DOCSLIB.ORG

Distribution and Fate of Energetics on Dod Test and Training Ranges Interim Report 4 Judith C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Distribution and Fate of Energetics on Dod Test and Training Ranges Interim Report 4 Judith C ERDC TR-04-4 Distribution and Fate of Energetics on DoD Test and Training Ranges Interim Report 4 Judith C. Pennington, Thomas F. Jenkins, Guy Ampleman, November 2004 Sonia Thiboutot, James Brannon, Jay Clausen, Alan D. Hewitt, Sylvie Brochu, Pascal Dubé, Jeff Lewis, Thomas Ranney, D. Faucher, Annie Gagnon, Jeffrey A. Stark, Patrick Brousseau, Cynthia B. Price, Dennis Lambert, André Marois, Melanie Bouchard, Marianne E. Walsh, Sally L. Yost, Nancy M. Perron, Richard Martel, Stéphanie Jean, Susan Taylor, Charolett A. Hayes, Jean-Marc Ballard, Michael R. Walsh, June E. Mirecki, S. Downe, Nicholas H. Collins, Beth Porter, and Richard Karn Engineer Research and Development Center Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Strategic Environmental Research and ERDC TR-04-4 Development Program November 2004 Distribution and Fate of Energetics on DoD Test and Training Ranges Interim Report 4 Judith C. Pennington, James Brannon, Sylvie Brochu, Pascal Dubé Cynthia B. Price, June E. Mirecki, BCR Polysyntech, Inc. Richard Karn 106 rue Panneton Environmental Laboratory L’Ancienne-Lorette, Quebec GZE 6E7 U.S. Army Engineer Research and Jay Clausen Development Center 3909 Halls Ferry Road AMEC Earth and Environmental Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 239 Littleton Road, Suite 1B Westford, MA 01886 Thomas F. Jenkins, Alan D. Hewitt, Jeffrey A. Stark, Dennis Lambert, Thomas A. Ranney Marianne E. Walsh, Nancy M. Perron, Science and Technology Corporation Susan Taylor, Michael R. Walsh, Hanover, NH 03755 Nicholas H. Collins Sally L. Yost, Charolett A. Hayes Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory Computer Sciences Corporation U.S. Army Engineer Research and 3530 Manor Drive, Suite 4 Development Center Vicksburg, MS 39180 72 Lyme Road S. Downe Hanover, NH 03755-1290 CFB Gagetown Guy Ampleman, Sonia Thiboutot, Jeff Lewis, New Brunswick D. Faucher, Annie Gagnon, Patrick Brousseau, André Marois, Melanie Bouchard, Beth Porter Stéphanie Jean Analytical Services, Inc. Defence Research and Development Canada 689 Discovery Drive – Valcartier Suite 300 2459 Pie XI Blvd. North Huntsville, AL 35806 Val-Bélair, Quebec G3J 1X5 Richard Martel, Jean-Marc Ballard Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique 880 Chemin Ste-Foy Bueau 840 CP 7500, St-Foy, ZC Ste-Foy, Quebec G1V 4C7 Interim report Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Washington, DC 20314-1000 ABSTRACT: The DoD has a mandate of environmental stewardship as well as military readiness. Therefore, the concern that training with live munitions potentially generates undesirable residual constituents is of interest. The objective of this study is to develop techniques for assessing the potential for environmental contamination from energetic materials on testing and training ranges. The project defines the physical and chemical properties, concentrations, and distribution of residues in soils, and the potential for transport of these residues to groundwater. Surface soils associated with impact craters, targets areas, and firing points were characterized on 18 military installations in the United States and Canada. Residues from high-order, low-order, unconfined charge, and blow-in-place detonations were collected on witness plates, snow, and/or tarps for constituent analyses. Results of these analyses were used to characterize residue composition and spatial distribution in relationship to the types of training activities conducted. Results also contributed to development of surface soil sampling strategies for live-fire ranges. Transport parameters of contaminants of potential concern for which data are lacking were determined by leveraging this project with other funding sources. The characteristics of constituent residues on training ranges, both chemical composition and aerial distribution, vary with the type of range activity and the specific munitions fired. Residues tend to be localized in highly distributed point sources in the vicinity of targets and fixed firing positions. Characterizing these sites requires careful consideration of soil sampling strategies based on site activities and will typically include multi-increment composite sampling. Special care must be taken in laboratory subsampling since residues occur as solid particles of various sizes that are highly heterogeneously dispersed in the soil. For the types of ranges studied, e.g., heavy artillery and hand grenade ranges, RDX is a significant contaminant of concern. TNT, which is typically restricted to surface soil, poses less threat to groundwater than RDX. At firing points, propellant residues can be significant. High-order detonations, which constitute most of the explosions executed during training, generate undetectable to barely detectable, diffuse surface residuals; however, low-order detonations, the incidences of which are much lower than high-order detonations and which tend to be munitions-specific, are a potentially significant source of residues. Another issue with potential to generate significant residues is clearance of unexploded ordnance by blowing in place. Rendering safe does not always result in complete consumption of explosive charge. Therefore, care must be exercised to achieve complete detonations with secondary changes that do not contribute munitions constituents, especially RDX, to the soil. Results of fate and transport studies indicate that initial release of energetics from compositions, such as Composition B, into soils tends to be locally very high, approaching temperature-dependent aqueous phase saturation, even though the compositions dissolve more slowly than the solubilities of the individual components would suggest. Furthermore, soil adsorption from solution phase, which is governed to some extent by soil properties, will not significantly limit transport. Therefore, RDX is readily transportable to groundwater. TNT transforms readily to mono-amino products, the transport of which is limited by covalent bonding of these transformation products to soils components. Results of this study provide a technical basis for development of range-specific soil characterization approaches. Results also provide process descriptors for fate and transport of constituent residues and for assessing the exposure component of environmental risk assessments. The relationships emerging between various training activities and constituent residues provide a sound scientific basis for development of management practices for sustainment of training range activities while maintaining environmental stewardship. DISCLAIMER: The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products. All product names and trademarks cited are the property of their respective owners. The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents. DESTROY THIS REPORT WHEN IT IS NO LONGER NEEDED. DO NOT RETURN IT TO THE ORIGINATOR. Contents Abbreviations and Acronyms............................................................................. xvi Conversion Factors............................................................................................. xxi Preface............................................................................................................... xxii 1—Introduction .................................................................................................. 1-1 Background.................................................................................................. 1-1 Scope of Project CP1155 ............................................................................. 1-1 Objectives .................................................................................................... 1-2 Regulatory Precedent: Massachusetts Military Reservation ................. 1-2 Related Ongoing and Leveraged Studies..................................................... 1-3 Summary of Results to Date ........................................................................ 1-8 FY03 Execution ........................................................................................... 1-9 References.................................................................................................. 1-10 Appendix A: Bibliography of CP1155 Publications.................................. 1-11 Refereed Journal Articles .................................................................... 1-11 Government Documents...................................................................... 1-12 Conference Presentations .................................................................... 1-13 2—Update on Massachusetts Military Reservation ........................................... 2-1 Introduction.................................................................................................. 2-1 Site Overview .............................................................................................. 2-3 Impact Area.................................................................................................. 2-6 Soil ........................................................................................................ 2-8 Groundwater.......................................................................................... 2-8 Demolition Area 1 (Demo 1) ....................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Conclusions in Verse
    RepresentativeRepresentative SamplingSampling forfor EnergeticEnergetic CompoundsCompounds atat MilitaryMilitary TrainingTraining RangesRanges Sampling near tank target Sampling near low-order 500 lb YakimaTraining Center bomb, Camp Guernsey Red crater at CFB Gagetown Alan D. Hewitt, Thomas F. Jenkins, Marianne E. Walsh, Michael R. Walsh, Susan Taylor, Charles Ramsey, and Judith C. Pennington MajorMajor ClassesClasses ofof EnergeticEnergetic ChemicalsChemicals UsedUsed byby DoDDoD NO 2 CH3 N O 2 N NO2 Nitroaromatics N N O N (TNT) 2 NO 2 NO2 Nitramines (RDX) H C-O-NO 2 2 Nitrate Esters HC-O-NO (NG) 2 H 22 C-O-NO EnergeticEnergetic ChemicalsChemicals inin MilitaryMilitary ExplosivesExplosives • Composition B (artillery/mortar) 60% Military grade RDX (Contains about 10% HMX) 39% Military grade TNT (Contains about 1% other TNT isomers and DNTs) • Composition C4 (demolition explosive) 91% Military Grade RDX • Tritonal (Air Force Bombs) Military grade TNT, aluminum • Composition A4 (40-mm grenades) Military grade RDX • TNT (artillery) Military grade TNT • Composition H-6 (Air Force bombs) Military grade RDX and TNT, aluminum • Octol (Antitank rockets) Military grade HMX and TNT EnergeticEnergetic ChemicalsChemicals inin MilitaryMilitary GunGun PropellantsPropellants • Nitrocellulose (NC) Polymer used in all gun propellants • Nitroglycerin (NG) Component of double and triple base propellants • Nitroguanidine (NQ) Component of triple base propellants • 2,4-Dinitrotoluene (2,4-DNT) Energetic plasticizer in some single base propellants PhysicalPhysical
    [Show full text]
  • Jack Rabbit II Test Report (Final)
    ATEC Project No. 2015-DT-DPG-SNIMT-F9735 WDTC Document No. WDTC-SPD-FTR-001 FINAL TEST REPORT FOR JACK RABBIT (JR) II Damon Nicholson Norman Lian Allison Hedrick Special Programs Division Eric Schmidt Team SURVICE UNDER CONTRACT NO. W911S6-16-C-0003 Report Produced By West Desert Test Center US Army Dugway Proving Ground Dugway, UT 84022-5000 Report Produced For Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) Chemical Security Analysis Center (CSAC) Aberdeen Proving Ground – Edgewood Area, MD 21010-5424 AUGUST 2017 INTENTIONALLY BLANK Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION. 1. REPORT DATE 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED August 2017 Final Test Report (FTR) From August 2015 to September 2016 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a.
    [Show full text]
  • GROUNDS for PERMANENT WAR Land Appropriation, Exceptional
    GROUNDS FOR PERMANENT WAR Land Appropriation, Exceptional Powers, and the Mid-Century Militarization of Western North American Environments by Brandon C. Davis A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (History) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) May 2017 © Brandon C. Davis, 2017 ABSTRACT Few areas across globe have escaped the pressures of militarization. Despite the many significant developments and repercussions tied to the military control of vast areas of national territories, the complex intersections between militarization and the environment have only recently attracted scholarly attention. This dissertation argues that the contemporary condition of global permanent war and ongoing state of emergency are rooted in the military control of land and other natural resources. During the mid-twentieth century buildup of North American defense forces, the practice of military land appropriation not only legitimized and expanded certain types of unilateral, emergency powers but also produced secret and legally permissive spaces in which the exercise of such extraordinary powers and related military land use practices could be more freely conducted. A major impetus driving these mid-century land use developments was the rise of unconventional weapons of mass destruction. Not only did such weapons technologies destabilize the global political order but they also brought about a multitude of disruptions at local sites. By investigating the establishment and operations of two of the world’s largest, most secretive, and longest-lasting chemical and biological weapons proving grounds—the U.S. Army’s Dugway Proving Ground in western Utah and the Canadian-and U.K.-controlled Suffield Experimental Station in southeastern Alberta—this study reveals how the imperatives of permanent war have had critical influence in shaping the workings of power between local citizens, government, and the environment in western North America.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Memories of My Career at General Motors
    SPECIAL MEMORIES OF MY CAREER AT GENERAL MOTORS JOSEPH M. COLUCCI RETIRED EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GENERAL MOTORS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER JUNE 27, 2017 1 GM RESEACH LABORATORIES JOURNEY FROM DAYTON TO THE GENERAL MOTORS TECHNICAL CENTER 1909 - 1955 Charles F. Kettering’s first laboratory, 1909-1911, in a barn in Dayton, Ohio. This was the birthplace of an improved automotive battery ignition system and the electric self- starter. Charles “Boss” Kettering First home of GM Research Corporation, Moraine City, Ohio, 1921 2 In 1929, GM Research moved to Michigan, in the Argonaut Building on West Milwaukee Avenue in Detroit. In 1955, GM Research moved to the newly established GM Technical Center in Warren, MI. The iconic spiral staircase in the lobby of the GM Research Administration Building Pictures from: “75 YEARS OF INSPIRATION, IMAGINATION AND INNOVATION,” JUNE 1995 3 SPECIAL MEMORIES OF MY CAREER AT GENERAL MOTORS I was blessed to have had an extremely interesting and satisfying career at General Motors, mostly spent in the Fuels and Lubricants Department of the GM Research Laboratories. The people I worked with made it a pleasure to go to work. Their technical accomplishments were outstanding and helped make GM, the auto industry, and the world a better place. Their accomplishments have been documented in “The GMR-GM R&D Fuels and Lubricants Department – Its History and Accomplishment,” SAE Paper 2016-01- 0176, April 4, 2015, and rewarded with the 2017 SAE Arnold W. Siegel Humanitarian Award. In addition to their accomplishments, the people, and others to whom my position gave me access, provided many memorable and often humorous stories that are the basis for this memoir.
    [Show full text]
  • 166 Public Law 86-500-.June 8, 1960 [74 Stat
    166 PUBLIC LAW 86-500-.JUNE 8, 1960 [74 STAT. Public Law 86-500 June 8. 1960 AN ACT [H» R. 10777] To authorize certain construction at military installation!^, and for other pnriwses. He it enacted hy the Hemite and House of Representatives of the 8tfiction^'Acf°^ I'raited States of America in Congress assemoJed, I960. TITLE I ''^^^* SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army may establish or develop military installations and facilities by acquiring, constructing, con- \'erting, rehabilitating, or installing permanent or temporary public works, including site preparation, appurtenances, utilities, and equip­ ment, for the following projects: INSIDE THE UNITED STATES I'ECHNICAL SERVICES FACILITIES (Ordnance Corps) Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: Training facilities, medical facilities, and utilities, $6,221,000. Benicia Arsenal, California: Utilities, $337,000. Blue Grass Ordnance Depot, Kentucky: Utilities and ground improvements, $353,000. Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey: Research, development, and test facilities, $850,000. Pueblo Ordnance Depot, Colorado: Operational facilities, $369,000. Redstone Arsenal, Alabama: Community facilities and utilities, $1,000,000. Umatilla Ordnance Depot, Oregon: Utilities and ground improve­ ments, $319,000. Watertow^n Arsenal, Massachusetts: Research, development, and test facilities, $1,849,000. White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico: Operational facilities and utilities, $1,2'33,000. (Quartermaster Corps) Fort Lee, Virginia: Administrative facilities and utilities, $577,000. Atlanta General Depot, Georgia: Maintenance facilities, $365,000. New Cumberland General Depot, Pennsylvania: Operational facili­ ties, $89,000. Richmond Quartermaster Depot, Virginia: Administrative facili­ ties, $478,000. Sharpe General Depot, California: Maintenance facilities, $218,000. (Chemical Corps) Army Chemical Center, Maryland: Operational facilities and com­ munity facilities, $843,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Yuma Proving Ground HAER No. Klr-3 Yuma County HA£Lpv Arizona
    Yuma Proving Ground HAER No. klr-3 Yuma County HA£LPv Arizona * WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA Historic American Engineering Record National Park Service Departmentt of the Interior Washington',' DC 20013-7127 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD Yuma Proving Ground AZ-5 Location: In southwestern Arizona in Yuma County/ east of the Colorado River. Date of Construction: Established in 1942. Owner: Department of the Army Significance: Yuma Proving Ground was established during World War II by the Corps of Engineers for the testing of a new floating bridge. In 1951, the facility shifted in emphasis to become a testing center for many types of Army equipment, from tanks to water purification units, Historical Report Prepared by: William Brenner, 1984 Prepared for Transmittal by: Robie S. Lange, HABS/HAER, 1985. Yuma Proving Grounds HAER No. A2-5 page 5, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Yuma Proving Ground, part of the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command, occupies 838,174 acres in southwestern Arizona. The installation conducts artillery, aircraft, and desert mobility tests, as well as various environmental tests. It contains a highly instrumented multipurpose aircraft armament testing range, vehicular test courses, amphibious testing areas, and a large gunnery range. The origins of the proving ground date from 1942, when the land it now occupies was included in Maneuver Area B of General George S. Patton's Desert Training Center, renamed the California-Arizona Maneuver Area in 1943. One of the training center's six temporary division tent camps, Camp Laguna, was located on the site of the present Mobility Test Area. In early 1943, the Army Corps of Engineers began testing a new floating bridge on the Colorado River below Imperial Dam, several miles northwest of Camp Laguna.
    [Show full text]
  • Michigan-Is-Automobility-Report-1.Pdf
    #1 for operational U.S. Department of Transportation funded and connected vehicle deployments with 11 projects. $12 billion business funded automotive R&D occurs in Michigan annually. 19 universities and colleges in Michigan offer nationally-ranked undergraduate engineering programs and four offer nationally-ranked Michigan: Global Leader in graduate programs. Next-Generation Mobility Rooted in a century of design engineering and manufacturing expertise, Michigan is leading the automotive industry’s 22 vehicle models were assembled evolution from traditional manufacturer in Michigan in 2018. to the research, testing, and deployment of next-generation mobility technology. Comprised of top-notch manufacturers, technology companies, access to the + global supply chain, a highly skilled 500 miles of roadway equipped for connected vehicle testing by 2020. workforce, and best-in-class research institutions, Michigan is home to the world’s most dense automotive industry cluster and is well-positioned to drive the industry’s transformation and growth into the next century. 18 original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) have headquarters or technology centers in Michigan. 96 of the top 100 automotive suppliers to North America have % a presence in Michigan and 60 17 of all 2018 U.S. vehicle production and 11% of all North are headquartered here. American vehicle production occurred in Michigan. $29 billion in OEM and supplier investment in Michigan since 2009, more than three times any other state. Publication Sources: Automotive News, Bloomberg LP, Center for Automotive Research, Detroit Regional Chamber research, Emsi, FCA Group corporate website, fDi Intelligence from 1 The Financial Times Ltd., FIRST in Michigan, Ford Motor Company corporate website, General Motors corporate website, International Trade Administration, Michigan Department of Transportation, Michigan Economic Development Corporation, Michigan Venture Capital Association, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Engineer Research and Development Center Identity and Distribution of Residues of Energetic Compounds at Military ERDC TR-05-10 Live-Fire Training Ranges
    US Army Corps of Engineers® Engineer Research and Development Center Identity and Distribution of Residues of Energetic Compounds at Military ERDC TR-05-10 Live-Fire Training Ranges Thomas F. Jenkins, Sonia Thiboutot, Guy Ampleman, November 2005 Alan D. Hewitt, Marianne E. Walsh, Thomas A. Ranney, Charles A. Ramsey, Clarence L. Grant, Charles M. Collins, Sylvie Brochu, Susan R. Bigl, and Judith C. Pennington Fort Wainwright, AK Hand Grenade Range CFB Valcartier, Quebec Fort Greely, AK Training Ranges (Donnelly Training Area) Test Ranges Cold Lake Air Weapons Range, Alberta Air-Surface Range CFB-Shilo, Manitoba CFB Gagetown, CFB-Wainwright, New Brunswick Fort Richardson, AK Alberta Battlerun Training Ranges Petawawa, Ontario Training Ranges Training Ranges Training Ranges Fort Lewis, WA Training Ranges Yakima Training Center, WA Training Ranges Camp Bonneville, WA Hand Grenade Range Massachusetts Military Reservation, MA Fort Ord, CA Anti-Tank Range Jefferson Proving Ground, IN Camp Guernsey, WY Artillery Range Artillery Range Fort Carson, CO 29 Palms, CA Artillery Range Camp Shelby, MS Training Ranges Marine Corps Fort Bliss, NM Training Ranges Training Ranges Eglin Air Force Base, FL Air-Surface Range Holloman AFB, NM Bombing Range Fort Leonard Wood, MO Hand Grenade Range Schofield Barracks, HI Fort Hood, TX Training Ranges Training Ranges Fort Polk, LA Training Ranges Pohakuloa Military Engineer Research and Development Center Reservation, HI Training Ranges Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. ERDC TR-05-10 November 2005 Identity and Distribution of Residues of Energetic Compounds at Military Live-Fire Training Ranges Thomas F. Jenkins, Sonia Thiboutot, Guy Ampleman, Alan D. Hewitt, Marianne E.
    [Show full text]
  • Register of Graduates & Former Cadets Glossary of Abbreviations
    Register of Graduates & Former Cadets Glossary of Abbreviations & Codes Indicates a direct ancestor or a direct descendent, or both, of another graduate * Indicates a Distinguished Cadet (order of merit) A–age/aged ABMC–American Battle Monuments Commission A–Appointed Abn–Airborne A–Armored AC–Army Air Corps A–Army AcadAffrs–Academic Affairs A–Assistant ACC–Army Communications Command A–Attaché Acct–Account/Accounting AA–Additional Appointee ACDA–Arms Control & Disarmament Agency AA–Anti-Aircraft (Artillery) ACDC–Army Combat Developments Command AA–Army Attaché ACE–Analysis and Control Element A&A–Astronomy & Astrophysics ACEMLF–Allied Command Europe Mobile Land Force AAA–Anti-Aircraft Artillery ACERT–Army Computer Emergency Response Team AAC–Anti-Aircraft Command ACJCS–Assistant to the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff AAC–Army Acquisition Corps ACLC–Aviation Center Logistics Command AAC&GMC–Anti-Aircraft and Guided Missile Center ACM–Afghanistan Campaign Medal AAC&GMS–Anti-Aircraft and Guided Missile School AcqPolDiv–Acquisition Policy Division AACS–Airways and Air Communications Service ACR–Armored Cavalry Regiment AAD–Air Assault Division AC/RC–Active Component/Reserve Component AADAC–Army Air Defense Artillery Center ACS–Air Commando Squadron AADC–Army Armament Development Center ACS–Assistant Chief of Staff AADC–Army Armament Development Command ACSAC–Assistant Chief of Staff for Automation & AAE–Aeronautical & Astronautics Engineer Communications AAF–Army Air Forces ACSC–Air Command & Staff College AAF–Army Airfield ACSCCIM–Assistant
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution and Fate of Energetics on Dod Test and Training Ranges: Final Report Judith C
    ERDC TR-06-13 ERDC TR-06-13 Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program Distribution and Fate of Energetics on DoD Test and Training Ranges: Final Report Judith C. Pennington, Thomas F. Jenkins, Guy Ampleman, November 2006 Sonia Thiboutot, J. M. Brannon, Alan D. Hewitt, Jeff Lewis, Sylvie Brochu, Emmanuela Diaz, Michael R. Walsh, Marianne E. Walsh, Susan Taylor, Jason C. Lynch, Jay Clausen, Thomas A. Ranney, Charles A. Ramsey, Charolett A. Hayes, Clarence L. Grant, Charles M. Collins, Susan R. Bigl, Sally Yost and Katerina Dontsova Engineer Research Engineer Research Center and Development Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. This report was prepared under contract to the Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP). The publication of this report does not indicate endorsement by the Department of Defense, nor should the contents be construed as reflecting the official policy or position of the Department of Defense. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the Department of Defense. Strategic Environmental Research ERDC TR-06-13 and Development Program November 2006 Distribution and Fate of Energetics on DoD Test and Training Ranges: Final Report Judith C. Pennington and J. M. Brannon U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center Environmental Laboratory 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 Thomas F. Jenkins, Alan D. Hewitt, Michael R. Walsh, Marianne E. Walsh, Susan Taylor, Jay Clausen, Charles M. Collins, and Susan R. Bigl U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory 72 Lyme Road, Hanover, NH 03755-1290 Guy Ampleman, Sonia Thiboutot, Sylvie Brochu, Jeff Lewis, and Emmanuela Diaz Defence Research and Development Canada - Valcartier 2459 Pie XI Blvd North, Val-Bélair, Québec, G3J 1X5 Jason C.
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground Historic District And/Or Common Fort Hancock 2
    National Historic Landmarks Nomination NPS Form 10-900 FedgM Agency Nomination (7-ai) RevWd November 9, 1982 Q ' ^ - United States Department of the Interior EXP. it/ National Park Service For NPS use only National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form See instructions in How to Complete National Register Forms Type all entries complete applicable sections_______________ 1. Name historic Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground Historic District and/or common Fort Hancock 2. Location street & number Sandy Hook > state Route 36 not for publication city, town Highlands vicinity of 25 state New Jersey code 34 county Monmouth code 3. Classification Category Ownership Status Present Use A district X public X occupied agriculture Ay museum building(s) private unoccupied commercial X park structure both work in progress _X _ educational X private residence site Public Acquisition Accessible entertainment religious object in process X yes: restricted _X _ government scientific being considered yes: unrestricted industrial transportation no _X _ military other: 4. Owner off Property name National Park Service, Washington Office (See continuation Sheet) street & number city, town Washington vicinity of state DC 20240 5. Location of Legal Description courthouse, registry of deeds, etc. Monmouth County Courthouse street & number city, town Freehold state New Jersey 6. Representation in Existing Surveys____ .... Richard E. Greenwood, "National Register Survey" . 4 . ,. , title ' 3 has this property been determined eligible? yes no date 1977 federal state county local depository for survey records National Park Service, North Atlantic Region f, town state 7. Description Condition Check one Check one excellent X deteriorated unaltered ^ original site _X_good X.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Teacher's Guide
    Studebaker National Museum Teacher Guide Prepared by Zach Stewart for the Studebaker National Museum Last updated: June 2019 © 2019 ┤ 1 ├ Studebaker National Museum Teacher Guide TABLE OF CONTENTS Planning Your Trip………………………………………………………………………………………………3 Pre-Visit Lesson Plan……………………………………………………………………………………………4 Teacher’s Guide…………………………………………………………………………………………………5 SECTION I: Academic Standards………………………………………………………………………5 SECTION II: The Studebaker History………………………………………………………………… 7 SECTION III: Activity Sheets………………………………………………………………………… 14 Activity Sheet A………………………………………………………………………………15 Activity Sheet B………………………………………………………………………………16 Activity Sheet C………………………………………………………………………………17 Activity Sheet D………………………………………………………………………………18 Activity Sheet E………………………………………………………………………………19 Post-Visit Test………………………………………………………………..……………… 20 SECTION IV: Answer Key…………………………………………………………………………… 21 Glossary……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 23 NOTE TO TEACHERS: The Teacher Guide contains information for planning your trip to the Studebaker National Museum, Indiana academic standards, a brief history of Studebaker, blank student activity worksheets, an answer key, and a glossary. The Student Workbook only includes the brief history, blank worksheets, and a glossary. The Museum Post-Visit Test is NOT included in the Student Workbook and can only be found in this Teacher Guide. ┤ 2 ├ Studebaker National Museum Teacher Guide STUDEBAKER NATIONAL MUSEUM School Field Trips: Planning Your Trip The Museum is open for school trips Monday-Saturday from 10am-5pm and Sunday 12pm-5pm EST. Planning Your Trip 1. Choose dates and make your reservation: Rebecca Best (574) 235-9664 ext. 239 [email protected] 2. Watch your mailbox! Once we’ve received your reservation, we will send you a confirmation with your assigned tour date and time as well as the admission fee for your group. Tour Length The tour of the Studebaker National Museum generally takes 1 - 1½ hours. A tour guide can be arranged at no extra charge.
    [Show full text]