Department of Defense Range Preservation Initiative
David E. Bell, Associate Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Army

Distribution, Transport and Fate of Energetic Materials on Ranges
Tom Jenkins, U.S. Army ERDC-CRREL, Hanover, NH
Alan D. Hewitt, U.S. Army ERDC-CRREL, Hanover, NH
Marianne E. Walsh, U.S. Army ERDC-CRREL, Hanover, NH
Sonia Thiboutot, Defence R&D–Canada, Val-Belair  QC, Canada
Guy Ampleman, Defence R&D–Canada, Val-Belair  QC, Canada
Thomas A. Ranney, Science and Tecnology Corporation, Hanover, NH
Judith C. Pennington, U.S. Army ERDC-EL, Vicksburg, MS

Successful In Situ Bioremediation of Perchlorate In Soil & Groundwater at Multiple Sites
Evan E. Cox, Geosyntec Consultants, Guelph, Ontario, Canada 
Robert Borch, GeoSyntec Consultants, Bellingham, WA
Scott Neville, Aerojet, Sacramento, CA 

Passive In Situ Remediation of Explosives in Groundwater
Richard L. Johnson, Oregon Health & Science University, Beaverton,OR
Paul J. Tratnyek, Oregon Health & Science University, Beaverton, OR 

Bioavailability of Heavy Metals
Ron Checkai, U.S. Army, CHPPM

Environmental Forensics in Soils
Herb Fredrickson, ERDC

Department of Defense Range Preservation Initiative

David E. Bell, Associated Deputy General Counsel, (Civil Works and Environment), Officer of the General Counsel, Department of the Army, 104 Army Pentagon, Washington, D.C.  20310-0104, Tel: 703-693-3021, Fax: 703-697-5553, Email: david.bell2@hqda.army.mil

Urban sprawl and attempts to apply certain environmental laws to military training venues and activities increasingly threaten to curtail the realistic military training activities that are essential to ensure that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines can survive on the battlefield.  Advances in technology and equipment have tested the boundaries of our installations to such a degree that training that once took place on a few hundred acres now requires hundreds of square miles.  The military no longer has the luxury of simply moving the training to another area of the installation when another imperiled plant or animal is identified or a neighbor complains.  In 2002, the Department of Defense proposed eight legislative initiatives designed to restore the balance between environmental stewardship and military readiness.  Congress adopted three of those proposals.  In 2003, the Department reproposed the remaining five legislative initiatives, two of which are currently under consideration by the National Defense Authorization Act Conference Committee.  The three remaining proposals deal with an extension to allow facilitate with certain Clean Air Act requirements and codification of current regulatory practices under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).  The RCRA and CERCLA provisions have been revised to address state regulator concerns and will be discussed in more detail. 

Distribution of Energetic Materials on Military Training Ranges 

Thomas. F. Jenkins, U.S. Army ERDC-CRREL, 72 Lyme Rd., Hanover, NH, 03755, Tel: 603-646-4385, Fax: 603-646-4785
Alan D. Hewitt, U.S. Army ERDC-CRREL, 72 Lyme Rd., Hanover, NH, 03755, Tel: 603-646-4388, Fax: 603-646-4785
Marianne E. Walsh, U.S. Army ERDC-CRREL, 72 Lyme Rd., Hanover, NH, 03755, Tel: 603-646-4666, Fax: 603-646-4785
Sonia Thiboutot, Defence R&D–Canada, 2459 Pie N.W., Val-Belair  QC G3J1X5, Canada
Guy Ampleman, Defence R&D–Canada, 2459 Pie N.W., Val-Belair  QC G3J1X5, Canada
Thomas A. Ranney, Science and Tecnology Corporation, 72 Lyme Rd., Hanover, NH, 03755, Tel: 603-646-4437, Fax: 603-646-4785
Judith C. Pennington, U.S. Army ERDC-EL, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd., Vicksburg, MS, 39180, Tel: 601-634-2802, Fax: 601-634-3410 

Studies have been conducted at 20 training ranges in the United States and Canada to determine the identities, concentrations, and distribution of energetic compounds in surface soils.  The types of ranges investigated include impact areas at hand grenade, antitank, artillery, mortar, air-ground, and bombing ranges.  Firing points have been studied at antitank, artillery, mortar, and tank firing ranges as well.  The compounds found are generally correlated with the energetic compounds present in the most frequently used munition at a given range.  At firing points, nitroglycerin and 2,4-dinitrotoluene are the compounds found most frequently and at highest concentrations.  At impact areas, TNT, RDX, and HMX are the major compounds deposited during detonations and together with several environmental transformation products of TNT, are the compounds found in greatest abundance.  The concentrations of these compounds vary tremendously for different types of ranges.  For example, concentrations of TNT and RDX are in the low ppb (or below) in surface soils at artillery range impact areas except near areas where partial detonations have occurred.  In these areas, concentrations in soil can be in the % level, but only in a small area near the ruptured rounds or underneath chunks of high explosive.  The distribution of residues of energetic compounds at ranges is extremely heterogeneous, differing by orders of magnitude over distances as small as a meter.  The collection of representative samples is difficult, but very important if good decisions are to be made regarding the need to take action on these sites.  Generally multi-increment composite sampling improves representativeness tremendously over discrete samples.  Proper subsampling is also a very critical component when these samples are submitted for analysis.  Taking a “scoop off the top” is not adequate and subsampling protocols must be selected to ensure that representativeness is not lost at this stage.  

Successful In Situ Bioremediation of Perchlorate In Soil & Groundwater at Multiple Sites

Evan E. Cox, Geosyntec Consultants, 160 Research Lane Suite 206, Guelph, Ontario, Canada,  N1G 5B2, Tel: 519-822-2230, Fax: 519-822-3151
Robert Borch, GeoSyntec Consultants, 1155 North State Street. Suite 624, Bellingham, WA 98225 Tel/Fax: 360-733-6164
Scott Neville, Aerojet, P.O. Box 13222, Sacramento, CA  95813-6000, Tel: 916-355-5500, Fax: 916-355-6145

In situ bioremediation is increasingly being used to treat perchlorate-impacted soils and groundwater. For example, in situ bioremediation has now been applied at field scale to treat perchlorate in groundwater at more than twenty sites, whereas bioremediation has been used to treat perchlorate-impacted soils at more than a dozen sites. Groundwater bioremediation demonstrations have routinely reduced perchlorate from starting concentrations ranging from of 250 to 500,000 ug/L to less than the practical quantitation limit (PQL) of 4 ug/L using a variety of electron donors and varying delivery configurations. Provided that electron donor addition is balanced versus the electron acceptor demand, perchlorate biodegradation can be accomplished without unduly impacting groundwater redox and quality, maintaining the groundwater as a valuable resource. Approaches that inject large batches of soluble or slow-release electron donors (e.g., molasses, edible oils, HRC) tend to deteriorate groundwater quality by producing significant methane and sulfide, and by mobilizing metals such as manganese and iron. Unfortunately, this makes these approaches unsuitable for most perchlorate sites. With respect to soil bioremediation, treatment of accessible soils has been accomplished via ex situ anaerobic composting or using composted manure overlays. Soil bioremediation has effectively reduced perchlorate from starting concentrations of 10 to 150 mg/kg to below the residential preliminary remedial goal (PRG) of 7.8 mg/kg, and demonstration results suggest that the soil bioremediation approaches should be capable of meeting the lower cleanup levels that may be required at some sites (based on site-specific cleanup levels) in order to prevent continuing soil impacts to groundwater in excess of the PQL of 4 ug/L. When combined, bioremediation of perchlorate-impacted soil and groundwater source areas may provide a beneficial means to reducing the duration and cost of remediation activities at many perchlorate-impacted sites.

Passive In Situ Remediation of Explosives in Groundwater

Richard L. Johnson, Oregon Health & Science University, 20000 NW Walker Road, Beaverton, OR  97006, Tel: 503-748-1193, Email: rjohnson@ebs.ogi.edu
Paul J. Tratnyek, Oregon Health & Science University, 20000 NW Walker Road, Beaverton, OR  97006, Tel: 503-748-1033, Email: tratnyek@ebs.ogi.edu

Explosives-contaminated groundwater is a widespread problem for the Department of Defense.  Currently, most explosives plumes remediated using groundwater extraction and sorption on activated carbon.  However, these plumes can be very long lived, especially if TNT is a contaminant of concern.  This makes explosives plumes ideal candidates for passive remediation.  Fortunately, TNT, RDX, HMX and other explosives are degraded very quickly by zero-valent iron (ZVI).  Laboratory and ex situ field columns demonstrate that degradation half-lives are on the order of minutes or less, and that this performance is maintained for thousands of pore volumes.  The use of ZVI is not without potential difficulties, however.  For example, those same laboratory and ex situ column studies show that groundwater containing dissolved oxygen can potentially reduce the hydraulic performance of a ZVI permeable reactive barrier (PRB).  Ex situ columns and a ZVI PRB project are currently underway at Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant (NE) to assess the performance of ZVI for passive remediation of explosives in groundwater.

Top