STATE OF UTAH 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH scan M. MATHESON. GOVERi'. \. 

MICHAEL J STAPLEY M P A ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR rEB J ;>ij~: " 

533-6108 

Frank L. McFarland 

Department of the Air Force 

Hill Air Force Base Headquarters 

2849 Air Group 

Hill Air Force Base, Utah 84056 

RE:	 Approval Order for Hydrazine 

Exhaust Incinerator - Davis 

Coun,ty CDS AI 

/i ,/ I '" 1'1/:+ +?irjr, :;;..)~. :;.'";; ~L'I	 ." .- .'. - ,... :' . :; 

On December 24, 1984, the Executive Secretary published a notice of intent 

to approve a hydrazine exhaust incinerator. The 30 day public comment 

period has expired, and no comments were received. 

This air quality approval order authorizes the incinerator as proposed in 

your notice of intent dated November 21, 1984, with the following operating 

conditions: 

1. All emission control equipment shall be properly installed, .-., 

maintained~ and ~p_erated as ~o~op~dr-in the ~otic~ of in:~n~ ~ated ~ov. 2~,

1984. c.m"I:baJ!.:JOi' -f-.<.A';'.fj. , rf!M1.-+tvJlI/..(y /300 F /lL;J.L.Ci./JI,!.~ 1!0'(,/'<­

2. No visible emissions from the.incinerator stack shall exceed 20% 

opacity as measured by EPA Reference Method 9. 

3. If a stack test is performed, the results of the test shall be ~~

submitted to the Executive Secretary. (~

4. The Executive Secretary shall be notified when startup occurs as 

an initial compliance inspection is required. 

The fee for issuing this approval order is $138.34. The amount (see 

enclosures for breakdown of costs) is payable to the Utah Department of 

Health, sent to the Executive Secretary, Utah Air Conservation Committee, 

and is due within 30 days after receipt of the approval order. 

Sincerely, 

Brent C. Bradford 

Executive Secretary 

ti< Utah Air Conservation Committee 

DK:wml 

Enclosures 

cc:	 EPA Region VIII (N. Huey) 

Davis	 County Health Department 

6709 4.2.4-980

KENNETH L. ALKEMA, DIF<ECTOR • DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAl HEALTH 

"C:1""'l 'A,eeT "1r-"ln'T'U .,.~ .. ~,.... ............,... .. , ..... -=-....... ,.. •. _, .. i _ _ •• _

NOT ICE
 

The following notices of intent to construct, submitted in accordance with 

Section 3.1, utah Air Conservation Regulations, have been received for 

consideration by the Executive Secretary, utah Air Conservation Committee: 

1. Hill Air Force Base, hydrazine incinerator, Davis Co. 

// 2. Deseret Medical, catheter heparin coating, Sandy 

3. Intermountain Products, vermiculite plant, Salt Lake City 

4. Salt Lake Airport, parking lot, Salt Lake City 

5. Geneva Rock Products, cement batch plant, Snowbird Salt Lake Co. 

The engineering evaluations and air quality impacts have been completed, ana 

no adverse air quality impacts are expected. It is the intent of the 

Executive Secretary to approve these construction projects. 

The construction proposals and estimates of the effect on local air quality 

are available for public inspection and comment at the Bureau of Air Quality, 

utah State Department of Health, Room 426, 150 West North Temple, Salt Lake 

City, Utah. Written comments received by the Bureau, P.O. Box 45500, Salt 

Lake City, Utah 84145, on or before January 23, 1985, will be considered in 

making the final decision on the approval or disapproval of the proposed 

construction. 

4.2.4-981 
2
 

-


If anyone so requests, within 15 days of publication of notice, a hearing will 

be held in the area of the proposed construction, installation, modification, 

relocation, or establishment. 

Date of Notice: December 24, 1984 

\ 

4.2.4-982
 
12/5/S~	 t>1inor ( l'ew ) 

~,ajO!

ID;'! 

BLREP.U OF AIR QUALITY 

ENGINEERING REVIEr; - SlJ-',I'-'MY (NJI Dated 1l/2K'~)

ENGINEER/DATE - Con Robinson 12/4/84 

Owner/Operator: Kill Air Force Base 

Source: Emergency Power Unit Firings on F-16s 

Applicant/Official: Frank L. M:Farland 

Applicant/Official Address:	 Dept. of Air Force, HDQRS 2849 Air Base Group 

(AFLC) , Hill AFB, ·UT 84056 

lelephone Number of Contact: 801-777-2065 (Bill Taylor) 

Plant/Activity Location and	 Address: ~Jll AFB (Weber Co.) 

Type of Operation: Hydrazine Exhaust Incinerator 

I. Background 

The F-16 is a new single-engine tactical aircraft. Since the F-16 is an 

electronically controlled configuration aircraft, an emergency power 

unit is used to provide short-term electric and hydraulic power for 

aircraft control. The emergency p~ler unit (EPU) is fueled with a 

monopropellant hydrazine mixture, H-70, which contains 70% hydrazine and 

30% water. 

During EAU testing, the hydrazine fuel will be passed through the 

normally used catalyst, which is actually part of the EPU. The e~issions of concern are the Exhausts that will leave the EPU after the 

hydrazine passes through the catalyst. 

Under no-load conditions, the EPU operates in a pulsed manner at 

approximately two pulses/second. Because water in the fuel does not 

enter into the decomposition reactions, the exhaust gas has a very high 

".'ater vapor content and hence a high dew point. The exhaust gas is . discharged from the F-16 aircraft through a three inch duct opening, 

flush with the aircraft skin near the wing root and directed vertically 

dm,mv:arc. 

II. Proposal 

Hill Air Force Ease is proposin~ to install a hydrazine exhaust 

incinerator to control the emissions from planned EPU test firings. lhe 

incinerator is single-chambered, forced air, and propane-fired. The 

combustion char,ber is cylindrical with a three foot inside diameter and 

is ten feel tall. The specified performance characteristic is that it 

emits hydrazine at levels which do not exceed 1 ppm. It accomplishes 

this by creating a combustion chamber with a temperature of 1800 decrees 

F. and a residence time of 0.6 seconds. 4.2.4-983 
2 -


The following nu~bers describe the operation: 

1­ Two test firings per day. 

2. 260 days per year. 

3. One minute per test firing. J rt 

4. ~drazine - N2HY. /' i 

5. Cne ppm N2Hf emitted to atmosphere. 

6. Propane fired, 1.1 X 106 BTU/hr. 

7. 45 minutes per EPU firina. 

8. 4630 ft tv'S£:" ­ o
 

./ . Stack height 15 ft. 

10. Stack Temp. 1800 degrees F. 

11. Residence time - 0.6 seconds. 

The incinerator will be installed adjacent to Building 2005 at ~AF8.

This is in Weber County. 

Acontract has been let to AeroVironment to devise a sampling train. Sa~ples will be taken before and after incineration in order to 

calculate efficiencies. Construction is already underway and startup is 

planned for March 1985. 

III. Regulation Applicabilitv 

This source is SUbject to the follovling regJlations: 

1. Section 3.1, UAOR - NOI requirement. 

2. Section 4.1, uAOR - 2~~ opacity. 

3. Section 4.7, UACR - Unavoidable breakdown. 

This source is not subject to PSD, NSPS, or NESHAPS. The area is ~attainment for particulate. Ogden is nonattainment for eo. 

IV. BACT A'lalysis 

The incinerator constitutes BACT for this source. A temperature of 1800 

degrees F. and a residence time of 0.6 seconds will oxidize any voe or 

riyd!"2.zine. 

I'I. Hooe:ino - r--~cne. Si1all source. 

VI. Err.ission Surn;;,ary 

;-~2r1j - .48 Ib/yr
 

Nux - 4125 ton/yr
 

'IE. Recommendations 

P.ecor,::iend approval with the following conditions: 

_. All emission control equipment shall be properly installed, 

r.:2intairled, and operated as propcsec in the notice of intent dated l'lbv. 

21, 1984. 4.2.4-984 
3
 

2. No visible emissions from the incinerator stack shall exceed 20% 

opacity as measured by EPA Reference ~ethod 9. 

3. If a stack test is performed, the results of the test shell be 

submitted to the Executive Secretary. 

4. The Executive Secretary shall be notified when startup occurs 2S an 

initial compliance inspection is required. 

TRiads 

6235 

4.2.4-985
 
~~- .. -~~..~-_._----- _._--._-_.. _-­

--.- ---. -.--.__ ....-------Tvf.-, _@ S;J6 __t;J~_ty"-­ __ . . .__._. ._ .. _ ..._.__C{£__~_~. ._ 

----6--r~-----~ _% :f~ -­ ._.__ .__ _ Lcb _ ------------ .------------ -.---- --.------.----- ~_r2 ==- c?--7-2..Ic.i:-­

__ . . . __@__-I()O__'?~_~-V------

-.---- - -------.--------- ---- - ---(f)---j,j--£.i(}~-&&/~--------

-~:-- .-::~ ~~--~-- ------­

__ . __ . flOL L LJ. TAtY r __ (.,...13 ;, I Flre r#';:. __ . ---~B-!'£."f.--- tEtf/fM --rl1oL.£.s I , YI?

____ /v~ 111----- rO_f.2____ ~, .s_' ') to I (5.2. _

;1/ttJ _ _ . _~-_----.~~-7~~-- l.£?7--,-tJ- JQ(1VOL.?~ _ 

'~l.. . _tt" _ _. .;)7/-'-~Y.!- .__(;,_'_r-6-7;L.. -~L---

//1- _. . --.it ffo t__ _ J.~31.1. ?"( f:L(Y.JJ...LLr.....:.. -, 

_ 0 D---------- 3..c _'-- ./£'..7 J y_~-L3J~~-

--... -----------------....- .------.-----.-.--------,..---- ·-1 .I pSc.F- . =- i' 7X roc- t3771 Y/f . ----~-- - .- .----- - .. 75 -- ­ . _ 'JDo '5111 .5c.r 

4.2.4-986
 
v 

___ c}.IIt- -_.-1:.--~.lJ--~--:3 C ~--7:_--V-t-£-

-

_D _ 

__________ .__ ll!?~t; fb S1fF--± L)~ 3> y'J , ??~_O~___ _n _ 

(j) srt:--6~-S-: r c C?L.---. 

--------'0---2+..YJ3~-1i"-fi~- 0 _ 

___. "2~{)_~~L~jf- -f LL?0.-.~:L~_-;:>_\ .----;- _

----------'w )t7J I ( r #cJ.2. _ ______. ._ .. . . --fj)__7<ft). (J>__ ...~-O--- . ...__ ..__. . 

-- ~=~,!O,7f~j_~ i/fi3-~-;j-u-~s70~ IVD.;~~-~~t[~-=~-~==~ ------------------'-~-~f_ -. 

.--.---------©-(O-4$L-~..2 1fiJ-.-Q '-­

___________0{r_07J. ~S- -;- )D _5?b c :>2-_ O~_7 __ . _ 1

_______ C)_el 07;) I GS- ~-Q__..----­ r 

--~_._~-------

- ____/I-{q --7 ._hV_n _rl/:Ltf.iLl£ /J--- .:._

,-----------r+J.-Q------~------ ------t3J-5fJ~)..L-1 £_----"~_O=-----.-~
 

'--'------'--_._- - '-,----..._._-----_.._-------_.._--­
rJDL .u __	 ._.V\ f?l~.~ ..u •• (/7 or ()t.! L{_yJ_ \~!.~/3_/_JS-J~~ .. ._ 

....- ----- ,,-.,._.. .F!.. __. ..--.. -------.-----.. -----.---TP.~S=3 .---.--...._- ­ 0 _ ( '-C1e-' 

.. lto~ C-=-_;,1."'E-~--- ..-.-.--.-~---. '. 7 <f3(; -~---;r- -.-p-.-.---­

I_ .p -.. l -

/.U j' '3 ...	 -.;G -­ '-. . _.__ .. _.____ r?_.~ __.._ _ _.__ (r)-d.-.<~.----.-. 7y/\ _

. . _. __._-- _.. .-.----. -~----- - --------------. 0	 -~-_._-_._ ---_ _.- _­

....-.- ···0-·--···.·-------- -- ~_.-L~<E?~----K-fJ)-_.- --:...--*t=A 

______.___ .~c. "'2L6 ... ..-!< .S ~_o J!. -'i~.-_ .. ..___. __. 

n-~~:-=:~~-==-=~--~-~--I!..;-'f-f--,3~-.tj:c;:E#-_( ._ --_._­ --- -.. -"-'---"~ '.- -_.	 ----_.-._- . - .._--- ..__.--_._---. - ._.. ------.­

...-- ;t; ~V_----~~----J---j ~--------_ ..-----.- ...---.- .-.----.-. 	 . 

-~ .-- ---3·-~~~~~"'~jr;f --~;-rr;l~ly~/~ /7nl 

~'(b'" ..-.- -..----- ~-.- _ _- --.--.. -o-····--~·AI~------- .. -----­ . - I G0 -_. ~ol:>>cF . . ­ . ._ __	 .'.... . . . __ .._ . _ .. _.__ ... .. .__ .. .. .... .. . _... _

j ![) 1/ .IV 	 -- ~. ._-:-::._._ .. ~~ \)	 r~ /,IObS·C-'C=.· -- -- -- --. . "-- - - ~- -.---.n-r --. o-(-~~·_··· 1 

/{Ob: ....._.. _ . ~.

W-C . _..... _..... . .. _ .....__._(~ .. .j "':::::---0'-' -.- - . .....:----- . ,!

r;:.o lO~ s~ . --····l~ 4.2.4-988 
----------

_.__ ..__... _-­

---- .- - ---_._--­

---_.. _-- ------------_.-.•.._- --- -_._-.--_. ._----­

--_.-------------------- ----_._--------­

--------------------------------- _._-_.._--_._._--._--­

._----_.•. _-----_.--­

-----------------------------------_.---------_._--_.-_..._--­

.-._------_.__._.._. --­

._---------_...._._.. _-_._---­

-------------- ._------_.•._-----_•.. 

._----- ... - ._.__.. ---------_•..._----_. ­

-_._--_..•.__ .__.._--_._--­

_.- --_. _._ .... _-_.- _. -_.__..__ . _.__.-..-_._-----_._. _. --- .. - _. ­

...._._----------­

-----_..-._. _.._..
 

4.2.4-989 
STATE OF UTAH 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SCOTT M. MATHESON. GOVERNOR 

MICHAEL J STAPLEY. MP.A.. ACTING EXECUTivE DIREC-'· 

~verrber 28, 1984 

533-6108 

Frank L. McFarland 

Dept. a f the Air Farce 

Hill Air Farce Base, Utah 84056 

RE: Receipt of Notice of Intent 

Dear Mr. M:Farland: 

This letter acknowledges receipt 0 f your application for an air 

quality approval order dated November 21, 1984. We have begun 

our evaluation and if any additional information is necessary, 

you can expect to hear from us within 30 days. 

Sincerely, 

David I<Dpta

Manager, Engineering Section 

Bureau of Air QJality 

I. K. 

Cl</ads 

6190(c) 

- KENNETH L ALKEMA. DIRECTOR. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 

150 WEST NORTH TEMPLE. PO. BOX 2500 • SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 841 10-2500 • (S01) 533-6121 

AN EOUAl OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 4.2.4-990 
, I r-.V'-...I U CU 

C. 'ARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
 

HEADQUARTERS 2S49TH AIR EASE GROUP (AFLC)
 NOV 261984 

HILL AIR FORCE BASE. UTAH 84056 

UlC1: . .:JLQ~~. JIV, Of 

:rwironmemai ~eatth

21 NOV 1984 

SUBJECT,	 Notice of Intent to ConstIuct - Hydrazine Exhaust IncineratorI 

Hill Air Force Base 

TO' Utah Air Conservation Ccmnittee
 

Bureau of Air O-lality
 

PO Box 2500 •
 

Salt Lake City UT 84110-2500
 

1. Attached is a _Notice of Intent to construct for a new H-jdrazine Exhaust 

incinerator sutmitted in a:npliance with section 3.1 of the State Air 

Conservation Regulations. This is the sane sut:mi.ttal we mailed on 12 

September which has not .been received by your office. We would appreciate 

your tiITe1y review of this sutmittal because the original was lost. 

, .. 2 • _ IfJ10u have any questions I please feel free to--cal1 Bill Th.Ylora(;3j '..-. . . 

:PU!~ 1 Atch
 

FRP.ftK l McFARtARD . Notice of Intent
 

Deputy Ban Civil Engineer
 

Civil EngiDeering niYiskm
 

I/ofoftlto'l" I fJknJ 

f,'It" r/ /." 117 e 

£"7 I~ t!' C"~/;'Y 5 ~c ~,:..

1/~f'1 J r,,-; . 

7l FL C - Lifeline oj the tle rospaa Deem 4.2.4-991
 
,-O-GI::I VEr'-' 

NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSTRUCT 

NOV 261984 

HYDRAZlNE EXHAUST INCINERATOR _ Ul~: .... ~c.~t... oJ/V. Of 

HILL AIR FORCE BASE, UTAH =OVifOnmerrtal '-Ieatth

1. The following information is provided in accordance with the outline in
 

section 3.1.6 of the State Air Conservation Regulations:
 

a. .Project ""'DescrJ,pti-on-: - --"..-::- .... . 

(1) The proposed incinerator will be installed to burn unreacted 

hYdr~z:tne(~2Hll):*:~tt_ed>,dur~.,~e:.gencyPower Unit (E~U) test fi:-ing. The '~EPU J...S -nt1J.5.Zed ~~he..J:'''';16 to 'Prov~de emergency-electr~cal power ~n the event ..... -,' -". ". . ". .~. ...-........ - - .
 of generator'~ailur~ Basically, it works on the principle of passing ~he . . 

'-'bydrazinef'llel thiougb~an' oxidiz:ingcatalyst ,:;g'enerating gas (ammonia and ; 

decomposition products)" and ~urning a. turbine wheel with the resulting .gas .,' :::"':.. ~-""'~:-':'-'. ~-. - ."':. . . . . 

. _ ''''''. _ "'- .e....................-.. . .. . .._.-:....~.- .._. . . ".,_
 

(2)Each~:~~st~~ir~g'~1last one .minute during 'which time a
 

maxjmum:~r"-:12 poundS·.d:f.~he70%·hydrazine solution are burned. This is ::.
 

according to-an Air F~~;e studY-nExhaust Gas Composition for the F-16
 

Emergency Power Unit" (Report SAM-TR-79-2), which is provided as an
 

attachment•.." Under_a ..maxjmum..loading condition,,.as many as two EPUs'maY"'":be
 

test· fired~::each -day ~'?260"days:per .year. This ac'c'ounts' for a total of 520 test
 

firings during a year, consuming a total of 6,~40~pounds~f the H-70 hydrazine
 ..fuel whicllis 30 percent water-;"iO' percent hydii%ine. .
 . -._----. . .,...;.....:.. ::.... . ~.;-":.:.;..::::.- .. ~~ .. 

(3) During the EPU testing, the hydrazine fuel will be passed through
 

the normally used catalyst which is actually part of the EPU. The finished
 

product will only be the verification that the EPU is operating correctly.
 

The emissions of concern are the exhausts that will leave the EPU after the
 

hydrazine passes through the catalyst.
 

b. Expected Emissions: 

(1) Prior to Treatment:.The decomposition of hydrazine in the EPU is
 

basically as shown ~n the.following reaction:
 

+ + 

This shows a 50 percent dissociation of ammonia (NH ) which corresponds to

What 3 was seen in tests. Tests have also shown that a maximum of 0.053 pounds
 

of unreacted hydrazine may pass throush the catalyst. Thus, of the 8.4 pounds
 

of hydrazine (70% of 12 pounds) consumed in each test firing, 8.347 is reacted
 

according to the above reaction~ This gives:
 

3NH~2NH + 

(8.34~) ~2.9~6)

4.2.4-992 
The antieipated emissions before treatment can then be listed as follows: 

Pollutant	 Lbs/' Hin Test Fire Lbs/Year 

Hydrazine (N H )~?~).ci' 0.053 27.56 

Ammonia (N H2)~ n· b ""!> 2.956 1,537.12 

Hydrogen (H 1- ;). fJf" 0.522 271 .44 

Nitrogen (N~) - IV. ofi 4.869 2,531.88 

Water &Dissociation Products -L~~{~ 3.6 1,872.00 

12 Lbs Fuel 

(2) After Treatment::rhe Air Force is requiring the exhaust 

treatment supplier tOlIleet the specification of no more. than' one part per 

million of unreacted hydrazine in the treated exhaust. At a flo~ rate of '333 

SCFM, one ppm equates to approximately 0.0001 pounds per minute or pounds per 

test firing (since they are for one minute). 

Pollutant	 Lbs/l Hin Test Fire Lbs/Year 

Hydrazine (N H )	 0.0001 0.052 2 Combustion Progucts of 0.0529 27.5' 

Hydrazine 

Combustion Products of 2.956 1,537.12 

Ammonia 

Hydrogen (H ) 0.522 271 .44 2 , . Nitrogen (N )	 4.869 2,531.88 2 Water &Dissociation Products 3.6	 ',872.00 

12 Lbs Fuel 

......dS~	 The-:inc~e;:;t~~"~treatmentwill al~o-'i~volve the production"' of 

--'emissions' from the burning of propane fuel. "It is ,estimated that 1.1 METU 

will be used per hour of operation and that the incinerator will be fired a 

maximum of ~5 minutes per test firing. Assuming a heating value of 90,500 BTU 

per gallon of propane, consumption of propane per test firing can be obtained 

from the following: 

(0.75	 hrs/test)(l ,100.000 BTU/hr) = 9.12 gallons/test 

90,500 ~TU/gallon

Using AP-42, "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors," and anticipating 

520 test firings per year, the emissions from the propane burr-lng is as 

follows: 

Pollutant	 Lbs/Year 

Particulates 1.28 

Sulfur Oxides 0.07 

Nitrogen Oxides 58.S1 

Carbon Monoxide 14.70 

Volatile Organics 

Nonmethane 1.19
 

Methane 1 .28
 

z
 

4.2.4-993
 
-:(45";;:: The -- volume -l:>t _a~/combustion products emitted from the	 

1ncinerator~will beoapproximate1.y1333 SCFM and they will be emitted at a -­ temperature _of 1800 F. " 

c. Characteristics: :~he ~roposed air cleaning device is a sing~e
 

chambered, forced-air~ propane-fired incinerator. The combustion chamber is
 

cylindrical with a three-f.oot .inside diameter and is -ten ~eet tall: The
 

specified performance~charaCteristicis that it:-emits hydrazine at levels no
 

greater than one part per million. ,It accompli~hes this by creating a
 

combustion-_"chamber with--a:' temperature of 1aOOo r and residence time of" 0.6 ­ seconds~~~..:-~'· -~.	 .. 

d. Location: . ~Tbe_j,,!Jcineratm::

. ' ...-..... --..---	 is to be installed adjacent '. 

to Building
 

2005 at llillAi'I' Force "Base shown in Figure 1 .0, which is in Weber County.
 

The incineratqr~,_located on a concrete pad on the east side of the building,
 

will have its st~ck terminate- at'about 15 feet above ground level (ground
 

level is about~~630.MSL_at this location). The facility is located in a
 

fairly remote area of the base. Building 2004 is immediately adjacent, but
 

like 2005, will only be manned on occasions. The closest building routinely
 

-Qccupied	 is approximately 500 feet to the northeast. However, at one part per
 

million hydrazine, the stack efflue~t will meet the OSHA standard for eight­


hour time weighted exposure; even with no dispersion, no hazards exist.
 

e. Sampling: The Air Force proposes to sample the incinerator both at
 

Airesearch Los Angeles, where the incinerator will be constructed, and at Hill
 

Air Force Base after delivery. :A'contract has -'been let to AeroVironmentto
 

devise 'a-:sampling:tra~.

......,...... .. ~_ • __.'. o • .-r:"'"':-

It has .':-..:_'._ hot yet been determined 

••.:........ •	 

whether Aire~~arch

.,~~; .,'
 

or
 -, AeroVi'I'onment-'will- actually conduct the sampling. ,--Samples will be takezi._ 
 

-- before and -~-a.fter "'"incirieratiori'"sc)that efficiencies- 'can be' calculated ~-;"'The

exhaust s'ampling "port"'~s'shown in- the incinerator" drawings. Also during 

sampling, a worst-case situation will be simulated where two seconds (at 0.2 

Lbs/sec) of hydrazine by-passes the catalyst and goes straight to the 

incinerator. In actual operation, the EPU will automatically shut down after 

two seconds if the catalyst is not working. 

f. Ope~ating Schedule: The heaviest usage now anticipated calls for two
 

EPU test firings per day, 260 -days per year.
 

g. Construction Schedule: Facility modifications are already underway to
 

accommodate the test stand and incinerator. It is cu~rently proposed to have
 

the incinerato~ in place'-for ':sampling in March 1985.
 

h. Plans and Specifications: Incinerator d~awings and Ai~ Force Report
 

SAM-TR-79-2 are attached.
 

3 Atch 

I. Map 

2. Air Force Report SAM-TR-79-2 

3. Incine~ator Drawings 

3 4.2.4-994 
0. • 

--.. _.-.­

N 

./ka:JEc.r -L«AnoA./ 

t3UlilJ/AX. Z005 
--

-

- --

· .•. 

l--­ -=-­

b ! -,.. 
---- . /u fr (I I ":I-,f, I. M J£., :·'":/t; t ,:'-c.y'~v\'j· '. - r-f<A> !1\V .

.' I, \ f :~~~.;;;<.~ .... _....;. . f' 

1/// ---- ­

Report SAM-TR- 79-2 

EXHAUST GAS COMPOSITION OF' THEF·l&EMERGENCY 

POWER UNIT 

• 

Harry J. Suggs, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF, BSe
 

Leonard J. Luskus, Ph.D.
 

Herman J. Kilian, B.S.
 

Joseph W. Mokry, Staff Sergeant, USAF
 

February 1979 

Interim Report for Period 1 October 1977 - 31 March 1978 

'"..--' . .... ".:" 

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 

USAF SCHOOL OF AEROSPACE MEDICINE 

Aerospace Medical Division (AFSC) 

Brooks Air Force Base, Texas 78235 

4.2.4-997 

.,....., . .:; ,,\ ~'-":'.
--

;

I 

EXHAUST GAS COHPOSITION
 

OF THE F-16 L~ERG£NCY rOWER UNIT
 

INTRODUCTION 

The F-16 is a new single-engine tactic.al aircraft scheduled to 

become Air Force operational in early 1979. Since the F-16 is an 

electronically controlled configuration (fly-hy-wire) aircraft, an 

~mergency power unit (EPU) is used to provide short-term electric and 

hydrau.l. i.c power for aircra it cont ro1. The EPU is fueled with a monopropellant hydrazine mixture, H-70, which c.ontains 70% hydrazine (N H ), Z 4 30% water, by weight. 

The introduction of hydrazine to the aircraft flight line scenario 

has raised numerous questions on environmental and occupational health 

support requirements. Early discussions with the F-16 Systems Program 

\ Office (ASD/YP), Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, identified a 

1

\

I 

\

I 

\

I 

need to determine the chemical composition of the EPU exhaust gas, to 

verify theoretical analyses. Specific questions were raised on the 

quantity of unreacted hydrazine and ammonia in the EP~ exhaust gases. 

Answers to these questions were necessary to develop controls and protectiv~ actions to prevent Qxcessive expo~ure to either of these toxic 

constituents. 

During the week of 23 ~o 27 Jilnu..!ry 1978, an analytical team from 

the Crew Environments Branch, CSAf School of Aerospace Medicine, collected 

.1 s,:ri25 of exhaust samples Juring ground-u:sL firings of an installed 1 

F-16 EPU. This report descrihes the test pro,:edures and details the EPU 

~xhaust hydrazine and ammonia emissions. 

DESfCN OF THE STUDY 

Planned test firings or inadvertent ground firings were known to be 

largely cold-start runs of short duration under no-load conditions. 

Inadvertent firings typically have resulted in engine shut-down when the 

EPLJ mode selector switch was in the .:lutot!l<ltic: position. The study 

therefore \o."as designed to collect the exhaust samples following coldstart: firings under no-load c()nditil>l1s. 

Theoretical reactions of the catalytic decomposition of hydrazine 

:lre shown in Table 1. Theoretical gas composition for H-70 is shown in 

Figure 1 as a function of X, the fraction of ammonia dissociated in 

reaction 2. The value of X for the F-16 £PU was unknown at the start 

or the investigation, but \·J<1S determined to hl' approximately 0.5 (50% 

_1I11lr.cmia dissociat ion). 

.

i

I
 4.2.4-998 

"r.· 

.:,. " 
TABLE 1. REACTIONS OF THE CATALYTIC DECOMPOSITION OF HYDRAZINE 

.' .

... ':.:_,:, ,";. 

3 

4 

] 

N2H4 

NH] 

N)H, - .. 

wnere X 

4 NH 3 + NZ 

Z NZ + 6 HZ 

• 4(I-X) NH] + 6X HZ + (2X + 1) 

fraction of NH 3 dissociated. 

NZ 

(1) 

( Z) 

(3) 

. ~'-. 60 r40 LoU 

::E 

::=l 

. 'f" a 

:::­ . ". 

.- L ...	 >­

aJ 

0 

20 

" , .

o 

N2 

o 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 l.OG 

X . FRACTION OF NH 3 DISSOCIATED 

Figure 1.	 Theoretical exhaust products from catalytic 

decomposition of H-70. 

2 

...; ,- ~-/

':.' 

-.;' ", 

. ,'.. . ; ~. " , . 

4.2.4-999 
---

• J 

Under no-load conditions, the EPU operates in a pulsed manner at 

approximately two pulses per second. Because water in the fuel does not 

enter into the decomposition reactions, tlle;·'e1ChaUS:C,.gas:has a very high 

water vapor content and hencea·;hA&p.·~Q.e~;,p.qi~t. The exhaust gas is 

discharged from the F-l6 aircraft through a 3-in (7.62 cm) duct opening, 

flush ~ith the aircraft skin near the wing root and directed verticall~

downward. Maximum gas temperature was expected to be about 800°F (430 C). 

These combined factors created somewhat adverse conditions for extractive 

sampling. However, since in situ measurement techniques were not available within the required time frame, an extractive sampling method was 

devised and briefly laboratory tested before the study was undertaken. 

The extractive sampling train, shown schematically in Figure 2, 

employed an evacuated tank (approximately 74 liters) to draw sample 

through the train, to collect noncondensible gases in the .sample, and to 

I

i

I

I

]

\

i

i 

t

i 

t

i 

,

i

}

i 

,. 

contain that gas sample for subsequent analysis. The tanks were alternatively replaced with a vacuum pump, in which case the noncondensible 

gases were not collected. A limiting orifice was used to maintain a 

known sampling rate of approximately 1 l/min. Two impingers, in series, 

each containing 100 ml of 2N sulfuric acid were placed in an ice bath 

and used to trap ammonia, hydrazine, and water. Solenoid valves before 

and after the impingers were remotely actuated to start and stop sample 

flow at predetermined times. An electrically heated sample line and 

nozzle, preheated to lOOoe. was used to deliver the sample to the impi~gers.

The sample line led to a manifold that allowed independent operation of 

five identical sampling trains, in parallel. Samples were collected f~om

each of the five trains concurrently or sequentially as desired. Exha~st

gas temperature was measured with a type J, iron-constantan therrnocoupl~

located alongside and flush with the sample nozzle. 

---------_.- --------­

"-'-------_'V" J 

(..10:( 

s 'AUUEL ~A.MPlING TRAINS FROM SINGll NOZZlE 

i' ·,;u(,,) Schernnt ic diagram of exhaust gas sampling t r.ain. 

J 

4.2.4-1000
 
-


The sampling time interval for each sampling train for the six EPU 

tests is shown in Figure 3. Lines, in the figure, indicate the time of 

on-stream sample collection for each of the five samples in each test. 

Only four samples were collected in test 1. .S.$;::. and'B indicate tests 

with r:wad.;fffet;ent;.emergency..PQ..w.~~;,~uni.t~. installed in the aircraft. Set 

A was run on 24 Jan 1978 with'EPU SiN 76-103, and Set B on 26 Jan 1978 

with EPU SiN 76-107. The first test in each set was run after the EPU 

had stood overnight at ambient temperature (about SoC). Between the two 

subsequent tests in each set, the catalyst bed was purged with gaseous ... 

" ,	 nitrogen and cooled to touch. However, neither EPU was instrumented to 

measure catalyst temperature, making actual bed temperature unknown at 

the beginning of subsequent restarts. 

:. ".' 

.. .~.;: ~~ ..­

.' ~.. ,:,.,:~

.~ ..­

LINES INDICATE TIME 

THAT INDIVIDUAL 

SAMPLING TRAIN 

IS ON-LINE 

2 3 4 5 

TIME - MINUTES 

Figure 3. Sampling sequence. 

Impingers were weighed before and after each test to determine total 

condensibles collected. Impinger samples were spot an~lyzed in the field 

to verify sample collection, but all samples were returned to t.he laboratory at Brooks AFB for final analysis. The p-dimethylaminobenzaldehyde 

(PDAB) colorimetric method (1) was used for hydrazine. Prelim.iuary t.esting 

srhJwed that ammonia did not, interfere in the hydrazi.ne· method. Assay 

for ammonia was aOlle wi.th Nessler's reagent (2). 

I 

'< 

. ,	 4.2.4-1001 

. ',' ..:., '-" ...("'...... 
..' 

RESULTS 

Exhaust Gas Temperature 

The temperature profih:s for two cypical EPU tests are shown in 

Figure 4, as a function of time. Before the completion of the first 

run, it was ;lpparent that EPU operation was not as had been expected. 

l 

,

;

, During run I the t'xhaust temperrttun:: rose rather gradually to around 

i 500°F (260°C) then, at about 1-3/4 min into the run, the temperature 

increased rapidly to approximately 12000 F (650°C) just as the planned 

I 

2-min run was termin,1ted. Run I I resulted in the same phenomenon (Fig. 

4) except that the rapid temperature rise started 1-1/2 min into the 0

run and leveled off at around 1JOO-14000F (700-760 C), the upper range i of the type J thermocouple. Prior to run III, contractor engineers f o 0	 • 

I installed a 0-2000 F (-20-1100 C) thermocouple on the sample probe, 

taping the bare wire junction at the exhaust exit plane. During run III 

! 

I the contractor-installed thermocouple indicated a maximum temperature of 

0 £ nearly 16000 F (8/0 C), Run III was terminated before the planned 2-1/2 

:Jtal 

ield 

orade 

esting 

min time when flame (afterburning) was seen in the exhaust gas. 

5T~ 40 ~~M 

J 

I 

I.l.. i 

30 ~~I	

' 0 

	 l=l J, 

! 

I 

i 

20 

1:;'­

~N,en ) i u:> I 

1­ / 

I I.l.. 

I c , ,.... 

10~~ ~"	 . I -,~~ "'-RECORDER PEN 010 NOT INK I

/:,I

o	 2 3 4 

TIME-MINUTES 

Figure '-l. Exll2.US t gas temperature prof He.

I	 5 

I 

i 4.2.4-1002 

!', ;' : ... 

.-:~.:'.;":

. 't' 
After considerable discussion of the findings from the first three 

tests, the contractor made the decision to exchange EPU SiN 76-103 with 

one taken from another aircraft. However, runs IV-VI with EPU SiN 76­

107 gave essentially the same exhaust gas temperature characteristics. 

Afterburning was again observed, but usually only after more than 2 min 

operation. 

Hydrazine 

Results of hydrazine sampling are shown in Table 2. These results 

indicated some variability, but there was a clear indication that the 

hydrazine decreased rapidly with time into the run. Impinger collection 

efficiency was determined from the ratio of hydrazine in the first and 

seconG im~ingers. All hydrazine samples had a collection efficiency of 

95.2% with a standard deviation (0) of 8.7%. 

Significantly greater amounc:s of unreacted hydrazine were found in 

r~ns I and IV. In both cases, these were the first runs made with each 

of the c:wo different CPU's. Since there had been prolonged cold weather 

at the time of the tesc:, the catalyst bed temperature was initially '.J 0 . 

between 0 C and 10 C. Between runs, the catalyst bed was purged with 

gaseous nitrogen; however, 1:1 the absence of instrumentation to measure 

c~talyst bed temperature, it is probable that the bed was not cooled to 

ipitial rUT, temperatures. This could account for the variability of the 

h;dcl;: in.:: values and suggests greater hydt"3z.ine hazard potential at 

c(·L~er ca::alysr tl'mperat;.lres. 

Ammonia 

Results of ammonia sampling are shown in Table 2. These results 

sho.... little suggestion of either increases or decreases of ammonia with 

t::'rne into the run. Impinger collection efficiency for ammonia ....as 

calculated and found to be 88.67X .... ith a = 15.9%. 

Gravimetric Determination of Condensibles 

The 15-5 to 2-min samples gave only a small mass of condensibles, 

which was a result Jf measuring a small weight difference (less than 

0.5 g) between t ....o rather large \.leights (about 450 g). This inherently 

high error determination, coupled with the extremely adverse environm~ntal conditions under which ....eighings were made, rendered these 

results of marginal usefulness. They arc not included in this report. 

Noncondensible Gases 

The noncandensible sample gases ....ere collected in evacuated tanks
 

lor later laboratorv gas chromatographic analysis. The tanks ....f"r'"
 

i;:iti::J.~ly e\.'dcua.cd to 1 Torr. After sampling, pressures ....ere det~r­

::l.n<:"cl wi:h ~l 10...· \,'Ui;.lil\t;' Jbsnlute pressur(~ gi.lU?,E:. Analysis of the tank
 

6 

4.2.4-1003 

. ;;,.'. ':<:::; 
.' 

TABLE 2. HYDRAZINE AND AMMONIA IN EPU EXHAUST GAS 

:l Impinger Sample time Hydrazine t\mmon:'a 

Run \;0. set ---_._-_. No. (min) (\.IS) (mg) 

! 1 1 10,778 199 

s 

,

, 

5 

2 

3 

:. 

1 

1 

1 

9,100 

572 

35 

23: 

180 

164 

on 

; 

'f 

¥

• 

, 

<

i 

II 1 

"<. 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1,725 

1,350 

690 

152 

194 

191 

.n 

:h 

\er 

i 

I 

t 

4 

5 

1 

1 

51 

14 

182 

249 

I T~"J .l. 1 0.25 1,560 58 

re 

~o

the 

•

:; 

» 

t 

r 

i 

2 

3 

4 

5 

0.50 

0.50 

1 

0.28 

2,650 

358 

a 

0 

14 

8. 

249 

58 

i. 

IV 1 

2 

1 

1 

3,670 

2,380 

79 

2 ~.)

).­

3 1 374 135 

4 1 a 9£. 

th 5 1 0 61) 

I 

i 

v 1 

2 

3 

I 

... 

1 

1 

1 

1 

630 

430 

0 

0 

170 

145 

II:. 

') I ·7 _"+f 

., S 1 0 160 

:ly v[ 1 1 a 177 

2 2 255 24l\ 

-. J 

4 

2 

2 

0 

a 28~

28J 

5 2 0 372 

7 

4.2.4-1004 
samples was delayed fOL several weeks due to laboratory equipment 

failure. At that time remeasurement of tank pressures suggested some 

leakage had occurred. Analysis confirmed the presence of oxygen and 

also suggested hyd ragen had been lost. ;',.ccordingly, thesE:: resul ts are 

considered suspect and are not reported herein. 

Noncondensible Gas Flow Rates 

Based on the initial post-sampling pressure measurements at' the 

tanks and the sampling times, flow rates for each sample in runs V ':lnd 

VI were calculated. ;"he average for the ten samples was 0.890 l/min 

with a 0 of 0.218. The limiting orifices had initially been c;llibrated 

with air at 1. II/min. This value was corrected for molecula~._\,~~~~I2E..

and temperature, according to: 

where Actual flow rate. l/min 

.' r.. Calibration flow rate (air at 1.1 l/min) 

Molecular weight of actual gas 

~oleculaL weight of calibration gas (air 29) 

Actual temperature oK 

Calibratiun temperature (293°K) 

By assuming that 50% of the ammonia was dissociated, the average molecular 

weight of the product gas was calculated to be 12. Substitution of this 

o value for H and the average sampling temperature of 27S K for T2' th~ 2 corrected sample gas flow rate was calculated to be 0.726 l/min. in 

reasonable agreement with the measured value (based on average postsampling pressure measurements). 

Fuel Consumption 

The EPU was not instrumented to determine fuel consumption rate. 

This value was approximated by determining the weight of fuel consumed 

during each set of runs and assuming a uniform fuel flO\-, Late over Lh~

total lapsed run time. Fuel consumption for the first CPU (Set A) wa~

4.1 Ib/min and for the second EPU (Set B) was 3.5 Ib/min. 

Determining Emissions and Emission Kates 

Since both the weights of condensibles and analyses of neJllCOllu(:nsible gases were unreliable, it is impossible to make ~o overall material 

balance. ~anipuln[ion of real data and theoretically expected values 

8 

.. '~./ . 4.2.4-1005 

·."i": .... '•.. 
".' . ( 

, was 

was 

n~Cl!SSary

employed. 

to :.i rr ive at erniss ion figures. The (allowing procedurE: 

First, the theoretical ratio of ammonia to noncondensible gas 

formed (mg!liter) was calculated using equation j (Table 1) and plottea 

against X, the fraction of ammonia dissociated (Fig. 5). The noncondensible gas was assumed to consist only of hydrogen and nitrogen. 

-

OJ 3000 

d 

o.D 

::

-­

en 

« 

C) 

UJ 

CO 

en 

z 2000 

UJ 

C 

Z
 

0
 

U 

Z
 

0
 

Z
 

0
 

I­

«

-

z 1000 ­ cular 0 his :a:

e :a: 

« 

u..
 

0
 

Q 

..... 

« 

0: 

o ~d o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 ,e 

FRACTION AMMONIA DISSOCIATED 

rl~Ui"C 5.	 Theoretical ratio of ammonia to noncondensible gas 

(N + H') ;.lS a function of fraction ammonia dissociated. Z (Based on equation 3, Table 1: [1­

3 N H. -T	 4(l-X) NH] + oX H + (2X+l) 'N ) .t.:rial 2 2 Z


·s
 9 

4.2.4-1006 

-;". :r~<'>:':, .. :. 

:...~:r"

.,:~.;.: .. 

. ·~::~$~:;;:';,·~_t·· '.. .~

<~~;: .~~;.j~i;~·~r~,
~. ­

For each sample, the amount of ammonia trapped (mg) per liter of noncondensible gas sampled (0.726 l/min) was determined. These values were 

averaged for sample sets A and B, and the results are shown in Table 3. 

Using Figure 5, the corresponding value of X was determined as indicated 

, '.	 in Table 4. 

TABLE J. TOTAL HYDRAZINE AND AMMONIA IN EPU EXHAUST 

Hydrazine sampling time interval (g) Ammonia 

Run Average 

Set No. 0-30 s 30-60 s 60-120 s Total (l/min)a 

A I 22.55 1. 50 0.08 24.13 603 

II 2.38 1. 43 O. 11 3.92 604 

III 5.83 0.84 o 6.67 706 

B IV 8.00 0.44 0.37 8.81 376 

v L 37 o o 1. 37 515 

VI o o 0.56 0.56 475 ;, 

.. 

a

Measured at 21 0 C, 1 ATA 

TABLE 4.	 R..o\TIO OF A..'1MONIA TO' NONCONDENSIBLE GASES AND ESTIMATED 

FRACTION OF AMMONIA DISSOCIATED , . , 

Set mg NH 3

/1iter noncondensible X, (FractionNH dissociated) 3	 i I: 

i; r· A 274,0 44	 0.52 

:..i," : B 192,0 60	 0.62 

in .~.

., i r 

Once a value of X was determined, the theoretical flow rate of noncondensible gas could be detE'rmined from the fuel consumption rate cmd rp;letinn 'j 

of Table 1, as follows: 

fl' 

II,·.'. , 'I;" 

f' 'i II 

10 

4.2.4-1007 

,......, 

" .. .. 

.; 
1 Sample Set A: X 0.52 

j 

!

{ Fuel flow rate 4.1 lb/min (70% hydrazine) ­ Hydrazine flow rate = (4.1)(0.7)(454)/32 

40. 7 g-moles/min 

1 From Equation 3: 

f 

I Noncondensible gas ratio (3. 12 + 2. 04) 13 

\ 

t. 

1 

Lated) 

dent Ion '3
 

1.72 g-moles/g-mole hydrazine 

Noncondensible gas
 

flow rate ( 1. 72) (40. 7)
 

70.0 g-moles/min 

= 1596 I/min at 5°C 

Sam!>le ratio 1596/0.726 

21YB or 2200 

;'. :;imilar calculation for sample Set B gave a sample ratio of 2180. By 

1I1,':mS or these ratios, the hydrazine and arranonia found in the samples 

"<Ill J.d be extrapolated to the total gas stream, as indicated in Table 3. 

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 

The higher-than-expected exhaust gas t'emperatures experienced in 

:i,.' 1\ ~pt of runs led to speculation that the EPU was not operating 

Jlr''ill'rl.y. ',..Then the same temperature patterns were observed in the B 

;"'1; ,.:ielt .:I different EPU. it became more likely that the operation \,Jas 

III I :ld normal even if unexpected. The temperature and exhaus t compo­

., il I "ll <lata indicated only minor difference between the two EPU units. 

Th~ variability in the results was not altogether unexpected for a 

I 1.,lll l'Y-tractive sampling method. considering the adverse sampling 

!''';;lmd"l'rs.· Additional sampling by this method is considered unlikely 

I" I".'C ine the results to any great extent. If additional refinement is 

Ili.",j,·d. in situ optical methods should be explored. Laser Raman spectros­

,/,1'\' """,dd appear to be a promising technique, but our labor:atory is not 

"'1" 1 I Pl'e<! to do such work. 

11 

4.2.4-1008 

.... '0:.-•. 

..-";'-'.­

,'.. •" 4 : •••.,:";/.,;.;.... 
.....
 

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES 

The EPU exhaust gas presents potential exposure to both ammonia and 

hydrazine. By all realistic scenarios, there is little likelihood of 

multiple firings at anyone location and on a given day, except in test 

programs such as the one described in this report. For either planned 

or inadvertent outdoor ground firings, the duration would probably be of 

no more than 30 s. Under normal meteorological conditions, one might 

expect elevated concentrations of ammonia and hydrazine to persist for 

a matter of 3 to 5 min. For this condition, consideration of 8-hour 

time-weighted average (TWA) standards are inappropriate since relatively 

massive exposures during this short period of time--assuming no expOSUH: 

for the remainder of the day--would result in average exposure well 

below standards. For this reason short-term or excursion limits must he 

used to evaluate exposures. 

Table 5 shows appropriate standards currently applicable in the 

Air Force. Note that the last column of Table 5 shows odor threshold 

values, which for both materials, are higher than even the short-term 

limits. Hence, odor canno-t be used to give warning of overexposure. 

The ratio of ammonia to hydrazine short-term limits is approximately 

70:1, whereas the ratio of ammonia to hydrazine in the actual exhaust 

varied from 20:1 to 49:1 at 30-s duration. Hydrazine therefore appears 

to be the controlling material. This is unfortunate since ammonia can 

be measured in air easier than hydrazine, and at the higher ratio would 

be an indicator of potentially unsafe hydrazine concentrations. 

Concentrations of ammonia in the immediate vicinity of the exhaust, 

while not measured directly, were probably greater than 1000 ppm. 

Concentrations this high are so irritating to man that he will nt)t 

remain in the_ area of exposure unless he is physically restrained. 

Hence, massive worker exposures to ammonia are unlikely. Of concern, 

however. are those areas where the ammonia is present but cannot be 

detected by odor, or those areas where the ammonia is not in high enough 

concentration to cause great discomfort. Meteorological conditions are 

extremely important in determining the extent of these potential exposur~

zones. For unfavorable conditions, the exposure zone can extend to 

beyond 50-100 m downwind. 

TABLE 5. ~~ONIA AND HYDRAZINE EXPOSURE LIMITS 

Short-term or Odor 

Contaminant 8-h TWA excursion limit threshold 

Ammonia 25 ppm (18 mg/l) 35 ppm (27 mg/l) 50 ppm 

Hydrazine 0.1 ppm (0.13 mg/l) 0.3 ppm (0.39 mg/l) 3-4 ppm 

12 

4.2.4-1009 

er 

btl 

Iii 

._: l: 1 

"" (

ii,' l. 

l1ld \' 

. '." .. ". ' 
If the EPU were accidentally fired in a closed hangar, even of moderate size. the concentration of ammonia and/or hydrazine could quickly 

build up to unacceptable levels throughout the structure. In this case. 

high concentrations could persist for much more than 3 to 5 min, depending 

on the ventilation rate for the hangar. The experience to be gained in 

the climatic test at Eglin (April-May 1978), where the EPU exhaust will 

be ducte.d outside the hangar, ....ill be valuable indetennining if venting f 

is a permissible procedure for indoor firings. 

i

, 

RECOMMENDATIONS Ly I To arrive at realistic recommendations. we must consider both 

deliberate planned firings and inadvertent firings. Planned firings may 

be defined as routinely occurring events (tests) which requ~re planned 

actions to preclude excessive exposure. Inadvertent firings, by contrast, 

may be defined as accidents which reRuire general cognizance of their 

probability as well as preplanned actions both to prevent the accident 

and to minimize injury if the accident should occur. 

for routine, planned ground hot firings: 

ely 

l. Xinimize or eliminate requirements for such firings. 

s 

2.	 Do not conduct planned ground firings inside closed hangars 

unless ducting the exhaust gas outside the building is feasible od 

and effective. 

; . J.	 Develop outdoor siting/meteorological criteria to govern 

outdoor firings. 

I, •	 For area monitoring, use ammonia detection techniques as an 

indicator of hydrazine. With the hydrazine-ammonia ratios 

formed. a concentration of over to ppm (7.2 ug/l) ammonia 

ugh	 \.Iould indicate excessive hydrazine exposures. ~1SA (Hine 

Safety Appliance Co.) sampling tubes (FSN 6665-00-406-9450) re 

sure	 would be appropriate for ammonia detection. 

Use respiratory protective equipment for any tasks occurring 

immediately around the aircraft during firing and exclude all 

other personnel from the potential exposure zone . 

. ~. Fur inadvertent ground firings: 

1. J)~velop actions to reduce probability of inadvertent firings-­
 Ld
 s:lfety devices, checklists, etc. 

conduct training for those individuals potentially exposed, to
 

recognize sound of EPt:, odor of ammonia, need to a.void the'
 

m area, etc.
 

13 

4.2.4-1010 
"."., 

REFERENCES 

1.	 Reynold, B. A., and A. A. Thomas. Determination of hydrazine and 

monomethylhydrazine in blood serum. AMRL~TRD-64-24, Apr 1964. 

2.	 Standard Methods of Test for Ammonia. ASTM Designation: D1426-58 

(1965), Manual on Industrial Water and Industrial Waste Water, 2d 

ed. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pa., 

1966. 

", ,". 

-',::' ":.' . 

.: ".­

.­

14 

4.2.4-1011 

.. ';0• 

........,'"