Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Gitting rid of Cl2

Gitting rid of Cl2

SsgtHAZMAT - 8-3-2007 at 21:29

I have a lot of Cl2 in industrial cylinders that I have to get rid of. I am letting it escape by running it through a hose, into a barrel of water and percolate up into the atmosphere.

After a few hours the water turned so green it was dark blue to black.

Question, how long should I wait before I start getting rid of the water?

Sauron - 8-3-2007 at 22:02

I don't know what you have there, you probably made chlorine water Cl2.6H20 and that probably reacted with the container walls and made whatever your blue-black mung is.

If I were you, I'd run the Cl2 into a cold (iced) soln of NaOH and thereby make NaOCl soln (bleach). If you don't keep it cold you will make sodium chlorate instead.

guy - 8-3-2007 at 22:48

Why are you wasting precious chlorine??

Sauron - 8-3-2007 at 22:58

My guess it that the tanks are no longer safe and can' be shipped. I don't know why he can't transfer the Cl2 into new cylinders (with a refilling station) but releasing the Cl2 to the atmosphere is not only a bad idea, it is probably highly illegal.

However so called HAZMAT disposal outfits do shady shit like this all the time...

evil_lurker - 9-3-2007 at 03:42

Where in the world are you located at?

If within a days drive I'll gladly come get some and take it off your hands!

Anyhoos, you should do as Sauron says and add sodium hydroxide, or lye, to the water which will form the hypochlorite, aka bleach.

Actually if you added it to HOT water, you would form the chlorate which ain't in itself a bad molecule... sodium chlorate makes a good weed killer and you can sell it on the internet, pehaps to some of those pyro follks.

sparkgap - 9-3-2007 at 03:52

Hey, is that you Sarge? Still in the desert? Did you not ask a while back on <a href="http://sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=3780">how to dispose of hypochlorite</a>?

Yeah, turn the chlorine into hypochlorite with lye, then have a go about it with oxalic acid, I guess.

sparky (~_~)

Maya - 9-3-2007 at 04:56

geez........ they hiring hazmat guys nowadays that don't know basic chemistry?

pls bubble it into naoh as all seeing one eye guy says

but the best would be CaOH since that'll solidify instead of eventually releasing the Cl gas again when the NaOCl decomposes

[Edited on 9-3-2007 by Maya]

BromicAcid - 9-3-2007 at 05:03

SET is a good environmental company for cylinder disposal.

http://www.setenv.com/

I posed a similar question for how to dispose of chlorine in this thread:

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=1264

Maya - 9-3-2007 at 05:07

I'm guessing he's in Iraq somewhere needing to get rid of a lot of WMD precursurs

YT2095 - 9-3-2007 at 05:24

Sodium Thiosulfate is another way to destroy it, perhaps another hazmat station has an excess of this they don`t want?

Elawr - 9-3-2007 at 06:30

Do you know anyone who owns a swimming pool? That would be a good way to dispose of your chlorine - use it to chlorinate the pool water.

Maya - 9-3-2007 at 07:37

or go to the local water sanitation department, they would love to use the Cl to clorinate, sanitize their water supply

Sauron - 9-3-2007 at 11:09

@Maya, excellent suggestion to use Ca(OH)2 to get the Cl2 into solid form as bleaching powder. However, if this fellow IS in the sandbox (middle east, slang used by expats who work there and hate it) then that would make great sense since bleaching powder = military DC decontamination agent, which is standard stuff for decontaminating mustard, many OP agents etc.

However, doing anything as logical as this would go so completely against the illogic of the military that the shockwaves of sanity would cause chaos all the way back to the five sided cookie factory in Arlington. Grown men would swoon. Women would belch. Dogs and cats would lie down together, Arabs and Jews would kiss and make up. Defense contractors would go begging, their kids would go shoeless, their wives would have to sell pencils on the street around Dupont Circle. In short, it would be the end of civilisation as we know it.

Rosco Bodine - 9-3-2007 at 13:40

Any Cl2 salvagable could simply be diverted to water treatment .

Cyanuric acid , pool chlorine stabilizer could possibly
soak up the chlorine , forming TCCA ....or perhaps
a sodium dichloro derivative is another way of salvaging the chlorine in a safely storable form , which can be used
as disinfectants , or for water treatment .

For the rest :

Convert the Cl2 to hypochlorite and then use urea in the
reaction scheme which is optimized for hypochlorite
decomposition under conditions where hydrazine is
not the intended result .

There are patented decontamination processes describing this method ....
and I know I mentioned this in the hydrazine thread
when trying to explain about the narrow window of
reaction conditions required for producing hydrazine ....
and how even a slight variation away from that window
would simply decompose the reactants with no hydrazine
produced .

[Edited on 9-3-2007 by Rosco Bodine]

SsgtHAZMAT - 11-3-2007 at 03:12

Quote:

Originally posted by sparkgap
Hey, is that you Sarge? Still in the desert? Did you not ask a while back on <a href="http://sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=3780">how to dispose of hypochlorite</a>?

Yeah, turn the chlorine into hypochlorite with lye, then have a go about it with oxalic acid, I guess.

sparky (~_~)

Bingo

Yes it was I that was getting rid of the other cl back a couple of years ago.

And all good answers, and I do know a lot of chemistry, but the problem is that I cant move it and have almost none of the other items that have been listed as ways to help out. Hell, it is stunning that I have the web as much as I do off the satellite!

So I am pretty limited in what I have that I could mix it with. Also to mix it I would be running my torch tubes into a 55gal barrel with limited.

SsgtHAZMAT - 11-3-2007 at 03:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron
I don't know what you have there, you probably made chlorine water Cl2.6H20 and that probably reacted with the container walls and made whatever your blue-black mung is.

If I were you, I'd run the Cl2 into a cold (iced) soln of NaOH and thereby make NaOCl soln (bleach). If you don't keep it cold you will make sodium chlorate instead.

Ok I may have some NaOH but I dotn think I have enough. Also Ice is in low supply, but this method may be useful.

Thanks! I have to go check.

Sauron - 11-3-2007 at 06:03

Sarge, are you (ahem) in a non CONUS location?

No need to be specific.

Can you tell us how many cubic feet or meters of Cl2 you have to dispose of? If so we can tell you how much calcium hydroxide or NaOH and water would be needed. If water is scarce then we will have to think of other options.

Can you dig a pit and wrap the cylinders in primacord and cut them open (remotely) underground? You'd need earth movers and manpower and EOD guys or engineers.

Can you get some airlift, tape TH3 grenades to each clinder and drop them on Iran? (Just kidding.)

I had assumed you were somewhere out passed Barstow and dealing with a few old cylinders, but if this is more serious than that then we must be creative.

Sauron
"De Opresso Liber"

SsgtHAZMAT - 11-3-2007 at 06:24

Lets say I am in the desert. (I wish I was in Ca!!!)

I have roughly about 9 tanks. There is no way to know how much is in the tanks as they do not have marking that anyone would trust, and we do not have a reliable pressure gage. Lets just say they are the same sized as a shop O2 tank for a torch cutting kit. Like what you would find in your local auto fix-it shop.

Sauron - 11-3-2007 at 06:40

All right, 9 standard cylinders so if we assume, arguendo, that they are all full to normal pressure for a Cl2 tank then we can get a reliable maximum quantity of Cl2, in Kg therefore moles and start writing some stoichiometry from there. You may have less in fact but not more. Nine cylinders is manageable. Could be worse. Could be ISO tankers, eh?

Let me check around and I'll come back with a number for you pronto.

Oh, if you knew average tare weight of those tanks empty you could weigh them and tell how much Cl2 is in there, if you had a cylinder scale that is. Never mind. This way will be as we used to say - close enough for govt work.

----------------------------

That didn't take long. A standard cylinder is designed to hold a maximum of 150 lbs of liquid Cl2 which will occupy not more than 89% of cylinder volume @ 72 C.

I am attaching my source document which pertains to hazard of overfilling such cylinders for use with chlorinators (chlorine injectors) for water treatment.

So if you assume your tanks are full but not overfilled then you have a maximum of 1350 lbs Cl2 to deal with. Probably less. Some cylinders are still in circulation that are designed for only 100 lbs liquid CO2 but we can't assume these are such.

Say 614 Kg. Atomic weight 35.4527 so mol wt 70.954

You have max. 8648 mols Cl2 to react.

Ca(OH)2 + 2 Cl2 -> Ca(OCl)2 + 2 HCl and I think only about 50% of the calcium hydroxide will go to hypochlorite, the rest racts with the HCl formed to give CaCl2. So if this is correct then you need equal number of mols Ca(OH)2 to your Cl2 or 8648 mols slaked lime (which I believe is normally used for mixing cement or concrete.)

1 mol calcium hydroxide (slaked lime) = 74.09 g

you need 641 Kg slaked lime.

You will end up with beaucoup bleaching powder equivalent to US military DC decontaminating powder which someone might actually have a use for somewhere in...the desert.

Now, I would guess that the reaction between Ca(OH)2 and Cl2 needs to be done in a slurry with water. Let me look into that for you.

-----------------------

Looks like the calcium hydroxide need only be moist. Which is in your favor where you are.

I will dig further in Kirk Othmer and Ullman's for details. In the lab it is possible to make 90% Ca(OCL)2 but the commercial proct is typically 50%+ so to be conservative, let's stick to that figure.

Anyone want to help by double checking my calculations?
-------------------

A correction: the reference to Cl2.6H2O should be read as chlorine water, which is just a saturated solution and concentration is temperature dependent. Cl2.6H2O is chlorine hydrate, s solic stable below 10 C and above that decoposing into Cl2 and chlorine water. Of no practical import in the desert!

[Edited on 12-3-2007 by Sauron]

Attachment: 5009-OverfilledCylinders[1].pdf (191kB)
This file has been downloaded 607 times

halogen - 11-3-2007 at 10:08

All that chlorine gas just WASTED ?! I want some!

And where does one procure such a quantity of WAR GAS?

"Actually if you added it to HOT water, you would form the chlorate which ain't in itself a bad molecule... sodium chlorate makes a good weed killer and you can sell it on the internet, pehaps to some of those pyro folks."
This would be preferable to just getting rid of it altogether.

Sauron - 11-3-2007 at 10:49

Ahem. You don't get out much. huh? About 10 days ago someone parked a tanker of chlorine in a small town in Iraq and detonated a bomb, the resulting green cloud killed about a dozen people.

So you want to know why maybe some surplus cylinders that might in fact be aging and unsafe ought to be destroyed?

There's no shortage of Cl2 in the world, we won't run out anytime soon.

Also to characterize Cl2 as a war gas is inaccurate. Every municipality in the world uses it in abundance for water treatment; it has a multitude of industrial uses and its laboratory utility is the very reason why you want some. As a military chemical it was obsolete after WW I. It's an industrial chemical and an important one.

----------------------------

Ullmann's was no help. They did not describe manufacture of calcium hypochlorite at all, and gave a somewhat misleading equation for its formation:

Ca(OH)2 + Cl2 -> CaOCl2 + H2O

which is the old double salt fallacy.

What happens is

Ca(OH)2 + 2 Cl2 -> Ca(OCl)2 + 2 HCl
Ca(OH)2 + 2 HCl -> CaCl2 + 2 H2O

There is no Ca(Cl)OCl double salt.

The bleaching powder also contains a little calcium carbonate and calcium perchlorate.

The two equations can be combined as

2 Ca(OH)2 + 2 Cl2 -> Ca(OCl)2 + CaCl2 + 2 H2O

which is what I used above except I omitted the water out. As the object was to figure how much slaked lime was needed, rather than to get a perfect overall mass balance, I didn't think it was important at the time.

Twospoons - 11-3-2007 at 16:49

The other way to get rid of it would be conversion to ferric chloride (FeCl3). This is another common industrial disposal method. The process involves a tank full of ferrous chloride (FeCl2) soln, and scrap steel. Bubbling in chlorine converts ferrous to ferric, which then eats away more steel, producing ferrous chloride again .. ad infinitum. Ferric choride can be dried and sold to the PCB industry.

It may be sufficient just to throw some steel into your chlorine water to generate the ferrous chloride in the first place - don't really know for sure.

leu - 11-3-2007 at 18:07

These chlorination processes are all very old technology, and the best descriptions are usually to be found in old chemical literature as opposed to current sources

The attached file from Thorpes Dictionary of Applied Chemistry from 1921 gives many practical details about what's needed, a pallet of bags of caustic soda would be the best solution

These files can be viewed by a freeware program:

http://www.irfanview.com

Attachment: thorpes-hypochloriteprep.zip (586kB)
This file has been downloaded 448 times

Sauron - 11-3-2007 at 22:01

I'm getting a headache trying to read that scan.

Anyway @Sarge is not going into the bleaching powder business, he is just trying to bind the contents of nine old cylinders into a manageable form. He and his principals will decide whether solid or liquid product is preferably. We can't make that decision. @Maya suggested solid Ca(OCl)2 is preferably to NaOCl soln and I see the logic of that.

Industrial efficiencies are not required. @Sarge needs to figure how many containers (say 55 gallon drums) will hold 1/9 of the total slaked lime I calculated. Then these need to be connected in series like drying towers, with an inlet at one end and an outlet at the other. Then connect the first to chlorine cylinder #1 and pass in Cl2 at such a rate that almost no Cl2 exits the last drum. Continue till cylinder is empty. Repeat eight more times, and he's done. I would think plastic (HDPE) Mauser style drums would work well, they are cheap and lighter than SS drums. Mild steel drums would corrode.

The calcium hydroxide should be wetted but not slurried, and the reaction conducted at ambient or slightly higher (not a problem to arrange in the desert!). I'd do all this in the open under a canopy and I'd close the final vent with a bubbler scrubber of saturated NaOH soln to monitor effluent Cl2 for purposes of establishing appropriate rate of release from the cylinder. Other than getting that established, watching to see if the soln in the scrubber turns yellow-green, and waiting for the cylinder to empty, it's time to kick back and relax.

Once the cylinders are all emptied, the drums can be sealed off and disposed of in whatever matter @Sarge and his employers/commanders deem appropriate. The exhausted cylinders should be perforated by thermite or thermate grenades or other convenient means to render them unserviceable. Then they are scrap.

SsgtHAZMAT - 11-3-2007 at 23:03

All good info. We are looking into the metal method described above. Mostly because I have more scrap metal here than you can shake a stick at!

I also have a whole collection of various drums, plastic and otherwise.

Now it is off to order chemicals.

On a lighter side, we were planning to use the once empty tanks as well, targets for tanks!

Wish I could give you some photos.... maybe later in the year.

Now it is off to try to req some chemicals. I can see it now from supply, "You want what? WTF is that?"

Sauron - 12-3-2007 at 02:50

I think the metal method will only work at a reasonable rate with elemental iron (or steel) if the metal is finely divided, like powder, lathe chips, etc. Purely a function of reactive surface area. If you use larger chunks then peace will break out before the Cl2 goes away...and imagine how long that wll be.

12AX7 - 12-3-2007 at 03:06

Lots of stirring will help. And burning metal is always good for some heat, which will speed it up a bit, too.

Chlorinating FeCl2 to FeCl3 may not be a very effective way, I don't know (a fine bubbler will be of help), but I can see iron corroding quite quickly. For that matter, moist iron shavings would work well. Or if you want to get sciencey about it, direct synthesis of FeCl3 anhydrous, but that's probably beyond the scope of things here.

Tim

Sauron - 12-3-2007 at 03:33

This is a field expedient situation, no whistles, no bells, no dogs, no ponies, bare-bones quick & dirty. In fact if it was any more primitive they'd have to pass it off to the Marines.

Twospoons - 12-3-2007 at 14:08

Doesn't seem to me like the rate should be that much of an issue - just turn the valves down a bit ! Its not like this is coming off an industrial stream, needing X kgs an hour to be disposed of.

I'd guessed there might be a lot of scrap iron available - thats why I suggested this process

Sauron - 12-3-2007 at 14:34

I doubt that @Sarge wants to make a career out of this, so the rate is a bit of an issue I'd guess. Consider: there's up to 150 lbs Cl2 in each of those (nine) tanks. If it takes say 1 hour to react 1 lb Cl2 then that's 150 hours per tank or 1350 hours total. I doubt that your scheme will handle 1 lb Cl2 per hour, and it requires labor and energy to turn scrap metal into a high surface area form. If Cl2 reacted that well with steel it would east through those tanks it is in in a New York minute, and obviously - it does not.

The organization @Sarge belongs to (putatively) has been known to move units around from time to time, especially armor units, and so @Sarge probably needs to get this done and do something else asap. So I would think that a method that can handle multiple lbs. of Cl2 per hour at lowest possible cost would be preferable.

But I'm sure he appreciates your suggestion, and he did say they are evaluating it.

Twospoons - 12-3-2007 at 14:59

The Cl2 does not react directly with the steel. It is used to oxidise Fe2+ to Fe3+, and the Fe3+ reacts with the steel, creating more Fe2+. If there's no water in the Cl tanks (which there shouldn't be) then nothing will happen.

Sauron - 12-3-2007 at 15:44

All right, then ask yourself the following:

1. How much water is required for solutions of appropriate concentration to handle 1350 lbs Cl2 in a reasonable amount of time?

2. Is such an amount of water available in the desert?

I do realize that this is self regenerating reaction but there is going to be a little evaporation problem in the desert with the requisite solvent (water) don't you think?

The Ca(OH)2 to bleaching powder process uses almost no water, unlike your proposal or (AFAIK) NaOH. I think NaOH even in the unavailable water solution will require a lot of cooling in order to not produce sodium chlorate rather than hypochlorite as main product and I do not think they need to be manufacturing more material for improvised explosives where they are. Nor is there any great demand for weed killer in the DESERT.

Logistics and logic argue for a nearly dry process. Water is scarce and cooling absurd in the desert.

Personally I'd dig a pit, lay down some ribbon charges, pile sand on top till there was an artidicial dune sufficient to contain, and destroy. Chlorine would seep out but slowly and dissipate and in the middle of nowhere who cares? But, that's just me.

Twospoons - 12-3-2007 at 18:53

SsgtHAZMAT has to drink something. He's probably got water trucks arriving every day ( though beer trucks would be preferrable). He's already got a barrel full with CL2 bubbling into it ( water, not beer).

Sauron - 12-3-2007 at 19:41

Oh I'm sure they have water to drink and even to take an occasional shower with, that does not mean that they have so much that they can squander it needlessly when dry or nearly dry alternatives are at hand.

Never been involved in military logistics, have you? One of my friends heped write desert warfare doctrine for the U.S.Infantry Center in the 1980s, Col.Jack Sullivan. I have a pretty good idea what Jack would think about this. No desk soldier, Jack, he was a combat commander in WWII in the 442nd, the Nisei, "Go for Broke", most decorated unit in the ETO.

SsgtHAZMAT - 12-3-2007 at 21:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron
This is a field expedient situation, no whistles, no bells, no dogs, no ponies, bare-bones quick & dirty. In fact if it was any more primitive they'd have to pass it off to the Marines.

Water, we have some but not huge amounts. Showers, every now and then. My personal recod is 24 days or so with out one.

Oh and check this out... we are Marines!!!

Keep the ideas comming guys!! This is good stuff and we are looking at everything you are saying.

[Edited on 13-3-2007 by SsgtHAZMAT]

leu - 12-3-2007 at 22:03

In difficult circumstances such as Anbar, ideas can be helpful; but what's really needed are facts such as:

The solubility of chlorine at 0 ° C is 1.46 grams in 100 ml of water, 1.25 grams at 3 ° C, 1.08 grams at 6 ° C, .96 grams at 9 ° C, .94 grams at 9.4 ° C, .98 grams at 10 ° C, .918 grams at 12 ° C, .836 grams at 15 ° C, .716 grams at 20 ° C, .641 grams at 25 ° C, .572 grams at 30 ° C, .459 grams at 40 ° C, .393 grams at 50 ° C, .329 grams at 60 ° C, .279 at 70 °C, .223 grams at 80 °C and .127 grams at 90 ° C .

Contrast the relatively complicated equipment needed to create bleaching powder versus that needed to produce bleach from caustic soda; a polyethylene barrel with some water in it

Bleach can be up to 15% chlorine so the amount of water needed can be easily calculated

Another fact that is probably unknown to the Corps and seemingly to any other member of Science Madness is that sunlight tends to decompose aqueous chlorine, so the chlorine water must be kept in the shade

Sodium Carbonate, also known as washing soda can also be used to create bleach similarly to sodium hydroxide; but then there is going to be the issue of effervescing bleach from the carbon dioxide generated by the reaction

It may be easier to obtain washing soda as opposed to caustic soda under the circumstances, that's a decision that must be made by those in charge :cool:

Sauron - 12-3-2007 at 23:52

I did look at commercial bleaching powder processes and unless I missed something I saw essencially towers, columns, big pipes and usually more than one of them, containing slaked lime, and arranged to pass chlorine through the slaked lime, period. There was no heating. There were provisions for agitation. In my view the agitation was optional and served to hasten the process and improve the yield, but the yield was always held to 35% available chlorine although much higher % could be obtained in excess of 50%. We know from the lit. that in the lab 90% is possible.

Since the yield is largely immaterial here, being assumed to be 50% but anyway compensated for with more slaked lime if necessary, my suggestion of 55 gal drums modified to be such improvised expedient towers, sans agitation, and plumbed in series stands. The saturation point of the lime is easily observed in a bubble at the end. Just watch for color change.

If the Ca(OH)2 method is for whatever reason deemed undesirable, then I would tend to favor the iron chloride method because it will utilize far less water than the lye or washing soda method. Also the end product will he harmless rather than sodium chlorate - which those processes will produce sans cooling in desert conditions. I don't have to tell this forum what sodium chlorate is capable of and I doubt I need to remind the USMC in the sand about chlorates either.

The iron chloride method uses less water because it's a cyclic regenerative process. You need enough FeCl2 and water to get started and then you convert the FeCl3 made back into FeCl2 by adding iron/steel) and then you start over. Other than evaporative losses, the initial water is all that is needed. Those losses are topped up daily or as needed.

But I still say the Ca(OH)2 methos is worth a try. In fact I'd favor trying all three methods on a smaller scale and find out which one is best. I don't think any of us has ever done any of these on a lab scale except for the NaOH/Cl2 routine which we use to make hypochlorite solutions fresh. And when we do we use something even scarcer than shower water in the desert: ICE, because that is done near freezing.

My feeling is that the 2 FeCl3+ Fe -> 3 FeCl2 step will be the rate limiting one esp is the metal is not finely divided. That can be managed by having multiple barrels for that step for each barrel containing the Cl2 absorbing FeCl2 according to 4 FeCl2 + Cl2 -> 4 FeCl3.

That also tells us you need 4 mols FeCl2 for every mol Cl2 in the initial batch, purely a function of batch size. What I do not know is the optimum molarity of the solution required, maybe the member who dreamed this one up can work that out? Or anyone else? If not I'd look at the saturated solutions of FeCl2 and FeCl3 and try whichever is lower.

No offense was intended to the Corps, I was just being a wise ass. Members of my immediate family served in the Corps in Korea, two of them, fortunately both came in good shape and they are still alive today.

SsgtHAZMAT - 13-3-2007 at 01:39

None was taken!

Heck, you should see the equipment we have to use most times. We tend to get the Army and Navy "hand-me-downs."

12AX7 - 13-3-2007 at 01:49

I agree with the lime process- it's basic so should absorb Cl2 reasonably, and has plenty of surface area. It doesn't reduce the oxidizing power though, and my can of the material has a strong smell of chlorine when opened. It'll have to be disposed of somehow (sold or otherwise). In the case of FeCl3, the solution can be left out in the sun to dry, with some lime (ground limestone is okay) added to neutralize the inevitable acid fumes and turn it into harmless rust.

Tim

Sauron - 13-3-2007 at 02:11

OFF TOPIC!

Don't I know it. My friend the late Gene Stoner was a China Marine, finished WWII at Tsingtao way up north. Anyway in the 50s he designed a little thing called AR-15 that became M16 (you probably have heard of it) and this made him rich. Once Colt took over Gene went over to Cadilla Gage and designed a little thing called the Stoner 63 expressly for the USMC, he had a retired colonel on the payroll and the ear of the Commandant and he knew what the Corps wanted. This was a beautiful weapon system. Basically the bolt system of the AR-15/M16 but the gas system of the AK-47 so the best of both. Also Gene made it modular so that by changing parts -- without any toold required mind you - the rifle could be changed to a LMG (box fed), a LMG (belt fed), a MMG on tripod, a MMG for vehicle with solenoid, or a short barreled carbine with folding stock. This was in 1963 remember, a belt fed 5.56 was not in the Army's mind for another 20 years.

The USMC unsurprisingly loved it, tested it, wanted to adopt it and that's when the trouble started. The Army pitched a bitch and McNamara the SecDef said NO. So the Corps got the M16 that they didn't want and had to wait for the Army to reinvent the idea of a SAW for a couple decades. The Stoner 63 was adopted in belt fed role only, with a short fluted barrel by the Navy SEALs who used it with distinction until just after Desert Storm. It was a whole lot lighter than the M249 and a lot handier.

I had the idea of reviving the Stoner in 2003 for the Thai Army and I got together with Gene Stoner (retired then) and Reed Knight (maker of the SR-25 sniper rifle you guys are now using) and we modified a dozen original Stoners to use the M855 ammunition (fast twist barrels) and the belt feed to use FN's SAW links and a few other mods. The orig.Stoner bipod was crappy so we put on a M14E2 bipod, much better. Made an adapter to use the SAW belt box (though we did not much care for it.) We put these through the Thai small arms trials in rifle and SAW configurations and did quite well. In fact in accuracy trials off machine rest we beat the Colt M16A2 with out 1964 1 turn in 9 inch barrels which seriously ticked off Colt. Indeed we beat everyone else in that category except for the Swiss SIG.

However Colt prevailed politically till the Thai economy took a tumble in 97 and the budget went away. This was my swan song in the arms business after an ilustrious (and notirous) 25 year career. I left DC for Thailand shortly before Saddam invaded Kuwait so I sat on the bench for all the subsequent fun, drinkiong beer and letting Thai cuties have their way with me. Now I can no longer drink beer and Thai cuties mostly call me Papa (and mean GrandPa.)

End of Off Topic

SsgtHAZMAT - 14-3-2007 at 02:14

You should have spoken to my friend in Thailand, Al Eberhardt. If anyone can effect the Thais', it Al. He's lied there since the early 60's.

He frequents a great x-pat bar on Sukhumvit.

Sauron - 14-3-2007 at 03:28

I know Al well though I haven't run into him for a few years. His office is or was on Soi 31 Sukhumvit Rd. and he hangs out in the painter bars (Millionaire's Row) of Soi 33. Known to his many friends and admirers as Al NeverHard.

He would not know me as Sauron however. Anyway I rarely make the rounds of the Sukhumvit bars any more, preferring to sit in my comfy judge's chair in front of my monitor since I can't drink any more.

How in the world do you know Al?

Rosco Bodine - 14-3-2007 at 09:47

For information
related to the conditions for urea being used for the destruction of hypochlorite see US4508697 , US2784057 .

You could bypass the urea method entirely to keep things simple , just bubble your chlorine into alternate tanks of NaOH to produce sodium hypochlorite , and then decompose the sodium hypochlorite using sodium sulfite ......
all of the chlorine becomes NaCl ....and the byproduct
is sodium sulfate .

[Edited on 14-3-2007 by Rosco Bodine]

unionised - 14-3-2007 at 12:58

OK, I realise that this might not be remotely practical, but it's just an idea.
As has been pointed out, you do have water because there are people there who drink it; but you don't have lots.
The reaction of Cl2 with a base just gives you a different oxidising agent; what you really want is to reduce it to chloride. Fe wool would work nicely, if you had the odd ton of it and a big bucket of water to put it in.

When the people have finished with the water it is no longer fit for drinking or washing but it contains a significant quantity of a reducing reagent- the one Rosco just mentioned.

How many people would it take to generate enough urine to destroy this much chlorine in a reasonable time?

12AX7 - 14-3-2007 at 13:44

Geez, that'd take years! Isn't urine roughly 0.1% urea (or was it 1%)?

Tim

franklyn - 14-3-2007 at 17:16

The method used by E.O.D. for disposal of HCN , believe it or not , is to vent it
outdoors in a controlled manner at an isolated location sequestered just for this.
I do not specifically recall if chlorine is dealt with in the same manner since being
denser than air it would tend to hug the ground. A not too irresponsible method
would be to drop the tanks off a boat some miles from the coast , shooting a
hole in each just as it is released for submergence. Have any friends that are
SEAL's ?

.

Sauron - 14-3-2007 at 18:37

I think we can forget about urine, and I rather doubt that hypochlorite (Na or Ca) really needs to be destroyed. Recent events demonstrated that the bad guys in the sandbox can and have exploited tank chlorine as a weapon. Hypochlorite does not have the same potential. However if higher echelons decide that hypochlorite requires further treatment then the technology is described above.

@franklyn's suggestion is the most practical one, mirroring my own idea (described well above) of digging a pit, laying down the cylinders with cutting charges, filling in the pit and building a mound on top then detonating. Some Cl2 will seep out gradually, but so what if it is in the middle of nowhere?

Somewhat more easily, put the cylinders out at 1000 m, with the wind blowing away from your position and into unpopulated areas, and put a round of .50 M2 AP into the tanks one by one, pausing between tanks until the resulting "agent cloud" has dissipated. The danger zone will be well defined and it's just a matter of meeoorology. However, this might be politically unacceptable or at least involve decision-taking at a civilian level and host-government level that make it a non starter. The same applies to @franklyn's initiative.

Anyway @Sarge already said he can't ship these things, the inference being they are unsafe or at least of indeterminate safety at this point so I doubt that the USN would much care to have them on a warship even transiently.

SsgtHAZMAT - 14-3-2007 at 21:24

We thought about just dumping it in the ocean. And I liked the idea of making them float a little then taking the Barrett to them. But we don’t want to move them very far. You would not believe what they were trying to do, so we do not even want to give them the chance to re capture any of this stuff.

We find all kinds of things here, BTW, you should see the latest stuff we captured. I'll post about it later, with a different type of question.

Oh and you have to love the guys that write MSDS's. I have one here in my hand for some captured stuff that reads;

"Keep away from heat and flames as this would make a big mess. (But remember that above it said this stuff will not burn anyway.) Keep container closed unless you need some."

WTF???

Sauron - 14-3-2007 at 21:49

Ronnie Barrett (Murphiesboro, TN) is another old friend. About 25 years worth.

My patent licensee Arms Tech in AZ has a nice sound suppressor for that .50 rifle.

At least that MSDS author seems to have had a sense of humor although it does sound like he was drunk as a skunk when he wrote it.

See out thread about the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO, an insidious compound all pervasive in the environment. We are ciculating a petition to ban it.

Twospoons - 14-3-2007 at 22:14

Hey SsgtHAZMAT - you're not sitting on a source of brackish water, are you? IIRC a lot of sandy deserts do have water underground - just not drinkable water. If thats the case maybe you could drive a pipe deep underground and bleed in the Cl2.

Sauron - 14-3-2007 at 22:53

Probably need an environmental impact statement first. Also in that part of the workd, driving pipes in the ground often leads to flammable black stuff coming back at you with some force. OK I'm being facetious, but how is this proposal superior to, or more easily done than, release in a covered pit or staged release to the open air?

All such actions are risky, compared to binding the gas chemically in a less hazardous form. No one (except maybe the enemy) would want this to turn into a cause celebre that would give the US a black eye. Remember that we are dealing with something that once upon a time was a war gas and MUCH more recently has been perverted for that same purpose. Lethally, against civilians. (which makes the perps no better than Saddam, but we knew that already.) We don't need any snafus that give anyone an asinine "moral equivalence" argument. Maybe we don't need to turn it into NaCl but at least make it cease to be chlorine, then store it or bury it or something politically and militarily acceptable.

12AX7 - 15-3-2007 at 03:22

How about this, make the calcium hypochlorite, then dump in some scrap iron. Eventually the iron will corrode away, regardless of shape, and the hypochlorite will mostly cease to be. A completely hands-free way to dispose of the oxidation, while being relatively quick to remove the gas.

Tim

Maya - 15-3-2007 at 04:13

Doesn't sound like you have much choice about it, you gotta get rid of it and have minimal neutralizing chemicals + very little water = there is no choice but one if you want to get dispose of it in a practical manner.

take the tanks out where there is no one and just open the valves a bit enough to let it leak out over a few days

Sorry , but I don't see an alternative and Cl2 isn't that bad in tiny diluted quantities, your only environmentally non-time/ labor intensive way is Calcium hydroxide, and thats not an option.

Actually, you have no options I see but for setting the contents free............

Sauron - 15-3-2007 at 05:37

Did I miss something? I didn't see @Sarge rule out the Ca(OH)2 method or any of the others for that matter. He said something about requisitioning chemicals. Joked about the clerks at the supply depot having a fit.

Maya - 15-3-2007 at 05:53

He does need mass quantities of it,

I was just suggesting a quick painless way to get rid of the headache now

Sauron - 15-3-2007 at 06:01

I crunched the numbers and reported them above, he didn't appear to be intimidated by them.

tumadre - 24-3-2007 at 10:37

how about 1800 Kg of sugar and enough water to dissolve it all,

you can use vinegar as a catalyst for chlorination by CLO2
{CL2 might work with a stronger catalyst}

Sauron - 24-3-2007 at 17:08

Great handle.

alancj - 15-5-2007 at 23:59

How is the disposal going? I think we all would be interested in how you all are going about it.

My idea is probably a bit to late, but for what it's worth... I don't think it has been mentioned.
If you mix equal amounts (moles or volume, same thing) of carbon monoxide gas with your Cl gas and pass it over Calcium Oxide you should get anhydrous calcium chloride, which wouldn't pose a disposal problem anymore. So this would be completely water free.
CO could come from a horribly polluting engine (running rich?) or a normal engine's exhaust (mainly CO2) passed through a tube filled with glowing hot charcoal, generating CO.

If I'm not mistaken, CaO is the main component in Portland cement (not concrete, but just the cement powder). You probably could substitute CaO with other oxides, such as iron oxide.

-Alan

SsgtHAZMAT - 28-5-2007 at 20:38

No brackish water here amazingly enough.

I am currently mixing the Cl2 in a solution that includes Na2CO3. There is a white-ish precipitate forming on the bottom of one of my containers. Am I making salt? I thought about popping some corn and testing it out... but decided to ask you good gents instead!

Oh and get this, we are getting about 10 tons more Cl2 comming in. Yea.

[Edited on 29-5-2007 by SsgtHAZMAT]

not_important - 28-5-2007 at 20:52

Likely, as NaCl will have the lowest solubility of the more likely compounds, provided it's warm. Look close at a bit up up, salt will have cubic crystals. It's solubility doesn't change much with temperature while Na2CO3 does, another fairly simple test.

SsgtHAZMAT - 28-5-2007 at 22:06

Heat we have. Heck, the low yesterday was 102 deg F. During the day I suspect the solution containers reach 120 - 130 deg F.

alancj - 28-5-2007 at 23:52

How about crushed limestone? You may be able to source truckloads of that locally over there in sand-land. A column filled with CaCO3 gravel in water, with Cl entering from the bottom and optionally a slow current of water going counter current to the Cl flow. I think the reaction should look like this:

Cl2 + CaCO3 --> Ca(ClO)2 + CO2

I suppose a reducent would be necessary to get plain old CaCl if the hypochlorite is unacceptable.

Have you tried the Cl2 plus iron scrap in water yet? I think if you have 10 metric tonnes of chlorine, you would need about 16 tonnes of iron if it was all turned into ferric chloride. You said you have plenty of scrap around... hopefully you have a lot of oxy/acetyl to cut that much up into manageable pieces for reaction. The reaction might be too slow, however.

-Alan

[Edited on 28-5-2007 by alancj]

garage chemist - 29-5-2007 at 00:05

No, CaCO3 wont work, you need hydrated quicklime (Ca(OH)2).

If I had to dispose of a lot of chlorine, I would fill plastic pipes with powdered Ca(OH)2 and introduce the chlorine into it.
1kg hydrated quicklime absorbs 340g chlorine, so that an active chlorine content of 34% is reached.
You get simple bleaching powder CaCl(OCl)/Ca(OH)2. This can be stored without danger and for very long periods of time.
The advantage is that no water has to be present for the Ca(OH)2 to react with the chlorine- a dry powder reacts with the chlorine, to form another dry powder that is a useful product.

alancj - 29-5-2007 at 00:35

Quote:

Originally posted by garage chemist
No, CaCO3 wont work, you need hydrated quicklime (Ca(OH)2).

Then what is he doing with Na2CO3? I would think CaCO3 could be directly substituted.

garage chemist - 29-5-2007 at 01:18

Na2CO3 reacts basic, CaCO3 doesnt.
Also, dry Na2CO3 will not react with chlorine, it must be used as a solution. CaCO3 can obviously not be used like that.

SsgtHAZMAT - 29-5-2007 at 02:04

It is in solution of about 3lbs to 500lbs of H2O.

Does the Ca(OH)2 need to be in solution or just packed in cylinders?

garage chemist - 29-5-2007 at 02:07

I already explained it, no water is added!
The Ca(OH)2 is used in dry powder form in cylinders.

SsgtHAZMAT - 6-6-2007 at 21:57

Thanks!

Another item, the powers that be suggested that we pass the gas through a tube of charcoal, mostly from grill charcoal briquettes, I don't see how this would do anything. Your thoughts?

Maya - 6-6-2007 at 23:05

No. charcoal is pretty much inert

JohnWW - 7-6-2007 at 01:31

It may react with Cl2 to form CCl4.

SsgtHAZMAT - 7-6-2007 at 02:53

Wouldn't it have to be ground up and maybe in solution? I thought it had to be CS3 or Methane to get carbon to bind to CL3

I have never seen charcoal used in that way, but I don't run a lab either. And stuck here you guys are about my only reference!

[Edited on 7-6-2007 by SsgtHAZMAT]

alancj - 7-6-2007 at 03:42

The only thing you could use the charcoal for is to generate carbon monoxide, which could be mixed with your Cl in a 1:1 ratio, and passed over CaO to give CaCl2; as I mentioned in a previous post. Other oxides would probably work too. You're right; carbon doesn't react with Cl that easy. Maybe it was meant to absorb the Cl into activated carbon? I don't know about that... just guessing.

-Alan

unionised - 7-6-2007 at 09:40

I can only imagine that they meant to absorb it on activated charcoal. That doesn't really help a lot ( though chlorine on charcoal is less tempting as a terrorist target than cylinders).
The other problem is that barbecue charcoal isn't the same as activated charcoal.