Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 21
3
Technologies for Rocket Motor Disposal
RECYCLING OPTIONS
The first choice for any demilitarization or disposal program should be to recover
materials. The committee does not believe that this option is practical in the case of the
M28 propellant, however, because it is old and degraded. There are few applications for
aging rocket motor assets in general, and incorporating nitrate ester rocket motor
propellants that are specifically derived from chemical weapons, such as the M28
propellant, into new applications is unlikely.
Attempts to recycle nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin from double-base1 propellants
have not yielded acceptable products. Trace contamination by constituents of a degraded
propellant in a recovered material can have a serious adverse effect on the cure times and
safe storage life of any propellant made from recovered materials. The nitrocellulose in
the M28 propellant is degraded to the point where it is unlikely that any current program
of record for manufacturing new rocket propellant would be willing to incorporate it.
Furthermore, program-office requalification costs are substantial when alternative
sources of fully characterized composition are introduced into a program's inventory.
This is an issue especially when a propellant ages and produces chemical species that
catalytically degrade the propellant even when they are present only at trace
concentrations. Although it might be possible to extract and purify the nitroglycerin for
recycling, it would entail much work to determine whether this were worth while. The
committee does not believe that it would be a practical or worthwhile exercise.
Investigations into conversion of these energetic materials to other products, such as
fertilizer, have also met with little success. The fact that the M28 propellant contains
lead, which cannot be removed without destroying the propellant matrix by chemical or
thermal means, complicates any effort to recycle the propellant into fertilizer and further
reduces the practicality of recycling in general.
Finding 3-1. There are no practical, useful, or cost-effective means of recycling energetic
materials from the M28 propellant.
Metal components of the separated rocket motor2 can be recovered for recycling
after they have been mutilated to preclude restoration for further use in a rocket motor
(DoD, 2011). In addition, metal scrap must be certified as safe for public release and
1
The term double-base connotes that there are two active constituents in the propellant. In the case
of the M28 propellant, they are nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin.
2
See Appendix A for how the committee defines separated rocket motor.
21
OCR for page 22
recycling. The Department of Defense (DoD) has instituted a policy for the identification
of munitions and munitions scrap that are free of explosive safety hazards (DoD, 2008).
The defined process includes specific training, storage, handling, inspection, and
certification requirements for all materials potentially presenting an explosive hazard
(MPPEH)--that is, any material that has come into contact with an energetic material--
before their release from DoD control. The policy applies to any scrap metal recovered
from the separated M55 rocket motors.
If the M28 propellant is treated while inside the steel motor case the, remaining
metal parts will be contaminated with lead and lead dust. Separation of the propellant,
igniter, and other energetic components of the rocket motor from the case, fins, and
electronics would simplify the recovery of the scrap metal from these components.
However, the recovered metal may still have to be thermally or chemically treated to
ensure that energetic residues are destroyed before the materials can be released to a
recycler.
Finding 3-2. It is feasible to recycle the metal components of the separated rocket
motors.
Finding 3-3. Depending on the destruction technology used, metal components may be
contaminated with lead and lead dust.
Recommendation 3-1. The Blue Grass Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant program
staff should inform the recipient of materials for recycling of the potential for the
presence of lead or lead dust on recovered materials.
OVERVIEW OF DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES
A wide variety of technologies have been proposed for the demilitarization and
disposal of conventional solid rocket motors. The technologies can be divided into
thermal and chemical. Thermal technologies for separated rocket motor demilitarization
and disposal include open detonation, buried detonation, contained detonation, open burn,
open static firing, contained combustion, contained static firing, confined combustion,
and incineration. Chemical technologies include base hydrolysis, supercritical water
oxidation, and the use of humic acid. The chemical technologies typically require
pretreatment in which the propellant is broken into a manageable form (e.g., a solution,
powder, or slurry). That process increases the handling of energetic materials and the
attendant risks. Thermal treatment usually requires less handling, but precautions must be
taken to prevent unplanned detonation or propulsive ejection of the rocket motors.
Technologies discussed here are summarized in Table 3-1. The committee envisions that
the separated rocket motors would be removed from the shipping and firing tubes before
disposal of the separated rocket motors, partly because the shipping and firing tubes
contain polychlorinated biphenyls; this is discussed in more depth in Chapter 5. Among
the criteria that will need to be considered in selecting a disposal technology for use with
the separated rocket motors is the TNT equivalence of the roughly 20 lb of M28
propellant in each motor.
22
OCR for page 23
THERMAL TECHNOLOGIES
For purposes of the discussion in this report, thermal technologies are organized
into two subgroups: open and contained. In open technologies, emissions are not
contained or treated before release into the environment. In contained technologies,
emissions are contained and treated before release into the environment. A particular
subgroup of contained thermal technologies, explosive destruction technologies (EDTs),
will also be discussed.
If an open technology were used, the emissions from separated rocket motor
disposal would need to be within the allowed limits provided in the Air Pathway
Assessment section of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subpart X
permit for the facility using the technology. In the case of a contained technology, gases
and particulate material would be captured and treated with the unit's pollution abatement
equipment. The contained technologies would need to be permitted through RCRA
Subpart X and would have to meet release limits agreed on with the Kentucky
Department for Environmental Protection.
Open Thermal Technologies
Open Detonation
Open detonation involves placing whole or broken-down rocket motors in a pile
with a booster explosive. Detonation of the pile initiates a chemical reaction that converts
organic energetic materials to carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water. Emissions from the
process do not undergo further treatment and are released into the local environment.
They can include metals in the energetic material (such as lead in the M28 rocket
propellant), traces of unreacted energetics, materials in the rocket motor cases released
and ejected by the detonation, and entrained soil from the detonation site. Noise issues
and weather often limit the conditions under which these detonation events can be
conducted.
Open detonation has several advantages. Handling of energetic items is
minimized, and this reduces the risk of unexpected initiation and harm to personnel or
facilities. Secondary waste streams are limited to unreacted materials, mostly metal
components from the detonated solid rocket motors, such as the case and the fins. Data in
emissions databases are sufficient to allow an estimation of total emissions from the
process (Erickson et al., 2005; EPA, 2009). Efforts are under way to improve the
databases (Kim, 2010; Wright et al., 2010).
This technology also has many disadvantages. Emissions are not further treated
before release into the environment. In particular, there is a potential for releases of
respirable particles from metal components of the energetic formulation, such as the lead
in the rocket propellant, or from the soil. Noise issues often cause concerns for facility
neighbors and result in regulatory limitations on when the treatment can occur.
Propellants like that in the motors of M55 rockets can be difficult to detonate completely,
and incomplete detonation occasionally results in distribution of unreacted energetics
23
OCR for page 24
over a large area. Other unreacted materials, such as rocket motor cases and liners, can
also be distributed over a large area. Most permits require regular cleanup of this
material. The release of scrap metal from the open detonation process requires prior
screening as MPPEH.
Open detonation is a mature technology that is commonly used for munitions
demilitarization and emergency ordnance destruction. Throughput from this process will
be a function of limits placed on a facility's RCRA Subpart X permit.
Buried Detonation
Buried detonation is a variant of open detonation in which the pile is covered with
48 ft of soil to suppress detonation noise. The soil also increases safety by minimizing
blast and collateral damage that might be caused by metal fragmentation. This technology
has the advantage of minimization of the handling of the items being treated. However, it
also has disadvantages. Like emissions from open detonation, emissions from buried
detonation are not treated further before release into the environment. Because the soil
quenches afterburning reactions, buried detonation releases larger quantities of products
of incomplete combustion (such as soot and hydrocarbons) than are produced in open
detonation. Little work has been done to quantify this phenomenon, but tests are under
way to collect pertinent data (Kim, 2010; Wright et al., 2010). The potential exists for
environmental releases of metals and organic substances from both the soil and the waste
ordnance.
Buried detonation is a mature technology that is commonly used for munitions
demilitarization. Throughput is constrained by permit treatment limits and the time
necessary to prepare the site and bury the ordnance.
Open Burning
Open burning of rocket motors involves removal of the propellant grain from the
case and ignition of the propellant in an open burning pan. As in open detonation,
energetic components are largely converted to nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. Some
facilities use an additional fuel (such as jet fuel) to initiate and support combustion of
propellants that are difficult to ignite. Others conduct open burning of whole rocket
motors by cracking the motor case open with a shaped charge that also initiates propellant
combustion. Gaseous and particulate emissions from the burning propellant are not
treated further and are released into the local atmosphere. The combustion occurs at
atmospheric pressure. Residual ash requires evaluation as a potential hazardous waste.
An advantage of open burning is that components of the rocket are removed
before treatment and are available for recycling. Data on open-burning emissions are
sufficient to permit an estimation of total emissions from the process (Erickson et al.,
2005; EPA, 2009), and efforts are under way to improve the quality of the emissions
databases (Kim, 2010).
Open burning has several disadvantages in common with open detonation.
Emissions do not undergo further treatment before release into the environment. Heavy-
metal components of the propellant (such as lead in M28 propellant) are released to the
24
OCR for page 25
atmosphere as respirable particles. Most propellants are designed to burn efficiently at
high pressures. Burning them at ambient atmospheric pressure results in emissions that
contain more products of incomplete combustion (such as soot and hydrocarbons) than
would be the case if they were burned as designed. Open burning of rocket motors
requires the removal of the propellant from the case to prevent propulsive events, and this
increases the handling of the items being disposed of. Finally, ash from the process is
probably laden with heavy metals from the propellant formulation and must be tested to
determine whether it must be handled as a hazardous waste.
This is a mature technology that is commonly used for munitions demilitarization.
The Blue Grass Army Depot (BGAD) is operating an open-burning facility under interim
permit status. The BGAD facility can treat up to 6,000 lb of energetic material in each
treatment event. That would theoretically permit a throughput of up to 300 separated M55
rocket motors per treatment event. The presence of lead in the propellant could lower the
throughput because of permit limits on lead releases.
Open Static Firing
Open static firing of rocket motors involves strapping down of the motor and
initiating it in its design mode. This is done in the open, so gaseous and particulate
emissions are released into the environment without further treatment. The process
minimizes handling and simplifies recovery of components of the rocket motor.
Catastrophic failure of aged rocket motors is rare, but not unheard of.
The technology has several advantages. As mentioned above, handling is
minimal, and this increases personnel safety. The combustion of the propellant occurs at
high pressure, which improves combustion efficiency, and there are thermochemical
models for predicting emission products. Components of the motor (such as case, fins,
and electronics) can be recovered after treatment.
There are, however, some important disadvantages. As in all processes carried out
in the open, atmospheric emissions are not treated before release into the environment.
With respect to two rocket motor systems that contained a lead burn-rate modifier, as
does the M28 propellant in the rocket motors separated from M55 rockets, it was one
committee member's direct experience that a nontrivial fraction of the lead remained in
the case after treatment. The committee believes that it would be prudent to expect that
the motor case will require assessment as hazardous waste because of lead contamination
in addition to being managed as MPPEH. There is a potential for propellant cracking,
slumping, shrinking, or changing in density as the propellant ages. Those phenomena can
change the propellant surface area during burning. In extreme cases, they can result in
overpressurization and catastrophic failure of the rocket motor. Such a failure can
damage facilities and may initiate a re-evaluation of procedures.
This is a mature technology that is commonly used for munitions demilitarization.
Throughput will be limited by environmental permits, the number of motors strapped to a
test stand, and the time necessary to wire the initiation circuitry.
25
OCR for page 26
Contained Thermal Technologies
Contained Detonation
Contained detonation involves the detonation of the rocket motor or the rocket
motor propellant in a sealed chamber. Contained detonation technologies often use a
donor explosive charge to detonate the propellant. Afterburning reactions are often
quenched as a result of efforts to protect the integrity of the chamber. After detonation,
gases in the chamber are passed through a pollution-abatement system to remove
contaminants before venting to the local atmosphere. To preserve the detonation
chamber, limits are placed on the quantity of energetic material that can be treated in a
single detonation, and this restricts process throughput. Designs for contained detonation
units are commercially available.
This technology has some advantages, such as minimization of the handling of the
items being disposed of. Furthermore, emissions are treated before release into the
environment. It also has several disadvantages. Over time, shrapnel can cause damage to
the facility and result in repair costs and possibly an interruption of processing. That and
other stressors also limit the lifetime of the detonation chamber. Large scrap residues
need to be removed after each treatment event to minimize the production of shrapnel.
The time needed for such clearance limits throughput of the technology. Toxic metal,
semivolatile, and nonvolatile emissions from the ordnance will contaminate the interior
of the detonation chamber. In the case of the separated rocket motors, such contaminants
would include the lead compounds from the M28 propellant. The contaminants would
pose a safety risk to personnel operating in the chamber. In addition, it is difficult to
ensure that a detonation chamber will remain leakproof over a lifetime of contained
detonations; avoidance of environmental contamination requires regular checks for leaks.
Contained Combustion
Contained combustion involves the burning of energetics in burn pans in a sealed
combustion chamber. Gaseous and particulate emissions from the combustion process are
stored in a holding tank for later processing before release into the environment.
Handling is minimized, but gas storage capacity can be a limiting factor. The time
required for postcombustion cleanup of the combustion chamber may decrease
processing throughput.
The minimization of handling and the treatment of emissions before
environmental release are advantages of this technology. However, as with contained
detonation, emissions of toxic metals, semivolatile compounds, and nonvolatile
compounds from the ordnance will contaminate the interior of the chamber and pose a
risk to personnel safety, and lead compounds would be a contaminant from the
combustion of M28 propellant. In addition, residues will require assessment for treatment
as hazardous waste, and metal scrap must be managed as MPPEH. Throughput will be
limited by workplace cleanliness standards and the time needed to treat collected
combustion gases.
26
OCR for page 27
Contained Static Firing
Contained static firing involves the burning of an intact rocket motor or propellant
in a combustion chamber. Gaseous and particulate emissions from the combustion
process are stored in a holding tank for later processing before release into the
environment. Handling is minimized, but gas storage capacity and the potential for
damage from a catastrophic failure limit throughput.
Minimization of handling and treatment of emissions before environmental
release are advantages of this technology. However, the motor residues would need to be
removed after each treatment event, and this will limit process throughput. As with
contained detonation and contained combustion, emissions of toxic metals, semivolatile
compounds, and nonvolatile compounds from the ordnance will contaminate the interior
of the chamber and pose a risk to personnel safety. As above, one of the contaminants in
disposal of the M28 propellant will be lead compounds. Motor residues will require
assessment for treatment as hazardous waste, at least in part because of the presence of
lead compounds, and as MPPEH. There is a potential for propellant cracking, slumping,
or shrinking and changes in density as the propellant ages. Those phenomena can change
the propellant surface area during burning. In extreme cases, that can result in
overpressurization and catastrophic failure of the rocket motor. Such a failure can
damage facilities and may initiate a re-evaluation of procedures. This technology is
commercially available.
Confined Combustion
Confined combustion burns a rocket motor in a combustion chamber and, in
contrast with contained combustion, passes product gases through a pollution-abatement
system to remove atmospheric pollutants before release into the environment. Few
commercial pollution-abatement systems can handle the large changes in temperature,
pressure, and flow rate that occur over the short period of rocket motor combustion.
Throughput is limited by requirements for setup and chamber cleanup between motor
firings.
As with contained combustion, advantages of this technology include the
minimization of handling and the treatment of emissions before environmental release.
The limited availability of commercial pollution-abatement systems that have the
capacity to handle the operational environment of this technology is a potential
disadvantage. The motor case needs to be removed from the chamber after each treatment
event to minimize damage to the chamber from flying debris and thus prevent shutdown
of the unit, which would limit throughput. Emissions of toxic inorganic, semivolatile, and
nonvolatile chemicals from the ordnance will contaminate the interior of the chamber and
pose a risk to personnel safety. The motor case will require assessment for treatment as
hazardous waste at least in part because of the presence of lead compounds and will also
need to be managed as MPPEH.
This technology has undergone subscale and pilot-scale demonstration. Further
development is needed to make it directly applicable to the disposal of rocket motors
separated from M55 rockets.
27
OCR for page 28
Other Thermal Disposal Technologies
Various other thermal technologies have been applied to the demilitarization and
disposal of solid propellant rocket motors. They include incineration by rotary kiln,
plasma arc, and fluidized bed technologies. As a group, the techniques involve the
placement of the propellant or rocket motor into an externally heated chamber and then
thermally induced detonation, deflagration, or combustion of the energetic material.
Chamber walls are designed to contain the detonation products and shrapnel.
Atmospheric emissions are typically passed through commercial pollution abatement
systems before release into the environment. Thermal technologies are commercially
available from various sources.
Four explosive destruction technologies (EDTs) have been and are being
evaluated for disposal of the rocket motors separated from the M55 rockets stored at
BGAD and for other uses in chemical demilitarization and disposal processes.3 These
EDTs are a subset of the conventional demilitarization and disposal technologies
described in this chapter. The EDTs can be used to implement contained burning,
detonation, or perhaps static-firing technologies. They are called out separately because
they are already familiar to the Blue Grass Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant
(BGCAPP) project staff, the public around BGAD, and some state regulators. The four
EDTs are as follows:
Detonation of Ammunition in a Vacuum Integrated Chamber (DAVINCH),
such as the DAVINCH DV65 manufactured by Kobe Steel, Ltd. This process
would involve the detonation of a separated rocket motor with a donor
explosive in an evacuated chamber that will withstand the detonation.
Emissions are treated with a pollution-abatement system. A larger version of
the DV65, the proposed DV120, would have a throughput of 36 separated
rocket motors in a 10-hour day (NRC, 2009).
Sandia National Laboratory's Explosive Destruction System (the EDS-1 and
EDS-2). This contained detonation process would involve the detonation of a
separated rocket motor with a donor explosive in a chamber designed to
withstand the blast and contain the shrapnel and gases and then treatment of
the emissions. Currently available EDS units are designed to contain the
explosive force from not more than 4.8 lb TNT-equivalent net explosive
weight and thus do not have the capacity to treat intact M55 separated rocket
motors (NRC, 2009). In addition, the EDS is designed to crack open munition
casings to access chemical agent fills and then chemically neutralize the agent.
It is not designed primarily for the disposal of energetic materials.
The Static Detonation Chamber, such as the SDC 2000 from Dynasafe AB.
Energetic materials are dropped into a preheated blast chamber, where they
burn, deflagrate, or detonate. Shrapnel is contained in the blast chamber, and
gaseous emissions are passed to a holding tank for treatment. Dynasafe has
proposed an enlarged version of the SDC 2000 to treat about 100 separated
rocket motors in a 10-hour day (NRC 2009). An SDC has been used at the
3
See NRC, 2006 and NRC, 2009 for more detailed information.
28
OCR for page 29
Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal Facility to dispose of overpacked and
problem munitions that could not be readily processed through the facility.
Detonation chambers, such as the Transportable Detonation Chamber and the
Contained Detonation Chamber, manufactured by CH2M HILL. As
constructed, these are contained detonation chambers. CH2M HILL has
proposed using a modified version of the D-100 chamber currently installed at
BGAD as a contained static-firing chamber in which separated rocket motors
would be fired in their design mode into a containment vessel before treatment
of the exhaust products. It has been estimated that this approach would permit
the treatment of 180 separated rocket motors in a 10-hour day (NRC 2009). A
Transportable Detonation Chamber was used at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii,
to dispose of recovered chemical weapons materiel.
CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGIES
Base Hydrolysis
In base hydrolysis, energetic waste is added to water at a mild temperature (90
150°C) and high pressure (200 psig) with a strong base (pH > 12). Organic components
of the energetic waste are converted to water-soluble nonenergetic materials. The feed
rate needs to be controlled to prevent a violent exothermic reaction, that is, deflagration
or detonation of the propellant. To control the feed rate and ensure efficient and thorough
reaction, it is usually necessary to add propellant to the caustic solution as a slurry. A key
advantage of this technology is that energetic waste is converted to water-soluble
nonenergetic products, but the resulting solution is still hazardous and must be treated
further.
Supercritical Water Oxidation
Supercritical water oxidation treatment (SCWO) involves addition of a powdered,
liquid, or aqueous slurry of energetic waste to a solution of water and an oxidizer at high
temperature (over 374°C) and high pressure (over 3,000 psig). The organic waste is
broken down to water-soluble, nonenergetic materials. Inorganic waste components, such
as lead, are oxidized to insoluble salts that can be filtered out of the waste stream. SCWO
is already being installed at BGCAPP to treat the products of the chemical neutralization
of chemical agent and energetic materials. Use of this technique on the M28 propellant
will require some preprocessing to get the energetic into an amenable form.
An advantage of this technology is that all organic chemicals are fully
decomposed and inorganic materials can be filtered out of the process stream. However,
the feedstock is usually in the form of a liquid or slurry, so it would be necessary to
remove propellant from motor and pretreat it to get it into an appropriate form; this
increases the amount of handling required with the concomitant risks. This is a
commercial technology that has been used on a pilot scale to treat waste energetics.
29
OCR for page 30
Humic Acid Treatment
Humic acid treatment involves heating the propellant in a vat that contains a
mixture of caustic and humic acids. Phosphate is usually added to immobilize heavy
metals. The resulting products can usually be used as fertilizer, but application of the
technique to M28 rocket propellant disposal would require experimentation to verify that
lead in the propellant remains immobile and that other toxins are thoroughly destroyed.
The production of fertilizer could be an advantage of this technology. However,
the presence of lead and other toxins in the propellant could hinder the manufacture of
fertilizer. Furthermore the technique has been applied to only a few propellant
formulations. Where it has been successful, substantial work has been required to achieve
that success. The committee is not aware that humic acid has been used to treat a
propellant similar to the M28 propellant in the M55 rockets, and there is a lack of data
with which to assess whether it would be successful in treating this propellant. The
technology has been demonstrated on a pilot scale.
SUMMARY
Table 3-1 shows a comparison of advantages and disadvantages of each
technology described here, and Table 3-2 presents the committee's judgment of
technology status and identifies technology developers or users. Regardless of where the
propellant is demilitarized, the selected facility must deal with handling, treatment, and
transportation of the propellant and with any political and treaty issues involved with
items derived from chemical weapons. Most of the facilities listed in Table 3-2 have not
been used to demilitarize rocket motors derived from chemical weapons.
Table 3-2 presents estimated process throughputs for each technology on which
such information was available. It has been estimated (see Chapter 4) that a separated
rocket motor processing throughput rate of 167 motors per day will be needed to keep
pace with M55 rocket processing at BGCAPP.
Open thermal technologies result in atmospheric releases of respirable lead dust
from the M28 propellant. That may place an additional constraint on the throughput of
these technologies. For instance, although a facility may be able to process sufficient net
explosive weight to dispose of 167 or more separated rocket motors per day, permit
restrictions on lead releases could potentially result in much lower throughput. Contained
thermal technologies, such as the EDTs, will prevent the release of lead into the
environment. The estimated throughput for any of the EDTs has yet to be validated.
A detailed consideration of public sentiment about disposal technologies is
beyond the scope of this committee's work, but the public around BGAD, although now
closely involved in discussions about key project decisions, has historically used political
and permitting processes to attempt to achieve the outcomes that they desired. Thus, the
committee recognizes that public sentiment, albeit a nontechnical issue, could be an
important factor in how readily any disposal technology can be implemented and believes
that it should be mentioned in this report.
30
OCR for page 31
The public around BGAD has been strongly opposed to the use of incineration to
dispose of chemical munitions and the resulting waste streams, such as the separated
rocket motors. The public around BGAD is strongly committed to disposing of as much
material as possible at BGCAPP by chemical neutralization followed by SCWO.
However, willingness to consider the use of alternative technologies, such as the EDTs,
in limited applications where safety and other compelling concerns point to them as the
best options has been developing. That subject is covered in more depth in Appendix B.
A key concern of the public around BGAD has been the release of toxic materials into the
environment. Complete containment of emissions from disposal processes is very
important to the public. That might indicate that, overall, a contained technology might
be more easily implemented than an open technology.
Finding 3-4. Thermal treatment demilitarization and disposal operations performed in a
chamber require the least handling and permit treatment of product emissions. Chemical
technologies either are not mature or are not readily implementable for the disposal of the
separated rocket motors.
Finding 3-5. The presence of lead in the M28 propellant may significantly constrain the
throughput rate for disposing of separated rocket motors with open thermal technologies
because of permit limits on the environmental release of lead.
Finding 3-6. The public around the Blue Grass Army Depot has historically been
concerned about the release of toxic materials into the environment. Public concerns have
been important in the disposal of chemical munitions and related wastes. They could also
affect how readily a technology for the disposal of separated rocket motors could be
implemented.
Finding 3-7. A contained thermal technology is the best option for disposing of the
rocket motors separated from the M55 rockets stored at the Blue Grass Army Depot.
31
OCR for page 32
TABLE 3-1 Technology Comparison
Technology Description Advantages Disadvantages
Open Ordnance is placed on a pile, Handling is minimized. Atmospheric emissions are not treated further.
detonation surrounded with donor explosive,
Secondary waste streams are limited to Potential releases of respirable heavy-metal
and detonated.
unreacted materials, mostly metal case particles from the rocket motor or soil.
components.
Unreacted materials can be distributed over a
Sufficient data are present in emissions large area.
databases to permit estimation of process
emissions. Efforts to improve the databases are
under way.
Buried Propellants and donor are buried Handling is minimized. Atmospheric emissions are not treated further.
detonation under 48 ft of soil and detonated.
Noise is less than for open detonation. The presence of large quantities of soil in the
plume suppresses afterburning and increases
concentrations of products of incomplete
32
combustion. Little work has been done to
quantify this phenomenon, but tests to collect
pertinent data are under way.
There is a potential for environmental releases of
metals and organic chemicals from soil and
ordnance.
Open burning Loose propellant is placed into a Components of the missile are removed before Emissions are not processed further.
pan and initiated. Some facilities treatment.
Most propellants are designed to burn efficiently
use an additional fuel (e.g. JP-8)
Data in emissions databases permit estimation at high pressure. Burning at atmospheric pressure
to initiate and support combustion.
of process emissions. Efforts to improve the results in incomplete combustion.
Some facilities initiate the process
databases are under way.
by cracking open a rocket motor There would be atmospheric releases of
case with a shaped charge. respirable heavy metals (e.g., lead) from the
propellant.
Rocket motors require prior removal of the
propellant from the case to prevent the possibility
32
OCR for page 33
TABLE 3-1 Continued
Technology Description Advantages Disadvantages
of propulsive events; this increases ordnance
handling.
Ash from the process must be treated as MPPEHa
and is probably laden with heavy metals.
Open static The rocket motor is secured, then Handling is minimized. Atmospheric emissions are not treated further.
firing initiated in its design mode.
Combustion occurs at high pressure, and this A nontrivial fraction of lead in the propellant
improves efficiency. remains in the carcass after treatment in the form
of lead metal and lead oxide dust.
There are thermochemical models for
predicting emission products. The carcass will require assessment as hazardous
waste and MPPEH.a
Components of the rocket motor (such as case,
fins, and electronics) can be recovered after Aged propellant can crack, slump, shrink, or
treatment. change density. In extreme cases, that can result
33
in overpressurization of the motor bottle after
ignition, which can lead to catastrophic failure of
the rocket motor. Such a failure can damage
facilities and may initiate a re-evaluation of
procedures.
Contained An ordnance item or energetic Handling is minimized. Over time, shrapnel can damage the facility and
detonation component is placed into a sealed limit facility lifetime.
Emissions are treated before release into the
detonation chamber. A donor
environment. Large residues need to be removed after each
charge is often required. The
treatment event to minimize shrapnel.
detonation reaction is initiated.
Afterburning reactions are often Emissions of toxic metal, semivolatile chemicals,
quenched as a result of efforts to or nonvolatile chemicals from the ordnance will
protect the integrity of the contaminate the interior of the detonation
chamber. After detonation, chamber.
product gases and particles are
passed through pollution control Regular leak checks are needed to prevent
instrumentation to remove environmental contamination as the detonation
undesirable contaminants. chamber ages.
33
OCR for page 34
TABLE 3-1 Continued
Technology Description Advantages Disadvantages
Contained Propellant is placed into a pan in a Handling is minimized. Large residues need to be removed after each
combustion combustion chamber and initiated. treatment event to minimize damage to the
Emissions are treated before environmental
Product gases are collected in a chamber from flying debris.
release.
holding tank and then processed
Emissions of toxic metal, semivolatile chemicals,
through a pollution abatement
and nonvolatile chemicals from the combustion
system.
will contaminate the interior of the burn
chamber.
The carcass will require assessment as hazardous
waste and MPPEH.a
Contained The rocket motor is secured and Handling is minimized. A nontrivial fraction of lead in the propellant
static firing fired into a containment vessel in remains in the carcass after treatment in the form
Combustion occurs at high pressure, and this
its design mode. After of lead metal and lead oxide dust.
improves efficiency.
combustion, atmospheric
Emissions of toxic metal, semivolatile chemicals,
contaminants are processed Emissions are treated before environmental
34
and nonvolatile chemicals from the combustion
through a pollution abatement release.
will contaminate the interior of the burn
system.
chamber.
The carcass will require assessment as hazardous
waste and MPPEH.a
Aged propellant can crack, slump, shrink, or
change density. In extreme cases, that can result
in overpressurization of the motor bottle after
ignition and lead to catastrophic failure of the
rocket motor. Such a failure can damage facilities
and may initiate a re-evaluation of procedures.
Confined A rocket motor is placed into a Handling is minimized. Few commercial atmospheric filtration devices
combustion combustion chamber and initiated. are capable of real-time handling of the changes
Emissions are treated before environmental
Product gases are not contained in temperature, pressure, and flow rate that occur
release.
but are passed immediately during a motor firing.
through pollution abatement
Large residues need to be removed after each
34
OCR for page 35
TABLE 3-1 Continued
Technology Description Advantages Disadvantages
equipment before release into the treatment event to minimize damage to the
environment. chamber from flying debris.
Work at China Lake involved Emissions of toxic metal, semivolatile chemicals,
burning of full-scale rocket and nonvolatile chemicals from the ordnance
motors with the nozzle removed. combustion will contaminate the interior of the
burn chamber.
The carcass will require assessment for treatment
as hazardous waste and MPPEH.a
Rotary kiln This is an enclosed incinerator in High feed rates have been demonstrated. Deflagration or detonation of energetic materials
which waste is slowly moved can damage facilities and interrupt operations.
Emissions are treated.
from one end to the other. Waste
Few atmospheric filtration devices are capable of
material detonates or combusts.
handling the extreme changes in pressure and
Emissions are treated.
flow rate that occur during a large detonation
event; this will limit the treatment rate.
35
Careful control of feedstock and combustion
conditions is needed to minimize production of
toxins like dioxins.
Fluidized bed Energetic waste is injected into a Emissions can be treated. The technique is limited to liquids, slurries, and
turbulent bed of hot sand. powders that have low inorganic content.
Substantial handling is needed to remove solid
propellants and convert them to a form amenable
to treatment.
Static Ordnance is dropped into a heated Handling is minimized. The furnace will need to be turned off regularly
Detonation chamber, where it detonates, to empty the chamber of collected incombustible
Emissions are scrubbed.
Chamberb deflagrates, or combusts. Product residues.
gases are scrubbed with a
Residues from rocket motors separated from
pollution abatement system.
M55 rockets will probably be contaminated with
35
OCR for page 36
TABLE 3-1 Continued
Technology Description Advantages Disadvantages
lead and require lead abatement to handle.
Facility lifetime is limited by damage to the
detonation chamber from shrapnel.
Base Energetic wastes are added to Energetic waste is converted to water-soluble The resulting solution is still hazardous and must
hydrolysis water and heated to mild nonenergetic products. be treated further.
temperatures (90150°C) usually
Careful control of feed rate is needed to prevent
at high pressure (200 psig) with a
the deflagration or detonation of propellant.
strong base (pH > 12); this
chemically degrades the energetic
materials.
Supercritical Organic waste, water, and an Organic chemicals are decomposed. Feedstock is usually in the form of a liquid or
36
water oxidizer (such as hydrogen slurry. It is necessary to remove propellant from
oxidation peroxide) are subjected to high the motor and pretreat it to get it into an
temperature (>374°C) and appropriate form.
pressure (>3,000 psig); this
chemically degrades the organic
waste.
Humic acid Energetics are heated in a vat that Product is fertilizer. Used to date only on a few propellants.
treatment contains a mixture of caustic and
The record of success is mixed.
humic acids. Phosphate is usually
added to immobilize heavy The method might require much work for
metals. application to M28 propellant.
There is a lack of data with which to assess the
likelihood that the technology will work on M28
propellant.
a
MPPEH, materials potentially presenting an explosive hazard.
b
See discussion in section "Other Thermal Disposal Technologies".
36
OCR for page 37
TABLE 3-2 Technology Status and Applicability
Technology developer or Estimated M55 rocket motor
Technology Technology status representative user throughputa
Open Mature Naval Air Weapons Station, N/A
detonation China Lake (user)
Hill Air Force Base (user) N/A
Buried Mature Tooele Army Depot (user) N/A
detonation
Defense Ammunition Center N/A
(user)
Anniston Army Depot (user) N/A
Open burning Mature Naval Surface Warfare Center, N/A
Indian Head (user)
BGAD (user) 300 per event
Open static Mature Tooele Army Depot (user) N/A
firing
Anniston Army Depot (user) N/A
McAlester Army Ammunition
Plant (user)
Contained Commercially Naval Surface Warfare Center, N/A
detonation available Crane (developer and user)
Tooele Chemical Agent N/A
Destruction Facility (user,
DAVINCH DV65)
CH2M HILL (developer, D-100 N/A
Detonation Chamber)
Kobe Steel (developer, 36 per day for the Kobe
DAVINCH) Steel DAVINCH DV120
(NRC, 2009)
Contained Commercially Naval Surface Warfare Center, N/A
combustion available Crane (developer and user)
Naval Surface Warfare Center, N/A
Indian Head (developer and user)
CH2M Hill (developer) N/A
Contained static Commercially Naval Air Warfare Center, China N/A
firing available Lake, in partnership with
Lockheed-Martin (developer)
El Dorado Engineering N/A
37
OCR for page 38
TABLE 3-2 Continued
Technology developer or Estimated M55 rocket motor
Technology Technology status representative user throughputa
(developer)
CH2M Hill (developer, D-100 180 per day for static firing
Detonation Chamber) in the CH2M HILL D-100
Detonation Chamber (NRC,
2009)
Confined Sub-pilot and pilot Naval Air Warfare Center, China N/A
combustion scale Lake, in partnership with
Lockheed-Martin and Bechtel
(developer)
Rotary kiln Commercially Tooele Army Depot (user) N/A
available for small
munitions
Fluidized bed Pilot scale Defense Ammunition Center N/A
(user)
Static Commercially Anniston Chemical Agent
Detonation available Disposal Facility (user)
100 per day, upgraded SDC-
Chamber
Dynasafe AB (developer) 2000 (NRC, 2009)
Base hydrolysis Commercial process Defense Ammunition Center N/A
(user)
Supercritical Commercial process Defense Ammunition Center N/A
water oxidation (user)
Humic acid Pilot-scale Defense Ammunition Center N/A
treatment demonstration (user)
a
Estimate based on a 10-hour workday.
REFERENCES
DoD (Department of Defense). 2008. Department of Defense Instruction: Material
Potentially Presenting an Explosive Hazard, Number 4140.62, November 25.
Available online at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/414062p.pdf. Last
accessed on May 17, 2012.
DoD. 2011. Department of Defense Manual: Defense Demilitarization, 4160.28-M,
Volume 13, June 7. Fort Belvoir, Va.: Defense Technical Information Center.
38
OCR for page 39
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. AP 42: Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors, volume 1, chapter 15, Ordnance Detonation. Fifth Edition. Available
online at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch15/index.html. Last accessed on May
17, 2012.
Erickson, E.D., A.P. Chafin, T.L. Boggs, L.A. Zellmer, and B.M. Abernathy. 2005.
Emissions from the Energetic Component of Energetic Wastes During Treatment by
Open Detonation, NAWCWD TP 8603, June. China Lake, Calif.: Naval Air Warfare
Center Weapons Division.
Kim, B.J. 2010. Feasibility of New Technology to Comprehensively Characterize Air
Emissions from Full Scale Open Burning and Open Detonation, SERDP Project WP-
1672, Final Report, December. Available online at http://www.serdp.org/
content/download/9560/122378/file/WP-1672-FR.pdf. Last accessed on May 17, 2012.
NRC (National Research Council). 2006. Review of International Technologies for
Destruction of Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel. Available online at
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11777. Last accessed on June 29, 2012.
NRC. 2009. Assessment of Explosive Destruction Technologies for Specific Munitions at
the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants. Available online
at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php? record_id=12482. Last accessed on May 17, 2012.
Wright, J., E. Erickson, and G. Thompson. 2010. Open Detonation (OD) Emission Factor
Development. Presentation to the 18th Annual Global Demilitarization Symposium
and Exhibition. May 10-13, Tulsa, Okla.
39
OCR for page 40
40
