Cleanup of chemical and explosive munitions : locating, identifying contaminants, and planning for environmental remediation of land and sea military ranges and ordnance dumpsites

Unexploded military ordnance and toxic chemicals, some dating back to the two World Wars, are a global concern, especially when former military bases are redeveloped for housing or other civilian uses. Internationally, there are the added challenges of cleanup of battlegrounds and minefields. Experts estimate that the United States alone could spend between $50–250 billion to clean up these sites, many of which are in areas of high population density, where the demand for land for development is high. This book is unique in providing detailed guidance for cleaning up military ordnance sites – listing explosives, chemical warfare materials and breakdown products which can contaminate soil and groundwater and the tests needed to detect them, as well as cleanup techniques. Also included are remote sensing techniques, geophysical techniques, safety issues, the particular challenges of chemical weapons, etc. The author illustrates these techniques with case studies, including former battlegrounds in Europe and Asia, storage and waste disposal sites in Russia and former Soviet territories, and an extended study of the remediation of the large and complex Spring Valley site in the District of Columbia,. The second edition has been fully revised and updated, and also includes new and expanded sections on: geophysical techniques for discovering buried ordnance underwater sites and remediation techniques use of robotics, including remotely operated vehicles compliance and regulatory issues guidance documents from US Department of Defense and other sources The focus on test procedures, environmental remediation techniques, and learning from past case studies, makes Albright’s book the most comprehensive and practical guide on the market for a topic of international importance. The only book available with clear and complete guidance for the cleanup of military ordnance sites and battlefields. The author illustrates his recommendations with real world cases including Spring Valley, DC, former battlegrounds in Europe and Asia, and storage and waste disposal sites in Russia and other former Soviet states. An essential reference for the test and environmental remediation procedures required to put former military sites back in to civilian use (e.g. housing). 30% revision, with key updates concerning regulatory changes, US Dept of Defense guidance documents, use of robotic vehicles, underwater sites and discovery of buried ordnance.

CHAPTER 1

Cleaning Up Old Munitions Sites

1.1 A Primer on the Science and Concepts of Cleaning Up a Range Site

There are two types of warfare ordnance that we search for on a range site—chemical and high-explosive or conventional—and sometimes these are combined. Most chemical warfare material (CWM) exists in the form of a liquid that vaporizes at normal temperature. In the manufacture of poison gas and loading shells, the gas is refrigerated to a liquid, much like how alcohol vapor is cooled down to a liquid when making moonshine in a still. The liquid is then poured into drums, bottles, jugs, barrels, or shells. (One exception to the liquid CWM is chlorine or arsine, which, when filled into shells, exists as a compressed gas.)

When a chemical shell is fired and strikes the ground, a sensitive fuse—usually in the nose of the shell—detonates. The shock wave causes an explosive inside the shell to detonate. For a chemical weapon, this is a small "burster" charge in a pipe or tube in the middle of the shell, designed to just open the shell up or clamshell it. Open to the air and splashed about, the liquid agent then vaporizes, aided by the heat of the explosion. For a high-explosive shell, the explosive charge is the entire cavity of the shell or bomb, except for shrapnel balls that may line some shells.

When a fuse fails to detonate—as often happens with ordnance—the shell or bomb is called unexploded ordnance (UXO). The shell remains full of CWM until it rusts through, releasing the agent. If the UXO were a high-explosive round, the explosive becomes increasingly unstable with time and presents an explosive hazard that could be triggered by the vibrations of a lawn mower or being hit with a shovel. Even properly stored munitions can sometimes spontaneously detonate. Many magazines over the years have simply blown up one day. Such an incident happened in the early 1990s when a Navy magazine exploded in White Oak, MD, scattering shells about the neighborhood; which are still being found to this day.

Whether as single UXO or buried en masse in a pit, UXO is usually located by means of a metal detector or magnetometer, the latter only finding magnetic metals like iron and steel. The process is called a geophysical search and, when a signal is given off by the instrument, its cause is called an anomaly. However, metal detectors are problematic. Often they cannot tell a large deep object, like ordnance, from a small shallow object, like a flashlight battery. In a residential area, there are many pieces of construction debris, like piles of nails or pieces of pipe. On a range, there are plenty of fragments (frag) from shells that have detonated. Both debris and frag further confuse the geophysical search.

Other technology includes ground penetrating radar, microgravity, and shear wave. These can locate glass bottles and voids, which cannot be found with metal detectors. Ground penetrating radar is not suitable for heavy clay soils, like those found in Spring Valley in Washington, DC. Shear wave and microgravity are quite new.

Finally, sampling for breakdown products from CWM or explosives can also help find burial sites. Volatile compounds like acetone would be expected to evaporate after many years. When they are found, it provides some evidence of a continuing release, such as a bottle burial site.

Aerial photographs (covered in Chapter 7) can show test areas, disturbed ground caused by a burial, or impact craters showing an area that was shelled. Because most chemical agents kill vegetation, bare spots called ground scars, shown on aerial photographs taken over a period of years, may show CWM burial sites. Because nitrate explosives contain compounds also used in fertilizers, conversely lush areas (dark-toned on aerial photographs) may show sites with explosives present.

Historical documents can provide clues to where burials or contamination are likely. Most of the experiments at the American University Experiment Station (AUES) were recorded and often included a diagram. For example, if there were only two or three sets of circular trenches and if the experiment shows a circular trench, this narrows down the location where it occurred. If the experiment indicates that two shells did not fire, one can conclude that there may be a burial site for UXO near the trenches. Historical documents may suggest what contamination to include in a search.

1.2 A Historical Background of Old Munitions Sites

This section explains briefly why residents, stakeholders, and regulators must understand the historical background of a site. Examples of how and where to find and use historical information is covered in more detail in Chapter 13, and the Appendices.

In years past, land would sometimes be leased by the military for training and other purposes. This often happened during wartime or when the mood in Congress did not favor a large expenditure of money for the military to buy land. When these leases expired, the land reverted to the owner. Complicating the matter, the military sometimes used land that was not leased or accidentally extended their training operations to adjacent unleased land. After all, who knows exactly where you are in the woods at night. Now, the once-routine burial of munitions and UXO casually left on ranges and training courses is coming back to haunt the Department of Defense (DOD).

Not long ago, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states also saw ordnance as a military responsibility. Whereas the military has significant ordnance experience, that experience does not translate into environmental remediation experience. The military's ordnance experience does not include knowing the health effects of the contaminants that might remain in the soil or groundwater, what clearance efforts must be undertaken to be legally defensible, how to use aerial photographs to find burial sites, and other scientific techniques. Likewise, private remediation firms are not used to dealing with substances that are designed to kill. States, local governments, and the EPA can no longer abdicate their responsibility for the cleanup of military sites.

Because of this recognition, the federal government has sought to prevent such casual range transfers with a flurry of legislation and regulations. Indeed, for the past 15 years Congress has passed legislation aimed at giving state and local governments a say in military and federal environmental remediation.

In addition to historical information about the particular facility, it is important to study the history of the particular timeframe that the base was active. Sites that came and went with a particular war are the most difficult to deal with because their records may be lost or were poorly kept due to the pressure of getting troops trained quickly for overseas duty ("90 day wonders"). The site may never have made a map of where the range was located.

1.3 New Requirements for Old Munitions

This section reviews some of the legal drivers for munitions cleanup. The actual statutes and regulations are not included but should be read in detail by officials charged with the responsibility for the cleanup. As with most environmental cleanups, science and technology control the process. However, there may also be legal requirements, so the best scientists and engineers may fail if they do not pursue knowledge in other disciplines.

A new guidance document from EPA's Office of Solid Waste, OSWER Directive 9200.1-101, EPA Munitions Response Guidelines dated July 10, 2010 provides substantial guidance for the cleanup of military munitions. In addition, the Final Military Munitions Rule promulgated by the EPA (62 FR 6622, February 12, 1997), and the EPA and DOD's "Management Principles for Implementing Response Actions at Closed, Transferred, and Transferring (CTT) Ranges," help create a systematic approach to the UXO problem. In addition to these, the DOD has instituted much thought and discussion to the problem of UXO and ranges. The DOD is supporting the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC). The ITRC operates as a state-led committee of the Environmental Research Institute of the States, which also funds the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS). The ITRC has teams that produce guidelines dealing with small arms ranges, UXO, and perchlorate. (The author serves on these teams.) The ITRC also deals with non-military contaminants of concern, such as methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE).

1.3.1 Final Military Munitions Rule

The EPA's Final Military Munitions Rule (62 FR 6622; February 12, 1997) essentially classifies UXO as solid waste once it is disposed of or is no longer intended for its original purpose. Conceivably, everything from war souvenirs to duds previously disposed of are now classified as solid waste and therefore regulated.

The importance is not so much in what form the munitions must be in to qualify as solid or hazardous waste, but rather that states as well as the EPA now have more authority over munitions under their Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, also known as "Superfund") of 1980 statutes. Many states have adopted variations of the Munitions Rule. Whereas the Munitions Rule inexplicably excludes duds (UXO) on ranges, some states are savvy enough to vary from the EPA's version as it applies to ranges. The Munitions Rule also exempts past ordnance disposal sites such as burials and underwater dumps. Again, smart states are adding these areas (where appropriate) to their own versions of the Munitions Rule.

1.3.2 Management Principles for Implementing Response Actions at Closed, Transferring, and Transferred (CTT) Ranges

On March 7, 2000, the EPA and the DOD signed an agreement pending promulgation of the Range Rule. This agreement begins with "State and Tribal Participation." Obviously, this recognizes the growing tendency for state and local governments to become involved in what was formerly a "military problem." The agreement states, "In many cases, a State or Indian Tribe will be the lead regulator at a CTT range." Clearly, the EPA and the DOD anticipate the propriety of an increasing role for state and local governments.

1.3.3 The Nonexistent Range Rule

Though now hopelessly withdrawn, the Range Rule still had some good ideas that could be copied for range cleanups. The Range Rule stressed the need to examine the entire range after a range assessment/accelerated response (RA/AR) is completed. The Range Rule stated,

Range Evaluations (REs) are detailed investigations of the military munitions employed on the military range, the other Constituents believed or known to be present, and the environmental setting ... This information collection often is a complex, long-term effort (e.g., groundwater monitoring) that demands careful planning before its execution.

This phase includes evaluation of site safety, and potential human health and ecological impacts. RE examples include, but are not limited to: (1) Military ranges where chemical munitions were employed and where the RA/AR process shows a potential exposure from a chemical agent release. (2) Military ranges where land use or the degree of public access is incompatible with the condition of the range following the RA/AR process. (3) Military ranges with a reasonable potential for contamination of surface water or groundwater that is in excess of applicable standards and which is a potential source of drinking water.
(Continues...) Excerpted from Cleanup of Chemical and Explosive Munitions by Richard D. Albright. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc.. Excerpted by permission of Elsevier.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site. Cleanup of Chemical and Explosive Munitions, (2011) i-iii. doi:10.1016/B978-1-4377-3477-5.X0001-3