of Environmental Conservation, and the U.S.
and in the sediments of shallow ponds that were
Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency, now
frequently used by waterfowl.
known as the U.S. Army Environment Center.
surprising, since the area has been used for artil-
lery training for many years; however, the persis-
Initial investigations
tence of WP in the environment was not expected.
During the years 1983 through 1988, samples
Because of the reactive nature of WP with oxygen,
of water, sediment, and animal tissues from ERF
were collected and analyzed. The water and sedi-
earlier studies predicted that WP would readily
ment samples were analyzed by the Army Envi-
oxidize in air and that very little of the original
ronment Hygiene Agency, the Alaska Department
form would be deposited into the terrestrial or
of Environmental Conservation, the Environ-
aquatic environment. However, findings by
mental Protection Agency, and Environmental
CRREL showed that the environmental conditions
Science and Engineering, Inc. The water and sedi-
at ERF, including low redox potentials of the sedi-
ment analyses did not show any major contami-
ments and frequent deposition of sediment by
nants that could have led to waterfowl deaths.
Bird carcasses collected at ERF were given detailed
the dabbling ducks foraging for food in ponds at
necropsy and tissue analyses by the U.S. Fish and
ERF would most likely be ingesting WP particles
Wildlife Service, the National Wildlife Health
as well as their normal diet of seeds and inverte-
Research Center, and the Patuxent National Wild-
brates (Fig. 2).
life Research Center in conjunction with the
University of Missouri Environmental Trace Sub-
stance Research Center. Their findings ruled out
poisoning of the birds by pesticides or metals, or
infection by bacteria or viruses. The gastrointesti-
nal contents of some of the birds collected at ERF
in 1983 had what were considered to be abnor-
mally high levels of total phosphorus. However,
in 1984, total phosphorus levels in the gastro-
intestinal contents of birds collected at ERF were
not drastically different from those at a control
site. These findings were considered inconclu-
sive.
During the course of this investigation, CRREL
had become involved owing to our expertise in
munitions analyses. Since ERF was used as an artil-
lery training area, components of various muni-
tions were being further investigated. In 1990, sci-
entists from CRREL began collecting samples and
Figure 2. White phosphorus particles and seeds
making detailed observations of where the birds
retrieved from Eagle River Flats.
were dying and of characteristic signs of poisoning.
Analyses of sediment and water samples resulted
Site and contaminant investigations
in identification of two chemicals that are compo-
During the 19911994 seasons, numerous agen-
nents of munitions used by the U.S. Army. The
cies worked together to conduct studies that would
first compound, 2,4-dinitrotoluene (2,4-DNT), is
further characterize the site and to better under-
one of the compounds in the M1 mixture that is
stand the fate and transport mechanism of WP. Re-
the major component of a propellant; the other
medial alternatives were also evaluated during this
compound, white phosphorus (WP), is used in
time. The physical characterization of ERF, such as
smoke rounds. More extensive analyses and labo-
identifying habitat and vegetation, climate and
ratory experiments ruled out 2,4-DNT, but impli-
tides, and physical system dynamics (erosion and
cated WP as the cause. CRREL and Dartmouth
sedimentation rates), was done by CRREL. The
College scientists observed that laboratory ducks
dosed with WP showed similar signs of intoxica-
nants in sediment and water samples was created
tion as the sick ducks at ERF. Further, CRREL
by the U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency
found WP in the tissues of birds collected at ERF
(USAEHA), while CRREL determined the distribu-
2
to contents
Previous Page
