads; shell and missile propellants; mines; fuzes; small
arms ammunition; grenades; bombs; submunitions; torpedoes.
g. The tasks of Phases I and II are as follows. This report
addresses Phase I only.
Phase I
(1) Task I. Identification of Military Installations
engaged in demilitarization activities.
(2) Task II. Identification of existing military reports
and studies on demilitarization programs.
-------
TABLE 2. PRINCIPAL INGREDIENTS OF EXPLOSIVE
AND PROPELLANT FORMULATIONS
Explosives
Principal Ingredients
Amatol
Composition A1-A6
Composition B
Cyclotol
Explosive D
HBX
H-6
Minol
Octol
PBX
Tritonal
Smokeless Powder
Tetryl
Propellants
Single Base
Double Base
Cross-Linked Double Base
Triple Base
Composite
Base Grain Casting Powder
TNT, NH.NO
RDX, Wax
TNT, RDX; Wax
TNT, RDX
Ammonium Picrate
RDX, At, Wax, CaC-t
TNT, RDX, At, Wax, CaCi
TNT, NH.NO , At
4 3
HMX, TNT
RDX or HMX and Polymeric Binder
TNT, At
NC, NG
Nitrocellulose (NC), DNT
NC and Nitroglycerin (NG)
NC, NG, HMX, AP*, At, Polyurethane
NC and NG and Nitroguanidine
AP*, At, Polyurethane or
Polybutadiene
NC, NG, HMX, AP
Perchlorate
At is metallic aluminum in all cases
-------
(3) Task III. Meetings with appropriate senior military
program managers concerned with demilitarization, in accordance
with authorization provided to the ADPA Ad Hoc Committee by the
major Army, Navy and Air Force Commands.
(4) Task IV. Visits to selected military facilities en-
gaged in demilitarization activities to meet with technical and
operational personnel and collect first-hand information.
(5) Task V. Collection of data from all available sources.
(6) Task VI. Preliminary assessment report on the environ-
mental problems of demilitarization.
Phase II
(7) Task VII. Collation and evaluation of data by:
product; demilitarization process; effluent; and disposal or
treatment method.
(8) Task VIII. Identification of data gaps.
(9) Task IX. Derivation of conclusions on the effective-
ness of pollution abatement technologies associated with the
various demilitarization processes.
(10) Task X. Preparation of conclusions and recommenda-
tions for RjD&D programs.
(11) Task XI. Preparation of final report.
4. LIMITATIONS AND EXCLUSIONS
a. Exclusions
Specifically excluded from the scope of this study are the
following:
(1) Inert metal parts,
(2) Toxic chemical agentss and
(3) Herbicides.
-------
b. Limitations
This study is limited to the degree that it is based upon
available sampling and monitoring data and published documents,
supplemented by on-site visits to the extent permitted by time
and financial resources. No actual monitoring or sampling was
done by the ADPA Committee. In addition,, this Phase I study has
primarily been a data collection effort. Analysis and evalua-
tion are within the scope of Phase II rather than Phase I, al-
though some preliminary assessments are made in this Phase I
Report.
c. References
The reports and documents collected in Phase I of this pro-
gram are listed in the attached References, Some 131 references
were collected. The detailed review and analysis of these docu-
ments are not within the scope of this Preliminary Assessment
Report.
d. Plant Visits
Visits were made by the Committee to the following military
installations for a number of purposes: to observe demilitariz-
ation equipment and operations at first hand; to observe equip-
ment used for the treatment/disposal of effluents emitted into
the air or water, or onto the land; to be briefed on research
and development programs for new demilitarization and waste
effluent treatment technology.
Installation—
(1) Army:
Anniston Army Depot, Anniston, Ala.
Letterkenny Army Depot, Letterkenny, Pa.
Red River Army Depot, Texarkana, Tex.
Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Denver, Col.
Savanna Army Depot, Savanna, 111.
Sierra Army Depot, Sierra, Cal.
Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah
U. S. Army Armament Command, Rock Isl., 111.
U. S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, Aberdeen
Proving Ground, Md.
U. S. Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command,
Alexandria, Va.
-------
(2) Navy:
Naval Weapons Support Center, Crane, Ind.
Naval Ammunition Depot, Hawthorne, Nev.
U. S. Naval Material Command, Alexandria, Va.
U. S. Naval Sea Systems Command, Alexandria, Va.
(3) Joint Conventional Ammunition Program Coordinating
Group, Rock Island, 111.
5. OVERVIEW OF THE MILITARY DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM
a. Perspective
In March 1972, the Joint Logistics Commanders established
the "Joint Panel on Disposal Ashore of Ammunition," to "develop
a plan for the disposal of ammunition by ecologically acceptable
means" (9^). As of June 1972, the total continental U. S. in-
ventory of ammunition for disposal was estimated at 191,000 tons,
with a five-year future estimate of 433,000 tons, for a total of
624,000 tons of ammunition to be disposed of during the period
1972-77 (9^-). Visits to various Army and Navy installations have
indicated that extensive demilitarization operations were con-
ducted until 1974-1975, with the result that the backlog of
ammunition for disposal has been reduced significantly.
b. Magnitude of Current and Future Inventory
The latest available report (96) places the inventory of
ammunition for disposal at 127,000 tons as of 31 December 1975.
The Army forecasts a demilitarization workload in the range of
35,000 to 38,000 tons annually through 1981. Adding Navy and
Air Force munitions, it is estimated that the annual demilitar-
ization workload will be in the range of 100,000 tons or less.
The principal current stocks are at the following Navy locations
(Dec. 1975 data) (96):
Location Tons
NWSC Crane 18,748
NAD Hawthorne 37,105
NAD McAlester 28,296
Stocks at individual Army Depots generally are in the range of
5,000 tons, or less. Figures for the Army and Navy include
stocks of Air Force munitions. Tonnages previously cited in-
clude the weights both of the energetic ingredients and the
7
-------
metal casings. The percent of weight attributable to the ex-
plosive or propellant component varies considerably, but gen-
erally can be considered to be in the range of 30-50$ oT total
weight. The composition of the stockpile awaiting demilitar-
ization varies widely, from small arms ammunition to large
bombs and solid propellant rocket motors. Principal energetic
ingredients are TNT, RDX, and NC.
c. Demilitarization Geography
The major demilitarization operations are carried out at
military depots which are remotely located with respect to
large population centers, and which contain large land areas
amenable to such activities.
8
-------
CHAPTER II
DEMILITARIZATION PROCESSES AND EQUIPMENT
Current conventional munition demilitarization operations
are rather well standardized and use much the same equipment
everywhere. There are a few full-scale processes restricted to
one or two depots, and there are several new processes under
development for improved demilitarization or pollution abatement
performance. Pollution abatement is discussed in subsequent
chapters.
SECTION I
STANDARD PROCESSES IN GENERAL USE
No two demilitarization operations are exactly alike., but
the vast majority of them can be described by the following com-
posite description of five distinct processes.
6. MUNITION DISASSEMBLY LINES
a. The first step in any demilitarization operation is the dis-
assembly of munitions into components suitable for ultimate de-
activation. Fixed artillery ammunition,, for example, will have
the projectile pulled out of the cartridge case in a special jig,
the propellant powder dumped into a collection bin, and the
primer removed from the cartridge. The projectile will have the
fuze unscrewed and removed, the booster pellet removed and the
fuze well liner removed, exposing the explosive fill. 50-caliber
machine gun ammunition will be de-linked and the actual ammunition
separated from the purely mechanical belt hardware. 20-mm ammu-
nition will usually, but not always, have the projectile pulled,
the powder dumped, and the projectiles and cases collected in
separate bins, whereas smaller ammunition is usually left intact.
Bombs, mines and other large munitions will have the fuzes re-
moved so as to expose the explosive fill in much the same manner
as large fixed ammunition.
9
-------
b. The above operations are typically carried out more or less
remotely on automated disassembly lines designed especially for
the job. Fixed artillery ammunition, for example3 will be placed
by hand into a "Vertical Pull Apart Machine" where it is clamped
firmly into place. The machine rotates the munition behind a
safety shield, and a pair of jaws grip the projectile and pull it
forcibly from the cartridge case. The freed projectile is placed
(usually by hand) into another clamping jig; and another jaw
grips and unscrews the fuze, behind another safety shield. Fuzes
go down one conveyor, de-fuzed projectiles down another, empty
cartridge cases down still another; and the dumped propellant
powder is collected into a bin by vacuum. It is the reverse of
an assembly line.
c. The disassembly of smaller ammunition, such as 20-mm, is
even more automated. Complete rounds are laid by hand on a con-
veyor belt which takes them behind a safety shield, clamps the
cases firmly while forcibly bending the projectile sideways until
it breaks free of the case, drops the projectile onto a second
conveyor which takes it to a collection bin, drops the cases into
a tumbling barrel where the propellant powder is shaken out and
collected in a vacuum system, and finally drops the ^ases onto a
third conveyor which takes them to another collection bin.
d. The components of the disassembly lines are all special items,
known as "Ammunition Peculiar Equipment (APE)". There are hun-
dreds of them, ranging all the way from hand-held clamps through
conveyor and pullapart units to complete washout plants and
radiographic trailers. They are listed and described in detail
in an Army publication, "Army Equipment Data Sheets - Ammunition
Peculiar Equipment, Technical Manual TM 43-0001-47," dated July
1975. (The Manual also lists ammunition peculiar equipment for
purposes other than demilitarization, such as assembly, inspec-
tion, dud retrieval and the like.) (86)
e. The munition breakdown and disassembly operations are all
purely mechanical, and they involve no air or water pollution
discharges except for nominal amounts of dust and/or floor wash-
down. Many of them are located in buildings that do not even
have water except in the personnel lounges.
7. APE-1300 WASHOUT PLANT
a. The Washout Plant is a standard APE item designed and speci-
fied in detail by the U. S. Army Ammunition Equipment Office (AEO)
located at Tooele Army Depot. It consists usually of a 4500
10
-------
square foot building (all of whose details are included in the
specifications) containing a water heater, the wash racks proper.,
explosive reclamation and packaging sections,, and water reclama-
tion facilities. Basically,, hot water is injected under—90 psi
pressure into the cavity of an opened and up-ended projectile or
bomb, melting out the fill and washing the metal case clean.
(Figures 1, 2., and 3)
b. In operation, ammunition items are placed vertically and
open end down in holding racks, and hot water is jetted up into
them at 90-125 psi to melt and wash out the explosive fill. The
hot water is held at approximately l80°-205°F, a temperature
which usually contemplates TNT as the energetic material in the
explosive fill -- much lower would fail to melt the TNT, and
much higher would lead to clogging of the flumes and filters.
The molten TNT-water slurry is led to a settling tank where
most of the water is separated for re-use. The molten explosive
is pelletized by showering droplets forced through a perforated
plate and through ambient cold water, and the solidified pellets are
collected, dried and boxed for storage or shipment. The produc-
tion rate of the standard APE-1300 system is approximately 1400
Ib/hr explosives, limited mainly by the capacity of the palletiz-
ing unit. A modified washout system at NAD Hawthorne equipped
with a belt flaker has an estimated capacity of 2000 Ib/hr.
c. The recycle water is chilled to remove the excess dissolved
explosive, filtered and sent to a holding tank for eventual feed
back to the heating units. Ordinarily, no water is discharged
from a washout plant while it is running (although some do fea-
ture an overflow equal in volume to the volume of explosive
washed out). Instead, the water is continuously recycled to the
washout section after being chilled and filtered to remove ex-
cess dissolved and suspended explosive. When a plant is shut
down, the water inventory may be discharged to some disposal
system or retained in the holding tank. At this writing, all the
washout plants are planned to be equipped with carbon adsorption
columns for final treatment of discharged water.
d. The empty metal munition cases are flashed at the burning
ground or in a flashing furnace to destroy any remaining traces
of explosive, and then sent to scrap metal reclamation. Occa-
sionally, when the cases are needed for re-loading, they may be
chemically cleaned to avoid heat warpagej but this procedure is
unusual.
11
-------
-/3O7
H<
ro
/so/
/9OS
/303
/30S
/307
S30S
/309
/3/O
/3/S.
/a/3
M2. / TANK, WASHOUT
fJO.S TANK, SETTU/VG
NO 3 TAMK, C/&CULAT/MG
EXHAUST STACK
C/&CC/LAT/MG SYSTEM
HEAT
3OOO
3TA/A/£.£SS STEEL. GL/TT£f?
SETTLE
TANK
0EM4TE&MG
EXPLOSIVE WASHOUT PLANT
Figure 1 - APE 1300 Explosive Washout Plant Schematic Diagram. ( 130)
-------
,-- /323
\
nr r-----^
-"jjs^-T tl !^L PT£.
..'•J [ xx
/32S SETTL'MG
EXPLOSIVE WASHOUT PLAUT
Figure 2 -APE 1300 Water Reclamation System. (130 )
-------
Figure 3 - APE 1300 Photograph of Washout Section. ( 130)
-------
e. Loaded filter batts and unreclaimable dregs from the explo-
sives settling tanks are disposed of by burning, either on a
burning ground or in a suitable incinerator.
f. The APE-1300 Washout system has been demonstrated for explo-
sive fills of TNT,, Comp B (TNT-RDX), Tritonal (TNT-A1°), Amatol
(TNT-NH^NC^) and Octol (TNT-HMX). The TNT, the Comp B and the
Tritonal were successfully pelletized. The Octol solidified
"too fast and too hard", but it could have been flaked or other-
wise reclaimed. The Amatol was an experimental run; the system
is not approved for ammonium nitrate-containing compositions
because of corrosion of the brass fittings in the plant.
g. At this writing., most of the APE-1300 Washout plants are in
layaway for lack of a workload. The older ones are being
modernized by the.addition of such refinements as W-bottom tanks
to handle Comp B, twin settling tank eductors and water-flushed
pump seals; and all of the plants are expected to be equipped
eventually with carbon column final water filters.
h. The APE-1300 system is described in detail in an Army Tech-
nical Manual, "Operation and Maintenance - Ammunition Explosives
Washout and Reclamation System - APE 1300," Revision No. 2,
1 February 1974. (5)- Air pollution is discussed in Ch. III.
8. APE-1236 DEACTIVATION FURNACE
a. The APE-1236 "Deactivation Furnace" is a steel rotary kiln
approximately 30 feet long and four feet in diameter. (Figures
4 and 5). The main body is a horizontal tube (four 60" sections
bolted end to end) with side walls about 2-lA inches thick and
with a spiral internal flight which acts like a screw conveyor
in moving materials through the unit as the tube slowly rotates.
Items such as small arms ammunition, artillery shell fuzes,
emptied 20-mm cartridge cases and the like are fed to the furnace
via a steel conveyor belt which carries them high above the mouth
of the furnace and drops them down a chute into the feed end of
the rotating tube. An oil or gas fired burner in the discharge
end of the tube provides a flame and hot flue gases which sweep
through the tube and up a stack mounted over the feed end. The
temperature near the burner is about 1200°F; it is about 600-900°F
in the middle sections and about 400-500°F in the stack.
b. As the items being demilitarized are carried through the tube
by the spiral flight, any explosives they contain deflagrate or
detonate as they reach their kindling or initiation temperatures.
15
-------
- EXHAUST STACK ASSEMBLY
UPPER FEED CHUTE
CHARGE ASSEMBLY
DISCHARGE CONVEYOR
RETORT ASSEMBLY
CHARGE END PLATE
VARIDRIVE GEAR MOTOR
PILLOW
BLOCK BEARING
TRUNNION ASSEMBLY
THRUST ROLLER ASSEMBLY
CONCRETE FOUNDATION
-TRUNNION SHAFT
FRAME ASSEMBLY
TEAD-AEO-1236
Figure 4 - APE 1236 General Assembly. ( 83)
-------
LAMP BLOVER STACK
Figure 5 - APE 1236 Discharge Assembly. ( 83)
-------
The furnace operating speeds are adjusted so that this happens
approximately in the center of the tube, and the newer furnaces
have center kiln sections with walls 3-1/4" thick. After explo-
sion or burning, the items progress on through the 1200°F section
and fall out the discharge end onto another conveyor which car-
ries the now-inert metal parts to a scrap collection bin. Some
installations carry the scrap metal over a magnet which separates
ferrous from non-ferrous scrap, and others simply collect mixed
scrap. Some installations collect molten lead in ingot molds,
and others simply leave it in the mixed scrap.
c. The quantity of detonating explosives allowed to be fed to
the Deactivation Furnace is normally limited to 600 grains
(0.0857 pounds, or 38.9 grams) per item; which permits the hand-
ling of intact small arms ammo through 20-mm and most artillery
fuzes, primers and the like. Typical feed rates run about one
item per second.
d. The probable ultimate safety limit is much larger than 600
grains. A special APE-1236 unit at Rocky Mountain Arsenal regu-
larly contained the combustion of 0.55 pounds of tetryl in M-34
bomblets without mishap; up to 600 Ib/hr of flaked TNT has been
successfully burned at Tooele Army Depot in experimental runs;
and Edwards AFB has successfully burned five to ten-pound chunks
of rocket propellant in bags. Tooele has also successfully
burned approximately five-pound chunks of TNT cast in cans or
steel rings. Note, however, that these large burnings have all
been deflagrations and not detonations. The TNT was either
flaked or carefully presented with large, unconfined surfaces;
rocket propellants inherently burn instead of detonating unless
boosted by a high-order initiating charge; and the M-34 bursters
had been punch-sheared to open them before being fed to the
furnace. The official limit for APE-1236's in the field is still
600 grains per flight.
e. The fuel oil consumption of the APE-1236 is estimated by
Tooele AD at 9 to 21 gallons per hour, depending upon the work rate.
f. The APE-1236 Deactivation Furnace is described, in detail in
the Army "Operation and Maintenance Manual, Deactivation Furnace
APE 1236," 9 December 1970, U. S. Army Munitions Command, Dover,
New Jersey (83); and the APE 1276 Air Pollution Control System
is described in a Test Report,"APE-1276 Pilot Model Air Pollu-
tion Control System for APE-1236 Deactivation Furnace," by
Daniel B. Hill, Ammunition Equipment Office, Tooele Army Depot,
Tooele, Utah 84074, July 1976, Report AEO-052-76 (32).
18
-------
9. OPEN BURNING GROUNDS
a. Other than the now-banned ocean dumping, open burning is
perhaps the oldest and most universal demilitarization technique.
One simply piles the unwanted material in a remote, open field
with sufficient starter fuel such as excelsior, wastepaper, scrap
dunnage, etc., and ignites it. There is no elaborate equipment,
negligible fuel cost and little labor cost. However, it is some-
times a very smoky operation, and it is no longer ecologically
acceptable in some states when there is any alternative. How-
ever, there may be no alternative at times, as in the case of
white phosphorus shells, certain surplus rocket motors and items
too deteriorated for safe disassembly. Therefore, open burning
is universally practiced to some degree, and will probably always
be necessary to a limited extent.
b. Three examples will illustrate typical events at an open
burning ground. The first example is an open-burn of several
hundred pounds of cannon powder which was witnessed at an Army
Depot. The powder was poured out on the ground and ignited re-
motely with an electric igniter. It made a great, roaring bon-
fire a hundred feet or so high, with much heat and light but very
little smoke or visible NOX. After the cannon powder bonfire
died down, smaller fires of other materials being destroyed con-
tinued to burn with about as much smoke as that from a grass fire.
c. The second example is the firing of surplus, intact, Falcon
rocket motors and nozzleless Hawk rocket motors. All were buried
in the ground, nose down with the nozzle ends sticking out ver-
tically, and ignited remotely. The Falcon motors gave a brief
but intense blast of flame and smoke jetting vertically upwards
for approximately two seconds each. There was a visible cloud
of NOX from the combustion of the double-base propellant, but it
vanished in a few seconds. The considerably 1'arger, two-stage
Hawk motors burned much more slowly and in two distinct stages:
an initial high-intensity burn of an aluminized booster grain,
followed by a much slower burn of a double-base sustainer grain.
There was a visible cloud of aluminum oxide smoke from the
booster grain but only small amounts of visible NOX from the
sustainer grain. Occasionally, a burning grain would suffer
partial breakup in the motor; and a chunk of burning propellant
would be thrown into the air to fall back and finish burning on
the ground. After these burns, the air was clear, and there was
no residual pall of smoke.
19
-------
d. The third, and most typical, example is the open burn of 300
105mm, Comp B-filled projectiles at another Army Depot. The
projectiles' fuzes and booster wells had been removed to expose
the fill. The projectiles were laid out on their sides in long
rows on the ground, and excelsior and scrap wooden boxes were
piled around the open noses for kindling. The kindling was ig-
nited remotely, and the Comp B melted and burned quietly in the
heat of the wood fire. The fires were small, and there was only
a little visible smoke - about as much as would have been expect-
ed from the wood fires alone. Total explosive content was ~600 kg.
10. DETONATION GROUNDS
a. High-order detonation is also an old and universal disposal
method, and it is sometimes the only available method when an
item such as a large bomb or shell is so deteriorated or so con-
structed that there is no safe way to disassemble it. Like open
burning, a limited amount of detonation will always be necessary,
and every depot remote enough to have the necessary isolation has
a detonation ground. The following examples of detonation oper-
ations are typical.
b. One detonation ground is a 4000-acre stretch of desert in the
West approximately eight miles northeast of the depot which is
itself ten or more miles from the nearest civilian town. The
detonation ground has 14 pits - wide, shallow depressions - for
disposal of ammunition items by detonation; and up to 10,000
pounds of HE*can be detonated in each pit. The detonation of a
stack of 30 280mm shells containing a total of 35000 pounds of
TNT was witnessed from a distance of approximately one mile. At
that distance, it made a flash and a pop, and threw up a cloud
of sand and dust which soon settled back onto the desert floor.
There must have been NOX and carbon particles in the cloud - and
there would have been more from some other explosives such as
Comp B - but the visible color of the cloud matched that of the
desert floor, and there was no lingering color or haze in the
air afterward. There is no water at this site. Scrap metal was
recovered from the desert floor with truck-mounted magnets.
c. A quite different detonation ground is one in the Eastern
part of the U. S. There, detonations are carried out underground,
in holes bored in the earth with a truck-mounted earth auger.
The observed shot was of 160 pounds of mixed items at the bottom
of a bored hole along with a suitable booster and detonator cap
ensemble. The remainder of the hole had been filled with earth
(so that the charge was at least five feet below the original
*
High Explosive 20
-------
surface); and a 5-foot mound of earth had been piled on top of
that by bulldozer, so that the explosive charge was buried at
least ten feet deep with earth. Detonation of the charge re-
sulted in a plume of earth like that from an excavation blast and
a heavy "thud" with no sharp "crack". There was a considerable
cloud of dust and earth - again like that from an excavation
blast. The dust obscured any NC^ and unburned carbon that might
have otherwise been visible. There was a crater approximately
five feet deep and eight feet wide from each shot. Subsequently,
the earth was smoothed down with a bulldozer; and the site was
used again for more demolitions. There was no scrap metal to be
collected on the surface.
d. Only one depot buries its detonations in bored holes, but a
number of them mound four to ten feet of earth over the charges;
and they achieve proportionate muffling of the sound and blast
effects. Safety limits range from 500 to 10,000 pounds of high
explosive per shot, depending mostly upon the remoteness of the
site.
SECTION II
PROCESSES IN LOCAL USE
11. INTRODUCTION
In addition to the standard demilitarization processes
described above, there are several processes which are in routine
use at one or two bases but have not been widely adopted as yet.
Four examples will encompass the most significant of these
operations.
12. STEAMOUT OF EXPLOSIVE FILLS
a. Steamout is similar to hot water washout in that both
processes essentially melt out TNT fills from large-caliber
projectiles, bombs and other munitions. There are two important
differences: steamout is pretty well limited to TNT-only fills,
since it lacks the erosive action of the pressurized jetting hot
water, but steamout also gives less water to dispose of eventu-
ally than washout.
b. The steamout process is well exemplified by the facility at
NWSC Crane. This facility handles large items such as 250 to
1000 pound bombs, mines, depth charges and torpedo warheads; and
21
-------
also smaller items such as 5-inch and 120mm shells. The large
items are placed on an inclined cradle, and 5 to 15 psi steam is
jetted in to melt out the fill. Two lances are used, the first
with an axial jet and a second with side jets. The molten slurry
is collected in a jacketed pipe header with rubber connectors and
flows to an agitated kettle and thence to corrugated cooling pans.
The pans are held in a vented and heated hood until the water is
all evaporated, and are then cooled to allow the explosive to
solidify. The solidified explosive is broken up into chunks,
boxed and shipped out. The empty metal case is steamed again on
a vertical cradle to remove any remaining explosive as well as
the asphalt liner if there is one, and the cleaned case then goes
to metal reclamation. The sludge from this final steaming is
burned.
c. This facility also has a number of steam cabinets for 5-inch
and smaller items. These items are simply stood vertically, open
end down, on racks in the cabinet, and surrounded with steam
until the explosive melts and runs out. There are no jets into
the munitions.
d. There is no gross water discharge from this facility. Most
of the steam condensate evaporates from the corrugated pans, and
the discharge is mostly washdown. There is a major problem in
that much TNT steam-distills overhead with the evaporated water
and deposits in the overhead ductwork, from which it must be
manually cleaned periodically.
e. The explosives removal mechanism relies primarily upon the
melting action of the hot steam, and there Is little or no ero-
sive action. Consequently, the process is best for TNT-only and
less effective for fills with a high percentage of non-meltable
components such as RDX, HMX or aluminum. By the same token,
the process is superior for TNT because the steam vapor
expands to fill even the most irregular cavity and gives better
heat transfer than hot water, which must Impinge directly onto the
explosive in order to melt it. It has another advantage in that
the only wastewater is steam condensate, and that is evaporated
in the dewatering step, so that there is minimal wastewater dis-
posal problem. However, this is a time-consuming, manual process.
f. It should also be noted that, in spite of the feeling that
steamout is effectively limited to TNT fills,NWSC Crane has suc-
cessfully applied it to H-6, Tritonal and HBX. Nevertheless, a
study done by Battelle for the Western Demilitarization Facility
(121) recommended that it be considered mainly for TNT-only fills.
22
-------
g. Although it cannot be considered a widely used process, there
are steamout facilities at NAD Hawthorne, NAD McAlester, NWS York-
town, NTS Keyport, Joliet AAP, Cornhusker AAP, Newport AAP and
Pine Bluff Arsenal (for white phosphorus). There is also a re-
lated "meltout" process installed at Ravenna AAP for removing
TNT and Comp B loads from 90mm and 155mm projectiles. This Melt-
out Process applies steam to the outside of a munition in a steam
cabinet, and does not inject it into the interior.
13- DRILLOUT OF EXPLOSIVE FILLS
a. This operation - also known as contour drilling - is essen-
tially a lathe drilling operation. De-fuzed projectiles are
mounted in a slightly modified metal lathe and rotated at about
150 rpm while a stationary, non-sparking bit advances into the
cavity, milling out the fill as a powder, which is collected by
a vacuum hose for conveying to a collector in an adjacent build-
ing. A cam tilts the bit to follow the contour of the projectile
interior so as to leave about 1/4 inch of the fill untouched.
The 1/4 inch is a safety allowance; the bit could follow closer
than that. A lathe can do about a shell a minute, and TNT, Comp
A-3, Comp B and Ammonium Picrate have all been successfully
drilled out. The product is a dry powder, ready for shipment;
but the projectiles need further cleaning since they still con-
tain a layer of explosive fill.
b. The drillout machines are not standard APE items. Prototypes
exist at NWSC Crane and NAD Hawthorne, and they appear to have
been developed locally.
14. HIGH PRESSURE WASHOUT OF EXPLOSIVE AND PROPELLANT FILLS
a. High-pressure water washout - also called "Hogout" - is not
widely used; but there are at least two operational facilities,
and there are others either in layaway or under reconstruction.
The technique has been applied more to the removal of propellant
from large rocket motors than to the removal of explosive fills
from projectiles, but the most illustrative example seen on this
project was a new one at NWSC Crane for the removal of HE from
3-inch to 6-inch projectiles.
b. In the Crane process, a defused 5-inch (for example) pro-
jectile is clamped into an approximately horizontal cradle; and
a water lance penetrates into the cavity as the fill is washed
out by a 9000 psi axial water jet. Afterwards, the partially
washed-out projectile is moved to a second station identical to
23
-------
the first except that the lance has two lateral jets instead of
an axial jet; this washes out the fill adhering to the sides of
the projectile. At both stations, the projectile is rotated
during washing.
c. The drained water goes through a hydrosieve and a clarifier,
then to a clearwell for recycle back to the pump. The ejected,
granular, explosive/water slurry is collected in a flume and
poured into lined boxes. It is sold drained but "wet" (about 15$
water) without further processing for commercial purposes. The
empty cases are clean without further treatment, and they go to
metal reclamation.
d. Another hogout facility is operated at NOS Indian Head at
~5000 psi for the removal of propellant from rocket and missile
motors.
15. DEMILITARIZATION OF MAGNESIUM FLARES
a. In the past, unserviceable magnesium flares have generally
been demilitarized by open burning; but a successful pilot line
for chemical demilitarization has been demonstrated at NWSC Crane,
and the process is being installed at Longhorn AAP.
b. Mk 24 and Mk 45 aircraft parachute flare candles are mechan-
ically removed from their containing tubes and then crushed sub-
merged in a bath of "STRIPOXY" solvent, a commercial solvent
which softens and disintegrates both the laminae and the epoxy
binders used in the flare candles. The candle pieces and the
solvent are fed into a mixing tank and stirred until the crushed
pieces of candle are thoroughly disintegrated. The solvent and
dissolved binder are decanted from the settled magnesium powder
and sodium nitrate oxidizer, and the spent solvent is sent back
to the manufacturer for reclamation. The granular residue of
magnesium and sodium nitrate is washed with acetone, isopropyl
alcohol and/or water to dissolve the sodium nitrate and any re-
maining binder and leave relatively clean magnesium powder as one
product of the process. The magnesium is suitable for re-use in
decoy flares. The sodium nitrate is also recovered in a subse-
quent evaporation step and is being evaluated at this writing for
use as fertilizer.
SECTION III
PROCESSES UNDER DEVELOPMENT
16. INTRODUCTION
The following demilitarization processes are currently in
24
-------
various stages of research and development, and at least some of
them may become standard demilitarization processes in the next
few years.
17. FLUID BED BULK PEP* INCINERATOR
a. This process, under development by and at Picatinny Arsenal,
is an adaptation of commercial fluid "bed incinerators. The pilot
unit consists of a fire-brick-lined vertical cylinder 8 feet in
diameter and filled to a depth of 4 feet (static) with granular
alumina. The alumina is fluidized (the expanded bed depth is 8
feet) with air injected through a manifold grid at the bottom of
the bed; and it is brought up to operating temperature with fuel
oil which is injected into the fluidized bed through a ring of
spray nozzles near the bottom of the bed and burned inside the
bed with the fluidizing air. While the bed is heating, the PEP
to be incinerated is shredded and/or granulated under water to
make a pumpable slurry of about 25 Wt-$ PEP; the slurry is then
held in a stirred feed tank near the incinerator building. When
the bed is hot, the PEP slurry is injected into the bed through
another ring of injector nozzles, and It burns with nearly enough
heat of combustion to evaporate the water and maintain the bed
temperature without the use of supplementary fuel oil. Thus,
once started, the incineration is self-sustaining.
b. NOX emission are expected to be low due to the use of an NOX-
decomposition catalyst (nickel) and staged combustion. The bed
is fluidized with less than the stoichiometric amount of air so
that the PEP burns in under-oxidized conditions and yields a
combustion gas which is still fuel-rich (i.e., reducing) and high
in NOX. Under such reducing conditions and in the presence of
the catalyst, NOX is reduced to elemental nitrogen. Additional
air is then injected high up in the bed - above the NOX reduction
zone - and the remaining fuel value of the gases is burned to
stoichiometric at a temperature low enough that very little new
NOX is formed. The best demonstration run to date emitted 15 ppm
NOX (and <1 ppm hydrocarbons and too little CO to measure) at a
PEP feed rate of 177 pounds/hour.
c. The pilot incinerator has an exit gas cyclone to catch
attrited alumina and any particulates from the burned PEP's.
The need for stack gas scrubber has not been determined.
d. However, other reports (35a) indicate relatively high capital
and operating costs and energy consumption for the fluid bed
incinerator.
*Propellant, Explosive and Pyrotechnic
25
-------
e. At this writing, demonstration tests are continuing at
Picatinny, and a definitive report including verified performance
and cost data will be forthcoming. Preliminary data and an eval-
uation are given in Chapter III.
18. ROTARY KILN BULK PEP INCINERATOR
a. This process is under development at Radford AAP under
Picatinny Arsenal sponsorship. It has been demonstrated on a
250 pounds per hour scale, and two full size units (550 pounds
per hour) are under construction.
b. The rotary kiln is a horizontal rotary furnace not unlike the
APE-1236 Deactivation Furnace described in paragraph 8, except
that it is lined with fire brick and has no internal flights.
It is inclined slightly toward the discharge end so that the ash
slowly moves toward the cleanout door located underneath the
burner.
c. PEP to be incinerated is shredded to less than 0.1 inch in
diameter, suspended in water in a manner similar to that in the
fluid bed feed unit above, and injected into the hot (about
1600°F) kiln through a single pipe. The slurry is spread out
into a thin film by the rotating wall, and it first evaporates
and then burns as it moves along. The exhaust gases go through
an oil-fired afterburner to burn CO and hydrocarbons, and then
through a pre-cooler and a marble bed wet scrubber.
d. This incinerator, like the fluid bed incinerator, is nearly
self-sustaining from the heat of combustion of the PEP; and its
NOX emission level has been running somewhat under 200 ppm. It
is still under evaluation, and a definitive report, including
cost comparisons, will be forthcoming. Capital and operating
costs as well as energy consumption are expected to be high (35a).
19. BULK PEP's IN THE APE-1236 DEACTIVATION FURNACE
a. This subject was introduced above in paragraph 8. The basic
concept is that multi-pound chunks of bulk explosive or a con-
tinuous stream of shredded explosive can safely be burned in the
Deactivation Furnace provided it only burns and does not detonate,
Tooele AD has a standard APE-1236 Deactivation Furnace in which
coffee-can-sized containers of bulk TNT have been burned in large
numbers without incident, and it is reported that Edwards AFB
regularly burns 5 to 10-pound chunks of rocket propellant in bags
in their deactivation furnace. No shredding or slurrying water
26
-------
is used in either operation; care is taken to ensure that the
PEP has a maximum of exposed surface on which to Ignite and burn,
and that there is no confinement to accelerate the burning to
detonation. Another, similar deactivation furnace has been used
to burn intact M25A2 CS grenades, burster and all. It should be
noted that the burning of large chunks of explosives in the de-
activation furnace should be - and is being - approached with
extreme care. No mishaps have been encountered in burning bulk
materials to date, but the operation has not yet been approved
for anywhere other than the experimental site at Tooele AD.
b. Tooele has very recently installed a new bulk PEP feed system
featuring a chain belt conveyor and a ram to shove the charges
deep into the hot furnace without hesitating at the mouth. It is
too new to have developed any operating experience at this
writing.
c. The burning of bulk quantities of PEP's in the APE-1236 will
present all the same emission problems as the burning of small
items, except that the concentrations of NOX, particulates and
other constituents will be higher due to the higher mass feed
rates, and more elaborate gas cleaning facilities may be required.
20. CAVITATING WATER JET (CAVIJET™) WASHOUT
A cavitating water jet (CAVIJET™) system was successfully
tested at the "Hogout" facility at NOS Indian Head on Tartar
Motors. Propellant was removed at one half the normal Hogout
pressure and in one third less time. A new Hogout facility is
planned for installation at Indian Head, although details are
not available at this writing.
21. WET AIR OXIDATION
a. Wet air oxidation is an adaptation of a commercial process for
the under-water "combustionr of concentrated aqueous organic wastes
such as sewage sludges and some industrial waste streams. At
NOS Indian Head the waste is injected into a water-filled pres-
sure reactor at 150 to 2,000 psi and about 200°C along with suf-
ficient high pressure air to effect the oxidation of the waste.
Oxidation proceeds in the reactor with (typically) the evolution
of enough heat to sustain the temperature, and the exit stream
is used to pre-heat the incoming stream via a heat exchanger.
b. The cooled exit stream is separated into gaseous and liquid
phases, and the gas phase is treated by an afterburner to destroy
27
-------
CO and residual hydrocarbons followed by a wet scrubber to re-
move NCp before discharge to the atmosphere. The liquid stream,
which typically contains a few percent nitric acid, is neutralized
with ammonia to produce ammonium nitrate and to precipitate out
metal salts as hydroxides. The metal hydroxides would go to a
recovery or disposal operation, and the liquid phase would be
concentrated by reverse osmosis or other treatment to recover
ammonium nitrate and send the purified water back to the feed
preparation stage.
c. As in the fluid bed and rotary kiln incinerators described
above, bulk PEP's are shredded or granulated to small dimensions
and slurried in water, primarily so they can be handled in the
high pressure pumps and pass through the various pipes and valves.
An evaluation is given in Chapter III.
22. CLOSED PIT INCINERATOR
This incineration process, demonstrated on a batch scale at
the Pantex AEC Plant by Mason and Hanger, consists essentially
of open burning inside a closed room. Typically,, several hundred
pounds of waste bulk explosives or propellants are stacked on the
floor inside a modified explosives storage igloo and ignited. A
20,000 cfm air blower outside pumps in more than enough air for
stoichiometric combustion, and the combustion gases and excess
air exit through the roof which has been modified to be a several-
foot-thick sand bed supported on a suitable truss and screen
ceiling. It is reported that all smoke and particulates are re-
tained by the sand filter, but there are not yet definitive data
on NOX and other gaseous emissions, or on how often the sand
filter has to be changed.
23. BATCH BOX INCINERATOR
This unit has been developed by NAPEC, Crane, and a proto-
type has been installed at NAD McAlester. It is basically an
oil-fired trash incinerator with overfire air, adapted for hand-
ling small PEP items and PEP-contaminated dunnage. Dunnage is
charged batch-wise through side doors, and small PEP items are
fed into the flame via a steep entry chute. Exhaust gases go
through an afterburner and a marble bed wet scrubber prior to
venting through the stack. The prototype is still undergoing
evaluation, and a definitive report is not yet available.
-------
24. PHOSPHORUS SMOKE COMPOSITION INCINERATOR
At this writing, this is a laboratory bench-top program,
directed at a process for the ecological destruction of some half
a million pounds of smoke composition containing red phosphorus/
pyrolusite/Mg°/linseed oil. Burning it is no problem, but col-
lecting the P2(-)5 sm°ke i-s a problem. The plan is to burn 10-
pound batches in a two-chamber furnace at 1200-1600°F to Pp0^
absorb the P2°5 i-n water and sell fertilizer grade H-oPO^. At
the time of this study, a 1/10-scale pilot plant had been built,
and one run had been made. There were not yet any data.
25. MICROWAVE MELTOUT
a. This is a highly experimental process under study at Tooele
AD. In it, a beam of microwave energy is directed onto the ex-
plosive fill (for example TNT). The explosive preferentially
absorbs the energy, melts and runs out as a liquid, leaving the
munition wall and liner intact and cool. There is no water, no
contamination and no polluting effluents. The recovered explo-
sive is molten and ready for re-use. The energy consumption is
expected to be small compared to hot water washout.
b. The process is in the very early stages of development and
is not yet ready for large scale application or even scale-up.
Safe energy fluxes and control conditions still have to be
established, and there has been one runaway event. Nevertheless,
the promise of low energy consumption, clean explosive recovery
and no effluents make this process well worth further attention.
26. LEAD AZIDE ELECTROLYSIS
Lead azide is a particular nuisance to demilitarize by
incineration or open burning because it always detonates and it
yields finely-divided metallic lead as a combustion smoke. Elec-
trolysis in a strong caustic medium is being piloted at Iowa AAP
with good initial success and the recovery of high-purity massive
lead in electrode ingot form. At this writing, no report is
available on any gaseous emissions from the electrolysis or on
any disposal problems with the spent electrolyte.
27. SOLVENT BREAKDOWN
This is a Navy effort, and mainly in the test tube stage,
although the magnesium flare process described in paragraph 15
is a large-scale example. The concept is to chemically disassemble
29
-------
composite explosives and propellants - particularly plastic-
bonded explosives - by dissolving or chemically degrading the
binder and releasing the dispersed metal powders and granular
oxidizers for recovery and re-use. A discussion is beyond the
scope of this Phase I study except to note that the concept offers
a large degree of ingredient recovery, elimination of gaseous
effluents, but a whole new set of problems in solvent recovery
and sludge disposal.
28. BIODEGRADATION
There are a dozen or so research projects underway in the
Army and in the Navy to try to destroy waste explosives - par-
ticularly dilute wastes - by biological action similar to that
used in municipal sewage treatment plants or composting operations,
They are mainly directed at TNT, KDX and NG wastes. There are
formidable problems involved. The explosive materials tend to
be refractory and toxic to microorganisms, and they require large
amounts of supplementary nutrients. Moreover, they tend to de-
grade only one molecular step or two and to yield partial degra-
dation products which are both more refractory and more toxic
than the original explosives were. A useful summary of the bio-
degration research in progress would be a major study of its own
and is beyond the scope of this report, except to note the ex-
istence of the program. This process was evaluated in the
previous ADPA Study ( 2).
29. AIR CURTAIN INCINERATOR
a. The air curtain incinerator is a device one step more sophis-
ticated than open burning. In its original embodiment, brush
from land clearing operations was burned in an open pit while a
curtain of air was blown over the top of the pit and down into
the far side of it from an air blower on the ground above. The
excess air served to achieve complete combustion of the carbon
in the smoke and to reduce or eliminate visible emissions.
b. In the prototype demilitarization air curtain incinerator
at Radford AAP, the fire pit is a room-sized box lined with fire-
brick and built at the end of a truck ramp. The top is largely
open, and a curtain of air is blown over the top and down into
the box by a large, external air blower. There is a screen en-
closure as large as the firebox itself on top of the unit. The
charge, mostly contaminated dunnage, is loaded into the cool
firebox, ignited and burned with the blower running. It is re-
ported that visible emissions are low. Sixteen of them are
planned for installation at AAP's and Depots.
30
-------
SECTION IV
CURRENT DEMILITARIZATION FACILITIES
30. INTRODUCTION
The overwhelming majority of the demilitarization operations
in the U. S. are carried out at Army Depots or Navy Facilities
where the munitions are stored. A relatively minor amount -
disposal of reject products and manufacturing wastes - is done
at AAP's; but it does not differ significantly from that done at
the Depots, and it will not be discussed here. There are some
38 locations in the U. S. which have a demilitarization capa-
bility. Their locations are shown in Figure 6.
31. DEPOTS AND THEIR DEMILITARIZATION CAPABILITIES
a. Demilitarization operations at the Army Depots are just as
standardized as the Army can make them, for the sake of uniform-
ity of results and safety. They generally have the same equip-
ment - except when a Depot does not have a particular item at
all - and the equipment is operated according to the same pro-
cedures and SOP's. Post-to-post variations are so minor as not
to warrant mention here at all. The demilitarization facilities
of each Depot*are summarized as follows:
ACTIVITY
Anniston AD
Letterkenny AD
Lexington-
Bluegrass AD
Pueblo AD
Navajo AD
Ft. Wingate AD
Red River AD
Seneca AD
Sierra AD
Tooele AD
Umatilla AD
Savanna AD
DEACTIVATION
FURNACE WASHOUT DETONATION OPEN BURN
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
b. Operations at the NAD's are a little more varied than the
ones at the Army Depots, because experimental work is a little
more decentralized in the Navy; but the operations are still
*With the exception of washout, all demilitarization operations
were in periodic use at the Depots indicated in 1976.
31
-------
i 0
>
DISPOSAL SITES INVOI vm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Seneca
Letferkenny
Earle
York town
Charleston
Rod ford
Holston
Volunteer
Anniston
Milan
Lex Bl ue Grass
Ravenna
13
1!
15
14
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Newport
Crane
Indiana
Badger
Savanna
Joliet
Pine Bluff
Louisiana
Iowa
Lake City
Ccrnhusker
Sunflower
'">
£W
26
?/
28
7V
30
31
Kansas
McAlesfer
Lone Star
Red River
Longhorn
Pueblo
31 Fort Wingate
32 Tooele
33 Navajo
34 Hawthorne
33 Keyport
36 Umatilla
37 Sierra
38 Seal Beach
Oahu (Not Shown)
Figure 6 - Demilitarization Locations
-------
similar enough to lend themselves to the same categorization
used above:
ACTIVITY
NWSC Crane
NAD Hawthorne
NAD McAlester
NAD Earle
NWS Yorktown
NWS Seal Beach
NWS Charleston
NTS Keyport
NOS Indian Head
DEACTIVATION
FURNACE WASHOUT DETONATION OPEN BURN
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
c. As mentioned, the AAP's demilitarization operations are
minor; but they do exist, and they are summarized on the follow-
ing chart:
ACTIVITY
DEACTIVATION
FURNACE WASHOUT DETONATION OPEN BURN
x
x
x
x
x
Iowa AAP xxx
Ravenna AAP x x
Joliet AAP x x
Cornhusker AAP x
Newport AAP x x
Longhorn AAP x
Pine Bluff Arsenal x x
Milan AAP x
Kansas AAP x
Lone Star AAP x
Volunteer AAP
Sunflower AAP
Holston AAP
Radford AAP x
Indiana AAP
32. PLANNED EXPANSIONS
There are no major planned expansions of current facilities,
since the demilitarization workload is currently diminishing and
many of the present facilities, particularly washout plants, are
in layaway; but there are a number of minor upgrading projects
in progress, mostly to meet more stringent environmental
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
33
-------
requirements. Every Army deactivation furnace, for example, is
in the process of receiving an emissions control system in the
form of a cyclone and a baghouse to remove particulates from the
stack gasses. Most of the washout plants are scheduled to re-
ceive improved water cleanup systems in the form of charcoal
filters, and 16 locations are planned to receive air curtain
incinerators to cut down on the demands for smoky open burning.
There are two major new facilities planned, and they are discus-
sed in the next section.
SECTION V
PLANNED NEW DEMILITARIZATION FACILITIES
33. INTRODUCTION
There are currently two brand-new demilitarization facil-
ities planned in the U. S., a major facility at NAD Hawthorne,
and a pilot facility at Red River AD.
a. Western Demilitarization Facility
A major, new • demilitarization facility known as the
"Western Demilitarization Facility" is under construction at
NAD Hawthorne, Hawthorne, Nevada (1). It is intended to demil-
itarize the full range of DOD conventional munition commodities,
from small arms ammunition to large underwater mines, as well as
bombs and major and intermediate caliber projectiles, without
open burning or detonation, and to incorporate all the best
features of current operational and experimental facilities.
It is to be a multi-building complex, sited as shown in
Figure 7, and including:
o Off-loading dock
o Preparation building
o Smokeless powder accumulation
o Process storage magazines
o Mechanical removal complex
o Washout/steamout complex
o Meltout and refining building
o Bulk explosive disposal building
o Decontamination furnace
o Boiler plant and service building
-------
Stabilization
Ponds
Decontamination
nd Small Items
Furnace Building
Bulk Incineration
Preparation Buildi
Magazine
Group B
and
Support Bldg.
rocess Water
Treatment Facility
Preparation
Building
* Building
Figure 7 - Western Demilitarization Facility, Naval Ammunition Depot, Hawthorne, Nevada ( 1 )
35
-------
It is planned that the demilitarization facilities will include:
o Two rotary kilns for explosive or propellant
slurries, with afterburners
o One small flashing furnace
o One large flashing furnace
o Two rotary furnaces
o Washout/steamout facility
o Meltout facility.
Mechanical breakdown of munitions includes uncrating and the
removal of all internal and external non-explosive components.
It includes the breaking open of small arms cartridges and the
shaking out of the propellant powder which is to be transported
to the smokeless powder accumulation building by conveyors for
packaging, reuse, resale or disposal. The mechanical complex
also includes such operations as contour drilling and bulk ex-
plosive accumulation.
Meltout and refining is an operation similar to washout/
steamout. It applies low pressure steam to the exterior casing
of the ordnance item, causing the explosive charge inside to
melt and run out. The Western Demilitarization Facility will
reclaim the explosive by cooling, flaking and packaging it for
shipment to loading operations.
Washout/steamout differs from the above in that a jet of
steam or hot water is sprayed directly into the open ordnance
item to melt and erode the explosive out. The resulting slurry
will be processed to remove the explosive and treat the water
for re-use in a somewhat more elaborate process than is currently
used in the Army's washout plants. The explosive may be re-used,
or it may be sold for commercial purposes.
Bulk explosives disposal is to be handled in an oil-fired
rotary kiln incinerator patterned after the Radford Rotary In-
cinerator. The explosive is to be fed in the form of a water
slurry of not more than 25% explosive content for safety. The
incinerator stack will have an afterburner to consume any fuel-
rich pyrolysis gases.
Decontamination furnaces will include APE-1236 popping
furnaces of standard Tooele design for small arms ammunition,
fuzes and other small items, and larger flashing furnaces or
chambers for burning off residual explosives from larger ordnance
items. All processes are to be enclosed, but the treatment of
36
-------
combustion products prior to release to the atmosphere has not
yet been fully decided.
Service facilities include control rooms, magazines, a
boiler plant and a water treatment plant, as well as a laboratory,
locker rooms, lunchroom, etc.
b. DARCOM Ammunition Center Depot Disposal System
In an attempt to meet the twin challenges of disposing of
all waste materials generated by depots' operations and doing so
in an environmentally acceptable manner, the Army is contemplat-
ing the construction of a new, modular, pilot demilitarization
facility, probably at Red River AD (80).
The facility is to consist of three basic operational units -
a fluidized bed incinerator, a confined detonation unit and a
decontamination oven - each of which is multi-purpose and comple-
ments the others in operation. All are to be connected to a
single exhaust gas treatment section.
The fluidized bed incinerator will accomplish disposal of
all combustible material, including explosives, dunnage and trash.
A fluidized bed features good temperature control and heat sink-
ing, the opportunity for NOX control by catalytic reduction and
staged combustion, inherent barricading, and the ability to
accept both shredded dunnage and paper wastes, and water slurries
of shredded or granulated explosives. It can be operated to be
self-sustaining as to fuel requirements and to give very low
emissions levels.
The confined detonation chamber is a reinforced concrete
blast containment structure for detonation of explosives in
quantities up to 100 pounds and for burning of pyrotechnics
in munitions which cannot be opened or for which disassembly is
uneconomical and whose explosives charges exceed the limits of
the deactivation furnace. The chamber attenuates noise, contains
explosive particulates, and allows gaseous emissions to be di-
rected through gas cleaning equipment prior to release to the
atmosphere. The chamber can be exhausted in 3 to 10 minutes,
thus allowing a relatively short cycle time between detonations.
The decontamination chamber is essentially an oven positioned
in the exhaust gas line from the fluidized bed incinerator. The
1000°F to 1400°F gases will pass through and pyrolyze any remain-
ing explosives adhering to the metal parts, washed-out projectile
37
-------
cases, etc., placed therein for flashing. The exit gases will
pass directly to the gas cleaning unit or back to the fluidized
"bed if afterburning is indicated.
Air pollution control equipment will consist of venturi
collectors for particulates down to 0.1 micron, and packed tower
scrubbers for dust and gas absorption.
This new facility is in the concept design stage. No speci-
fications for combustion equipment or pollution control equipment
have yet been written, and no site plan has been drawn up. Funds
have not yet been committed. Even when built, this facility is
not intended to be a major, production demilitarization facility
like the Western Demilitarization Facility; rather, it is intended
to be a prototype facility for development of improved modules
for installation at appropriate Army Depots.
SECTION VI
SPECIAL DEMILITARIZATION FACILITIES
34. INTRODUCTION
Although technically beyond the scope of this study, it is
useful to describe two chemical agent demilitarization facilities
for the insights they provide into just how much can be done in
the way of advanced technology for demilitarization and emissions
control.
a. Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) Demilitarization Operations
Lethal chemical munitions containing Agents GB and Mustard
have been demilitarized in special facilities at RMA over the
past several years with what amounts to zero discharge of toxic
gases. Major demilitarization projects have included the Honest
John warhead, the M34 GB cluster and bulk Mustard in one-ton
containers (118).
(1) The Honest John warhead is a rocket nose cone 115 inches
long, 30 inches in diameter and containing 368 spherical, GB-
filled bomblets about the size of a grapefruit. Each bomblet
contains 1.1 pounds of GB and 0.16 pound of Comp B burster.
The bomblets are manually downloaded onto a conveyor equip-
ped with fixtures which position them firmly for the punch, drain
38
-------
and rinse operations which follow. The conveyor carries the
bomblets into an 8,000 square foot explosion and chemical con-
tainment cubicle whose walls and ceiling are one-foot-thick con-
crete lined with welded, one-quarter-inch steel plate. The
cubicle is fitted with observation windows composed of two plates
of Lexan 1-5/16-inch thick separated by a two-inch air space.
Inside the containment cubicle, the bomblets are remotely punched
and drained of GB, water rinsed and probed, and water rinsed a
second time.
The GB, along with the water rinses, is piped to a storage
tank and hydrolyzed with caustic to destroy the GB. The result-
ing brine, consisting mainly of sodium fluoride and sodium di-
isopropylmethylphosphonate, is spray dried in a centrifugal
atomizing chamber at 30 gpm, and the dry salts are stored in 55-
gallon drums.
The empty bomblets are conveyed to the furnace room and
manually loaded into a standard APE-1236 deactivation furnace
where the bursters are pyrolyzed at 500°F, adequate for the
pyrolysis of Comp B but well below the melting point of aluminum.
The burned bomblet shells are then conveyed to a second, decon-
tamination furnace where the aluminum shells are melted at 1500°F
and cast into ingots.
The entire Honest John facility is operated under negative
air pressure, and all plant air and furnace gases are collected
in a series of ventilation ducts for post-treatment consisting
of quench, nine separate packed column caustic scrubbers with a
total capacity of 260,000 cfm, a venturi scrubber and a tall
stack. GB removal efficiency is 99.9997$.
(2) An M34 cluster contains 76 cylindrical bomblets about a foot
long and four inches in diameter. Each one contains approxi-
mately 2.6 pounds of GB and half a pound of tetryl, for a total
of 42 pounds of tetryl and 200 pounds of GB per cluster.
Except for initial preparation for disassembly, all M34
demilitarization operations are performed remotely by automatic
machines in containment bays similar to the Honest John cubicle
described above, except that the M34 chambers could contain the
detonation of fifty pounds of TNT without rupture. In the first
step, the outer case is pulled from the cluster, the steel bands
and the metal bars which hold the bomblets in place are removed,
and the bomblets are transferred one at a time to a box where
the fuze arming rim is staked by a hydraulic ram. The bomblet
39
-------
then moves to the next station where it is punched and drained
of GB.
The bomblet is weighed to verify that it has been drained,
passed through a caustic rinse and moved to a machine which
shears the burster. It is then conveyed to another APE-1236
deactivation furnace where the burster is burned, and finally
through a 30-foot-long, 1500°F decontamination furnace from which
it emerges as scrap metal.
The inert parts of the bomb, although presumably clean, are
passed through another 30-foot-long, 1500°F furnace and also
emerge as scrap metal. The GB is piped to the chemical process
facility described above where it is hydrolyzed to form brines
which are spray dried and stored.
As with the Honest John facility, all operations are carried
out under negative air pressure; and all vent air is processed
through a 1500°F afterburner and an elaborate scrubbing system
which includes nine separate scrubbers.
(3) The bulk mustard disposal plant is set up to handle one-ton
bulk containers, not munitions; and the mustard is disposed of by
inc ine ra t ion.
The one-ton containers are held indoors until the contents
are thawed (mustard "gas" melts at 56°F)5 and are then trans-
ferred to unload booths where the contents are drained to storage
tanks. The empty containers are then sent to one of a pair of
furnaces five feet high by four feet wide by twenty feet long
where any residual mustard is pyrolyzed and burned. The empty
containers, now decontaminated, are sent to salvage.
The liquid mustard is destroyed in a chemical incinerator
ten feet in diameter, 27 feet long and lined with K-2600 fire-
brick. It has flame temperatures up to 4000°F and a retention
time of six seconds at a throughput of 25 pounds of mustard a
minute. This furnace (as well as the one-ton container furnaces)
discharges its gases through a 30-foot-long, high-temperature
flue in which afterburning can occur if needed for complete
combustion.
The furnace gases leave the flue at temperatures up to
2000°F and pass to quench towers where they are cooled to 150-
l80°F by caustic sprays, through packed column scrubbers with
-------
more caustic, and finally through a series of five electrostatic
precipitators.
The scrubber brines are evaporated to dryness in a 24-foot-
diameter spray dryer at a feed rate of up to 30 gallons per
minute. The salt is collected in hoppers, compacted and put into
long term storage in 55-gallon drums.
It is planned to use these facilities to transfer phosgene
from old bulk containers to new ones starting in late 1976. The
phosgene, being a valuable item of chemical commerce, called
carbonyl chloride, will be transferred to DOT-approved shipping
containers and sold as a bulk chemical. The air will be proces-
sed through a 6000 cfm caustic packed scrubber.
b. Tooele Army Depot GAMPS Facility
Tooele's Chemical Agent Munition Disposal System is an
automated factory for "un-manufacturing*' a chemical munition with
total containment of both explosive and toxic contents. Its
advanced automation and the advanced emission controls give a
valuable preview of what conventional demilitarization could
achieve with the advanced technology now in use or under develop-
ment (117). As currently configured, CAMDS handles two items,
M-55 rockets and bulk Mustard containers.
(1) The M-55 Rocket is a chemical munition about five feet long
and five inches in diameter. Its forward half is filled with
liquid GB and a burster, and its rear half is a rocket motor.
It is shipped and stored in a close-fitting fiberglass case which
doubles as a launching tube.
For demilitarization at CAMUS, the entire munition, case
and all, is loaded by hand onto a conveyor cradle outside the
door of the ECC (Explosive Containment Cubicle). The ECC is an
85-ton steel pressure vessel within which the toxic munition
sawing and punching operations are carried out. It is designed
to totally contain the explosive and toxic products even if the
entire munition were to detonate in the worst possible mode.
Under computer control, the ECC door opens, the conveyor
cradle penetrates it, a ram pushes the rocket-and-case onto
another cradle inside the door, the ram and conveyor retract,
and the ECC door closes and seals. Still under computer control,
clamps secure the munition, punches penetrate it to drain off
the agent into tanks, and six circular hacksaws cut the munition
-------
into seven cylindrical pieces a foot or less long. The pieces
are conveyed to a deactivation furnace which is a 1.5-scale ver-
sion of the APE-1236 and operates at a temperature of 1000°F.
Propellants, explosives and agent remnants are burned in this
deactivation furnace, and the emerging metal parts are further
incinerated in a one-hour trip through a 1000°F conveyor tunnel
from which they emerge as uncontaminated scrap metal.
The liquid agent drained from the weapon is hydrolyzed with
caustic to yield a non-toxic brine consisting mainly of sodium
fluoride and sodium di-isopropylmethylphosphonate. The brine is
evaporated to dryness in a spray dryer, and the dry salt is com-
pacted and drummed for indefinite retention.
The gases from the EGG air sweep, the various furnaces and
the spray dryer are led through a blast attenuator section, a
cyclone, a slagging afterburner, a cooler, a caustic water quench,
a venturi scrubber, two packed column absorbers, a demister - and
up the stack. The slagging afterburner is a vertical combustion
unit operating at loOO°F with one second retention time for ag-
glomeration of glass fiber shreds (from the fiberglass rocket
motor shipping case) and final combustion of any remaining agent
vapors. The venturi scrubber removes particulates and is also a
gas quench system (from l600°F to 150°F). The packed bed con-
taining 170 cubic feet of saddles is charged with an WaOH solu-
tion for trace gas neutralization, and the demister is for re-
moval of £2^5 wni°h mav form in the packed bed. The system is
designed to handle 26,000 cfm of hot gases from the furnace.
Besides its safety function of eliminating hazardous manual
operations, the elaborate automation and computer control also
enhances the reliability of operations. The computer continu-
ously monitors the status of munition position sensors, door
seals, safety interlocks, bearing temperatures, motor load levels,
air pressures and flows, and other critical operating factors, and
it will lock out operations unless all factors are within proper
limits.
(2) The bulk Mustard operation is very similar to the mustard
operation at RMA, described above, somewhat modernized with newer
equipment and some lessons learned from the RMA operation. Com-
plete . one-ton containers of mustard are loaded into a large
special furnace and large holes are punched in the top sides.
The containers are not drained; the 600°F heat of the furnace
volatilizes the mustard and the vapor is led to a "fume burner"
where it is combusted. The exhaust of the fume burner goes
42
-------
through an afterburner and thence to the exhaust gas treatment
system. The empty one-ton container moves on to a 1000°F furnace
section to make sure that all the mustard in it has indeed been
pyrolyzed. The decontaminated metal parts are sent to salvage.
The special furnace is a three-compartment unit whose floors
are steel-and.-firebrick railroad cars. The first section of the
furnace is for container punch. The second is for agent volatil-
ization and operates at 600°F with deficient oxygen. The third
section is the burnout section for the container and operates at
1000°F.
All off-gases and furnace exhausts are led to the air pol-
. lution control system which consists of a series operation con-
taining: two afterburners, a venturi scrubber, a packed bed and
a demister. All components are similar to those in the M-55
system except for the afterburners. Both of the afterburners
in the mustard system are 1000°F units to assure combustion of
the volatilized mustard from the second stage of the furnace.
SECTION VII
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
35. INTRODUCTION
Although complete conclusions and recommendations are not
within the scope of this Phase I Report, nevertheless, some
brief, preliminary conclusions can be drawn regarding the de-
militarization processes and the effluents produced therefrom.
This paragraph deals only with the processes themselves. Pre-
liminary conclusions regarding treatment are presented In sub-
sequent chapters. Six categories of demilitarization are ad-
dressed in this paragraph: washout; deactivation furnace; open
detonation; open burning; new developments; and advanced tech-
nology in chemical demilitarization.
a. Washout
This is an effective process for removal of most explosives,
such as TNT and Comp B. It is not effective for removal of many
propellants as in rocket motors, or plastic bonded explosives
(PBX). In addition, this is an energy-intensive processes.
Under the present circumstances of decreasing supply and Increas-
ing cost of energy, alternative processes should be investigated
to minimize energy consumption.
43
-------
b. Deactivatlon Furnace
This is an effective process for demilitarization of small
munitions. Although energy consumption is involved, safety is
also a paramount consideration, and this may be judged as the
most cost-effective process for small munitions demilitarization
when all considerations are taken into account.
c. Detonation
This is a simple, safe and cost-effective process for de-
militarization of many munitions which are obsolete or unsafe
to handle otherwise. No additional energy consumption is in-
volved. The quantities involved are small when compared with
the commercial blasting industry (over one million tons/year)
(129). Use of this process will always be required to a certain
degree.
d. Open Burning
This is also a simple, safe and cost effective process for
demilitarization of munitions which are obsolete or unsafe to
handle otherwise. Potentially adequate alternatives to open
burning are under development and their implementation will
depend upon the relative balance among cost, energy implications,
and environmental factors.
e. New Developments
Current military plans for development and demonstration of
new or improved demilitarization processes are sufficiently
comprehensive to provide a range of alternatives, provided that
adequate funding is made available for the implementation of
these development programs. A potentially useful study could
be initiated to examine systematically the energy implications,
environmental aspects and cost effectiveness of various alterna-
tive new demilitarization development programs. This would be
a program which would merit EPA funding support.
f. Advanced Technology
The U. S. Army has developed and demonstrated at Rocky
Mountain Arsenal and Tooele Army Depot the most advanced tech-
nology presently available for the safe disposal of energetic,
toxic and hazardous substances. A potentially useful program
-------
could be initiated by EPA to investigate the application of this
technology to the disposal of toxic and hazardous industrial
substances as contemplated in the recently enacted legislation
in PL 94-469.
45
-------
CHAPTER III
AIR EFFLUENTS
36. INTRODUCTION
Air pollution can result from several activities associated
with demilitarization of conventional munitions. These include
washout3 deactivation in rotary furnaces, open burning, and
detonation. The most significant emissions sources are associa-
ted with the combustion processes. New treatment and control
systems are under development to abate the problems. Present
treatment methods for air pollution control from demilitarization
include filtration for particlulate matter and scrubber systems
for particulates and gases. Combustion process modifications and
alternative processes such as fluidized bed incineration and wet
air oxidation are under development.
SECTION I
AIR POLLUTION SOURCES AND CHARACTERISTICS
37. INTRODUCTION
This section describes the sources and characteristics of
gaseous and particulate effluents. Control technology is dis-
cussed in the next section.
38. DEACTIVATION FURNACE
a. The deactivation furnace was developed for demilitarization
of small arms ammunition, primers, fuzes, boosters, detonators
and miscellaneous small ammunition, and can be used to deactivate
certain sectioned bombs and rockets.
b. Effluent gases include NOX, SOX, HC and CO. Particulate matter
includes metals such as Pb, Hg, Mg and Al. The furnace is nor-
mally operated with No. 2 fuel oil with 9-21 gph as a feed rate
46
-------
(72). Table 3 presents uncontrolled emission levels for com-
bustion of various munitions (120). Generally, uncontrolled
emissions are well above allowable emission standards. NOX
levels as high as 868l ppm are indicated in the table.
39. WASHOUT OF ENERGETIC MATERIALS
a. These systems were developed to wash out and reclaim explo-
sive fills and recover metal parts for reuse or salvage. Water
at a pressure of 90 to 125 psi and at a temperature between
l80°F and 205°F is jetted into the opening of the filled cavity.
Under a combined hydraulic, erosive and melting action, the
explosive filler is washed out of the munition.
b. Steam and hot water washout produce distillation and vapor
carry over of the organic energetic materials, resulting in air
effluents. The sludge remaining from water discharge and evapor-
ation on land (leaching beds) and from the water filters is
disposed of by open burning,resulting in additional emissions.
Sludge from weekly maintenance and cleaning is also open burned.
Casings are "flashed" by open burning to remove all traces of
explosives. No information has been provided on the quantity
and quality of air emissions from a washout plant.
40. DETONATION
a. Detonation ground operations accomplish the disposal of
obsolete and defective munitions by detonation. The ammunition
items are placed in pits, primed, and normally covered with
earth. The items are then detonated. Detonations produce ef--
fluent gases, particulate matter, shock, noise and some non-
volatilized residue. These environmental factors are inherent
in this disposal method, and it is unlikely that they can be
eliminated with current practices.
b. The capabilities of detonation grounds are dependent on
established explosive limits. The explosive limits are based
on surrounding conditions, the size of demolition ground, and
its location. Weather conditions as well as air and water
standards can also have an effect on detonation capacity.
c. Table 4 illustrates the emission products of detonation
for various explosives (94).
d. Table 5 shows the results of Russian studies on grain-
granulite 80/20 and TNT (26). These studies were done to
47
-------
TABLE 3. UNCONTROLLED EMISSIONS FOR COMBUSTION OF MUNITIONS (120)
CO
Munition
Cartridge
7.62 mm
4 ball M&O
1 Tr. M62
Cartridge
Cal 30
Tracer Ml
Cartridge
Cal 50
Tracer M17
Cartridge
Cal 50
API M8
Booster
M21 A 4
Assembled
Booster
M?l A 4
Disassembled
Fuze MTSft
M 502 with
Booster
Fuze BD
M66 Al
Primer
Percussion
M28 B2
Primer
Percussion
M40 A2
Test
No.
P7
P8
P2
P3
P6
PI 6
P4
P5
PI 4
PI 5
Pll
PI 2
P17
P18
Pi 9
P20
P9
P10
P22
P23
Average Particulate
NOX Concentration
ppm gr/scfd
3226.
2312.
7732.
8178.
4732.
4536.
6799.
8681.
117.
75.2
538.
285.
460.
531-
163.
67.1
49.2
40.6
68.6
52.9
3.3763
3.4142
8.6450
9.9178
9.1559
6.4102
1.4952
1.7627
1.5580
.3559
.3582
.3245
.8544
.5138
.9281
.6688
2.1587
2.5052
1.6865
1.7217
Particulate
Mass Rate
Ib/hr
33.90
34.09
85.64
92.99
82.02
63-73
15.10
16.97
16.92
3-91
3.56
3.H
9-34
5.76
10.01
7.13
21.27
24.08
17.67
17.51
Particulate
Composition
% Pb
60.1
50.6
57.7
34.0
6.4
15-5
47.9
22.6
9-7
20.1
14.2 ,
30.0
18.3
48.9
2.6
1.5
9.8
5.4
Average
Part. Particulate Average
Loss On Bulk Average SOj
Ignition Density S02 H^SO^ HC1
% Comb. gr/co ppm ppm ppm
23-91
22.00
7.36
12.61
88.73
88.39
15.96
27.43
9.61
8.84
3.30
6.26
14.00
11.23
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.1
.75 0.2
0.5
.176
1.0
1.0
0.1
1.0
.48 39.5 282.4 0.8
2.0
18.8 53.2 3-0
2.0
-------
-Cr
VD
TABLE 4. DETONATION PRODUCTS OF CONFINED AND UNCONFINED EXPLOSIONS (94)
(values in moles/mole) (ppm)
Product
Name Symbol
Carbon „„
Dioxide 2
Carbon _,_.
Monoxide
Carbon C
Nitrogen N2
Water H20
Hydrogen H2
Ammonia NHo
Methane CH^
Hydrogen HCN
Cyanide
Ethane C0H^
Confined
3-32
1.61
-
1.95
3.68
0.34
0.056
0.004
-
_
PETN
Unconf ined
3-50
1.56
-
2.00
3.45
0.51
0.0002
0.0002
-
_
Explosive
HMX
Confined Unconf ined
1.92
1.06
0.97
3.68
3.18
0.30
0.395
0.039
0.008
0.001
1.44
2.65
-
4.01
2.50
1.53
-
-
0.0006
-
Confined.
1.25
1.98
3.65
1.32
1.60
0.46
0.162
0.099
0.020
0.004
TNT
Unconf ined
0.063
5.89
1.01
1.36
0.17
2.31
0.022
0.0092
0.024
-
-------
TABLE'S. EMISSIONS FROM EXPLOSIVES DETONATIONS (26)
Explosive
Ore, Rock
Strength Indicator
of Rock According
to Scale of Prof.
Protod'yakonov
Content of Noxious
Gases per 1 kg
Explosives, 1
Total*
CO
NO,
Grain-granulite
80/20
Grain-granulite
50/50
TNT
Magnetite hornfels
Magnetite and semioxidized
hornfels
Substandard hornfels and shales
Shales
Magnetite hornfels
Substandard and magnetite hornfels
Magnetite hornfels
Substandard and magnetite hornfels
14
13
12
10
9
13
12
16
14
13
12
- 16
- 15
- 13
- 12
- 10
- 15
- 13
- 18
- 16
- 15
- 14
15.5
13-0
12.2
10.2
9.4
33.2
30.8
70.2
65-4
57.8
52.2
2.54
3.33
3.48
7.0
7.7
2.82
3-34
2.02
2.91
1.54
3.19
32.0
34.6
34.8
55.7
59.4
51.5
52.4
83.1
84.4
74.3
72.8
^Calculated relative to carbon monoxide.
-------
simulate blasting in open pit mining rather than explosive dis-
posal. The charges were buried in the ground 10-15 meters for
the purpose of breaking loose ore. This may account for the
fact that greater amounts of pollutants were formed in these
tests than those conducted by Burlington and AEG (Table 4).
Although there is no mention of the size of these charges, it is
assumed they are several times smaller than the amounts of ex-
plosives commonly detonated during demilitarization. The deep
burial of small charges may serve to exclude air that could
carry the combustion process to completion.
(1) Tests conducted at Burlington consisted of detonating 25
gram charges of HMX, TNT, and PETN in a chamber containing
enough air that free oxygen could remain after the explosions.
The tests showed that C02, H^O, and N2 (all non-pollutants) were
the main products formed from all three tests. A slight amount
of NHo was found dissolved in the water collected from all three
tests along with a small amount of NOX (0.19 ppm of explosive)
in the test using TNT (26).
(2) AEG tests were conducted on 15-25 gram charges of tetryl
and Comp B in a chamber containing enough air that the compo-
sition of gas remaining in the chamber after the blasts still
contained 5-10$ free oxygen. A gas analysis on both tests re-
vealed the formation of C02 and NP with only a trace amount of
gaseous unburned hydrocarbons. A trace amount of CO was also
found in the Comp B test. The trace amounts were less than 0
by volume compared to the formation of 10$ by volume of COp. No
attempt was made to collect H20 and it was allowed to condense
in the chamber (26).
41. OPEN BURNING
a. Burning ground operations consist of open burning of pro-
pellants, pyrotechnics, explosives and other unserviceable com-
bustible materials common to demilitarization operations. Un-
serviceable combustibles are generally used to ignite the
energetic material after it has been spread thinly on the ground
Also, some explosive items which cannot be washed out are burned
out, providing the explosive is accessible. Capacities of burn-
ing grounds vary according to geographical location, explosive
limits and size of the areas. Explosive limits are dictated pri
marily by safety factors.
b. The open burning method of disposal produces effluent gases,
particulate matter, and some non-volatilized residue. These
51
-------
environmental factors are inherent to this method of disposal,
and it is unlikely that they can be eliminated with current
practices. However, by controlling the quantity and nature of
material burned and using modified methods, both the gaseous
and particulate emissions can be reduced to minimize environ-
mental effects.
c. Table 6 illustrates the gaseous combustion products evolved
from the burning of various propellants and explosives (94).
The data presented in Table 6 constitute an attempt to quantify
the emissions generated during the complex phenomena of open
burning, for abatement and control purposes. However, the re-
sults are erratic, since no accepted methods exist to measure
the quantities.
d. Burlington has conducted tests by burning approximately 0.6
gram of various explosives (26). Assuming that the products
formed in small scale tests are in the same proportion as those
produced in large scale open burning, the results obtained are
shown in Table 7.
e. Estimated quantities of air pollutants generated by the open
burning of PEP wastes and PEP-contaminated wastes were calcula-
ted by multiplying waste generation data by emission factors
which were selected to represent the open burning of such wastes
(130 ). The data are based upon waste burning records kept by
the various installations. The data on PEP wastes have a high
degree of accuracy since records of all PEP materials must be
maintained. The PEP-contaminated waste records are based upon
truckload quantities delivered to the burning ground. Estima-
tions of air pollutant emissions from the open burning PEP wastes
and PEP contaminated wastes are listed in Tables 8-9. A sum-
mation of emission estimates for PEP wastes for 1975 is provided
in Table 10 as pounds per month, and were based upon emission
factors developed by laboratory scale test burns of one gram
quantities of TNT in a simulation of open burning. No other
quantitive data exist. The following emission factors were
used:
NOX - 150 Ib/ton of TNT open burned
CO - 56 Ib/ton of TNT open burned
HC - 1 Ib/ton of TNT open burned
Particulates - l8o Ib/ton of TNT open burned
52
-------
TABLE 6. EMISSIONS FROM BURNING OF ENERGETIC MATERIALS (94)
(Pounds of Gas Per Ton Burned)
Combustion Black HBX
Product Powder Tritonal
Carbon fi a
., , , - 091 . o
Monoxide
Carbon o^ _
Dioxide
Nitrogen 204.8 6.3
Water - 978.2
Hydrogen - 41.2
Carbon 18.8 12.4
M°thane
Ammonia
Hydrogen
Sulfide
Hydrogen
Cyanide
Vjn Potassium
tx) Hydroxide
Lead
Aluminum - 21.54
Aluminum ,,o -,/-
Oxide - 48'76
Potassium 273.8
Carbon
Oxisulfide " '2
Sulphur 0.6
Carbon g
Bisulfide °
Hydrogen
Chloride
Sulphur
Dioxide
Atmospheric
Constituents
TOTAL GAS
EMISSIONS 1,698.5 2,000.0
PER SYSTEM
Typical propellant
Compositions TNT Single Double
B, B3, A, C, Explosive D Base Base
Cyclotol Octol Propellant Propellant
939.7 1,194.1 798.2 327.4
337.4 189.2 757.6 1,137.0
589.8 369.8 23:7.6 297.0
2.3 31.0 146.6 163.4
39.8 36.9 46.0 26.4
174.8
1.6 4.16 10.4 14.4
0.03 0.03 0.03
-
2.54
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
1,913.2 1,999.9 1,998.4 1,965.6
compositions are given in Table 2, Chapter I.
Triple Tarrier
Composite Base NACO Sustalner
Propellant Propellant Propellant NOSOL Propellant
794.4 697.2 1,049.4 828.8
19.0 142.6 737.2 290.2 674.2
216.0 276.2 241.0
480.7 138.4 333.4 140.2
43.0 49.0 29.4 53.2
61.4 - 44.8
13.8 4.52 0.1
2.72 - 0.65
3.0
2.21 - 0.88
13.2
17.8 - 17.8
_
120.0 - -
-
0.256
-
-
340.0 - -
1.0 - -
1,200.0 - -
1,680.0 1,479-4 1,934.9 1,983.2 1,999-0
-------
TABLE 7. ESTIMATED DAILY POLLUTION EMISSIONS FROM BURNING EXPLOSIVES (26)
Pollutant
Carbon Monoxide CLb )
Oxides of Nitrogen (Ib)
Hydrocarbons Clb)
Phosphorous Pentoxide (lb )
Hydrochloric Acid Clb)
Hydrofluoric Acid Clb)
Soot Clb)
Burning
3.8 Tons
PBX-9404
23
144
0
49
87
0
0
Burning
3.8 Tons
LX-09
4
110
0
0
0
23
0
Burning
3.8 Tons
Comp B-3
19
141
0
0
0
0
0
Burning
3.8 Tons
TNT
213
570
4
0
0
0
684
Autos
Adjacent
to Plant
2499
192
218
No Standard
No Standard
0
No Standard
NOTE: The automotive figures are based on 10,380 daily vehicles (Iowa Highway
Commission count) travelling 2.8 miles each (along the Burlington defense
plant perimeter). Each vehicle is assumed to barely comply with Federal
Emission Standards for automobiles as published in Environmental Science and
Technology. The value of 3.8 tons is the average daily amount burned for
all explosives combined from both divisions A and B at the Burlington Plant.
Typical explosive compositions are given in Table 2, Chapter I.
-------
TABLE 8. 1975 MONTHLY EMISSIONS FROM PEP WASTE (26)
Installation
NOX HC CO
(pounds per month)
Particulates S02
Radf ord
Iowa
Longhorn
Milan
Volunteer
Hols ton
Louisiana
Joliet
Indiana
Lake City
Kansas
Lone Star
Twin Cities
TOTALS
Pine Bluff
Redstone
Picatinny
Edgewood
TOTALS
9,000
6,480
4,440
3,620
3,060
2,850
2,070
1,660
930
870
580
520
10
36,090
2,060
1,740
800
40
4,650
ARMY
60
40
30
20
20
20
10
10
10
10
neg
neg
neg
230
10
10
10
neg
30
AMMUNITION
3,360
2,420
1,660
1,350
1,140
1,060
770
620
350
320
220
200
neg
13,470
ARSENALS
770
650
300
20
1,740
PLANTS
10,800 *
7,780
5,330
4,340
3,670
3,420
2,480
2,000
1,120
1,040
700
630
20
43,330
2,470 *
2,090
950
60
5,570
DEPOTS/DEPOT ACTIVITIES
Seneca
Ann is ton
Lexington-Blue Grass
Letterkenny
Tooele
Red River
Sierra
Savanna
Navajo
Pueblo
Umatilla
Wingate
TOTALS
Fort Sill
10,200
4,950
4,540
4,520
1,710
1,460
1,440
1,260
570
80
20
neg
30,750
2,880
70
30
30
30
10
10
10
10
neg
neg
neg
neg
200
20
3,810
1,850
1,700
1,690
640
540
540
470
210
30
10
neg
11,490
OTHER
1,080
12,240 *
5,940
5,450
5,420
2,050
1,750
1,730
1,510
680
90
20
neg
36,880
3, 460 *
*No data on sulfur dioxide emissions.
55
-------
TABLE 9. 1975 MONTHLY EMISSIONS FROM PEP-CONTAMINATED WASTE (26)
Installation
NO,
HC
CO
Particulates SO,
(pounds per month)
Holston
Kansas
Milan
Lone Star
Radford
Iowa
Sunflower
Indiana
Badger
Joliet
Volunteer
Longhorn
Louisiana
Lake City
TOTALS
Pine Bluff
Picatinny
Redstone
Edgewood
TOTALS
7,130
780
470
390
190
120
100
90
60
50
40
20
20
neg
9,460
230
90
20
10
350
ARMY
35,600
3,900
2,360
1,950
940
600
500
460
320
240
220
120
80
10
47, 300
1,140
460
120
60
1,780
AMMUNITION
101,000
11,000
6,670
5,520
2,670
1,700
1,400
1,290
890
690
630
340
240
20
134,060
ARSENALS
3,200
1,300
340
160
5,000
PLANTS
19,020 *
2,080
1,260
1,040
500
320
260
240
170
130
120
60
40
neg
25,240
600 *
250
60
30
940
DEPOTS/DEPOT ACTIVITIES
Seneca
Savanna
Letterkenny
Red River
Lexington-Blue Grass
Sierra
Anniston
Tooele
Umatilla
TOTALS
2,310
360
280
100
90
70
60
neg
neg
3,270
11,600
1,790
1,400
510
440
360
300
10
neg
16,410
32,700
5,070
3,960
1,450
1,240
1,030
860
20
10
46,340
6,170 *
960
740
270
230
190
160
neg
neg
8,720
*No data for sulfur dioxide emissions.
-------
TABLE 10. SUMMARY OP 1975 EMISSIONS (72)
(pounds/month)
Type
PEP
Waste Location
Army Ammunition
Plants
Arsenals
Depots/Depot
Activities
Others
TOTALS
PEP- Army Ammunition
Contaminated Plants
Arsenals
Depots/Depot
Activities
TOTALS
NOX
36,090
4,650
30,750
2,880
74,370
9,460
350
3,270
13,080
HC
230
30
200
20
480
47, 300
1,780
16,410
65, 490
CO
13,470
1,740
11,490
1,080
27,78o
134,060
5,000
46, 340
185,400
Particulates
43,330
5,570
36,880
3,460
89,240
25, 240
940
8,720
34,900
-------
Emission estimates for PEP-contaminated waste were based upon
emission factors for open "burning as presented in "Compilation
of Air Pollution Emission Factors (Revised)," U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs Publication No. AP-42,
February 1972. The reader should understand that actual field
test data on open burning of these types of wastes are practi-
cally non-existent. No emission factors are available for other
specific PEP wastes. Thus pollutants such as hydrogen chloride
and hydrogen fluoride cannot be placed in any meaningful per-
spective. Since most energetic materials do not contain sulfur,
sulfur dioxide emissions from PEP-contaminated waste can be con-
sidered negligible. The emission factor for TNT was assumed to
be representative of the general classification of PEP wastes.
SECTION II
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
42. INTRODUCTION
Development and implementation of air pollution control
associated with emissions from deactivation furnaces, washout
plants, detonation, and open burning have been progressing at a
rapid rate during the last few years by addition of control
devices or process changes.
43. DEACTIVATION FURNACE EMISSION CONTROL
a. The Army is in the process of installing fabric filter dust
collector systems (APE 1276) for particulate removal on the
standard APE 1236 deactivation furnaces (Table 11) (28). The
system includes a baghouse to accommodate a gas flow of 4500
acfm at 400°F. There are 100 Nomex bags with an A/C ratio of
4.8 to 1. A cyclone removes larger material, and a cold air
damper controls the temperature in the baghouse. The design
pressure drop range is 1/2 to 4" H?0 for the baghouse and 20 inches
for the total system. The equipment price is approximately $45K.
b. The duct between the furnace and the baghouse has provisions
for automatically drawing in cooling or dilution air to mix with
the hot furnace gases to reduce them to a maximum of 400°F. If
the temperatures start to exceed the limitations of the bags,
the gases are automatically "dumped" to the atmosphere and the
furnace control panel is signalled to instruct the operator to
58
-------
TABLE 11. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM FOR DEACTIVATION FURNACE
Installation Schedule (28)
Tooele Array Depot
(Munitions Div.)
Pueblo Army Depot
Tooele Array Depot
(AEO)
Sierra Army Depot
Umatilla Depot Activity
Red River Army Depot
(Three Systems)
Anniston Array Depot
Blue Grass Army Depot
Letterkenny Army Depot
Lake City Army
Ammunition Plant
Tooele Army Depot
(Two Systems-Stock)
July 1975
(Prototype Testing Completed June 1976)
Initial installation completed Aug 1975
modifications scheduled completion July 1976
Initial installation completed April 1976
modifications scheduled completion July 1976
June 1976
July 1976
August 1976
August 1976
September 1976
September 1976
October 1976
October 1976
AEHA Completed
acceptance tests
October 1975
AEHA will con-
duct observations
for compliance
with Visible
Emission
Regulations
-------
stop feeding the furnace until the gases have cooled.
c. The dust laden air enters the baghouse near the bottom and
passes through the filter bags, from outside to inside, deposit-
ing the dust on the bags. The bags are periodically cleaned by
introducing a jet-pulse of air at the top of each bag, causing a
momentary reverse flow through the bag and forcing the collected
dusts into a hopper at the bottom of the baghouse. The collected
dusts are continuously discharged from the baghouse through a
rotary air lock. Figure 8 illustrates a typical baghouse. The
exhaust gases from the furnace are pulled through the baghouse
by an induced-draft fan on the exit side of the baghouse. The
I.D. fan is automatically modulated to maintain a desired draft
(approximately -0.10 in. H20) at the furnace exhaust gas exit as
the cooling or dilution air increases or decreases, or as the
pressure drop across the baghouse increases. The clean gases are
then exhausted.
d. The efficiency of the baghouse was tested for emissions from
armor piercing .50 caliber cartridges and the assembled M21A4
booster and are reported in Table 12 (72). Most particulate
emission rates are within emission standards. The visible emis-
sions from the baghouse were below applicable standards.
e. One standard deactivation furnace at Tooele contains an
experimental two-step liquid scrubber to determine the feasi-
bility of destroying chemical agent material. An afterburner
located directly after the rotary furnace has a 0.3 sec hold
time at 1500°F for final combustion of rotary furnace material.
NOX removal experiments have also been conducted on this furnace
with a scrubber system including a Venturi followed by a wet
packed bed. The wet scrubber system, operating at pH 11, removes
about 50$ of the NOY.
-A.
f. The Navy has installed a combination fabric filter and marble
bed wet scrubber on two standard APE 1236 deactivation furnaces
at the Naval Weapons Support Center, Crane, Indiana. The system
will be used to evaluate control methods prior to installation
of control equipment at other Navy facilities. The air can be
treated by the filter or scrubber alone, or both in series.
44. WASHOUT PLANT AND DETONATION EMISSIONS CONTROLS
The emissions from a washout" plant consist of solids and
vapors emitted during the washout, pelletizing and drying oper-
ations. A standard design washout plant has three exit stacks
60
-------
Tav-
«
OEACnVATIQN FURNACE
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM
Figure 8 - Pilot Model Air Pollution Control System.
-------
JTABLE lg. PARTICULATE EMISSION DATA (72)
Run Number
Date
Stack Gas Characteristics
Molecular Weight
Moisture ($)
Oxyp^n, Og ($)
Carbon Dioxide, C02 (#)
Hitroson, Ng ($)
Carbon Monoxide, CO (#)
Temperature, °F
Stack Characteristics
Velocity (ft/sec)
^ Flowrate (sci'/sec)
toss Emission Rate (MER) (lb/hr)
Allowable Emission (lb/hr)
Percent Removal ($)
Average Opacity (#)
Allowable Opacity (%}
Operational Characteristics
Feed Rate (T/hr)
Fuel Consumption (gal/hr)
Isokinetlcs (%)
Barometric Pressure (in. Hg )
MER as Percent of Allowable
Cartridge,
1 la*
6 Aug 6 Aug
28.43
2.30
19.78+
0.27+
79.93+
0.02+
291
25.15
31.36
357.08
5
20
0.88
4.15
106
25.12
-
28.85
2.77
18.57
2.63
78.53
0.27
207
26.52
35.74
0.51
3-32
99.86
20
0.88
4.15
103
25.12
15.36
cal 50,
2
8 Aug
28.43
3.76
19-78
0.27
79.93
0.02
194
24.99
36.83
81.92
10
20
0.88
6.99
104
25.32
-
APIM8
?a
8 Aug
28.80
3.09
18.59
2.53
78.17
0.71
169
24.11
34.73
0.26
3.32
99.68
10
20
0.88
6.99
110
25.32
7.83
Booster K21A4, Assembled
3 3a 4 4a
8 Aug 8 Aug 8 Aug 8 Aug
£8.51
3.15
20.56
0.14
79.30
0.00
288
30.82
38.16
24.03
0
20
0.21
16.61
115
25.32
-
28.92
2.71
17.74
3-35
78.86
0.05
230
27.05
35.53
0.20
1.36
99-17
0
20
0.21
16.61
109
25.32
14.71
28.52
2.63
20.49
0.19
79.32
0.00
298
29.99
36.60
12.78
0
20
0.16
15.10
112
25.28
-
28.92
2.63
17.62
3.23
78.78
0.37
235
22.53
29.32
0.29
1.15
97.73
0
20
0.16
15.10
108
25.28
25.22
Fuze, Base
Detonating, M66A2
5a 6a 7a
7 Oct 7 Oct 7 Oct
29-00
2.60
19.03
1.47
79.34
0.16
182
30.54
43.19
0.17
2.72
0
20
0.64
13.80
103
24.72
6.25
29.07
2.10
19.22
1.87
78.75
0.16
110
46.76
74.79
0.07
2.72
0
20
0.64
13.80
84
24.84
2.57
29.13
2.03
20.02
1.99
77.95
0.04
125
43.58
68.12
0.07
2.72
0
20
0.64
13.80
96
24.94
2.57
Cartridge
Cal 50, ffl.7
8a 9a
8 Oct 8 Oct
29.36
3.76
17.85
3.19
78.12
0.84
228
30.67
41.30
0.22
3.32
10
20
0.88
8.66
108
25.26
6.63
29.15
3.46
17.82
2.76
78.73
0.69
232
29.47
39.45
0.15
2.98
20
0.74
8.66
105
25.26
5.03
*The small "a" denotes sampling done after the baghouse.
+Due to leaking bag, gas sample was lost on run 1 so analysis from run 2 was used.
-------
venting each of these operations. All three stacks are about
24" in diameter and have water spray "halo" scrubbers near the
top to provide cleanout. The sprays are operated during clean-
up operations. A low energy three stage Dugon water spray and
baffle scrubber cleans the air stream from the pellet tank and
dopp (melt) kettle. A low energy two stage scrubber composed of
a water spray section followed by a fin type baffle section cleans
the gas stream from the dryer. Table 13 shows the effluent con-
trols and the Army Depot washout plant locations. No emissions
data were provided.
b. The control methods presently available for detonation
include drilling to provide 10' to 12' deep holes to provide for
underground explosion, or bulldozing holes and covering with an
81 to 10' mound. This reduces the smoke and dust cloud. Reduc-
ing the explosive charge also reduces emissions.
45. PROPOSED DARCOM DEPOT DISPOSAL SYSTEM
a. Because of the continued potential problems associated with
open air burning, the Army is contemplating development of a facility
(DARCOM Depot Disposal System) (Figure 9) to process explosive
wastes in an enclosed environment, which includes the flexibility
and variety of capabilities to accommodate all waste materials
which current technology limits to open burning and detonation.
b. The disposal processing facility will consist of three basic
reactor units: fluidized bed reactor; confined detonation unit;
and a decontamination oven. Each of these will be multi-purpose
and will complement the other in accomplishing an environmentally
acceptable disposal process. All of the reactor units will be
serviced by a single, highly-flexible exhaust gas treatment
system.
(1) The Fluidized Bed Reactor will accomplish disposal of all
combustible material. It represents a process system which
offers several advantages over conventional incineration. The
operating temperature conditions in a fluidized bed reactor can
be readily controlled within very narrow ranges, a factor which
makes possible the incineration of carbonaceous waste while min-
imizing the generation of noxious fumes and particulate matter.
When a combustible particle is added to the bed, transfer of
energy to this particle is rapid, and the particle quickly
63
-------
TABLE 13- WASHOUT PLANT EFFLUENT CONTROL (117)
Air
Dust & Fume Dryer
Collector Exhaust
(Pellet Sec) Scrubber
Depots
Anniston
Ft. Wingate
Lexington-
Blue Grass
Letterkenny
Navajo
Pueblo
Red River
Savanna
Tooele
Umatilla
Inst
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sched Inst Sched
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Water
Dust Fume Act
Collector Exhaust Charcoal
(Dryer Pkg Stack Filter Sys
Area) w/o Sec (Under Dev)
Inst Sched Inst
X X
0 X
X X
X X
0 X
X X
X X
X X
X X
0 S
Sched Inst Sched
X
0
X
X
0
X
0
0
X
0
Water
Reel
System
Inst Sched
X
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
0 Not Scheduled
-------
PROCESS DIAGRAM
TO
ATMOSPHERE
PACKED
COLUMN
SCRUBBER
LIQUID ROCKET FUEL
INDUSTRIAL WASTES
(FLUIDS)
DOMESTIC WASTE/
TRASH
PROPELLANT SLURRY
HE SLURRY
CYCLONE
SEPARATOR
MAGNETIC
SEPARATOR
FLUIDIZED
BED
REACTOR
LIQUID FUEL
OXIDIZER
DECONTAMINATION \
OVEN-*
VENTURI
SCRUBBER
/INDUCED
DRAFT
SOURCE
PREHEATER
(START-UP
ONLY)
HEAVY SCRAP
TO LANDFILL
WATER
TREATMENT
SECTION
OVER PRESSURE
SURGE
CHAMBER
HAND a RIFLE
GRENADES
DETONATION/
FUNCTION
CHAMBER
—'VERMICULITE
r—-HANDLING
I I r+\^r+^r-*A
SLUDGE TO
LAND FILL
OR POO
HE LOADED _
ITEMS TO 100
(300*+WITH
VERMICULITE)
Figure 9 - Process Diagram - DARCOM Depot Disposal System (80)
-------
reaches its ignition temperature. Combustion begins and. the
heat of combustion is rapidly transferred to the bed of solid
particles (sand). Because of the motion of both the gas and the
solid, contact between the burning particle and the oxygen in
the gas is excellent. No hot zone will develop in the bed.
Energetic materials (explosives and propellants) are amenable to
combustion in the fluidized bed reactor, since these materials
can be introduced as water slurries, thus controlling the heat
energy release to a constant BTU value. Packaging materials,
dunnage, and domestic wastes can be shredded to facilitate uni-
form feed and constant BTU value. Excess air required to
sustain combustion can be as low as 5$>« This reduces the forma-
tion of oxidized gases, resulting in small volume gas cleaning
equipment needed to meet air pollution standards, particularly NOX.
(2) The Confined Detonation Chamber will be a reinforced con-
crete blast containment structure for detonation of explosives
in quantities up to 100 pounds, and for burning of pyro-
technics and munitions which cannot be safely opened, or for
which disassembly is uneconomical, or whose explosives charge
exceeds the limits of the APE 1236 deactivation furnace. The
chamber attenuates noise, contains explosive particulates, and
allows gaseous emissions to be directed through gas cleaning
equipment prior to release to the atmosphere. The chamber can
be exhausted in three to ten minutes, thus allowing a relatively
short cycle time between detonations. All necessary safety fea-
tures can be interlocked to prevent any accidental detonation or
burning of munitions. Included are windows in the control
room to provide visual surveillance before and after operation
to determine that all safety features are operative. An emer-
gency entrance hatch is provided, should main chamber openings
become blocked in the closed position by debris during an explo-
sive event.
(3) In the Decontamination Chamber, considerable metal parts,
projectiles, and bomb casings generated from explosive washout
will be placed in a chamber positioned in the exhaust gas line
of the fluidized bed reactor to accomplish decontamination by
"inductive" heating. An advantage of utilizing the exhaust
gases (1,000°F to 1,400°F) from the fluidized bed reactor is that
the low oxygen content minimizes the production of oxide emissions,
while sufficient temperature completely pyrolizes any contami-
nant to an inert condition. The decontamination chamber will
include provision for expansion of its operational capability to
serve as a burn-out station for some fillers. To assure effi-
cient cleaning before release to the atmosphere, the emissions
66
-------
from the decontamination of metal components or burn-out will
pass directly to the gas cleaning equipment and — if necessary —
may be returned to the fluidized bed reactor for additional ox-
idation of effluents which otherwise would become secondary
emissions.
c. Air pollution control equipment will be selected to scrub
gaseous effluents which may be grouped into four categories of
emission groupings in the following order of difficulty: (1)
burning of propellants and explosives; (2) signals, flares,
smoke, and incendiary items; (3) thermal decontamination of
metal parts; and (*)•) burning of dunnage, packing materials, and
ammunition maintenance operations scrap. The philosophy of air
pollution control is to "prevent it" or "correct it". Air pol-
lution can be prevented by designing the process or machinery
with control equipment which eliminates or reduces the pollution
at its source. The fluidized bed reactor system represents this
"control of the source" by reducing or eliminating the production
of difficult-to-clean emissions. Because of the relatively low
temperatures generated and low excess air, no appreciable nitro-
gen oxides would be produced. The distillation products would
be consumed in the bed. This eliminates unburned hydrocarbons
leaving the unit. The results would be cleaner stack emissions
with less scrubbing operations, since the primary pollutant
would be particulate matter. Capital, operating and energy
costs would be high (35a).
d. Control equipment will be Venturi collectors and packed
tower scrubbers. The Venturi collects particles to the 0.1
micron level such as metallurgical fumes and zinc and magnesium
oxides, and recovers soluble gases. The Venturi design relies
on high gas velocities, on the order of 100 to 500 ft/sec through
a constriction where water is added. The impact breaks the
water into droplets with the fineness of spray determined by gas
velocity. The packed tower scrubber removes dust but is pri-
marily designed for gas absorption. Gas-liquid flow is counter-
current, and extended surface packings achieve absorption by
maximizing the liquid surface while collecting particulates by
cyclone action. Particulates, dust, fly ash, etc. are collected
in the wet discharge and disposed of to land fill.
e. Source testing will be performed to obtain emission data.
Continuous sampling devices which provide accurate records of
emissions will be utilized. Monitors using spectroscopic,
chromatographic, or chemiluminescent reactions are available for
67
-------
accurate testing and control of pollutants. Figure 9 is a
process flow diagram for the complete system.
46. OPEN BURNING ALTERNATIVES
a. The Problem
Large quantites of unserviceable or unsafe munitions are
disposed of by open burning. Also, projectiles demilitarized by
other processes such as washout must be flashed to insure re-
moval of all explosive material, and this is often done in open
burning areas.
b. Alternatives
An acceptable alternative for open burning would be to use
an incinerator, but safety problems make this difficult. How-
ever, the DARCOM Depot Disposal System (Figure 9) could provide
for controlled buring. Presently the control of the timing and
amount of each open burn, as well as consideration of local
weather conditions will reduce the emissions. The use of air
curtain devices may also reduce emissions.
c. New Technology Incineration Equipment
(1) The long range solution is to complete research and develop-
ment and testing of alternatives such as rotary kiln incinera-
tion and fluidized bed combustion (87).
(2) A flashing furnace to replace open burning of projectile
casings has been designed and will be installed at Tooele. The
furnace will operate at l800°F on 8000 Ib/hr of munitions (121).
No air pollution control equipment is presently planned for this
facility. The majority of the explosives are to be removed by
washout prior to entry of the munition into the furnace. Muni-
tion sizes and weights are to vary from 2" diameter and 12" long
to 11" diameter and 50" long, and from 10 to 500 pounds each.
The furnace is charged by a self-moving, refractory-lined trans-
fer car with one zone of control which holds four cars.
(3) The Navy is constructing a "Western Demilitarization
Facility" at Hawthorne, Nevada to demilitarize the full range
of DOD conventional munitions without open burning or detona-
tion (1, 106, 122). The major source of potential air pollu-
tants at this facility will be from: (1) the combustion of
material from the explosives washout system; (2) deactivation
68
-------
(popping) of ordnance items containing small quantities of ex-
plosives or propellant; and (3) the flashing of casings to insure
complete removal of explosives.
(a) Combustion of explosives after washout will be con-
ducted in two large rotary kilns which will slurry feed a water
and explosive mixture. The furnace will be designed based upon
criteria obtained from a pilot scale furnace of this type under
development at Radford AAP. Initial decisions of responsible
individuals indicate that an afterburn chamber will provide
adequate air pollution control. No other control device has yet
been selected, but it was indicated that such equipment could be
added, if required, after the system is operational. The pro-
posed rotary flashing furnaces will include baghouse systems for
particle control.
(b) The demilitarization equipment will also include:
- Large items rotary furnace system for destruction of
energetic material. The basic design is that of APE
1236 deactivation furnace, with heavy-duty retort.
- Small items rotary furnace system to be used for
small fuzes and the primers of small cartridge cases.
The basic design is as at NWSC Crane. A common bag-
house control system is proposed for both the large
and small items rotary furnaces.
- The large items flashing furnace system is to be
used to burn off residual explosives from munitions
which are too large to be passed through the large
items rotary furnace. This is to replace open-field
burning methods with their uncontrolled emissions.
Two flashing furnaces appear to be desirable: one
to handle smaller items on a continuous movement
basis; the other to handle large items on a batch
basis. A particulate control system for the flashing
furnace is not specifically identified.
69
-------
SECTION III
REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT TRENDS IN EXPLOSIVES
AND PROPELLANTS WASTE INCINERATION
47. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Problems concerned with air pollution from open burning have
resulted in research by Picatinny Arsenal concerned with a number
of incinerator systems (85,84,1)*. Portions of Reference 1 are
reviewed below. The following incinerator systems are all de-
signed to handle the problem of waste PEP disposal, and each
attacks the problem in a different manner:
o Vertical, induced draft incinerator
o Rotary kiln
o SITPA I & II - (simplified incineration technique
for pollution abatement)
o Wet air oxidation
o Fluidized bed
The more sophisticated incinerators are under investigation to
meet air pollution standards and to provide adequate air and
turbulence for proper combustion. Control equipment is planned
for some of these incinerators to further reduce the amounts of
CO, HC and NOX released. Because of the total U. S. problem of
NOX emissions, State and Federal environmental agencies are
identifying, assessing and promoting the development of cost-
effective commercially viable methods for NOX control from both
existing and new stationary combustion sources. It is anticipa-
ted that controls will ultimately be required on all waste in-
cinerators, and will take the forms of lowering NOX formation
during combustion, post-combustion removal of NOX from the com-
bustion products, or catalytic interaction within the process
itself.
48. VERTICAL DRAFT INCINERATOR
The forerunner of the PEP waste incinerator program is the
vertical draft incinerator. The incinerator was constructed in
the 1950's at Picatinny Arsenal to dispose of red water and other
contaminated liquid wastes. The unit is a cylindrical steel
furnace lined with firebrick. It was modified to dispose of
waste PEP in aqueous slurries of 25$ weight. Feasibility and
safety requirements, particle size reduction, suspension,
*Manufacturing Technology Directorate, Picatinny Arsenal
70
-------
injection, combustion and baseline gaseous emissions data were
established and evaluated. The process consisted of heating the
chamber by means of three oil fired burners to a temperature of
l600-l800°F and then injecting the slurry up toward the flame.
The downward draft provided by the induced draft enhanced the
combustion process by providing combustion air and circulated
the gaseous products within the combustion chamber. The gaseous
products were then passed through a cyclone separator, and then
vented to the atmosphere through a 125' stack. This type of
incinerator is presently outdated due to its inefficient opera-
tion and poor emission control.
49. ROTARY KILN
The rotary kiln incinerator consists of a refractory lined
cylinder slightly inclined to the horizontal at an angle usually
between 2-5° and rotating at a slow speed (1-5 rpm). Often both
the speed of rotation and inclination of the furnace are variable,
so that the flow of material through the cylinder and the reten-
tion time for combustion can be controlled. Afterburning facil-
ities can be incorporated in a separate auxiliary chamber, and
the equipment generally lends itself to flexible plant layout.
By rotation, these furnaces offer the advantages of a gentle and
continuous mixing of the PEP slurry, but capital and maintenance
costs are high. These costs are derived from the mechanical
design requirements of both rigidity of the cylinder and close
tolerance for the roller path drive as well as the high-
temperature seals between fixed and moving parts. Another major
disadvantage is the adverse effect of the explosive slurry con-
tacting the refractory lining at elevated temperatures and the
detrimental effect on the refractory of cooling and reheating
the chamber during shut-downs. This system requires the use of
a cooler and scrubber to reduce the gaseous and particulate
emissions and exhaust gas temperature prior to the exhaust fan
and stack.
50. SITPA I
The Simplified Incineration Technique for Pollution Abate-
ment (SITPA) is an incinerator designed to eliminate the com-
plexity of the systems described previously. The SITPA process
involves manually placing PEP waste on a concrete pad or covered
ditch and remotely igniting it. The pad has a hood which accepts
the combustion gases and draws them into a duct by means of in-
duction fans. The duct is connected to a baghouse which removes
particulate matter from the exhaust gases. The gases pass through
71
-------
the fan and then out the stack. It is possible to hook up several
pads to a single baghouse by ducts and a manifold. The system,
while simple, does not provide the process control, pollution
abatement or safety features inherent in the systems described
later.
51. SITPA II
The SITPA II process (APE 1236) is a specially designed,
unlined rotary kiln incinerator where the waste PEP is fed into
the combustion chamber in cans containing predetermined amounts
of the waste PEP, placed at intervals on a conveyor belt. The
waste PEP is burned in the combustion chamber, which is heated
by oil burners, and the combustion gases are removed from the
chamber by an induction fan and then passed through a baghouse
to remove particulates. This system could be operated in the
semi-continuous mode for long periods of time.
52. WET AIR OXIDATION
This process is fundamentally the aqueous oxidation of waste
PEP in a high pressure vessel. The vessel and the water inside
are initially heated to 550°F and 400 psi by steam and compressed
air. When these conditions are reached, the steam is shut off
and the feed started. The ground waste PEP is fed in a continu-
ous aqueous slurry along with compressed air. The PSP wastes are
oxidized and the BTU content of the waste is sufficient to sus-
tain the reaction without any supplemental heat input. The
vessel is operated typically at pressures in the range of 600-
2000 psi and at temperatures between 400 and 600°F. The oxida-
tion products, consisting of gaseous and liquid materials,
nitrogen from the compressed air, and a minor quantity of
ash, are cooled by the feed stream in a heat exchanger and sep-
arated into a gaseous and a liquid stream. The gaseous stream
is treated by an afterburner to destroy CO and residual hydro-
carbons. A wet scrubber is used to remove NOX prior to dis-
charge to the atmosphere. The liquid phase is further processed
to remove acidity and metallic salts, and the purified water re-
cycled to the slurry-preparation stage.
53. FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR
a. The fluidized bed incinerator is a simple and compact system
using aluminum oxide (alumina) for the bed material. If large
solid grains or chunks of PEP waste are to be disposed of, they
must be size-reduced prior to being introduced in an aqueous
72
-------
slurry (2.5% by weight). The operation of the fluidized bed in-
volves the forcing of air through the distributor plate at a rate
which can be controlled as desired. At low rates, the bed re-
mains in its original "settled" state, with the pressure drop
across the bed increasing with the flow rate until it is equal.
to the downward force exerted by the bed material resting on the
plate. The bed begins to expand at this point,which is called
"incipient fluidization," allowing more gas to pass through the
bed at the same pressure drop. The bed is now fluidized and has
all the properties of a fluid.
b. The advantages of this system are that the enriched oxygen of
the bed coupled with the heat transfer between the alumina and waste
ensures complete combustion, minimizing carbon monoxide and hydro-
carbon emissions; the uniform temperature of the bed plus the
use of a nickel catalyst limits the formation of nitrogen oxides.
The fluidized bed has provisions for the injection of supplemen-
tal oil and auxiliary air into the bed to maintain temperature.
c. Combustion is a chemical reaction which requires the con-
tacting of a fuel with oxygen at a temperature above the kindling
temperature. Both a high degree of turbulence and adequate
oxygen are required to attain complete combustion. Excess air
is the amount of air added to a combustion process beyond that
required stoichiometrically by the chemical reaction. The aux-
iliary air nozzles provide excess air to the bed to achieve
complete combustion. The.bed itself is maintained in a reduc-
ing state while the auxiliary air helps provide an oxidizing
atmosphere in the upper portion of the bed. The nitrogen pres-
ent in the combustion products can come from both the air and
the fuel. Some of the nitrogen is oxidized, with resultant
NOX being an undesirable product of combustion. The NOX formed
is a function of the combustion temperature, reaction rates,
residence time, nitrogen and oxygen concentrations and quench
rates. As excess air and turbulence in the fluidized bed chamber
are increased, more products of complete combustion are obtained.
These products are further reduced by the presence of the nickel
oxide catalyst in the bed, which drastically reduces the NOX
concentration in the exhaust gases.
54. EVALUATION OF VARIOUS CONCEPTS
a. The current judgment of knowledgeable Army personnel is that
the SITPA II System is the most cost effective system, based on
present emission standards (Table 14). This is especially true
for LAP plants which have low overall gaseous emissions due to
73
-------
TABLE 14. SUMMARY - DEVELOPMENTAL INCINERATOR SYSTEMS (1)
Incinerator
Vertical ID
Rotary Kiln
SITPA I
SITPA II
Wet Air Oxid
Fluidized Bed
Abatement
Particulates
to <0.1 gr/scf
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NOX to
<200 ppm
No
Marginal
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cost
(Capital & Operating)
NA (Feasibility Demo Only)
High (Low Comb Eff Scrubber Water
Treat)
Low (No Fuel; No NOX Abatement;
Manual, Batch Oper)
Low (Fuel Oil; No NOX Abatement;
Manual, Batch Oper)
Medium (No Fuel; Process & Scrubber
Water Treatment)
High (High Comb Eff; No Scrubber
Water Treat)
Power Requirements (35a)
SITPA II Radford Rotary Kiln Fluidized Bed
Equivalent KW
Assume 50#
requirements
Fuel
KW equiv/fuel
Total
Production
rates
52 KW
26 KW
10 gal/hr
'405 KW
131 KW
600 Ib/hr
141 KW
70.5 KW
44 gal/hr
1786 KW
1856 KW
250 Ib/hr
141 KW
70.5 KW
20.9 gal/hr
810 KW
880.5 KW
250 Ib/hr
Energy
con sur.pt ion
per Ib of waste
.72 KWIl/lb
7.-2
3.52 K>/H/lb
-------
minimal in-plant industrial operations. In addition, many LAP
plants and Army Depots are in remote locations, away from any
large cities, and therefore have state compliance standards
which can "be less stringent.
ID. The SITPA II (APE 1236) and associated air pollution control
equipment have been selected by ARRCOM as the standard disposal
process for bulk waste ammunition for all Army facilities de-
signated to require such a disposal process (35&). In conduct-
ing tests burning bulk explosives at rates up to 600 Ib/hr, NOX
and particulate emissions were found to be less than those from
small arms ammunition in the APE 1236 (35a). The capital cost
($0.25 million) of the SITPA II (APE 1236) is substantially less
than the estimated $4-6 million for the complete fluid bed in-
cinerator or the Radford rotary kiln (~$4M) (35a). In addition,
operating costs and energy requirements are also cited as ad-
vantages of SITPA II over the fluid bed incinerator and the
Radford rotary kiln for use at LAP plants and Army Depots. How-
ever, the fluid bed incinerator and rotary kiln still appear to
be under consideration for application at military PEP manu-
facturing facilities. An energy comparison of SITPA II, the
Radford Rotary Kiln and the Fluidized Bed Incinerator is given
in Table 14.
SECTION IV
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
55. EVALUATION
In the evaluation of alternative systems, it is necessary
to consider the economic factors associated with each system.
The economic analysis of the fluidized bed incinerator vs. the
rotary kiln incinerator was performed by the Mobility Equipment
Research and Development Command (MERADC) under the direction of
Picatinny Arsenal. The method utilized by MERADC to perform
this analysis is the present value unit cost (PVUC) method.
a. This method utilizes a computerized mathematical model to
evaluate alternate incinerator designs. The model considers
capital costs, operating costs, time horizons, depreciation,
interest and other related factors. The output yields the PVUC
per pound of material incinerated. The PVUC program was used to
evaluate the cost parameters of the fluidized bed vs. the rotary
kiln over the various time horizons and load (operating) rates.
The data generated from two typical runs (250 and 1000 Ib/hr)
are shown in Tables 15 and 16 and Figures 10 and 11. The TNT/
slurry weight ratio was 25 percent for these calculations (l).
75
-------
TABLE 15. COST FACTORS FOR THE 250 LB/HR CASE (1)
Yr
5
10
15
20
25
5
10
15
20
25
5
10
15
20
25
5
10
15
20
25
*250
300
Design
Capac ity
(Ib/hr)
250
250
250
250
days -
days -
Oper.
Rate
(0
33
66
100
100
Quan.
Burned
(Ib/day)
2000
4000
6000
'6000
Oper.
Schedule
1/8/5
2/8/5
3/8/5
3/8/6
MOB
Rotary Kiln
Oper. Cost
(I/day)
276.19
567.03
1027.63
1027.63
(Standard Work Week)
(Mobilization - 6
Day Work
Week)
Fluid Bed
Oper. Cost
($/day)
141.43
255.09
347.76
344.73
PVUC
Rotary Kiln
$/lb Expl
. 26358
.25633
.25046
. 24581
. 24222
.20450
. 20088
.19794
.19562
.19382
. 21310
. 21068
.20873
. 20718
. 20598
. 20479
. 20285
.20128
.20004
.19908
Capital Equipment Cost
PVUC
Fluid Bed
$Ab Expl
. 22520
. 21629
. 20906
.20333
.19891
.14102
.13656
.13294
.13008
.12787
.10946
.10649
.10407
.10217
.10069
.09872
.09634
.09441
.09288
.09170
FBI - $582,
RK - $472,
Cost Savings
$/day $/Yr*
76.76 19,190.
80.08 20,020.
82.80 20,700.
84.96 21,240.
86.62 21,655.
253.92 63,480.
257.28 64,320.
260.00 65,000.
262.16 65,540.
263.80 65,950.
621.84 155,460.
625.14 156,285.
627.96 156,990.
630.06 157,515.
631.74 157,935.
636.42 190,926.
639.06 191,718.
641.22 192,366.
642.96 192,888.
644. 28 193, 284.
000 (FY 74)
000 (FY 74)
-------
TABLE 16. COST FACTORS FOR THE 1000 LB/HR CASE (l)
--J
—J
Design Oper. Quan. Rotary Kiln
Capacity Rate Burned Oper. Oper. Cost
Yr (lb/hr) (%} (Ib/day) Schedule ($/day)
5 1000 33 8000 1/8/5 815.20
10
15
20
25
5 1000 66 16000 2/8/5 1165.49
10
15
20
25
5 1000 100 24000 3/8/5 1649.51
10
15
20
25
5 1000 100 24000 3/8/6 1649.51
10 MOB
15
20
25
Fluid Bed PVUC
Oper. Cost Rotary Kiln
($/day) $Ab Expl
282.12 .14212
.13980
.13792
.13643
.13528
459.05 .09296
.09179
.09085
.09011
.08953
554.51 .08214
.08136
.08074
.08024
.07985
548.63 .07947
.07885
.07835
.07795
.07765
PVUC
Fluid Bed
$/lb Expl
.08784
.08481
.08235
.080 4o
.07889
.05498
.05346
.05223
.05126
.05050
.04063
.03962
.03880
.03815
.03765
.03690
.03609
.03543
.03491
.03451
Cost Savings
$/day $/Yr*
434.24
^39.92
444.56
448.24
451.12
607.68
613.28
617.92
621.60
624.48
996.24
1001.76
1006.56
1010.16
1012.80
1021.68
1026.24
1030.08
1032.96
1035.36
108,560.
109,980.
111,140.
112,060.
112,780.
151,920.
153,320.
154,480.
155,400.
156,120.
249,060.
250,440.
251,640.
252,540.
253,200.
306,504.
307,872.
309,024.
309,888.
310,608.
*250 days - (Standard Work Week)
300 days - (Mobilization - 6 Day Work Week)
Capital Equipment Cost:
FBI - $792,000
RK - $606,000
Current Year Dollars - FY74 Base
-------
z
o
1500
A Fluidized Bed
O Rotary Kiln
UJ
a.
O
u_
O
•«*"
UJ
CL.
o
1000
O
u
O
2 500
33*
100* MOBILIZATION
OPERATING RATE ( * TOTAL CAPACITY)
Figure 10 - Comparison of Operating Costs ( 250 Ib /Hr) ( 1 )
78
-------
2000
z
.
ULJ
Q.
O
U_
O
1500
1000
to
O
u
O
z
O
500
A Fluidized Bed
O Rotary Kiln
1
33*
100$ MOBILIZATION
OPERATING RATE ($ TOTAL CAPACITY)
Figure 11 - Comparison of Operaring Cosfs (lOOOIb /Hr) (1)
-------
b. By inspection of these tables, it can be seen that the cost
savings which can be realized using the fluidized bed incinera-
tor varies from $19,000/yr up to $193,000/yr with a 250 Ib/hr
capacity and from $108,000/yr to $311,000/yr with a 1000 Ib/hr
capacity. The major cost savings attributed to the fluidized bed
when compared to the rotary kiln is due to the lower operating
costs (fuel usage).
SECTION V
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
56. VERTICAL DRAFT INCINERATOR
Being the forerunner of the incinerator program, the ver-
tical draft incinerator displayed the feasibility and inherent
safety in the incineration of PEP wastes. This system is pres-
ently outdated because of its inefficient operation and poor
emission control.
57. ROTARY KILN
The rotary kiln incinerator demonstrated its capability for
safely disposing of a wide variety of PEP wastes during the
evaluation program. The system offers flexibility, good process
control, good combustion efficiency and, with a scrubber, can
maintain particulate and gaseous emission levels within current
guidelines. Capital and operating costs are high, however.
58. SITPA I
SITPA I is a rudimentary system one step above open burning,
Although it does attempt to control particulates, the uncon-
trolled combustion aspect of this technique rules out further
development.
59. SITPA II
The SITPA II is a low cost disposal system which has appli-
cation for use at LAP plants or demilitarization facilities
located in non-urban and/or low density industrial areas. This
technique does include some combustion controls which remove
particulates from the stack gases. There is no attempt to re-
duce gaseous emissions. Capital and operating costs are low.
80
-------
60. WET AIR OXIDATION
The wet-air oxidation system has been demonstrated to be a
thermally efficient process for disposal of waste explosives and
propellants. Wo supplemental fuel is required to maintain the
reaction once the system reaches equilibrium. However, the sys-
tem operates at high pressure (600-2000 psig) and requires sup-
port equipment (e.g., liquid/gas and liquid/solid separators,
scrubber) to control the process effluents.
61. FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR
The fluidized bed incinerator is a compact disposal system
which can safely destroy the PEP wastes and, through the use of
a catalyst, conform to current and anticipated standards for
NOX, HC, and CO, with the use of abatement equipment. However,
in spite of the high combustion and operational efficiencies,
this system is characterized by high capital and operating costs,
62. ECONOMICAL ANALYSIS
The economic analysis technique developed by MERADC is a
viable management decision making tool for choosing the most
suitable disposal system for each application.
63. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
With respect to the major current demilitarization processes,
the following preliminary conclusions can be drawn with respect
to air effluents.
a. Washout
Although minimal amounts of explosive may escape through
the scrubbers in the APE 1300 washout plant, this is not con-
sidered to constitute an environmental problem.
b. Deactivation Furnace
Addition of the APE 1276 fabric filter particulate collec-
tion system to the APE 1236 deactivation furnace constitutes a
significant improvement in air pollution control and should
satisfy environmental quality standards for particulates.
81
-------
c. Detonation
Until the same environmental criteria are applied to the
use of explosives in the commercial blasting industry, there is
no reasonable basis for criticism of demilitarization of obso-
lete or unsafe munitions by detonation. Principal products
appear to be COg, H20 and N2, all of which are non-pollutants.
Covering of the munitions by earth substantially reduces noise
and particulates.
d. Open Burning
Alternatives to open burning are in various stages of
development, and given sufficient funding, should provide ade-
quate options for the elimination of the environmental problems
associated with this process. These alternatives have been re-
viewed in this Chapter. Support of these development efforts by
EPA funding, as well as more detailed evaluation of alternative
processes,is recommended.
e. Advanced Technology
The air pollution control systems in use at Rocky Mountain
Arsenal and Tooele Army Depot constitute the most advanced tech-
nology currently available for treatment of air effluents associ-
ated with the safe disposal of toxic and hazardous materials.
EPA should take an active role in technology transfer in apply-
ing this technology to the solution of problems in industry.
82
-------
CHAPTER IV
WASTEWATER EFFLUENTS
64. INTRODUCTION
a. Wastewaters result from several activities associated with
demilitarization of conventional munitions. These activities
include high and low pressure washout; steam melt out; chemical
cleaning and rinsing of reclaimed hardware; and scrubber waters
from air pollution abatement devices. The most significant
current wastewater source is washout, although scrubber waters
will increase in quantity and pollution potential as air emission
control devices are installed at demilitarization facilities.
b. A variety of treatment and disposal methods are utilized for
demilitarization wastewaters. They range from direct discharge
onto the land or into receiving waters to extensive treatment
and total recycle. There is much similarity in the nature and
applicability of treatment processes between wastewaters from
loading (LAP) of conventional munitions and those of demilitar-
ization. The former have been presented in a recent comprehen-
sive study (2). This chapter of this report considers demil-
itarization in two sections: Demilitarization Wastewater Sources
and Characteristics; and Demilitarization Wastewater Treatment,
Ultimate Disposal, and Costs.
SECTION I
WASTEWATER SOURCES AND CHARACTERISTICS
65. SOURCES
Although the wastewater sources from demilitarization activ-
ities are readily identifiable, data on wastewater volumes and
pollutant levels are limited. Wastewater originates from:
washout operations; meltout; chemical demilitarization; and air
pollution scrubber devices. Each source is discussed in this
83
-------
section, with available wastewater characterization data
presented.
66. WASHOUT
a. General
(1) Two basic types of washout facilities are used in demil-
itarization of conventional munitions. These are: (1) a low
pressure-hot water system which is the standard Army design;
and (2) a high pressure system of more recent development. Most
of the Army washout facilities are the standard model APE 1300
(5) (1974 cost $600K). The remaining low pressure facilities
are predecessor models of the APE 1300, often with modifications
on the original installed equipment. The low pressure systems
typically operate with water-steam mixtures yielding operating
temperatures of l80-205°F. The NWSC Crane high pressure system
operates at pressures up to 9*000 Psi^ and ambient temperature.
Longhorn AAP has two high pressure (5500 psi) systems, which
operate at flow rates of 10 gpm each.
(2) A variety of munition loads have been processed through
washout facilities. The predominant loads are TNT-fill and
Composition B. However, washout of other munition loads have
also been reported. Table 17 presents data for Army Depots. NAD
Hawthorne has also processed Composition B. F/TSC Crane is
scheduled to handle both Compositions A and B (as well as TNT-
fill) in their high pressure system. An experimental system
has successfully handled plastic-bonded explosives (1).
TABLE 17. MUNITIONS PROCESSED IN ARMY DEPOT WASHOUT FACILITIES
Location
Comp B.
TNT
Tritonal
*0ctol was on test basis
Was not pelletized.
34
Octol
Anniston
Blue Grass
Fort Wingate
Letterkenny
Navajo
Pueblo
Red River
Savanna
Tooele
Umatilla
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X*
X
X
X
X
-------
b. Savanna Army Depot
(1) Demilitarization wastewater from Savanna AD results only
from the washout facility. This facility was installed in 1952,
and upgraded to a partial recycle system in 1971. The facility
is currently on stand-by status, although after upgrading it
operated on a 24 hour per day basis for approximately one year.
(2) The standard Army APE 1300 model washout facility requires
92,000 gallons of water to charge the system. When in opera-
tion, the recycle system is purged of 38,000 gallons of waste-
water once each week. This wastewater is treated as described
in Section II of this chapter.
(3) Raw wastewater characterization data are limited. Samples
at 60°C, analyzed for TNT during 1971 and 1972,were reported to
have the following TNT levels (22):
Sample Date TNT, mg/1
16 Dec 540
23 Dec 1160
14 Jan 539
21 Jan 300
28 Jan 720
These values compare with a theoretical solubility of TNT at
60°C of 675 mg/1.
(4) Wastewater samples analyzed in 1961, prior to the instal-
lation of the recycle system when water was utilized on a once
through basis, had the values presented below (23):
Raw Wastewater
Parameter # 1 Line # 2 Line Glarifier Effluent
pH 8.0 7.8 8.2
Alkalinity 244 230 246
Nitrite 135 277 216
Nitrate 480 509 516
Aluminum (Sol.) 190 76 176
TNT (Sol.) 14 14 23
Diss. Solids 675 . 533 355
Total Solids 850 652 476
85
-------
The effect of recycle use on TNT levels is obvious by compari-
son of the 1961 results with those obtained in 1971-72. The
high soluble aluminum level observed at pH 7.8-8.2 is anomalous,
since theoretical aluminum solubility is much lower in the pH
range reported.
c. Letterkenny Army Depot
The Letterkenny AD washout facility was installed in 1972,
replacing an earlier system put into service in 1955. The new
APE 1300 washout plant ran continuously (2 shifts/day, 5 days/
week) from the time of installation until approximately June,
1975. It is currently not active, due to a lack of munitions on'
site for washout demilitarization. During operation, it ran TNT'
and Composition B-filled munitions, with the bulk (approximately
90 percent) being TNT-fill. At full-scale operation, the wash-
out facility processed 3200-3500 rounds per day of 90mm (TNT-
filled) projectiles. Both TNT and Composition-B were recovered
and pelletized for sale. The washout plant operated with a
water recycle system, with the water treated as described in
Section II and reused. The capacity of the recycle system is
18,000 gallons. This water is discharged only when the washout
facility switches from one type of explosive to another (e.g.,
TNT to Comp. B). Limited waste characterization data are avail-
able on the discharge waters (Tables l8 and 19). During normal
operation, water is lost by evaporation from the process and
replaced as necessary by fresh water. Cleanup water for the
washout plant discharges into the recycle reservoir and is used
as part of the system makeup water. The system is reported to
have been dewatered only three times during the period 1972-1975
(114).
d. Red River Army Depot
A washout facility was installed at Red River AD in the
mid-1950's, and was used intermittently until 1972 for TNT
filled artillery shells, bombs and rocket warheads. The washout
system is a conventional APE 1300 Army unit with partial water
treatment and recycle of water. Washout water treatment is
described in Section II of this report. This washout system
operates at a temperature of 190-195°F. Water is discharged
from the system only in the event of equipment breakdown or when
the system is placed on inactive status. The washout facility
is reported to have handled up to 10,000 Ib/day of explosives,
although typical production averaged 8,500 Ib daily, for a
single work shift. The capacity of the recycle water system is
86
-------
TABLE 18. CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF LETTERKENNY AD
TNT WASHOUT WASTEWATER (30 )
Parameter Value
PH 5-9
TOC (mg/1) 200
SOC (mg/1) 140
Suspended Solids (mg/1) 230
COD (mg/1) 565
Total Solids (mg/1) 715
Oil/Grease (mg/1) 185
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOo) 28
Acidity (mg/1 as CaCOo) 32
Chloride (mg/1) 50
TNT (mg/1) 146
TABLE 19. CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF LETTERKENNY AD
COMP B WASHOUT WASTEWATER (30)
Parameter Value
pH 7.0
TOC (mg/1) 220
SOC (mg/1) 150
Suspended Solids (mg/1) 145
COD (mg/1) 625
Total Solids (mg/1) 515
Oil/Grease (mg/1) 136
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCOg) 48
Acidity (mg/1 as CaC03) 8
Chloride (mg/1) 11
TNT (mg/1) 168
53,680 gallons. Washout utilizes 129 gpm- During operation
fresh water must be added daily to make up evaporative losses.
Makeup volume required during winter months was low., although
240 to 300 gallons of make up water were required daily during
summer months of operation. When the washout facility is re-
activated., water discharged from the system will be monitored
by collection of 24 hour composite samples to be analyzed for
8?
-------
TNT, pE} acidity, alkalinity, and total suspended and settleable
solids (10). Washout facility reactivation is projected in
support of the Prototype Depot Disposal System, with water-
slurried explosive being provided to the fluidized bed inciner-
ator from the washout facility.
e. Anniston Army Depot
(1) The Anniston AD washout facility is somewhat unusual, in
that it has had a successful history of handling Comp-B explo-
sives, and was scheduled to begin washout operation in late
1976 on Octol-loaded munitions, based upon the results of a
recent trial run of 100 rounds. The present washout facility
began operation in 1972, but has been on inactive status since
1974.
(2) The washout facility was to be reactivated for Octol-loaded
munitions. The washout operation is intended to recover shells,
but octol will not be recovered. A washout rate of 50 rounds/
day is projected. Each round weighs eight pounds (including
octol) . A total of 12,000 rounds are programmed for washout.
Washout of octol will be on an batch basis, since octol will not
be recovered. Molten octol and water will be pumped from the
washout tank and the slurry of water and explosive gravity
clarified and otherwise conventionally treated for water reuse.
Excess water for discharge is not anticipated as fresh makeup
water is normally required to replace evaporative losses (111).
Upon final cleanout of the recirculation system, at the con-
clusion of the octol work, the system water will be discharged
into the plant's leaching pit. No data were provided on the
characteristics of this wastewater. The octol will be burned.
f. Tooele Army Depot
(1) The single wastewater source for demilitarization activ-
ities at Tooele Army Depot is a washout facility. This facility,
installed in 1948, has not operated since I960. During the
period of active service, the washout facility processed muni-
tions loaded with TNT, tritonal, amatol and Composition B. With
the exception of amatol, all explosives were pelletized and
recovered. The work level was not sufficient to justify re-
covery of amatol.
(2) The Tooele washout facility is of an older type than those
at most Army Depots. It utilizes a partial water recycle pro-
cess, but does not incorporate cooling coils, filtration or a
88
-------
recycle reservoir. The system discharges 60 to 100 gpm of water,
resulting from displacement of hot water by washed out explo-
sive in the washout system. This discharge flows to baffled
sedimentation sumps . for evaporation and ultimate disposal by burning.
(3) During washout of Composition B, the system operated at a
water temperature of 205°P in order to reduce the viscosity of
the molten explosive and improve ease of handling. Otherwise,
the system operated at l80°F. Once each week the system was
drained of all water and cleaned up. No waste characterization
data were provided on the washout effluent. However, design
criteria developed by Tooele personnel for a prototype treatment
system estimates a total wastewater volume of 30*000 gallons for
treatment each time the washout facility is dewatered (30).
g. NWSC Crane
The washout facility at NWSC Crane differs from the stand-
ard Army process in that the Navy system operates at ambient
temperature, but at pressures up to 9000 psi. The Army system
operates at temperatures near 200°F, but at relatively low pres-
sure (~90 psi). There are no wastewater characterization data
on the NWSC Crane washout plant, since it had not yet been
operated. Expected flow from the washout plant is 32 gpm. This
will be discharged, after treatment as described in Section II
of this chapter.
h. The limited data presented above concerning wastewater
characteristics from washout operations are summarized in
Table 20. The continuous flows (Table 20) associated with
operations at Longhorn and Crane result from high pressure
washout. The Tooele continuous flow originates from one of
the older Army high temperature facilities. Although waste
characterization data are extremely limited, the washout dis-
charges contain significant quantities of TNT, oil, and sus-
pended solids and can be presumed to be comparable to LAP
wastewaters. (2)
67. STEAMOUT
In steamout facilities, steam is applied to the filled
munition to cause the explosive or propellant to melt. Steam
may be applied directly to the explosive or to the outside of
the munition casing. Steamout facilities are also present at
some Army Ammunition Plants. Several AAP steamout facilities
were visited during a previous study on wastewaters of munitions
89
-------
TABLE 20. SUMMARY OF WASHOUT WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
Discharge Constituent Concentrations
Location
Longhorn AAP
Savanna AD
Letterkenny AD
Red River AD
Tooele AD
NWSC Crane
Batch, gal
-
38,000 (wk)
18,000^^
i8,ooo<2)
53,680
30,000
-
Continuous, TNT,
gpm pH mg/1
10 (each)
8.2 23
5-9 146
7.0 168
_
60-100
32 -
TOG,
mg/1
-
200
220
-
-
-
Oil,
mg/1
-
185
136
-
-
-
Susp.
Solids,
mg/1
-
121
230
145
-
-
-
(1)
(2)
Washout of TNT-filled items
Washout of Composition B-filled items
-------
manufacture (2). There are no steamout facilities at Army Depots
(94). Despite the large number of steamout facilities (Table 21),
waste characterization data are not available. Table 21 indi-
cates military facilities having steamout capabilities (94)•
a. NAD Hawthorne
Wastewater from the NAD Hawthorne Western Demilitarization
Facility will result from use of hot water and low pressure steam
in the meltout and washout/steamout building to remove explosives
from their casings, and floor and equipment wash down and cleanup
water. The bulk of the wastewater will result from the former
activities. One estimate of the wastewater volume is 120-150 gpm
from steamout/washout and up to 50 gpm from cleanup (106). The
wastewater treatment plant, however, is sized for a flow of 400
gpm (113). This is probably in anticipation of an expanded role
for the Western Demilitarization Facility in demilitarization of
conventional munitions. The meltout/steamout facilities include
equipment to process and recover the bulk and molten explosive,
leaving an explosive-saturated wastewater (1). Since the facil-
ity is still under construction, waste characterization data are
not yet available. Preliminary pilot wastewater treatability
studies utilized hot water saturated with explosives. Char-
acterization data for these "synthetic" wastewaters have been
reported (106).
TABLE 21. MILITARY FACILITIES WITH STEAMOUT CAPABILITY (94).
Location Direct Steam Steam Cabinet
NWSC Crane X X
NAD Hawthorne X X
NAD McAlester X X
NWS Yorktown X
NTS Keyport X X
Joliet AAP X
Cornhusker AAP X
Newport AAP X
Pine Bluff Arsenal X
b. NWSC Crane
The steamout plant at NWSC Crane operates with a mixture of
steam and water at a pressure of less than 15 psi. This facility
91
-------
is used for large projectiles and bombs. The water is used on a
once through basis and is partially lost through evaporation,
with excess waste discharged through swamps to a creek. No waste
characterization data were provided, although the water is hot
and saturated with explosives, including TNT.
67. CHEMICAL CLEANING
Scrap metal derived from demilitarization operations must be
cleansed of residual explosives prior to sale or reuse. Burning
of combustible material and flashing of metal components at a
burning ground or in a rotary demilitarization furnace are
approved methods and have many applications. However, some oper-
ations require, for economic and technical reasons, that a chemical
decontamination procedure be used. A decontamination solution
containing 5^ sodium sulfide and 10$ sodium hydroxide, by weight,
is used for items contaminated with TNT, Composition A-3, and
Composition B. This solution was developed to be used to remove
explosive films remaining from steamout/washout processes and is
not adequate to remove large quantities of explosives. If the
steamout/washout process does not reduce the explosive content
to only a film, the use of a solvent wash or an additional
steamout/washout operation may be required prior to the chemical
decontamination. Normally the decontamination solution is made
up in batch and dumped after its decontamination capacity is
exhausted. The solution is maintained at a working temperature
of 165 to 195 F, and each batch represents approximately 500
gallons of solution. A typical operation guideline requires
discard of the solution after each 5*000 units of hardware are
decontaminated. Following decontamination, each item is thor-
oughly rinsed with fresh water. Thus, two wastes are associated
with the chemical decontamination process; the spent solution
and the rinse water. NWSC Crane has a chemical decontamination
process. No waste characterization data were provided on either
the cleaning solution or rinse water.
68. SCRUBBER WASTEWATER
a. General
Scrubber wastewater from demilitarization facilities results
from air pollution abatement procedures. The quantities and
environmental significance of this wastewater source will in-
crease as the Military intensifies its air pollution control
program. Air scrubber systems have been or are projected for
installation on deactivation furnaces, propellant (powder)
92
-------
conveyor systems, and similar activities resulting in air efflu-
ent particulates and gases. The use of water scrubbers to reduce
air pollutant emissions to an acceptable level will result in
contaminated scrubber water. Depending upon the method of dis-
charge and/or treatment, the contaminated water might or might
not result in pollution. General effects of water use for
scrubber systems include: pH changes; increased solids; color;
odor; temperature; toxicity; and decreased dissolved oxygen
(94).
b. Sierra Army Depot
Sierra AD scrubber water results from a small-scale vacuum-
type propellant recovery process. This yields a small volume of
water, which has not been chemically characterized. The scrubber
water is dumped into a burning pit, where water is lost by
evaporation and percolation. Explosive residue in the pit is
burned.
c. Letterkenny and Anniston Army Depots
Letterkenny AD and Anniston AD also employ powder collection
system static wet scrubbers. The unit follows dry bag collectors.
The wet scrubber contains a small volume of water (about 50 gal-
lons). This water is not monitored. Weekly, at Letterkenny,
the system is decanted and the water spread on the depot burn-
ing ground. After water loss by percolation and evaporation,
the dried residue is burned. At Anniston, the scrubber water is
also dispersed onto the burning ground.
d. NWSC Crane
NWSC Crane employs a marble bed scrubber (following a bag-
house) on one demilitarization furnace. This scrubber is planned
to be replaced with a venturi-type scrubber in order to achieve
higher particulate control efficiency. The replacement venturi
scrubber will utilize a recycle water system at 20 gpm. Present
scrubber water is discharged to an open field, after a single
use. This water, at 20 gpm, has the characteristics presented
in Table 22.
e. Red River Army Depot
Red River AD plans to install venturi and packed tower
scrubber air pollution controls on the Prototype Depot Disposal
System proposed for installation at Red River. This system will
93
-------
TABLE 22. NWSG CRANE SCRUBBER WATER CHARACTERISTICS (112)
Parameter Concentration
pH 3.2-6.3
Total Dissolved Solids, mg/1 109-28?
Suspended Solids} mg/1 0-108
Phosphorus, mg/1 0.03-0.36
Nitrate, mg/1 0.1-2.7
Sulfate, mg/1 50-107
Cyanide, mg/1 <0.1
Cadmium, mg/1 0.03-2.32
Copper, mg/1 0.02-2.40
Nickel, mg/1 <0.02
Lead, mg/1 0.05-19-1
Aluminum, mg/1 0.2-6.8
consist of three reaction units: fluidized bed reactor; confined
detonation unit; and a decontamination oven. Scrubber wastewater
volumes and other characteristics are not known at this time,
although the venturi is expected to collect particles to the 0.1
micron size such as metallurgical fumes, zinc and magnesium
oxides, and soluble gases. The packed tower scrubber removes
dust, but is primarily intended for gaseous air pollutant ab-
sorption (10). It is anticipated that these scrubber waters will
be partially recycled, although the extent of recycle is not
known. Neither the type nor degree of wastewater treatment has
been specified (115).
SECTION II
WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
69. INTRODUCTION
Most washout facilities employ similar processes of partial
or complete wastewater treatment. The existing treatment facil-
ities are discussed below. Additional paragraphs follow on:
treatment of scrubber water; methods of effluent ultimate dis-
posal; and economics of water pollution control.
-------
70. WASHOUT TREATMENT FACILITIES
a. Savanna Army Depot
The Savanna AD wastewater treatment system was installed as
an integral part of the APE 1300 washout facility in 1971, al-
though an older washout facility also had wastewater treatment
in the form of activated carbon beds installed in 1952. In the
present system, wastewater is treated first in two gravity
clarifiers. Clarifier supernatant is cooled by discharge over
cooling coils, followed by diatomaceous earth filtration and
discharge into a receiving reservoir. The filtered water in the
reservoir is used for heat transfer in the cooling coils. Weekly,
38,000 gallons of reservoir water are treated by activated carbon
and discharged into a leaching pit. The carbon system consists of
fourteen 55-gallon barrels, each filled with granular activated carbon,
The barrels are operated in parallel, in an upflow mode. Treated
effluent discharges to a final reservoir prior to ultimate dis-
posal. The total pumping rate through 14 barrels is 240 gpm.
The carbon is changed once per month or more frequently, as re-
quired by visual inspection of the effluent. No chemical data
were provided on the quality of the treated effluent.
b. Red River Army Depot
(1) The recycle water system of the Red River AD washout facil-
ity also incorporates treatment. After washout and gravity
separation of the molten explosives, the water flows through
gravity clarifiers, over cooling coils, through fiber filters,
and finally through activated carbon beds. Sludge is withdrawn
from the clarifier hoppers. The fiber filters are installed in
risers of six trays each, with two banks of 48 trays per bank.
Water percolates by gravity through the filter trays. The top
two trays of each riser contain excelsior, the middle trays
contain rubberized pad hair, and the bottom two trays contain
fiberglass insulation-type filter pads. Pads are replaced as
necessary, upon clogging.
(2) The filter effluent discharges into six parallel sunken
granular activated carbon beds. The carbon is replaced as neces-
sary _ normally after 120 hours of operation. Batch carbon
studies on Red River wastewater have been reported to reduce TNT
from 4500 mg/1 to 3 mg/1 (124). These results are questionable,
however, since the initial TNT level reported (4500 mg/1) far
exceeds the solubility of TNT. TNT has a maximum solubility at
140°F of 675 mg/1.
95
-------
(3) The treated water is either reused in the washout facility
or discharged into a series of four evaporative ponds. These
ponds, having a combined volume of 760,000 gallons, also receive
surface runoff and septic tank effluents. Due to the high rain-
fall (49 inches per year), the lagoons frequently overflow into
an adjacent creek (115). During summer, however, the lagoons may
dry up. In the event that the washout facility is reactivated
in support of the Prototype Depot Disposal System, excess washout
water will be handled in the fluidized bed reactor.
c. Anniston Army Depot
(1) The Anniston washout facility is typical, operating at 180-
190°F and utilizing a recirculating water system. The water,
after use, is gravity clarified, cooled by flow over cooling
coils, and filtered in six-tray risers containing fiberglass,
sawdust and other materials (Figure 12). The Anniston washout
facility does not incorporate carbon treatment for the recycle
water, and there are no immediate plans to install such a system
(111).
(2) During the washout of Comp-B explosives, difficulties were
encountered with clogging of the filters and caking of explosives
on the cooling coils. It was often necessary to replace the
filters on an hourly basis. This problem was partially allevi-
ated by substituting a combination of fiberglass, sawdust and
hemp thread fiber filters. An additional difficulty was the
precipitation of Comp-B in the recirculating water reservoir. A
stand-by reservoir was utilized during cleanout to dewater the
sludge and allow the system reservoir to be mucked out. Excess
water from the washout facility is pumped to a leaching bed. No
data on wastewater volumes or other characteristics were provided,
(3) Other than treatment associated with the reuse of water in
the washout facility, no additional treatment is projected by
Anniston. Excess water is discharged to the leaching pit. It
has been reported that this leaching pit can result in surface
runoff into adjacent streams during periods of rainfall (111).
When the pit dries up, residue is scraped from the pit and sent
to the burning ground.
d. Letterkenny Army Depot
Treatment at the Letterkenny AD is limited to the recycling
water of the washout facility. Explosive-laden water from the
washout units flows into two parallel lines of two gravity
96
-------
/3&S
D&1W/NG /NOEX
/32/
/322
/32S CATWALK
/3B€> PUMP,
EXPLOSIVE WASHOUT PLANT
ROUIK 12 - APE 1300 Water Reclamation System. ( 130)
-------
clarifiers each. Settled sludge is removed from the bottom of
each clarifier. Clarifier supernatant discharges over cooling
coils and spills into filters. The cooling coils reduce water
temperature, initially at about 190°F, to enhance precipitation
of soluble explosives. The filters consist of six-tray risers
through which the cooled wastewater percolates by gravity. The
top four trays contain sawdust in burlap envelopes, and the bot-
tom two trays contain fiberglass filter pads. There are a total
of 64 risers of trays. The sawdust filters are a carryover from
the filtration system used in the original washout facility,
constructed in 1972. As the filters clog, they are replaced.
The clogged filters are burned at the burning ground. After
filtration, the water discharges into the large recycle reservoir
for reuse. When the system is dewatered, the contents of the
reservoir (about 18,000 gallons) are discharged onto an earthen
slope on the burning ground. The water is lost by percolation
and evaporation. Dried residue is burned. The dewatered reser-
voir is mucked out and the sludge burned as is the sludge from
the clarifiers. This washout facility, unlike several others,
does not use carbon treatment for removal of soluble explosives
during the recycle process. Despite this, the plant has operated
safely with explosive-laden recycle water for many years.
e. Tooele Army Depot
During its period of active operation, effluent from the
Tooele AD washout facility discharged through baffled sumps and
into a series of four leaching pits. However, Tooele is one of
three potential sites (others being Anniston and Bluegrass Army
Depots) under consideration to test a pilot activated carbon
treatment system. This system is to be based upon a concept de-
sign prepared by a contractor and estimated to cost about
$33*000 (1976 basis). The washout facility itself costs about
$600,000 (1974 basis). The concept design calls for a single
column granular activated carbon unit. This is in contrast to
the typical dual column carbon treatment systems employed for
pink water treatment in Army Ammunition Plants. Performance cri-
teria for the pilot facility include a treatment capacity of
29,000 gal of wastewater per work shift without carbon recharge
and an effluent TNT level not to exceed 0.25 mg/1. The system
is proposed for use once each three to six months, or whenever
the recirculating water concentration exceeds 200 mg/1 TNT (30).
The pilot activated carbon treatment system is to be used to
develop design criteria for systems to be installed at several
washout facilities (Anniston, Bluegrass, Letterkenny, Pueblo,
and Tooele Army Depots).
98
-------
f . NAD Hawthorne
(1) NAD Hawthorne plans a more extensive type of treatment sys-
tem for wastewater from the facility's melt out and washout/
steamout operations. The plant will utilize a recycle water
system, with zero liquid discharge. Efforts will be directed
toward minimizing the volume of process water used at the facil-
ity (113).
(2) Process wastewater will flow to sumps located adjacent to
each demilitarization building. This water will be collected by
vacuum truck and transported to one of several (ultimately three)
lined holding/evaporative ponds where the water will be retained
to allow cooling. Some explosive will precipitate from the sat-
urated wastewater as it cools, and the holding ponds will occas-
ionally require dewatering for sludge removal.
(3) Effluent from the holding ponds will be pumped to the waste-
water treatment plant, which will consist of the following se-
quence of treatment processes (106, 113) :
!_. Air Flotation
2. Mixed Media Filters
3_. Carbon Adsorption Columns
The treated effluent will be recirculated for reuse in the de-
militarization processes. Any excess water which cannot be re-
used will be evaporated. The net annual evaporation at Hawthorne
is 55 inches per year. The evaporative pond system has been
designed with sufficient capacity to handle all wastewater, in
the event that the treated effluent could not be reused. Design
criteria for the wastewater treatment system include a specifica-
tion for 1.0 or less mg/1 of all explosives present in the
treated effluent. Since there is zero discharge, this effluent
limitation was based upon internal process criteria to avoid
build-up of explosives to hazardous levels (113). The effluent
from the treatment facility is to be monitored by grab sampling
and analysis for selected parameters, which have not yet been
specified (113).
Due to the present lack of capability to regenerate spent
carbon, the activated carbon will be incinerated when its capac-
ity is exhausted. The carbon, plus wastewater treatment plant
sludges, will be incinerated in the Bulk Incinerator Facility.
The carbon columns are designed for up -flow operation and
plumbed for both parallel and series operation. They will
9.9
-------
initially be operated in parallel, with one on-line and the
second off-line to be recharged with carbon.
(5) The design treatment system has been pilot-tested with
synthetic wastewater (106). Performance results indicated that
the effluent criteria of 1 mg/1 can be met for TNT, ammonium
picrate and RDX, the explosives monitored in the pilot studies.
(6) Activated carbon is widely used for treatment of munitions
manufacture and LAP wastewaters (2), as well as demilitarization
washout effluents as described above. Carbon filters provide
exceptionally effective treatment for dissolved TNT, as well as
other explosive constituents. One major disadvantage is the
present lack of capability to regenerate the spent carbon for
reuse. Due to this lack of regeneration capability, alternative
methods have been considered either to reduce the carbon usage
or to provide a substitute for activated carbon treatment.
72. ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT
a. Rocky Mountain Arsenal
Pilot treatment work associated with the DOD Installation
Restoration Program at Rocky Mountain Arsenal has potential
application for washout demilitarization wastewaters. The pilot
unit under investigation is a gravity flow carbon coagulation
bed system. Other processes under consideration by Picatinny
include ozonation treatment, microfiltration and membrane separ-
ation processes. Depending upon the results of studies at Rocky
Mountain and Picatinny Arsenals these processes may have applica-
tion in conventional munitions demilitarization activities.
b. Polymeric Resin
One substitute for activated carbon is use of polymeric
resin columns. The resin adsorbs pollutants and can be regener-
ated by use of appropriate solvents. This type of system is
planned for the washout effluent at NWSC Crane.
c. NWSC Crane
(1) The Crane high-pressure washout facility has a clarifier
plus filtration system for suspended solids. Current plans are
to add a polymeric resin system, of the type investigated in
pilot studies at NAD Hawthorne (106), for removal of dissolved
explosive. The resin system will require chemical regeneration,
100
-------
resulting in a regenerant brine for final disposal. The present
high-pressure washout facility (two washouts in series with a
common water system), uses a hydrosieve for explosive solids
separation. The water then flows through a clarifier, basket
(cartridge-type) filter, and to a clear well for reuse. Sludge
from the clarifier will be either burned or placed into perma-
nent plastic containers and landfilled. The resin system will be
installed later, if necessary, to control soluble explosive levels
in the recycle water.
(2) The polymeric resin proposed for use is Amberlite XAD-4.
This material is a cross-linked polystyrene polymer. The adsorp-
tion columns are intended to operate at 1 gal/min/ft^ (8 BV/hr).
Table 23 presents adsorption capacity data for XAD-4. Table 24
presents the test raw waste stream characteristics. Acetone will
be used as the resin regenerant. The acetone will be recovered
for reuse by live steam-tray distillation.
TABLE 23. ADSORPTION CAPACITY FOR XAD-4 (1)
*
Explosive Resin Capacity,
lb/ft3
TNT
HMX
RDX
6.98
0.084
0.076
*
Capacity at 1 mg/1 explosive leakage in effluent
TABLE 24. WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS (1)
Parameter Concentration
pH 7.5
TNT, mg/1 140
HMX, mg/1 10
101
-------
(3) Two new treatment systems proposed for -LAP activities at
NWSC Crane have potential application to demilitarization waste-
waters. One, located near the steamout facility, is a recycle
water system at the Bomb Fill Plant. This system filters par-
ticulate explosive from air pollution scrubber water used in the
melt-pour operation. The filtered water is recycled and sludge
is burned. The second system is the TNT treatment facility
associated with LAP of Rockeye munitions. This treatment system,
scheduled for construction in late 1976 or early 1977, involves
water chilling to enhance precipitation of soluble explosive,
followed by disposable cloth belt filters and carbon column
treatment. Flow will be 40-50 gpm. This flow volume is reported
to be the breakpoint on economics between use of polymeric resin
(for higher flows) and carbon (for lower flows). Performance
criteria include reduction of TNT from levels of 150-250 mg/1
down to 0.5 mg/1 to allow water recycle. The carbon system will
involve two packed bed gravity downflow columns in series with
one additional column on standby. Spent carbon will be inciner-
ated in the rotary furnaces. Anticipated carbon use is 3000 lb/
year, based on a wastewater TNT content of 150 mg/1.
72. SCRUBBER WASTEWATER
a. The Army has limited experience with treatment of air pollu-
tion scrubber water, because of the limited number of air pollu-
tion scrubbers currently installed. At Red River AD, treatment
is projected to be required for excess water from the venturi and
packed tower scrubbers planned for installation on the Prototype
Depot Disposal System. Type and extent of treatment required has
not been determined, however.
b. Treatment is also planned for the wastewaters of the venturi
scrubber recycle system on the demilitarization furnace at NWSC
Crane. The recycle scrubber water will be neutralized with
caustic to pH 7 to reduce wastewater constituent concentrations
and allow continuous water reuse without blowdown. Laboratory
tests on pH adjustment treatment of the scrubber waste resulted
in the following results at pH 8.5:
Concentration, mg/1
Parameter Initial Final
Cadmium 0.40 0.05
Copper 1.64 0.02
Iron 1.62 0.08
Lead 14.2 0.08
102
-------
Treatment at higher pH, up to 10.0, resulted in improved removal
of cadmium, but reduced treatment efficiency for the other metals.
After pH adjustment treatment, the sludge will be removed to
landfill without dewatering, and the water reused in the venturi
scrubber system. Anticipated flow is 10 gpm.
73. ULTIMATE EFFLUENT DISPOSAL
The environmental significance of the method of ultimate
effluent disposal depends in large measure upon: demilitariza-
tion processj the degree of treatment provided prior to disposal]
as well as the disposal method itself. Table 25 summarizes
methods of ultimate disposal discussed above for washout efflu-
ents. With the exception of NAD Hawthorne, all facilities de-
scribed in Table 25 discharge effluents with some potential to
contaminate ground and/or surface water. This potential has been
cited in the case of Pueblo AD during a wastewater survey (54).
Table 26 lists additional demilitarization facilities and pre-
sents associated ultimate disposal methods.
TABLE 25. ULTIMATE DISPOSAL METHODS FOR WASHOUT EFFLUENTS
Location Disposal
Savanna AD Leaching pit, after activated carbon
treatment.
Red River AD Unlined evaporative ponds, after activated
carbon treatment (some overflow). Future
excess water to be evaporated in fluidized
bed incinerator.
Anniston AD Leaching pit after filtration. Some
overflow.
Letterkenny AD Land overflow after filtration.
Tooele AD Leaching pits after sedimentation.
NAD Hawthorne Complete recycle; zero discharge. Lined
evaporation ponds.
103
-------
TABLE 26. DEMILITARIZATION FACILITIES ULTIMATE DISPOSAL METHODS
Location Disposal Reference
Pueblo Leaching pit 54
Bluegrass AD Leaching pit (present) 45
Lined pond (future) 43
Umatilla AD Evaporative Pond 74
74. ECONOMICS OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
Limited economic data are available on pollution control
technologies described in this chapter. These data are summar-
ized in Table 27. Figure 13 compares capital and operating costs
for activated carbon versus polymeric resin treatment. The com-
parison indicates that at flows above 40 gpm, the resin system
has an economic advantage for explosives wastewater treatment.
76. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The APE 1300 hot water washout system is the only major
demilitarization process with potential for water pollution
(pink water), and the degree of potential pollution varies with
the terrain and climatology of the facility. Development pro-
grams encompassing carbon column and polymeric resin treatments
under investigation by several Army and Navy organizations, will
provide effective treatment technology if adequately funded and
properly designed. In addition, new processes are under inves-
tigation which involve pretreatment for removal of suspended
solids, as well as total dissolved solids. These would permit
significant opportunities for water re-use. High pressure and
cavitating cold water washout are also alternatives with poten-
tial advantages for energy savings. Continued evaluation of
alternative options is recommended.
104
-------
TABLE 27. ECONOMICS OF DEMILITARIZATION WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
Wastewater Source
Spent Chemical
Decontamination
Solution
Explosive Steamout
Hot Water Washout
M Hot Water Washout
o
vn
High Pressure Washout
High Pressure Washout
High Pressure Washout
High Pressure Washout
Capital Operating
Cost, $1000 Cost, $/yr
10
80
120
608
35-120
832 122,000
750 306,000
900 132,800
Comments
Carbon Treatment
at 63 gpm.
Resin Treatment
at 80 gpm.
Carbon Treatment
at 80 gpm.
Carbon -Res in
Reference
1
1
1
30
1
1
1
30
Treatment at
80 gpm.
-------
400
300
2
200
100
Breakeven Point
I J I I I
Resin Selected
Carbon - Total Annual Costs
Carbon - Annual Operating Costs
Resin - Total Annual Costs
Resin - Annual Operating Costs
I I
10
GALLONS PER DAY (X 10,000)
15
Figure 13 - Basic Selection Chart Carbon Vs. Resin. (126)
-------
CHAPTER V
SOLID WASTES
77. INTRODUCTION
The issues of solid waste volumes generated, acceptable
methods of disposal, and immediate and long term environmental
impacts have not been addressed in a quantitative fashion by the
demilitarization industry. Aspects of solid waste from demil-
itarization activities are presented below, on a facility-by-
facility basis .
78. NWSC CRANE
Solid wastes associated with demilitarization activities
result from: incineration of explosive-contaminated sludges and
other solids (e.g., spent activated carbon); and from wastewater
treatment sludge from the recycle marble bed scrubber on the
rotary demilitarization furnace as well as ash collected in the
baghouse on that furnace. These wastes have not been character-
ized. Ash from the baghouse is disposed to a landfill. Sludge
from the recycle water system on the marble bed scrubber, which
will ultimately be replaced by a venturi scrubber, is disposed
without dewatering to landfill. Wastewater treatment data pre-
sented in the previous section of this report indicate that this
sludge is concentrated in toxic metals. An additional sludge
which may be disposed directly to landfill is the explosive
sludge filtered from the recycle water in the washout plant.
This sludge, collected from the clarifier, may be either incin-
erated or placed into containers and landfilled.
79. NAD HAWTHORNE
Solid wastes will result as ash from: incineration of
explosive-contaminated sludges and other solids (e.g., spent
activated carbon); from baghouse control devices; and as ash from
coal combustion in the steam plant. The volumes and character-
istics of these solids have not been defined. Most ash will
107
-------
originate from the coal-fired steam boilers, with significant
quantities also anticipated from the baghouses. From the coal to
be utilized, coal combustion is expected to yield 15-40 percent
ash. Only small quantities of ash are projected for the incin-
erators. Current expectation is that all ash will be disposed
to a nearby municipal refuse landfill. This includes both in-
cinerator and baghouse ash. Bulk explosives are to be inciner-
ated in two rotary kilns, fed as a water slurry. The water to
explosive ratio is 3:1. Potable water will be used to slurry
the explosive. Each kiln has a capacity of 550 Ib explosive/
hour.
80. ANNISTON AD
Solid wastes result as sludges and as clogged filters from
the washout plant, and dried residue from the leaching pit.
These materials are burned at the burning ground. Solid wastes
also result from operation of the deactivation furnace. Cur-
rently metal scrap is magnetically segregated at the small items
furnace and recovered for sale. A baghouse is planned for
particulate air pollution control on the deactivation furnace.
This baghouse will collect ash, although the volume of ash has
not been determined. No decision has been made on the disposal
of this ash. Landfill disposal is under consideration.
8l. LETTERKENNY AD
Solid wastes associated with demilitarization activities
result as sludge and other residues from the washout facility
and will result from particulate collection upon installation of
a baghouse at the deactivation furnace. The washout facility
residues are open burned at the burning ground. The baghouse is
projected to collect 90 pounds per hour of ash (design criteria),
totalling 400 to 600 pounds per day. At the time of this plant
visit, the method of ultimate disposal of the ash has not been
designated. A USGS survey has indicated that geological con-
ditions at the Depot are not suitable for landfill, and an alter-
nate ultimate disposal method for the baghouse ash must be deter-
mined. Metal scrap also originates from the deactivation furnace
operation. This scrap is magnetically segregated, recovered and
sold. The brass scrap in particular has high resale value.
82. RED RIVER AD
Solid wastes associated with demilitarization result as
sludges, clogged filter pads and spent carbon from the washout
108
-------
facility, plus solids resulting from use of the deactivation
furnaces. The washout facility residues are open-burned. Metal
residues from deactivation furnaces are recovered as scrap.
Three deactivation furnaces are programmed for baghouse instal-
lation. These baghouses will collect ash residue, which will be
disposed by landfill.
83. SAVANNA AD
Solid wastes are associated with the washout facility in
the form of clarifier sludge, spent diatomaceous earth filter,
and spent activated carbon. These materials are open burned.
Dried residue from the leaching pit is collected by scraping
and also burned. Other solid wastes result from the deactivation
furnace. Brass residue is collected for sale. A baghouse, to
be installed at the deactivation furnace for air pollution con-
trol, will collect ash, which will be landfilled. Non-explosive
contaminated solid waste associated with demilitarization activ-
ities is also landfilled.
84. SIERRA AD
Solid wastes at the plant result from the deactivation
furnace and demolition grounds as scrap metal and as ash from
the coal-fired steam boiler. The scrap metal from the deactiva-
tion furnace is magnetically segregated, and all scrap metal is
sold as scrap. The ash is piled on land and applied to roads
on the depot*during the winter. Current plans are to install a
baghouse on the deactivation furnace exhaust stack. Ash from
the baghouse is to be landfilled on the depot property. Bulk
explosives and explosive-contaminated solid wastes are disposed of
by open burning at the depot.
85. TOOELE AD
Solid wastes result from the washout facility and from air
pollution control devices on the deactivation furnace. Washout
facility wastes include sludges from the discharge sumps and
dried residue from the leaching beds receiving the sump over-
flows. These wastes are collected and open burned. Deactivation
furnace residues result from a cyclone separator and a baghouse.
The cyclone collects larger particles (>5 micron), which are
primarily unburned carbon residues. The baghouse collects micron
and sub-micron particles, mainly metal oxides. Tables 28 and 29
present characterization data on samples collected from the
109
-------
TABLE 28. CHARACTERIZATION OF CYCLONE DUST SAMPLES (131)
Demilitarized Item
Percent
Combustibles
(500°C)
Lead
Metal Content, Percent
Magnesium Strontium Barium
Potassium
o
Cartridges, 30 mm Tracer 0.9-2.4
Booster, M 21A4 14.3-46.5
Fuse, Base Detonating
M 66A2 9.5
Primer, Percussion
M 28B2 5.9-9.7
Bulk TNT 22.3
Range 0.9-46.5
24.3-29.7 8.9-9.9 14.7-16.4 1.3-7.2
8.0-18.4
15.6
0.8-1.2
8.0-29.7 8.9-9.9 14.7-16.4 1.3-7.2 0.8-1.2
-------
TABLE 29. CHARACTERIZATION OF BAGHOUSE DUST SAMPLES (131)
Demilitarized Item
Percent
Combustibles
(500°C)
Lead
Metal Content, Percent
Magnesium Strontium Barium
Other
Cartridge, 30 mm Tracer
Cartridge, 50 mm Tracer
Cartridge, 50 APIM8
Booster, M21A4
Primer, Percussion
M28B2
Bulk TNT
Range
3-3-4.2 19.0-32.1 4.2-10.6
11.4 30.2 12.7
2.1 24.9 3-2
8.9-68.1 1.6-18.4
5.4
10.4-41.1
2.1-68.1 1.6-32.1 3.2-12.7
4.4-8.8
7.3
0.4-4.6
1.8
1.6
4.4-8.8 0.4-4.6
0.2(Calcium)
3.5(Aluminum)
7.1-16.1
(Aluminum)
1,2(Potassturn)
-------
cyclone and baghouse. Currently, air pollution control device
residues are "burned in a burning pit. However, disposal to land-
fill is under consideration.
86. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
Additional study is needed to determine whether solid wastes
from demilitarization constitute an environmental problem, and,
if so, to what degree.
112
-------
REFERENCES
AMERICAN DEFENSE PREPAREDNESS ASSOCIATION (ADPA)
1. Proceedings, "Symposium on Demilitarization of Conventional
Munitions," ADPA, NAD Hawthorne, Nevada, 20-22 April 1976.
2. "Wastewater Treatment in the Military Explosives and Pro-
pellants Production Industry," ADPA, October 1975.
AIR FORCE
3. "Burners for Disposal of Rocket Propellants," AF RPL-TR-76-2,
John Denker, Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory, Edwards
AFB, June 1976.
ARMY - U. S. ARMY ARMAMENT COMMAND
4. Hq. US ARMCOM Letter AMSAR-ISE, dated 4 August 1975;
Subject: "Open Air Burning of Explosives and Explosive
Contaminated Wastes."
5. "Ammunition Explosives Washout and Reclamation System, APE
1300," USA ARMCOM, 1 February 1974.
ARMY - U. S. ARMY DEPOTS
Anniston Army Depot
6. "Current Capabilities for Disposal of Ammunition," Anniston
Army Depot, Anniston, Alabama, June 1976.
7. "SOP for Demilitarization of 30 and 50 Caliber Cartridges."
8. "SOP for Burning of Loaded Projectiles and Mines."
9. "SOP for Detonation of High Explosive Loaded Items."
113
-------
Red River Army Depot
10. "Demilitarization of Conventional Explosives, Propellants
and Munitions at Red River Army Depot," 15 July 1976, Red
River Army Depot.
11. "Standing Operating Procedure - Demilitarization - Destruc-
tion by Demolition of Explosives, Ammunition, Loaded Com-
ponents and Pyrotechnics," Red River Army Depot, Texarkana,
Texas, SOP Nr. AMXRRllS, Revised 7 October 1975-
12. "Standing Operating Procedure - Demilitarization of Explo-
sive Loaded Ammunition Items by Washout (TNT)," Red River
Army Depot, Texarkana, Texas, SOP Nr. AMXRR-204, Revised
5 February 1973.
Savanna Army Depot
13. "Standing Operating Procedure - Destruction by Burning of
Explosive and All Related Compounds," Savanna Army Depot,
Savanna, Illinois, SOP Nr. SVAD-23-65, Revised 8 September
1975.
14. "Standing Operating Procedure - Destruction by Demolition
of Explosives Ammunition, Loaded Compounds and Pyrotechnics,"
Savanna Army Depot, Savanna, Illinois, SOP Nr. SVAD-22-65,
Revised 2 June 1970.
15. "Standing Operating Procedure - Disposal of Ammunition by
Processing in the Deactivation Furnace," Savanna Army Depot,
Savanna, Illinois, SOP Nr. SVAD-10-61, Revised 18 July 1975.
16. "Standing Operating Procedure - (Washout) - Projectiles,
All Sizes, Loaded with Comp B, TNT or Tritonal Explosives,"
Savanna Army Depot, Savanna, Illinois, SOP Nr. ST-MT-10-71,
Revised 9 December 1971.
17. Hq. U. S. Army AMC Environmental Impact Assessment, "Open
Burning of Ammunition, Savanna Army Depot," dated 17 July
1975.
18. Savanna Army Depot Letter AMXSV-DF, Subject: "Open Air
Burning of Explosives and Explosive Contaminated Wastes,"
dated 25 July 1975-
114
-------
19. Savanna Army Depot MFR, Subject: "Open Air Burning.,"
dated 31 March 1976.
20. Savanna Army Depot Letter, AMXSV-DF, Subject: "Annual
Status Report on Environmental Programs and Activities,
RCS-DD-H&E(A)-1269/ dated 21 January 1976, with Encl.
21. DA AMC Environmental Impact Assessment, "installation
Operations - Savanna Army Depot," dated 17 September 1975.
22. Internal Memorandum, Savanna AD, dated 29 February 1972.
23. Internal Memorandum, Savanna AD, dated 29 September 1961.
24. Savanna Army Depot Letter AMXSV-DF to Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, dated 29 May 1975.
Tooele Army Depot
25. Tooele Army Depot Letter AMXTE-AEO, Subject: "Air Pollution
Control System for APS 1236 Deactivation Furnace," dated
29 April 1975.
26. "Pollution from Open Air Detonation and Open Burning,"
December 1972 by R. W. Hayes, Tooele Army Depot.
27. "Purchase Description for Fabric Filter System for APE 1276,"
January 1976, Tooele Army Depot.
28. "APS 1276 Air pollution Control System for APE 1236 De-
activation Furnace," Ammunition Equip. Office, Tooele Army
Depot, 29 April 1975, A MX TS-AEO.
29. "Thermo Chemistry Computer Predictions for Air Pollution
from Combustion," Ralph Hayes, Ammunition Equipment Office,
Tooele Army Depot, August 1973.
30. "Explosive Waste Water Treatment System for APE 1300 Washout
Plant, Final Report," AEO, Tooele Army Depot, July, 1976,
Report Nr. AEO--L6-76.
31. Letter from Tay Can Scientific and Engineering Services, to
AEO, Tooele Army Depot, dated 22 June 1976.
115
-------
32. "APE 1276 Pilot Model Air Pollution Control System for APE
1236 Deactivation Furnace," Test Report, Daniel B. Hill,
Report AEO-052-76, Tooele Army Depot, July 1976.
33- "Final Report, Air Blast Wave Damage Minimization by Explo-
sive Charge Burial Depth for Tooele Army Depot," June 1976.
34. "Summary Report, Pollution from Open Air Detonation and
Open Burning," December 1972.
35. "Ammunition Disposal Capabilities, Tooele Army Depot."
35a. Tooele Army Depot Letter DRXTE-AEO, subject: "Final Draft,
Preliminary Assessment Report, Demilitarization of Con-
ventional Munitions," dated 3 June 1977.
ARMY - U. S. ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE AGENCY
Ambient Air Monitoring Networks
36. 21-031-72/74, Ambient Air Monitoring Networks Survey, 2
October 1973.
37. 21-008-74/76, Air Pollution Engr. Special Study, Ambient Air
Quality Instrument Study, 23 May-28 July 1975.
Anniston Army Depot
38. 24-032-75, Water Quality Monitoring Consultation, 21-25
October 1975 - Completed 18 April 1975.
39. 21-033-74/76, Air Pollution Engr. Special Study - Management
of Ambient Air Monitoring Networks, June 1975 - Completed
12 September 1975.
40. 24-018-75, Water Quality Engr. Survey - Completed 13
December 1974.
41. 21-007-73, Air Pollution Engr. General Survey, 11-12
December 1972 - Completed 15 March 1973.
Fort Wingate
42. 21-033-74/76, Air Pollution Engr. Special Study, Management
of Ambient Air Monitoring Networks, June 1975 - Completed
12 September 1975.
116
-------
Lexington-Blue Grass Army Depot
43. 24-006-74/75, Water Quality Engineering Special Study, 29
October-16 November 1973, 15-19 April 1974 - Completed 21
July 1975.
44. 24-058-74/75, Water Quality Monitoring Consultation, 15-19
April 1974 - Completed 17 December 1974.
45. 24-025-71/72, Water Quality Engineering Survey, 24-28 May
1971 - Completed 20 October 1971.
46. 21-007-71, Preliminary Air Pollution Engineering Survey,
5-7 October 1970 - Completed 5 January 1971.
Navajo Depot Activity
47. EHES Report, General Sanitary Engr. Survey, 8-9 May 1973.
Red River Army Depot
48. 24-030-74/76, Water Quality Engineering Special Study,
Industrial and Domestic Wastewaters, 3-21 June 1974 -
Completed 14 November 1975.
49. 21-H05-75, Air Pollution Engr. Survey, 28-30 April 1975 -
Completed 8 September 1975.
50. 24-076-74/75, Water Quality Monitoring Consultation, 10-14
June 1974 - Completed 23 December 1974.
Pueblo Army Depot
51. 24-010-75/76, Water Quality Geohydrologic Consultation,
30 September-4 October 1974 - Completed 6 August 1975.
52. 24-019-75/76, Water Quality Biological Study, Preliminary
Biological Evaluation of Surface Waters, 30 September 1974-
1 May 1975 - Completed 18 July 1975.
53. 24-067-74/75, Water Quality Monitoring Consultation, 13-24
May 1974 - Completed 10 February 1975.
54. 24-068-74/75, Results of Wastewater Survey Incident of TNT
Washout Facility, Bldg. AWS-6, 19 March 1974 - Completed
6 December 1974.
117
-------
55. EHES Report, Water Pollution Monitoring Program Survey,
27 February-2 March 1973-
56. EHES Report, Solid Waste Survey, 26 February-2 March 1973-
57. 21-011-73, Air Pollution Engr. Source Sampling Survey,
27 November-2 December 1972 - Completed 25 April 1973.
*
Savanna Army Depot
58. EHES Report, Water Quality Engr. General Survey No. W52-74,
5-9 November 1973.
59. 24-022-74, Preliminary Report, Water Quality Engr. Survey,
5-9 November 1973 - Completed 1 August 1974.
60. 24-023-74, Water Quality Monitoring Consultation, 3-5
December 1973 - Completed 30 August 1974.
61. 21-008-72, Preliminary Air Pollution Engr. Survey, 12-13
October 1971 - Completed 5 January 1972.
Seneca Army Depot
62. 26-006-76, Solid Waste Survey, 29 September-1 October 1975 -
Completed 8 December 1975.
63. 24-024-74, Water Quality Monitoring Consultation, 11-14
November 1973 - Completed 22 February 1974.
64. 24-023-71, Water Quality Engr. Survey, 26-30 April 1971 -
Completed 23 August 1971.
65. 21-013-71, Preliminary Air Pollution Engr. Survey, 16-18
November 1970 - Completed 2 February 1971.
Sierra Army Depot
66. 21-010-75, Results of Consultation Visit Made on 29 April-
1 May 1975 - Completed 16 June 1975.
67. EHES Report, Air Pollution Engr. General Survey, Sierra AD,
28-30 May 1974.
68. 24-015-75, Water Quality Monitoring Consultation, 17 Septem-
ber 1974 - Completed 11 November 1974.
118
-------
Tooele Army Depot
69. 21-001-73, Air Pollution Engr. General Survey, 11-13 Septem-
ber 1972 - Completed 11 January 1973.
70. 24-013-75, Water Quality Monitoring Consultation, 9-H
September 1974 - Completed 14 April 1975.
71. 24-052-75/76, Water Quality Geohydrologic Consultation,
16-20 June 1975 - Completed 10 October 1975.
72. 21-014-75/76, Air Pollution Engr. Source Study, APE 1236
Deactivation Furnace, 30 July-12 August 1975 and 6-10
October 1975 - Completed 18 December 1975.
Umatilla Army Depot
73. EHES Report, Preliminary Air Pollution Engr. Survey, 29
April-2 May 1974.
74. 24-014-75, Water Quality Monitoring Consultation, 12-13
September 1973 - Completed 14 November 1974.
75. EHES Report, Sanitary Engr. Special Study Wastewater Treat-
ment Facility, 24-31 October 1972.
ARMY - DARCOM (U. S. ARMY MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT AND
READINESS COMMAND) (FORMERLY "AMC")
76. AMC Pamphlet AMCP 700-3-1, "Complete Round Charts, Propellant
Actuated Devices," December 1973.
77. AMC Pamphlet AMCP 700-3-2, "Complete Round Charts, Ammuni-
tion Through 20mm," December 1973.
78. AMC Pamphlet AMCP 700-3-3, "Complete Round Charts, Artillery
Ammunition and Fuzes," May 1975.
79. AMC Pamphlet AMCP 700-3-5, "Complete Round Charts, Grenades,
Mines, Pyrotechnics, Rockets, Rocket Motors, Demolition
Material," May 1975-
119
-------
ARMY - DARCOM AMMUNITION CENTER
80. "AMC Depot Disposal System - Project Report EV 15-73*"
U. S. Army Materiel Command Ammunition Center, Savanna,
Illinois, 19 July 1973 (Rev. 1 February 1974).
ARMY - ENGINEERS CORPS
81. "Concept Design Analysis - WPG Monitoring Station Project
972.100, FY 74 Savanna Array Depot, Illinois," U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers District, Omaha, Nebraska, April 1975.
ARMY - PICATINNY ARSENAL
82. "Evaluation of an Incinerator for Waste Propellants and
Explosives," Tech. Report 4984, Rolison, Dickenson and
Scola, Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, N. J., December 1976.
83. "Operation and Maintenance Manual Deactivation Furnace,
APE 1236," USA MUCOM, 9 December 1970, Picatinny Arsenal,
N. J.
84. "Development of a Fluidized Bed Incinerator for Explosives
and Propellants," October 1973, C. D. Kalfadelis, Picatinny
Arsenal.
85. "Design Guide for Propellant and Explosive Waste Incinera-
tion," October 1973, J. Santos, Picatinny Arsenal.
ARMY, HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF
86. "Army Equipment Data Sheets, Ammunition Peculiar Equipment,"
TM 43-0001-47, Hq. DA, Washington, D. C., July 1975.
87. "Open Burning of Waste Munitions," Memorandum for Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Army, 12 April 1976.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
88. "Memorandum on Open Burning," Assistant Secretary of
Defense, 1976.
120
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
89. U. S. EPA Region V/Savanna Army Depot Consent Declaration.,
dated 28 November 1975.
90. U. S. EPA Region V Letter to Illinois Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, dated 25 February 1975.
91. U. S. EPA Region V Letter to Savanna Army Depot, dated 20
May 1975.
ILLINOIS, STATE OF
92. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Letter to Savanna
Army Depot, dated 7 May 1975.
93- Illinois Environmental Protection Agency NW Regional Office
Letter to Savanna Array Depot, dated 19 September 1975, with
Savanna Army Depot reply, dated 24 September 1975.
JOINT CONVENTIONAL AMMUNITION PROGRAM COORDINATING GROUP
94. "Final Report of the Joint AMC/NMC/AFLC/AFSC Commanders'
Panel on Disposal Ashore of Ammunition," Vol. I-III incl.,
7 March 1973.
95. "Joint Conventional Ammunition Demilitarization and Disposal
Report on Conventional Ammunition Demilitarization and Dis-
posal Research, Development, Engineering and Modernization
Data Base," 15 January 1975.
96. "Demilitarization/Disposal Handbook, Volume I & II, Demil-
itarization/Disposal Inventory," JCAP, Rock Island, 111.,
31 December 1975.
97. "Conventional Ammunition Demilitarization/Disposal Tech-
nology Handbook," JCAP, Rock Island, 111., May 1976.
98. "Conventional Ammunition Demilitarization and Disposal
Technology Handbook," JCAP, Rock Island, 111., November 1976.
121
-------
NAVY - CRANE NWSC
99. Technical Report - AEDA Box Incinerator, U. S. Naval
Ammunition Production Engineering Center, Crane, Indiana,,
June 1975.
100. NWSC Crane, "Processes for Explosives Removal from Explo-
sives Loaded Ammunition."
101. NWSC Crane, "Process Design for the Removal of Nitrobodies
from the Wastewater of Munitions Plants."
102. Standard Operating Procedures:
a. SOP, Breakdown of 3" Cartridges
b. SOP, Removal of Explosive TNT Sample from MK8 Depth
Charge
c. SOP, Demil of MK8 & 9 Depth Charge and Flake Package
TNT
d. SOP, Demil of MK82, 82 GP Bombs, Pellet, Package H-6,
TRIT Explosive
e. SOP, General Furnace Demilitarization Operations
f. SOP, Demilitarization of .50 Caliber Cartridges, all
types, by Burning in Large Deactivation Furnace
g. SOP, Demil of 120mm Cartridge Case
h. SOP, Defuze 120mm Projectile
103. "Report on Pilot Plant Investigation for Treatment of
Explosive Contaminated Wastewater," NAD Hawthorne, Nevada,
November, 1974.
104. "Project Report, Process Determination and Plant Layout for
Western Demilitarization Facility, Hawthorne, Nevada,"
September, 1974, NAPEC, NAD Crane, Indiana.
NAVY - DAHLGREN NWSC
105. "DOD Open Burning Disposal of Waste Munitions," NWSC/DL
TR-3476, NWSC Dahlgren, Va., September 1976.
NAVY - HAWTHORNE NAD
106. "Report on Pilot Plant Investigation for Treatment of Ex-
plosive Contaminated Wastewater," NAD Hawthorne, Nevada,
November, 1974.
122
-------
NAVY - NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND (NAVFAC)
107. Drawing 2014-625, Northern DIV NAVFAC, "NWSC Crane
Particulate Abatement Water Flow Diagram."
108. Drawing 2013720,, Northern DIV NAVFAC, "NWSC Crane Air
Pollution Measures for Demil Furnaces."
109. Drawing, Northern DIV NAVFAC, "NWSC Crane TNT Waste
Treatment Facility."
NAVY - NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND (NAVSEA)
110. Letter, Hq. Naval Sea Systems Command, 27 January 1976,
Subject: "Requirements and Guidelines for Chemical
Decontamination of Projectiles and Warheads."
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
111. Personal Communication, Anniston Army Depot Personnel,
14 July 1976.
112. Personal Communication, NWSC Crane personnel, May 24, 1976.
113. Personal Communication, NAD Hawthorne personnel, April 22,
1976.
114. Personal Communication, Letterkenny Army Depot personnel,
12 July 1976.
115. Personal Communication, Red River Army Depot Personnel,
16 July 1976.
116. Personal Communication, Savanna Army Depot, 26 May 1976.
117. Personal Communication, Tooele Army Depot personnel,
10 August 1976.
118. Personal Communication, Rocky Mountain Arsenal personnel,
9 August 1976.
PUBLICATIONS, GENERAL
119. "Measurements of Air and Ground Shock Disturbances Arising
from Demolition Activities at Red River Arsenal, University
of Utah, December 1957.
123
-------
120. "Determination of Emission Parameters from the Deactivation
Furnace," York Research Corporation, Report No. Y-8l97j
August 31, 1973.
121. "Proposal and Specifications, Flashing Furnace," Midland
Ross, November 12, 1975, DAAG49-76-R-0008.
122. "A Study of Equipment, Processes and Systems for a Demil-
itarization Facility at NAD Hawthorne, Nevada," Battelle
Columbus Laboratories, 31 June 1975-
123. "Concept Description, Rotary Furnace for Large Items
Demilitarization," Draft Report.
124. Memorandum on Removal of TNT from Wastewater, Pittsburgh
Activated Carbon Company, July 12, 1965.
125. "Equipment Concepts and Engineering Criteria for Bulk
Explosives Disposal," Preliminary Draft Report, Battelle
Columbus Laboratories, 31 March 1976.
126. "Adsorption Technology Applied to Wastewaters of the
Munitions Industry," R. D. Heck, Mason & Hanger Co.,
September 1976, ADPA Symposium on Environmental Research,
September 1976.
127. "The Effects of UV Light on TNT and Other Explosives in
Aqueous Solution," C. Andrews, ADPA Symposium on Environ-
mental Technology, September 1976.
128. "Soil and Ground-Water Contamination from Explosives,"
Dr. D. Chan, ADPA Symposium on Environmental Technology,
September 1976.
129. "Economic Analysis of Interim Final Effluent Guidelines
for Selected Segments of the Explosive Industry," EPA
320/1-75-065a, February 1976, U. S. EPA, Washington, D. C.
130. Unpublished Data Provided by Hq. U. S. Army Armament
Command.
131. Tay Can Scientific and Engineering Services Letter to AEO,
Tooele Army Depot, Utah, dated 22 June 1976.
124
-------
APPENDIX
ENGLISH-METRIC CONVERSION TABLE
MULTIPLY (ENGLISH UNITS) by TO OBTAIN (METRIC UNITS)
ENGLISH UNIT ABBREVIATION CONVERSION ABBREVIATION METRIC UNIT
acre ac
acre-feet ac ft
British Thermal
Unit BTU
British Thermal
Unit/Pound BTU/lb
cubic feet/minute cfm
cubic feet/second cfs
cubic feet cu ft
cubic feet cu ft
cubic inches cu in
degree Fahrenheit °F
feet ft
gallon gal
gallon/minute gpm
horsepower hp
inches in
inches of mercury in Hg
pounds Ib
million gallons/day mgd
mile mi
pound/square
inch (gauge) psig
square feet sq ft
square inches sq in
ton (short) ton
yard yd
0.405
1233.5
0.252
ha
cu m
kg cal
0.555
0.028
1.7
0.028
28.32
16.39
0.555 (°F-32)*
0.3048
3.785
0.0631
0.7457
2.54
0.03342
0.454
3,785
1.609
kg cal/kg
cu m/min
cu m/min
cu m
1
cu cm
°C
m
I
I/sec
kw
cm
atm
kg
cu m/day
km
(0.06805 psig +1)* atm
0.0929
6.452
0.907
0.9144
sq m
sq cm
kkg
m
hectares
cubic meters
kilogram-calories
kilogram calories/kilogram
cubic meters/minute
cubic meters/minute
cubic meters
liters
cubic centimeters
degree Centigrade
meters
liters
liters/second
killowatts
centimeters
atmospheres
kilograms
cubic meters/day
kilometer
atmospheres (absolute)
square meters
square centimeters
metric ton (1000 kilograms)
meter
*Actual conversion, not a multiplier
125
-------
TECHNICAL HEPORT DATA
(I'lcatc rcail liiaiuciimis on the rercrsc be/ore coin/tic Ihi.s:)
\. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-600/2-78-012
4. TITLE ANO SUBTITLE
State-of-the-Art Study: Demilitarization of
Conventional Munitions
7. AUTMORIS)
N. I. Shapira, J. Patterson, J. Brown and
K. Noll
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
The American Defense Preparedness Association
Union Trust Building
15th & H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Lab-Cin . , 0£
Office -of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati,, Ohio 4^268
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
February 1978 issuing date
G. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
a. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB6 10
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
804401
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOO COVERED
Final
14, SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
J16. ABSTRACT This study was undertaken:
( To review the technology in use by the military to dispose of obsolete, excess
;and unsafe explosives and propellants; to characterize, at least in a preliminary
manner, the air, water and solid wastes generated during such operations; to identify
'technology in use or under development to control or eliminate the environmental
insult from these operations; and to identify areas where additional research may be
ineeded to more fully characterize the wastes or to develop needed pollution abate-
ment technology.
The study found that four basic "demilitarization" techniques are in common use:
jwashout or steamout; confined detonation or burning in a rotary kiln; open burning;
jand open demolition. More sophisticated processes are under development.
i Air pollution consists primarily of fine particulates and, to some extent, NOX from
{burning or detonation operations. Control is being achieved with scrubbers and bag
houses.
Water pollution, primarily as dissolved explosives or other components, arises
during washout and steamout operations and, to a lesser degree, from the use of
scrubbers. Recycle of wastewater is widely practiced as is the use of evaporative
ponds. Newer technology is also under development.
Solid waste consists primarily of dunnage and scrap shells. Burning of combustibles^
resale of scrap metal, and land disposal of sludges are common practices. i
17-
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
I
.1. DESCRIPTORS
Wastewater
Explosives
Waste Treatment
Propellants
Manuf ac tur ing
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
b.lDENTIFIEHS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Water Pollution
Control
Air Pollution Control
Military
Air Emissions
19. SECURITY CLASS fihis Hrptirl)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page f
Unclassified
c. COSATI Field/Group
50 B
74 D
i
21. NO. OF PAGES
140
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
J.26
U. S. 60YHRNMEHT HHHT!HG OFflCE: 1978- 757- 1 40/6688 Region No. 5-11
------- |