Burial site locations

Site Burial number Location Temporal placement 613c... 

All burials were located at the Elizabeth site in west-central Illinois, dated approximately to the Middle Woodland Period (100 B.c. to 400 a.d.). Soil samples were taken at 5-cm intervals from the midpoint of the shaft of each femur, in horizontal and vertical directions. Approximately 50-100 g of soil was removed with a steel trowel from a 2-cm circle surrounding the measured position. The soil samples were air-dried and stored in sealed, polyethylene-lined paper bags. 

Although some sources of possible contamination are readily identified, and often may be kept from occurring, past bad disposal methods continue to plague the environment. Industries small and large have in past decades disposed of waste product by shallow burial. Liquid wastes were buried in steel containers, which after 30 or 40 years begin to rust through and leak their contents into the soil. The location of most of these burial sites are found only after environmental pollution has begun. 

As of 1996, the U.S. Army had located 168 potential CWM burial sites at 63 locations in 31 states, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia. The universe of buried non-stockpile CWM includes several sites where large amounts of buried CWM are located—Redstone Arsenal, Alabama Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Colorado Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland and Deseret Chemical Depot, Utah. Medium to large amounts of buried CWM may exist at several other sites. 

Although the Army Chemical Demilitarization and Remediation Activity has overall responsibility for disposing of nonstockpile chemical material, other organizations within or outside DOD contribute to the disposal program. The involvement of the following organizations depends on the location and particulars of the material, storage area, or burial site ... 

Buried chemical warfare materiel The actual amount, chemical agent, condition, and type of materiel are unknown, and the number and locations of potential burial sites are uncertain. The Army has limited experience in disposing of buried chemical materiel. 215 12.04 40... 

DISPOSAL AND STORAGE METHODS disposal of wastes should be in accordance with guidelines set forth by the nuclear regulatory commission burial at an authorized radioactive burial site is recommended store in a cool, dry location maintain adequate ventilation store in concrete tanks lined with steel containers of compressed alumina have been recommended, as this material remains impervious to water uranium hexafluoride is best handled in copper apparatus storage in salt formations is under serious consideration because they are self-sealing and free from water. 

This is the most challenging and, at the same time, the most uncertain category. As noted, the Army has identified potential NSCWM burial sites in 31 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In addition, potential overseas chemical weapons burial sites have been identified, but their locations are classified. Under the CWC, a state-party that has abandoned chemical weapons on the territory of another state-party has the responsibility for their removal and disposal (U.S. Army, 1996). 

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. 

Spring Valley is also fisted as the worst site in the country by the DOD. How many more Spring Valleys are out there The author has accidentally located numerous potential munitions burial sites and FUDS in other states during historical research on his own FUDS projects. 

In most cases, burial sites as well as individual UXO should be considered. Those sites will often be in different locations and different instruments can be selected. Some experimental wartime sites are troublesome because the testing or impact areas may have also doubled as ordnance burial sites when the operation was closed. 

Many types of chemical weapons are lethal to micro and macro invote-brates. Bioassay can be used as a good indicator of polluted surface water. The types of species that more easily succumb to pollution have been well outlined by several sources. Bioassay has now been successfully used to locate and assess CWM burial sites in Canada, and it should be a routine part of CWM site remediation in this country. Unlike sampling, it can be used in real-time, as a glance under the miaoscope will promptly reveal sterile soil. 

Soil gas surveys can be done rapidly and easily and can cover a wide area. One new type uses a Cortex shoelace with absorbent pellets inside (called the Goresorber). The shoelace is inserted into the ground with a two-foot push tube. (Clearance with a metal detector is recommended.) The lace is withdrawn in a day or so and the pellets analyzed for CWM or explosive breakdown products. A geographic information systems (CIS) computer printout is made extrapolating areas of increased concentrations. This method can be used to locate all manner of landfills or contaminated soils. Similarly, soil samples can hint at burial sites. Where most soil samples are clean but some reveal CWM or explosive breakdown products, this may present evidence of a nearby burial site. 

What the District of Columbia did not know at the time was that the Army knew all along that there was a burial site at the Glenbrook Road home. They had discovered their mistake in the location of POI24 in 1994. They had conducted a geophysical survey of the property and had found an anomaly (a reading on a metal detector indicating the presence of metal underground), which they believed was a burial pit. Nevertheless, they wrote in the June 1995 No Further Action Record of Decision that there... 

The burial site lies on the DalecarUa Reservoir property. There are photographs of the five shells kept by the relic hunter. The District of Columbia was able to relocate the narrow-gauge railroad bed in the exact position described by the relic hunter. Previously, the District had found small spikes that looked like railroad spikes in a nearby location but did not know that they were from a narrow-gauge railroad. Also, the description of the Roman numerals on the shells led to the inescapable conclusion that the story is totally credible because some of the original test reports and pictures of shells from the AUES use Roman numerals. Moreover, the District of Columbia was able to locate the narrow-gauge railroad bed, exactly as he described it, and found one large anomaly. 

The AOITF believes that the combination of terrain features, 1918 and 1927 aerial photographs, anecdotal statements, geophysical instrument readings, arsenic levels, and the AUES list sampling results and excavations indicate a significant possibihty that small burial sites are located in the... 

The 1918 aerial photograph provides important information about the location of buildings and features such as trenches, which also could be burial sites. It also provides important information about test sites, such as the persistency test area. The 1922 aerial photograph also provides some of the most important information because the 1918 aerial photograph was taken several months before the site was closed (the Armistice). The 1922 aerial photograph likely shows impact crater fields, burial sites and other features. Unfortunately, it is of poor quality. 

Grid sample properties, which had AUES list detects, to locate hot spots or burial areas. This is necessary because the burial sites composed largely of bottles cannot be detected with the metal detectors currently being used for the geophysical survey. 

Mr. Kazakov discussed problems associated with contamination from the Chernobyl nuclear accident. The first problem is in characterising what portion of the contaminated material in the exclusion zone should be considered radioactive waste and how to deal with it remove it or possibly use materials for construction. Consideration of the extent to which contaminated materials should be removed, as radioactive waste, presents a problem as well. This is related to the second problem in properly characterising the total inventory of the radioactive waste. The waste is characterised at temporary locations of radioactive waste (TLPRW) and radioactive waste burial sites (RWBS). Although there is a great deal of documented information on the locations, volumes and activities, it is unclear whether to categorise the radioactive waste by specific activity, volume or presence of transuranic and fissionable elements in the radioactive waste. 

Choosing the correct burial site is important, since the environment will have a direct effect on the performance of buried materials. This choice must take into account more than just characteristics of a soil, and must include consideration of local conditions of temperature, rainfall, and location. For example, a soil located in a valley near a stream provides a different environment to the same soil on a nearby hill. In general, the best test site is near the structure... 

---