|
Environmental
Fate and Transport Modeling of Explosives and Propellants
in the Vadose Zone
Jay
L. Clausen, AMEC Earth & Environmental, Westford, MA
Diane
M. Curry, AMEC
Earth & Environmental, Westford, MA
Joseph Robb, AMEC
Earth & Environmental, Westford, MA
Bill
Gallagher, MAARNG, Camp Edwards, MA
Development
of a Field Analytical Platform for Energetic Residues in
Soil and Water
Ned
Tillman, Columbia Technologies, Inc., Baltimore, MD
Keith Henn, Tetra
Tech NUS, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA
Dr. William Lacourse, University of Maryland
Mike Maughon, Southern Division Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, North Charleston, SC
Sampling
for Explosives-Residues at Fort Greely, Alaska
Marianne
E. Walsh, US Army Engineer and Development Center,
Hanover, NH
Charles M. Collins, US Army Engineer and Development
Center, Hanover, NH
RangeSafe: Meeting the
Environmental Challenges of Small Arms Training Through
Innovative Technology Application
James
Frankovic, US Army ARDEC Armament Systems Process
Division, Picatinny Arsennal, NJ
Environmental
Fate and Transport Modeling of Explosives and Propellants
in the Vadose Zone
Jay
L. Clausen, Diane M. Curry,
and Joseph Robb, AMEC Earth &
Environmental, 239 Littleton Road, Suite 1B, Westford, MA
01886, Tel: 978-692-9090, Fax: 978-692-6633
Bill
Gallagher,
MAARNG, Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Office, PB
565/567 West Outer Road, Camp Edwards, MA 02542
Fate and Transport
modeling of explosives was conducted at the Massachusetts
Military Reservation.
The objectives of the unsaturated zone modeling
were to (1) determine the likelihood that explosives would
migrate to the water table and (2) determine the
appropriate soil action level for explosives that migrate
to the water table. Unsaturated
zone modeling was conducted using the Seasonal Soil
Compartment Model (SESOIL).
Model results indicate the mobility potential of
the explosives and propellants vary depending on the
chemical structure. A
key fate and transport variable is the dissolution of
explosive and propellant particulates which is not
accounted for in SESOIL.
Several approaches were identified to incorporate
these variables into the SESOIL model.
Development
of a Field Analytical Platform for Energetic Residues in
Soil and Water
Ned
Tillman,
Columbia Technologies, Inc., 1450 So Rolling Rd,
Baltimore, MD 21227,
Tel: 410-536-9911, Fax: 410-536-0222
Keith Henn,
Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Foster Plaza 7, 661 Andersen Drive,
Pittsburgh, PA 15220-2745,
Tel: 412-921-8146, Fax: 412-921-6550
Dr. William Lacourse,
University of Maryland
Mile Maughon,
Southern Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
(Code ES34), 2155 Eagle Drive, P.O. Box 190010, North
Charleston, SC 29419-9010, Tel: 843-820-5616, Fax:
843-820-7465
A
large amount of site characterization work has yet to be
performed at DOD military ranges, ammunition plants, and
depots throughout the United States and abroad.
The detection criteria and sampling and analytical
is a significant challenge and expense at these large
sites. Furthermore,
the technology and procedures currently available are not
able to perform chemical analysis at required detection
levels needed for appropriate decision-making in the
field. Thus,
there is a distinct need for a low-cost, rugged, and
accurate field analytical system that will produce
repeatable assay results for all energetic compounds and
their degradation products.
The availability of such a system would enable DOD
to create a consistent protocol for the rapid assessment
and inventory of such facilities contaminated with
energetic compounds.
The accepted fixed-base laboratory method for
analyzing explosives using a HPLC following the EPA Method
8330 has been enhanced by complementing the traditional UV
detection with electrochemistry.
The results yield 1 to 2 orders of magnitude lower
detection limits, better speciation and greater quality
control than current field methods. In addition, results indicate that this modified method which
can be used in the field generates comparable results to
fixed-base laboratory results.
This approach only requires a relatively small
sample volume totaling 1 to 3 grams (soil) or 1 to 3
milliliters (water) yielding a significant increase in
productivity. Thus,
rapid site assessment to determine the nature and extent
of the explosives in soil and groundwater can be performed
using conventional or innovative vertical profiling
methodologies. It
is anticipated that this procedure can be used to process
up to 40 samples per day of soil or water, collected using
either field sampling technique.
Such a system will yield more complete, real time
data, directly on-site if desired.
Marianne
E. Walsh,
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold
Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, 72 Lyme Rd.,
Hanover, NH, USA 03755-1290,
Tel:
603-646-4666, Email: marianne@crrel.usace.army.mil
Charles M. Collins, U.S. Army Engineer Research
and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory, 72 Lyme Rd., Hanover, NH, USA
03755-1290, Tel:
603-646-4666, Email: ccollins@crrel.usace.army.mil
Fort
Greely, Alaska has an extensive complex of weapon training
and testing areas. These areas are located on lands
withdrawn from the public domain under the Military
Lands Withdrawal Act (PL106-65). The
Army has pledged to implement a program to identify
possible munitions contamination. Because of the large
size (85,042 acres) of the training areas,
characterization of the contamination levels will be
difficult. We have begun a multi-phase sampling program
where we first sampled locations most likely to be
contaminated at one impact area to identify locations that
have the greatest potential to contaminate adjacent water.
We focused our sampling on surface soils and
collected multi-increment and discrete samples at
locations of known firing events and from areas on the
range that had cratering, pieces of munitions, or a
designation as a firing point.
Firing events included tests of 81-mm mortars, Tube-launched
Optically-tracked Wire-guided (TOW) missiles, 40-mm
high explosive cartridges, and Sense and Destroy Armor (SADARM). We detected explosives-residue in 48% of the 107 soil samples
we collected. RDX
was the most frequently detected explosive (39%).
Of the samples above the detection limit, median
RDX concentration was only 0.021 µg/g. Low order
detonations accounted for four of the five highest RDX
concentrations. TNT
was the second most frequently detected explosive (21%).
Median TNT concentration in samples where TNT was
detected was only 0.004 µg/g.
Low-order detonations produced the highest TNT
concentration we found. The amino-dinitrotoluene
transformation products of TNT were detected in about 10%
of the samples. HMX
was found in 11% of the samples. The analytes 2,4-DNT and
NG were detected at a firing point. High
explosive projectiles that function properly appear to
leave little residue in the surface soil. Low order
detonations, where only part of the high explosive filler
detonated leaving solid explosive composition in contact
with surface soil, produced the highest soil
concentrations. Firing
points are sources of NG and 2,4-DNT. The greatest threat
of contamination of ground water would be high numbers of
low-order detonations or heavily-used firing points
located in ground water recharge areas.
RangeSafe:
Meeting the Environmental Challenges of Small Arms
Training Through Innovative Technology Application
Michael
F. Warminsky, P.E., AMEC Earth &
Environmental, 285 Davidson Ave., Suite 100, Somerset, NJ
08873, Tel: 732-302-9500,
Email: mike.warminsky@amec.com
Mr.
James Frankovic, RangeSafe Program Manager, US
Army ARDEC Armament Systems Process Division, Building
321, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey 07876-5000, Tel
973-724-4494, E-mail:
jfrank@pica.army.mil
Small
arms training is essential to maintaining DoD readiness.
However, traditional small arms projectiles are
predominantly a lead/antimony alloy with a copper jacket.
When subjected to bullet-to-bullet impacts or a
harsh environment, migration of toxic heavy metals from
the range berm may occur.
Previous studies testing stabilization methods on
active berms without particulate metal removal were
ineffective, and in some cases, made the problem worse.1
Picatinny
Arsenal engineers are addressing these issues under a new
program called RangeSafe. RangeSafe was established by the Army to help commercialize
emerging environmental technologies targeting the
management, recovery and remediation of residual
contaminants generated throughout the life cycle of
armament systems. The
RangeSafe concept was initially developed as a companion
to the Green Bullet Program, which has successfully
developed lead-free small arms ammunition for subsequent
deployment.
The
RangeSafe approach involves physically removing the lead
from the soil prior to green bullet conversion.
To accomplish this, placer mining techniques are
employed in a soil washing process to remove the
particulate metals, which are subsequently recycled. If additional ionic metals removal is required after soil
washing, phytoremediation is used. The cleaned soil is
then returned to the range for Green Bullet usage. This
two step approach eliminates toxic metals from berm soils,
allowing for green bullet conversion without costly
disposal or the long-term liability of leaving the lead in
place.
References
1"Environmentally Redesigned Small Arms Range
Field Demonstration", Mark L. Hampton, Dr. Bonnie
Packer, Presented at the NDIA 25th
Environmental Symposium & Exhibition, March, 1999
Top
|
