FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT · FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT for MRS-R04 (Range VII) Former...

FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT

for MRS-R04 (Range VII)

Former Conway Bombing and Gunnery Range Horry County, South Carolina

Prepared for:

U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center

Attn: CEHNC-OE-DC (Mrs. Chris Cochrane) 4820 University Square

Huntsville, Alabama 35816-1822

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District Attn: Mr. Shawn Boone

69A Hagood Avenue Charleston, South Carolina 29403-0919

Contract No. W912DY-04-D-0018 Task Order: 0012

Project No. I04SC002501

Prepared by: EOD Technology, Inc. 2229 Old Highway 95

Lenoir City, Tennessee 37771

October 12, 2012

The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this report are those of the author(s) and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy, or decision,

unless so designated by other documentation.

FFEAS

Form

SIBILM

mer ConHor

U.S.Attn:

U.S. Arm

Ch

Co

John A (B

Don We

Mark Fl

FILITY

MRS R-0nway Bomry Count

Pr

Army Engin CEHNC-OE

4820 UHuntsville, A

my Corps of EAttn: M

69A Hharleston, Sou

ontract No. Task

Project N

PrEOD T2229 O

Lenoir City

Buddy) Murra

elch, Munition

etcher, Direct

Octo

INALSTU

for 04 (Rangmbing anty, South

repared for:

neering and SuE-DC (Mrs. CUniversity SquAlabama 358

Engineers, ChMr. Shawn BoHagood Avenuuth Carolina 2

W912DY-0Order: 001

No. I04SC00

repared by: Technology, InOld Highway y, Tennessee

ay, P.E., PMP

ns Response

tor, Plans and

ober 12, 201

L UDY R

ge VII) nd Gunneh Carolin

upport Centerhris Cochrane

uare 816-1822

harleston Disoone ue 29403-0919

04-D-0018 12 02501

nc. 95 37771

P, Project Man

Quality Mana

d Operations,

2

REPO

ery Rangna

r e)

trict

nager

ager

MR

ORT

ge

W912DY-Task OrderHB# 4889

CHAPTE1.1 B1.2 R1.3 F1.4 DCHAPTE2.1 P2.2 SCHAPTE3.1 R3.2 G3.3 ID

333

CHAPTE4.1 D4.2 A

4444

4.3 ACHAPTE5.1 IN5.2 E

555

5.3 IN5555

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

ER 1 EXECBACKGROUREMEDIAL

EASIBILITDETAILED AER 2 INTRURPOSE ...UMMARY ER 3 IDEN

REMEDIAL GENERAL RDENTIFICA.3.1 Detectio.3.2 Remova.3.3 DisposaER 4 DEVE

DEVELOPMALTERNAT

.2.1 Alternat

.2.2 Alternat

.2.3 Alternat

.2.4 AlternatYear R

APPLICATIOER 5 DETANTRODUCT

EVALUATIO.2.1 Thresho.2.2 Balanci.2.3 ModifyiNDIVIDUA.3.1 Alternat.3.2 Alternat.3.3 Alternat.3.4 Alternat

Year R

CUTIVE SUUND ...........

INVESTIGATY STUDY .ANALYSIS

RODUCTIO...................OF REMED

NTIFICATIOACTION O

RESPONSE ATION ANDon Technoloal Technologal TechnologELOPMEN

MENT OF ALIVE DESCRtive 1: NOFAtive 2: ICs wtive 3: Surfative 4: SubsuReviews .....ON OF SCRAILED ANATION .........ON CRITERold Criteria .ng Criteria .ing Criteria

AL ANALYStive 1 –NOFtive 2 –ICs wtive 3 – Surftive 4 – SubReviews .....

for MR

TABLE O

UMMARY ......................ATION ...........................

S SUMMARON ................

....................DIAL INVESON AND SC

OBJECTIVEACTIONS..

D SCREENINogies ............gies..............gies ..............T OF ALTELTERNATIVRIPTIONS...A.................

with Five-Yeace Clearancurface Remo....................

REENING CALYSIS OF....................

RIA ..........................................................................

SIS OF ALTFA ................with Five-Yeface Clearansurface Rem....................

RS-R04, Form

i

OF CONT

....................

....................

....................

....................RY ................

....................

....................STIGATIONCREENINGS .....................................NG OF REM............................................................ERNATIVEVES ....................................................ear Reviews .ce with ICs aovals with Su....................

CRITERIA BF ALTERNA....................................................................................................

TERNATIVE....................ear Reviews

nce with ICs moval with S....................

mer Conway

TENTS

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................N FINDINGG OF TECH........................................MEDIAL TE............................................................ES ...............................................................................................

and Five-Yeaurface Clear....................

BY ALTERNATIVES .........................................................................................................

ES ....................................s ...................and Five-Yeurface Clear....................

Feasib Bombing anHorry Count

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................GS.................HNOLOGIE........................................ECHNOLOG................................................................................................................................................................ar Reviews ..rance, ICs an....................

NATIVE ..........................................................................................................................................................................................ear Reviewsrance, ICs, a....................

bility Study Rnd Gunnery Rty, South Car

Final OctoberRevisi

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................ES .......................................................GIES ...............................................................................................................................................................................................nd Five-............................................................................................................................................................................................................................s ...................and Five-....................

Report Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

... 1-1

... 1-1

... 1-2

... 1-2

... 1-3

... 2-1

... 2-2

... 2-2

... 3-1

... 3-1

... 3-1

... 3-3

... 3-3

... 3-4

... 3-5

... 4-1

... 4-1

... 4-1

... 4-1

... 4-1

... 4-2

... 4-3

... 4-4

... 5-1

... 5-1

... 5-2

... 5-2

... 5-3

... 5-4

... 5-4

... 5-4

... 5-5

... 5-7

... 5-8


5.4 C5555555555

CHAPTE

TABLE TABLE 2

TABLE 2TABLE 2TABLE 3

TABLE 4

TABLE 5

FIGUREFIGURE

AppendixAppendixAppendix

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

COMPARAT.4.1 Overall .4.2 Complia.4.3 Long-te.4.4 Short-te.4.5 Reducti.4.6 Implem.4.7 Cost .....4.8 State Ac.4.9 Commu.4.10 SummER 6 REFE

1-1: SUMM2-1: NINE C

ALTER2-2: MC RE2-3: MEC H3-1: APPLIC

(ARAR4-1: SUMM

FOR M5-1: EVALU

E 1-1: MRS E 1-2: MRS-

x A .............x B .............x C .............

TIVE ANALProtection o

ance with Aerm Effectiveerm Effectivion of Toxici

mentability ......................cceptance ...

unity Acceptmary of CompERENCES ..

MARY OF RCRITERIA RNATIVESESULTS SUHA SUMMACABLE OR

Rs) ...............MARY OF AMRS-R04 (RUATION O

LOCATION-R04 (RANG

...................

...................

...................

for MR

LYSIS OF Aof Human H

ARARs and Teness and Peeness ...........ity, Mobility............................................................tance ............parative Ana....................

LIST ORESULTS AN

FOR DETAS ...................UMMARY, MARY ............

RELEVAN....................

ALTERNATIRANGE VII)

F REMEDIA

FIN MAP ........GE VII) .......

APP............................................................

RS-R04, Form

ii

ALTERNATIHealth and theTBCs ...........ermanence .......................y or Volume................................................................................alysis ...............................

OF TABLND RECOM

AILED ANA....................MRS-R04 ........................

NT AND APP....................IVES CONS) ...................AL ALTERN

IGURES........................................

PENDICE.......................................................... S

mer Conway

IVES ...........e Environme............................................................

e ...........................................................................................................................................

LES MMENDAT

ALYSIS OF R............................................................PROPRIATE....................SIDERED F....................NATIVES ..

....................

....................

S .................. C....................State Regula

Feasib Bombing anHorry Count

....................ent .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................

IONS ..........REMEDIAL............................................................E REQUIRE....................

FOR INITIA........................................

....................

....................

Cost Analys....................ator Review

bility Study Rnd Gunnery Rty, South Car

Final OctoberRevisi

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................L ............................................................EMENTS ....................L SCREENI........................................

....................

....................

is of Alterna............ MECof Draft Fin

Report Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

. 5-10

. 5-10

. 5-10

. 5-11

. 5-11

. 5-12

. 5-12

. 5-13

. 5-13

. 5-14

. 5-14

... 6-1

... 1-4

... 2-3

... 2-3

... 2-3

... 3-5 ING ... 4-5 . 5-15

... 1-5

... 1-6

atives C HA nal FS


AAB AAF ARAR ASR Ba BGR bgs BIP Cd CERCLADD DGM DoD EC EE/CA EM EODT EP EPA ER ERA ERM ESA FS FUDS HA Hg HHRA HTRW IC kg LUC MAG MC MCL

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

AAAABBbbC

A CDDDEEeEEEEEEEFFHMHHIkLmMM

Army Air BaArmy Air FiApplicable oArchives SeaBarium Bombing andbelow grounblown-in-plaCadmium ComprehensDecision DoDigital GeopDepartment Engineering Engineering electromagneEOD TechnoEngineer PamEnvironmentEngineering Ecological REnvironmentEndangered Feasibility SFormerly UsHazard AsseMercury Human HealHazardous, TInstitutional kilogram Land Use ComagnetometMunitions CMaximum C

for MRS-R

ACR

ases elds

or Relevant aarch Report

d Gunnery Rnd surface ace

sive Environocument physical Mapof Defensecontrol Evaluation/etic ology, Inc. mphlet tal ProtectioRegulation

Risk Assessmtal ResourceSpecies Acttudy

sed Defense essment

lth Risk AsseToxic and RControl

ontrol er

Constituent Contaminant

R04, Former

iii

RONYMS

and Appropr

Range

nmental Resp

pping

/Cost Analys

on Agency

ment es Managemt

Site

essment adioactive W

Level

r Conway BoHo

S

riate Require

ponse, Comp

sis

ment

Waste

Feasibiombing andorry County,

ements

pensation, an

ility Study Rd Gunnery Ry, South Car

Final OctoberRevisi

nd Liability A

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

Act


MD MDAS MDEH MEC mg MG MMRP MRS NCP NOFA OB/OD Pb PDT PP RAO RI ROE RSL SARA SCDHECSCDNR SSL TBC TCRA TPP U.S. USACE USAESCUSC USEPA UXO Zn

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

MMMMmMMMNNoLpPrRRRS

C SSsTTtUU

CH UUUUZ

Munitions DMaterial DocMaterial DocMunitions anmilligram Machine GunMilitary MunMunitions RNational ConNo Further Aopen burn/opLead project delivProposed Plaremedial actiRemedial InvRights of EnRegional ScrSuperfund ASouth CaroliSouth Carolisoil screeninTo Be ConsiTime Criticatechnical proUnited StateUnited StateUnited StateUnited StateUnited StateUnexploded Zinc

for MRS-R

Debris cumented ascumented asnd Explosive

n nitions Resp

Response Sitentingency PlAction pen detonati

very team an ion objectivevestigation

ntry reening Leve

Amendmentsina Departmina Departm

ng level idered al Removal Aoject plannins s Army Corps Army Engs Code s EnvironmeOrdnance

R04, Former

iv

s Safe s an Explosives of Concer

ponse Prograe lan

on

es

els and Reauth

ment of Healthment of Natur

Action ng

ps of Enginegineering and

ental Protect

r Conway BoHo

ve Hazard rn

am

horization Ach and Enviroral Resource

eers d Support Ce

tion Agency


ct onmental Cos

enter, Huntsv


Final OctoberRevisi

ontrol

ville

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00


The purp(BGR) isBGR, insthe infordesigned

•

•

• This FS hdocumen 1.1 B1.1.1 T1948. Th(AAB) uJanuary closed inPaper Cobeen devdevelopm 1.1.2 DFeasibilitR04 (Ran The alterMRSs at 1.1.3 TUnexplod

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

pose of this Fs not to selecstead the purrmation needd to:

Develrisks; AnalyPollutAgencComp

has been devnt.

BACKGROUThe former C

hroughout thutilized the fo1945 and Se

n 1947 and wompany (34,veloped into ment.

During the Rty Study, Mnge VII) spe

rnatives evathe Conway

The RI Repoded Ordnanc

E

Feasibility Sct nor recomrpose is to deded to selec

lop an appro

yze the alterntion Contingcy [USEPA]pare the alter

veloped as a

UND Conway BGRhe years of

former BGR eptember 19was declared,685 acres) arecreational

RI, one area MRS-R04 (Raecific locatio

aluated in thy BGR are ad

ort noted thace (UXO) fo

for MRS-R

CHAEXECUTI

Study (FS) fommend the reevelop remect from amo

opriate rang

natives agaigency Plan ], 1994b) crirnatives agai

separate doc

R was underoperation, sefor various

948, leases od surplus in after the leal, commerci

was recommange VII). A

on and RI res

his FS reportddressed sep

at the potentor this MRS.

R04, Former

1-1

APTER 1IVE SUM

or the formeemedy to miedial alternatong the dev

ge of potent

inst the nine(NCP) (U

teria definedinst each oth

cument apar

r military oweveral Armytypes of airp

of 1,923 acreFebruary 19ses were terial, and/or re

mended to bAll MRS locsults are show

t will be apparately, see

ial for a com. However,

r Conway BoHo

MARY

er Conway Bitigate the hatives and theveloped alte

tial alternati

e National OUnited Stated below; andher.

rt from the R

wnership fromy Air Fields planes and pes were term948. Land wrminated. Tesidential ar

be considerecations are swn on Figur

pplied to MRTable 1-1.

mplete expothe project d


Bombing andazards at the

en to provideernatives. Th

ives to man

Oil and Hazas Environm

d

Remedial Inv

m June 1940(AAF) and

practice ordnminated. Mywas returned

The Conway eas with pla

d for furtheshown on Fire 1-2.

RS-R04 (Ra

osure pathwadelivery team


Final OctoberRevisi

d Gunnery Re former Cone decision mhe FS proce

nage hazards

ardous Subsmental Prote

vestigation (R

0 until SepteArmy Air B

nances. Betyrtle Beach d to InternatBGR areas

ans for addit

r analysis inigure 1-1. M

ange VII). O

ay is unlikelm (PDT) fel

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

Range nway

makers ess is

s and

tance ection

RI)

ember Bases tween AAF

tional have

tional

n this MRS-

Other

ly for lt that


the histoassessmeexposureenvironmR04 (Ran 1.1.4 Marea had (MD) wa 1.1.5 LR04 (Ranuse is not 1.2 RThe RI contaminsamples characterpreviouslas a resunot be adConway exists in however, 1.3 F1.3.1 B(Range Vpotential for the siVII) of this based oalternativ

•

•

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

orical presenent. An FSes to potenmental receptnge VII).

MRS-R04 (Ra low conc

as discovered

Land within nge VII) hat expected to

REMEDIALwas design

nation at thewere collectrize those arly discovere

ult of MC coddressed in BGR UXOportions of

, remnants o

FEASIBILITBased on the VII). The FS

explosive site is to prehe former Coon the assumves include t

Alternis conAltern

nce of MunS was recomntial explostor interactio

Range VII) wcentration ofd at the surfa

the former Cs residentialo change.

L INVESTIGned to assee former Coted at the locreas within thed. The RI contaminationthis FS. Du

O was encouf the site. Tof M38 100 l

TY STUDYresults and

S developed afety hazardvent interaconway BGR

mption that tthe followingnative 1 – Nnducted undenative 2 – In

for MRS-R

nitions and mmended tosive safety on (for both

was a skip bf UXO recovace down to

Conway BGl, forestry, h

GATION ess the ext

onway BGRcations mosthe former Cconcluded (in at those aruring previo

untered at a The RI did nlb sand filled

Y recommendand assesse

d associated tion betwee

R. The remedthe level of pg: o Further A

er this alternanstitutional C

R04, Former

1-2

Explosiveso assess resp

hazards ah current and

bombing ranvered duringapproximate

GR is both phunting, and

tent of UX. During tht likely to co

Conway BGRin a separatereas investigous investiga

number of not reveal and practice bo

ations of theed four diffewith potentn receptors dial action opublic access

ction (NOFAative.

Controls (ICs

r Conway BoHo

s of Conceponse action

associated wd future land

nge used on g past invesely 8 feet be

privately andd recreationa

XO and Muhe RI, soil, ontain MC cR where UXe report) tha

gated during ations and relocations inny UXO witombs were di

e RI, an FS werent remeditial UXO. Tand residua

objective ands to the MRS

A) Alternativ

s)with Five-


rn (MEC) n alternativewith potentd uses) with

former Constigations. Melow ground

d governmenal usage. Th

unitions Cosediment, an

contaminatioO and Muni

at no unaccethe RI. Th

emoval operndicating thathin MRS-Riscovered.

was conductial alternativ

The remedialal UXO at Md developmeS will remai

ve to remed

Year Review


Final OctoberRevisi

warrants fues for manatial human

h UXO for M

nway BGR. Munitions Dsurface (bgs

nt owned. Mhe projected

onstituents (nd surface w

on, in an effoitions Debrisptable risks

herefore, MCrations acrosat a UXO haR04 (Range

ted for MRSves for manal action obje

MRS-R04 (Rent of alternain high. The

iate UXO

ws: Five-

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

urther aging

and MRS-

This Debris s).

MRS-d land

(MC) water

fort to s was exist

C will ss the azard VII);

S-R04 aging ective Range atives e four


•

•

1.3.2 Adefined bAct) (Un

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1.4 DThe purpa Proposalternativaddress tconductepresented

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

Year determhazardAlternRevieconduexplosthe enAlternICs anresponto minsafety

A detailed anby CERCLA

nited States COveraCompLong-ReducShort-ImpleCost State Comm

DETAILED pose of the dsed Plan (Pves are comthe statutory

ed, recommed in the PP th

reviews formine if a reds and be pronative 3 –Sews: Five-Yucted to desive safety h

nvironment. native 4 – Sund Five-Yeanse actions animize explo

y, and the env

nalysis was cA (ComprehCode [USC],all protectionpliance with -term effectiction of toxic-term effecti

ementability

acceptance munity accep

ANALYSISdetailed analyPP) can be

mpared and ey requireme

endations arehat is issued

for MRS-R

r military mesponse actiotective of h

Surface CleaYear Reviewetermine if hazards and

ubsurface Rear Reviews.are conducteosive safety vironment.

completed fhensive Env, 1980.). Thn of human happlicable oveness and pcity, mobilitiveness

ptance

S SUMMARysis is to eva

prepared fevaluated wents and pree made in thd for public c

R04, Former

1-3

munitions resion continuehuman, healtarance for s for militara response

d be protecti

emoval of U Five-Year

ed to determhazards and

for each altevironmental he nine criterhealth and thor relevant anpermanencety, or volume

RY aluate and cofor regulato

with respect teferences of

he PP for thecomments.

r Conway BoHo

sponse actioes to minimth, safety, anUXO with

ry munitionse action conve of human

UXO with Sur Reviews foine if a respd be protecti

rnative usinResponse, C

ria are as follhe environmend appropria

e

ompare the iory agenciesto nine evalf the CERC

e MRS. The


ons are conmize explosind the enviro

ICs and Fs response acntinues to n, health, sa

urface Clearaor military monse action ive of huma

ng nine evaluCompensatiolows: ent ate requirem

identified alts and publiluation crite

CLA. Oncee preferred a


Final OctoberRevisi

ducted to ive safety onment. Five-Year ctions are minimize

afety, and

ance, with munitions continues

an, health,

uation criteron, and Lia

ments (ARAR

ternatives, soic review. eria develope the analysalternative w

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

ia, as ability

Rs)

o that The

ed to sis is

will be

WTH

S

T

T

M

W912DY-04-D-00Task Order: 0012 HB# 48891

MRS M

MRS-R01 Range II

MRS-R02 Range III

MRS-R03 Range IV

MRS-R04 Range VII

MRS-R05 Range XX

MRS-R06 Strafing Range

MRS-R07 Turret Range 1

MRS-R08 Turret Range 2

MRS-R09 MG/Rifle Range

18

TA

Potential MEC Hazards

Unlikely

Yes

Unlikely

Unlikely

Unlikely

Unlikely

Unlikely

Unlikely

Yes

ABLE 1-1: SUMMEC (HA)

Hazard Assessment Le(Current/Futur

Not Assessed

1/1

1/1

2/2

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

1/1

MMARY OF R

evel

re)

No MC Rele

No MC Rele

No MC Rele

No MC Rele

No MC Rele

No MC Rele

No MC Rele

No MC Rele

Not assessed

for MR

1-4

RESULTS AND

MC Risks

ease has occurred.

ease has occurred.

ease has occurred.

ease has occurred.

ease has occurred.

ease has occurred.

ease has occurred.

ease has occurred.

d

RS-R04, Forme

D RECOMME

Recomm

Further I

Further I

Further I

Feasibi

N

N

N

N

Further I

er Conway BomHorr

ENDATIONS

mendation

Investigation MEqua

Investigation ThedurPot

Investigation Expanti

ility Study Expanti

NOFA Expanti

NOFA Expanti

NOFA Expanti

NOFA Expanti

Investigation

PotbasNo obt

Feasibility Stmbing and Gunnry County, Sout

Final O

Commen

EC Nature and Exteantified

e area was well delring previous investtential MEC hazard

plosive safety hazaicipated.






tential MEC hazardsed on previous inv

Rights of Entry (Rained during RI.

tudy Report nery Range th Carolina

October 2012 Revision: 00

nts

ent not

lineated tigations.

ds present.

ard not

ard not

ard not

ard not

ard not

ard not

ds present, vestigations. ROE)

MRS-R09(MG/Rifle Range)

MRS-R01(Range II)

MRS-R02(Range III)

MRS-R03(Range IV)

MRS-R04(Range VII)

MRS-R05(Range XX)

MRS-R06(Strafing Range )MRS-R07

(Turret Range 1)

MRS-R08(Turret Range 2)

Legend

Figure 1-1MRS Location Map

Report for the Feasibility Studyat the Former Conway Bombing and Gunnery

Horry County, South Carolina

The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this report are those of the author(s) and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy, or decision, unless sodesignated by other documentation.

Path: L:\Conway\Maps\RIFS\RIFS Report\FS Report\Fig 1-1 MRS_Locations.mxdHB# 446300 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,0002,500Feet Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane South Carolina FIPS 3900 Feet Intl

Date: 5/17/2012Author: TKM

ASR SupplementRange II (MRS-R01)Range III (MRS-R02)Range IV (MRS-R03)Range VII (MRS-R04)Range XX (MRS-R05)Strafing Range (MRS-R06)Turret Range 1 (MRS-R07)Turret Range 2 (MRS-R08)MG/Rifle Range (MRS-R09)Former Conway Bombing Range


kara.gizzi

Text Box

1-5

Range VIIMEC Grid4250-RVII-G3-50

MEC Grid4250-RVII-G2-50



Legend

Figure 1-2: MRS-R04; Range VII(104SC002501R04)

Report for the Feasibility Studyat the Former Conway Bombing and Gunnery

Horry County, South Carolina(Results of the Remedial Investigation)

The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this report are those of the author(s) and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy, or decision, unless sodesignated by other documentation.

Path: L:\Conway\Maps\RIFS\RIFS Report\FS Report\Fig 1-2 R04 RangeVII_Results.mxdHB# 446300 1,000 2,000500Feet Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane South Carolina FIPS 3900 Feet Intl

Date: 5/17/2012Author: TKM

MEC Field Grids(50ft x 50ft)

Instrusive Investigation FindingsAnomaly100 Sandfilled Practice Bomb Debris

Instrusive TransectsTransects

Proposed TransectsAdditional AddedOptProposedRange VIIFreshwater Emergent WetlandFreshwater Forested/Shrub WetlandLake and Freshwater Pond

ROE StatusROE's ObtainedROE's Not Obtained


kara.gizzi

Text Box

1-6


The formThroughotypes of a1,923 acrFebruaryleases wacres andbeen devdevelopmmilitary. Over the a varietyArchivesand 2002 As presethe RI (R

• • • • • • • • •

MRS R0and R09 for evalu The alter

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

mer Conway out the yearairplanes anres were ter

y 1948. Lanere terminatd is in the nveloped into ment. The

last several y of manners Search Rep2 field effort

ented in ChaRI Report, Fi

MRS-MRS-MRS-MRS-MRS-MRS-MRS-MRS-MRS-

5, R06, R07were recom

uation in an F

rnatives eval

BGR was urs of operatiod practice orrminated. Mnd was retuted. The sunortheast par

recreationalonly docum

years, invesrs to accomport (ASR) 1s of the Eng

apter 5 of thigures 5-1 th-R01 (Range-R02 (Range-R03 (Range-R04 (Range-R05 (Range-R06 (Strafin-R07 (Turret-R08 (Turret-R09 (Machi

7 and R08 wmmended for FS.

luated in this

for MRS-R

CHAINTRO

under militaron, several Ardnances. B

Myrtle Beachurned to Inteubject of thirt of the Forl, commerci

mented muni

stigated areammodate the1995 (Uniteineering Eva

e RI Reporthrough 5-3). e II) e III) e IV) e VII) e XX) ng Range) t Range 1) t Range 2) ine Gun (MG

were recommfurther inve

s FS report w

R04, Former

2-1

APTER 2ODUCTIO

ry ownershipAAF and AA

Between Januh AAF closernational Pis RI (MRSrmer Conwaial, and/or reitions used

as within thee specific ind States Armaluation / Co

t, recommen These are:

G)/Rifle Ran

mended NOFAestigation. M

will be applie

r Conway BoHo

ON

p from JuneAB utilized uary 1945 aned in 1947

Paper Compa-R04, Rangeay BGR. Thesidential arat the Conw

former Connvestigative my Corps ofost Analysis

nded MRS w

nge)

A in the RI MRS-R04 (6

ed only to M


e 1940 until the former

nd Septembeand was deany (34,685e VII) is aphe Conway eas with pla

way BGR w

nway BGR wefforts beg

f Engineers (EE/CA) (P

were develop

report. MR649 acres) w

MRS-R04.


Final OctoberRevisi

September 1BGR for vaer 1948, leasclared surpl

5 acres) aftepproximately

BGR areas ans for additwere by the

were organizginning with[USACE], 1

Parsons, 2003

ped as a resu

S R01, R02,was recomme

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

1948. arious ses of lus in er the y 649

have tional U.S.

zed in h the 1995) 3).

ult of

, R03 ended


2.1 P2.1.1 Tinformeda given salternativ

•

•

• 2.1.2 CThese ineffectivenor volumagainst w 2.2 SThe resula summaReport coMEC HAreasonabexplosivemethodolunderstanof “2” rep Chapterseither hunecessaryassessme Potentialrelative tof the Mcurrent a

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

PURPOSE The purpose d risk managsite. The FSve remedial a

DevelpotentAnalybelowComp

CERCLA coclude protecness, and a p

me. To satisfwhich potent

UMMARYlts of the RIary of the Uontains a risA is a tool ly anticipatee hazards tlogy is a nding of propresents a re

7 and 8 of uman healthy and will nent conducte

l explosive sto human he

MEC HA forand future lan

of the Feasgement decis is the mechactions. Thelop an approtial explosiv

yze the alterw; and pare the alter

ntains severction of humpreference f

fy these CERial remedies

Y OF REME are containe

UXO sourcesk assessmen

that evaluaed land use ato people fr

collaborativoject team melatively low

the RI conch or ecolognot be discud during the

safety hazardealth and safr UXO connd uses. The

for MRS-R

sibility Studsion regardinhanism for the FS processopriate rang

ve safety hazrnatives agai

rnatives agai

ral statutoryman health afor permanenRCLA requirs are judged,

EDIAL INVEed in Chapte

e characterisnt for MC anates baselineactivities. It rom differenve process

members andw potential ex

cluded there gical receptoussed in thise RI for MRS

ds associatedfety within Mducted durine MEC HA f

R04, Former

2-2

dy is to gathng which remhe developms is designedge of potentzards; inst the nine

inst each oth

y provisions and the envince and for trements, NCas summari

ESTIGATIer 8 of the Rstics and expnd the MECe explosive can also be nt removal

that drawd stakeholdexplosive safe

were no unors. Therefs FS. TableS-R04 (Rang

d with potenMRS-R04 (Rng the RI ffor MRS-R0

r Conway BoHo

her informatmedy appea

ment, screenind to: tial alternati

e NCP criter

her.

with whichronment, cotreatment th

CP Section 30ized in Table

ION FINDINRI Report. P

posure path hazard assehazards to used to evalor remedia

ws on the rs. The ME

fety hazard le

nacceptable rfore, MC re 2-2 showsge VII).

ntial residuaRange VII).for MRS-R004 is in Appe


tion sufficiears to be mosng and detai

ives to man

ria (USEPA

h all remediompliance what reduces to00.430 idente 2-1.

NGS lease refer to

hways. Chaessment (HApeople base

luate the relaal actions.

collective EC HA Ratinevel.

risks associaremedial acts the results

al UXO is po Table 2-3 s

04 (Range Vendix B of th


Final OctoberRevisi

ent to suppost appropriatiled evaluati

nage hazards

A, 1994b) de

es must comwith ARARs,

oxicity, mobtifies nine cr

o that chapteapter 7 of thA) for UXO.ed on curreative reducti The MECexperience

ng for MRS

ated with Mtion will nos or the MC

otentially prshows the reVII) for bothhis FS Repor

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

ort an te for on of

s and

efined

mply. , cost bility, riteria

er for he RI

The ent or ion of

C HA and

S-R04

C for ot be

C risk

resent esults h the rt.


TA

Th

Pri

Mo

A

Barium (B

Cadmium

Lead (Pb)

Mercury

Zinc (Zn)

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

ABLE 2-1: N

reshold Crit

imary BalancCriteria

odifying Crit

T

Analyte

Ba) m (Cd) ) (Hg) )

NINE CRIT

eria

cing 3m

eria

TABLE 2-2

No. of TiSample

6 6 6 6 6

TA

M

MRS-R04

for MRS-R

TERIA FORALTE

1. Overal

. Long-term emobility, or vo

8. S

2: MC RESMRS-R

Soil (M

imes ed No.

ABLE 2-3: M

MRS

4 (Range VII

R04, Former

2-3

R DETAILEERNATIVEl protection o

2. Com

effectiveness olume through

Imple

State acceptan

ULTS SUMR04 (Range V

Metals) Summ

of Detections

6/6 0/6 6/6 6/6 6/6

MEC HA SUME

I)

r Conway BoHo

ED ANALYES of human healmpliance with

and permanenh treatment; 5ementability;

nce; 9. Comm

MMARY, MVII)

mary No. of

DetectedRegional S

Level (

0/0/0/0/0/

UMMARYEC HA (Haza

Current/Fu

2/2


YSIS OF RE

lth and the enARARs

nce; 4. Reduc5. Short-term 7. Cost

munity accept

MRS-R04

Times d above Screening (RSL)

m

/6 /6 /6 /6 /6

ard Level) uture


Final OctoberRevisi

EMEDIAL

nvironment;

ction of toxicieffectiveness

tance

Maximummilligram/kilog

(mg/kg)

18.1 ND 11.3

0.050213.7

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

ity, s; 6.

m gram


The procaction obprovide d 3.1 R3.1.1 Rhealth anthe rangethe levelstandardshazard is(Range V 3.1.2 Aa potentiMRS-R0VII). 3.1.3 MConway for resideexpectedboth surf(Range V 3.1.4 Tresidents 3.2 G3.2.1 Gresponse

• • •

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

IDENTIF

cess used fobjectives (RAdetails regard

REMEDIALRAOs addresnd safety. Te of alternatil of potentias for MEC s from UXOVII).

Analysis of thal for unacc

04 (Range V

MRS-R04 (RBGR is predential, leased

d to change. face and subVII).

The RAO fo, and worker

GENERAL RGeneral resp

actions seleNOFAUXO ICs

FICATION

for developinAOs) and dding the RA

L ACTION Oss the goals

The RAOs arives that can

al explosive and the RI

O, only a sin

he RI resultsceptable humVII); therefor

Range VII) dominantly pd logging, huBecause of surface expo

or MRS-R04rs, due to po

RESPONSEonse actions

ected for thisA; Removal; an

for MRS-R

CHAN AND SC

ng and scredeveloping gAOs, general

OBJECTIVfor reducin

re intended n be developsafety hazadetermined

ngle RAO h

s and the anman health anre, UXO haz

has relativprivately owunting, and, the potentiaosure pathwa

4 is to miniotential expo

E ACTIONSs are selectes FS include

nd

R04, Former

3-1

APTER 3CREENIN

eening techngeneral respo

response obj

VES ng the UXOto be as speped is undulards, howeve

there is nohas been dev

nticipated futnd safety hazards are add

ely unrestriwned. MRS-

recreationall for UXO toays are cons

imize the hosure to resid

S ed to satisfythe followin

r Conway BoHo

NG OF TE

nologies inconse objectivbjectives, and

hazards to ecific as posly limited. Ter because t risk from Mveloped that

ture site actiazards due todressed in th

icted access-R04 (Rangel activities. o become exsidered poten

health and sdual UXO.

y the RAO ng:


CHNOLO

cludes estabves. The fod remedial te

ensure protssible but noThe objectivthere are noMC and that is applicab

vities concluo residual Uhis FS for M

s. Land we VII) is currThe projecte

xposed due tontially comp

afety hazard

for the MR


Final OctoberRevisi

OGIES

blishing remollowing secechnologies.

tection of huot so specificve is to mini formal cleaat the only Mble for MRS

uded that theXO remaini

MRS-R04 (R

ithin the forently beinged land use io these activ

plete at MRS

ds to the pu

RS. The ge

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

medial ctions .

uman c that imize an-up MEC

S-R04

ere is ng in

Range

ormer used is not vities, S-R04

ublic,

eneral


3.2.2 Temployed 3.2.3 RRadioactconducteis refinedidentifiedpromulgaactions, Aof the res 3.2.4 Cthat estabdischargethe formactivity, useful in identifiedunacceptTherefor 3.2.5 Lhazardouas a wildSouth Caendangerwere encsite are land endaThere waaccordingSCDNR documen 3.2.6 Alimitationconduct

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

The general d as standalo

Response acttive Waste ed in accordad based upod for each aated statutorARARs mussponse as we

Chemical-speblish the acced to, the am

mer Conway other criterdesigning a

d for the Ctable risks foe, MC will n

Location-specus substance dlife refuge oarolina Depared and one countered dulisted in Tabangered specas one plantg to the SManaged L

nted within H

Action-specifns placed oncertain actio

response acone activitie

tions under F(HTRW) anance with CEon site charaalternative ury and regulst be complieell as for all

ecific ARARceptable am

mbient envirBGR. Wh

ria, advisorieand selectingConway BGor either humnot be addres

cific ARARor the conduor national partment of N

threatened uring the RI fble 3-1. Adcies within tt consideredCDNR web

Lands have LHorry County

fic ARARs n actions takons to addre

for MRS-R

ctions identis or combine

Formerly Usnd Military ERCLA andacterization undergoing satory required with for aactions take

Rs are promumount or conronment. Nohen ARARs es, and guidg a remedial GR. Howemans or ecolssed in the r

Rs generallyuct of activitpark). Acco

Natural Resouspecies docufield activiti

dditional disthe former C

d to be endanbsite (http:/Lewis Oceany; however,

are usuallken with respess particula

R04, Former

3-2

ified above ed in develo

sed Defense Munitions

d the NCP. information

screening anrements that all hazardouen as part of t

ulgated healncentration oo chemical-sdo not exis

dance referralternative.

ever, as prelogical recepemainder of

y are restricties solely beording to an urces (SCDNumented in ies at the forcussions regConway BGngered and //www.dnr.scn Bay HeritaMRS-R04 l

ly technolopect to remear circumsta

r Conway BoHo

with the eoping remedi

Sites (FUDResponse

During the and action

nd detailed aare substan

s substancesthe response

lth-based or of a chemicaspecific ARAst for a partred to as To No Chemic

eviously staptors exist df the FS.

ctions placeecause they environmen

NR) there isthe Horry C

rmer Conwaygarding the p

GR can be foone threatenc.gov/specieage Preservelies outside t

ogy or actiedial/removaances at a si


xception ofial action alt

DS) for HazaProgram (MFS, the initispecific AR

analysis. Antive in naturs remaining e actions.

risk-based nal that may ARs have beticular chemo Be Considcal-Specific ated, the Rdue to MC re

ed on the are in specia

ntal review c one animal

County area. y BGR. Thepresence of

ound in Chaned plant spes/index.htme/Wildlife Mthe preserve’

vity-based al actions, orite. Action-


Final OctoberRevisi

f NOFA maernatives.

ardous, ToxicMMRP) mual list of AR

RARs need ARARs consi

re. For remon-site at the

numerical vremain in,

een identifiemical or remdered (TBCTBCs have

RI concludeelated chem

concentratioal locations (conducted bconsidered

However, e ARARs fo

f these threatapter 2 of thpecies in the

ml). In addManagement ’s boundarie

requirementr requiremen-specific AR

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

ay be

c and st be

RARs to be ist of

medial e end

values or be

ed for medial C) are

been d no

micals.

on of (such

by the to be none

or this tened

he RI. e area dition Area

es.

ts or nts to RARs


pertainindemolitiogovernintreatment 3.3 IDThe USEdevelopeand are s

•

•

•

•

• • •

NCP guidscope anuse is alnumber (fencing/at the MRand appli 3.3.1 D3.3.1.1 detectors(Parsons,technique

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

ng to possibon for the v

ng documentt units open

DENTIFICAEPA has ested during theummarized

Use trpractiUse etreatmUse ahumanUse IChazardnot suactiveConsiConsiConsiNote: E

dance furthend complexitlso a considof alternativ

/signage, eduRS include icable proce

Detection TeDetection m

s and magne, 2002) and es; subsequ

ble consolidarious alternt for this acburn/open d

ATION ANtablished gue detailed anas follows: reatment to cable. engineering

ment is impraa combination health andCs to suppledous substanubstitute for e measures aider using inider using prider monitorECs and ICs are

er states thatty of the remderation in dves are conucation), remdetection, resses for UXO

echnologies methods conetometers. EE/CA (Pa

uently, the

for MRS-R

dation shotsnatives havection-specifidetonation (O

ND SCREENuidelines fornalysis stage

address the

controls (Eacticable. on of method the environement enginences, pollutaactive respore determinenovative tec

resumptive red natural atsubsets of Land

t “the develomedial actiondeveloping nsidered formedial technecovery, andO detection,

nsist primariAs shown d

arsons, 2003techniques

R04, Former

3-3

s and movie been identiic is portionOB/OD).

NING OF Rr the types

e; they are li

e principal th

ECs) for lo

ods, as apprnment. eering controants, or contonse measureed not to be pchnologies. emedies. ttenuation foUse Controls (L

opment and en under conalternatives.

r this FS. nologies assod disposal. T, recovery, an

ily of usingduring the T

3), munitions implement

r Conway BoHo

ing munitioified for thens of RCRA

REMEDIALof remedialsted in the N

hreats posed

ow, long-ter

ropriate, to a

ols to preventaminants. es as the solpracticable.

or MC constiLUCs).

evaluation onsideration” . Due to thIn addition

ociated withThe followinnd disposal.

geophysicaTime Criticas are readilyted at the


ons to desig former Con

A Subpart X

L TECHNOl alternativeNCP (40 CF

d by a site,

rm threats

achieve prot

nt or limit exThe use of e remedy un

ituents.

f alternative(40 CFR 30hese factors

n to NOFA h UXO potenng sections

al instrumenal Removal y detected u

site durin


Final OctoberRevisi

gnated areanway BGR. X, Miscellan

LOGIES es that shoulFR 300.430(a

wherever

or where

tection of

xposure to ICs shall

nless such

es shall reflec00.430(e)). s, only a lim

and IC acntially remadiscuss avai

nts such as mAction (TC

using geophyng the prev

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

s for The

neous

ld be a)(1))

ct the Land mited ctions aining ilable

metal CRA) ysical vious


investigadomain eused durflux-gateon transemethods.such as munition 3.3.1.2 which hain actualversus racurrently 3.3.1.3 R04, whrestrict aIn order would neoperationutilized t(EM) or during fu 3.3.2 R3.3.2.1 mass excin some anot consicreate an 3.3.2.2 done affeexcavatioof targets

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

ations are coelectromagning the prev

e magnetomeects. A high. However,the depth o

ns, and interf

Although thave similar pl UXO. Thange fans, ety being devel

There are nhich present ccess to largto address

eed to be usns. An ampto aid in bru

magnetomeuture geophy

Removal TecRemoval te

cavation andareas of MRidered prefe

n unnecessary

Hand excavfectively. Hons were sups made hand

onsidered theetic inductio

vious investieters (i.e., S degree of co it should bof detectionference from

hese geophyproperties as here is a vartc. Innovatiloped to redu

numerous swchallenges

ge areas of ththese marshed during th

phibious vehush cutting ineter (MAG)ysical survey

chnologies echnologies d sifting (usiRS-R04 and terred, but cay amount of

vation is conHand excavapported by lid-excavation

for MRS-R

e most effecon metal detigations for Schonstedt Gonfidence sh

be noted thatn which var

m utilities, str

ysical instrumUXO, only

riation in peive technolouce the amou

wamps, bogsto future re

he MRS-R04hy areas at he brush cutthicle such an marshy en) towed arraying operatio

include haning heavy eqthe lack of laan be employf land disturb

nsidered the ation was coimited mechimpractical

R04, Former

3-4

ctive means tectors (i.e., digital geop

GA-52Cx) whould be expt there are lries dependiructures, and

ments can bea small perc

ercentages dgies (e.g. Aunt of non-h

s, streams anemediation 4 due to highMRS-R04 eting, surveyias an Argo, nvironments ay that coulons.

nd excavatioquipment). Darge numberyed with disbance.

industry staonducted duhanical excav.

r Conway BoHo

for locating Geonics EM

physical mapwere successpected for sulimitations ting on the d other metal

e successful centage of thdepending o

Advanced Gehazardous ite

nd other maefforts. Thh water leveequipment sing, geophyMarsh Maand possibl

ld float beh

on, equipmeDue to the prs of UXO, thscretion. A

andard for auring the prevation for sp


UXO (at thM61 Mk2) wpping. In adfully used t

uccessful deto their detectechnology l in the vicin

in finding she anomalieson location, eophysical Cems selected

arshy envirohe marshy eels and semi-such as ampsical surveyster, or equly towing anhind the am

ent assisted presence of he use of he

Also, heavy e

anomaly recoevious invespecific sites w


Final OctoberRevisi

his MRS). Twere successddition, handto “mag-andtection with ction capabiand size o

nity.

subsurface tas identified re.g. target

Classificationd for excavat

onments at Menvironments-fluid substrphibious vehying and intruivalent couln electromag

mphibious ve

excavationheavy veget

eavy equipmequipment w

overy and castigations. Hwhere the de

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

Time-sfully dheld

d-dig” these ilities

of the

argets result areas

n) are tion.

MRS-s can rates. hicles rusive ld be

gnetic ehicle

, and tation ent is

would

an be Hand ensity


3.3.3 DDisposal munitionmunitionconsolidaacceptabmethod. IAW USsuspected

RequiremEndanger(ESA) (SpecificaCockaded

Resource and Recov(RCRA)

ProtectioClean W

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

Disposal Tectechnologie

n is individuns that are “ated shot ale to move. The resultin

SACE guided Material D

TABLE

ment ed Species A

ally for Red d Woodpecker

Conservationvery Act

on of Wetlanater Act

chnologies es include blually destroy“acceptable

approach forMunitions tng Material elines in or

Documented

3-1: APPLI

Citatioct

r)

16 Uni(U.S.C(USC,

n SubparMiscelunits ODetona

nds, (33 U.Sectio

for MRS-R

ow in place yed in placeto move.”

r the majorthat were noDocumente

rder to prevas an Explo

ICABLE ORREQUIRE

on ited States Co

C.) 1533 2007a)

rt X, laneous treatm

Open Burn/Opation (OB/OD

S.C. Part 13n 404.

R04, Former

3-5

(BIP) and coe; whereas, Previous i

rity of UXOot acceptableed as Safe (Mvent the MDsive Hazard

R RELEVAEMENTS (A

Descrode Prohib

from mhabitathe coof proendanthreat

ment pen D).

Consomovindesigndemovariou

344), Regulof drematerthe Uninclud

r Conway BoHo

onsolidated the consoli

investigationO that wase to move wMDAS) is shDAS from b(MDEH).

ANT AND AARARs) ription bits federal acmodifying criats or jeopardontinued existotected, ngered, or tened species.olidation shotng munitions nated areas folition for the us alternativelates the dischedged or fill rial into waternited States, ding wetlands


shot and bloidated shot ns/removal s found becwere destroyhipped awaybeing encou

APPROPRI

Typctions itical

dizing tence

.

Acti

ts and to

or

s.

Acti

harge

rs of

s.

Acti


Final OctoberRevisi

ow. For BIP,can be useactions usedcause they ed using they to be destruntered aga

IATE

e on- specific

on- specific

on- specific

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

each d for d the were

e BIP royed in as


4.1 DBased onand dispo

• • • •

Table 4-1 4.2 A4.2.1 AThe NOFhazards pMRS in since it p 4.2.2 A4.2.2.1 posting seducate pamphletidentificabe providand the logating foboundariaccess cassociatebombingand specfencing, This is be

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

DEVELOPMn the RAO fosal technolo

AlternAlternAlternAlternYear R

1 provides a

ALTERNATAlternative 1FA alternativposed by UXits current

provides a ba

Alternative 2Alternative

signage (in athe public ts with apation, restricded advisingocation of th

or the purposies is not conontrols alre

ed with UXOg range is noific restrictioaccess restriecause the g

DEVEL

MENT OF Afor the MRSogies for UXnative 1: NOnative 2: ICsnative 3: Surnative 4: SubReviews.

summary of

TIVE DESC1: NOFA ve means thXO. This acondition.

aseline for co

2: ICs with 2 will be co

addition to thon MEC hppropriate

ctions, and sag the reader he physical rse of contronsidered a paady in placO. Any ph

ot within theons due to aictions, and

government n

for MRS-R

CHALOPMENT

ALTERNAT, the genera

XO, the folloOFA s and Five-Yrface Clearanbsurface Rem

f alternatives

CRIPTIONS

hat a remedyalternative, iThis alternaomparing oth

Five-Year Ronsidered forhat already inhazards. Th

informationafety and nohow to acce

repository foolled access bart of the ICsce for purpohysical acces scope of th

a history of mdeed restric

no longer ow

R04, Former

4-1

APTER 4T OF ALT

TIVES al response aowing alterna

Year Reviewsnce with ICsmoval with

s considered

S

y will not bef implement

ative will beher alternativ

Reviews r MRS-R04 n place), pubhe principaln addressintification press the publior the adminbased on pos. This excloses other tss controls e

his discussionmunitions usctions were cwns or contro

r Conway BoHo

TERNATI

actions, and atives were d

s s and Five-YSurface Clea

d for initial s

e necessary tted, would ie consideredves.

(Range VII)blic educatiol vehicle fo

ng the potocedures. Aic web site f

nistrative recotential UXOusion is not than potentiemployed ton. The signse in that areconsidered, ols the prope


IVES

available dedeveloped fo

Year Reviewsarance, ICs

creening for

to reduce theinvolve contd for MRS-R

). This alternon and constor public edtential mun

Additionally,for the formords. There

O exposure wintended to

ial explosivo restrict acnage would pea. Additionbut are not erty.


Final OctoberRevisi

etection, remor considera

s and Five-

r MRS-R04.

e potential stinued use oR04 (Range

native consitructing kiosducation winitions haz, information

mer Conway efore, fencingwithin the Fconflict withe safety hacess to the provide warnnal LUCs suevaluated he

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

moval, tion:

safety of the VII)

sts of sks to ill be zards, n will BGR g and

FUDS h any

azards prior nings

uch as erein.


4.2.2.2 would prreplace a 4.2.2.3 SuperfunNCP, arecontaminfollowingpublic himplemenbecome athe publitechnicalhazards. needs to place, thethe reviein the loReviews explosiveenvironm 4.2.3 A4.2.3.1 hazards aground su3 will be 4.2.3.2 cleared dthe potenoperation 4.2.3.3 program human he

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

Signage worovide a deteand repair da

Five-Year nd Amendmee required fonants remaing the complhealth, safetnted; 2) veravailable thaic or environl impracticab Data gathebe taken to e site wouldw, a Five-Yocal newspa

would be es safety ha

ment.

Alternative 3This alterna

and also minurface only,considered

UXO remoduring previontial explosns will identi

Five-Year continues t

ealth, safety

ould help toerrent for inaamaged signs

Reviews, aents and Reaor sites (at len at a site abetion of remty, and therify the integat may warranment that mbility to det

ered during tprotect publ

d continue toYear Review aper concer

conducted azards and

3: Surface Cative uses a

nimizes recep with ICs anfor initial sc

oval would ous investigasive safety ify and remo

Reviews wto minimize

y, and the env

for MRS-R

o reinforce tappropriate as.

as outlined authorizationeast every fivbove levels

medy. Five-Y environmegrity of anyant further a

may require atermine if nthe review plic safety ando be monitoReport wou

rning the coto determincontinues t

Clearance wa combinatioptor interactnd Five-Yearcreening for

be conducteations. The hazards and

ove UXO on

ould be cone explosivesvironment.

R04, Former

4-2

the link betwactivity. An

in Section n Act (SARAve years) whthat allow u

Year Reviewent are beiny site controaction; 4) detan acceleratnew technolprocess woud the humanred at the sp

uld be prepaontinued effne if the rto be protec

with ICs andon of activition. The actr Reviews aMRS-R04 (R

ed by traineobjective of

d minimize n the ground

nducted to s safety haz

r Conway BoHo

ween appropnnual mainten

121(c) of A), and Secthere hazardounlimited usws would beng protectels; 3) determtermine if thed responselogy will adld be used t

n environmenpecified inte

ared and a pufectiveness response actctive of hum

d Five-Year ties to achietivities conss described Range VII).

ed UXO tecf the UXO s

receptor insurface.

ensure thatzards and co


priate accesnance would

CERCLA, tion 300.430ous substancse and unrese conducted d by the rmine if newhere is an im; and 5) revi

ddress potento determinent. If no chervals. At thublic notice of the remtion continuman health,

Reviews eve a reductist of UXO rin Alternativ

chnicians insurface clearnteractions.

t the educatontinues to


Final OctoberRevisi

s and safetyd be conduct

as amende0 (f) (4) (ii) oces, pollutanstricted expoto 1) ensure

response acw informationmmediate thre

iew decisionntial UXO se if further aanges have the completiowould be p

medy. Five-ues to mini safety, and

tion in the Uremoval fromve 2. Altern

n those arearance is to re

UXO rem

tional awarebe protectiv

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

y and ted to

d by of the nts, or osure e that ctions n has eat to ns for safety action taken on of laced -Year imize d the

UXO m the native

s not educe moval

eness ve of


4.2.4 AReviews 4.2.4.1 hazards removal, the subsuMRS-R0 4.2.4.2 cleared dremove Uover theexcavatiogeophysiprevious 2005). Eareas, e.gmunitionmove coucontainer 4.2.4.3 Vegetatiogeophysiand wher 4.2.4.4 UXO finfrom the be used tremoval Potentialestablish 4.2.4.5 clearanceperformeremoved

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

Alternative 4

This alternaand also m ICs, and Fivurface remo

04 (Range VI

UXO remoduring previUXO on the e entire accon. Depth ical instruminvestigatio

Engineeringg. residentia

ns would be uld be moverized, and sh

Residual Uon would bical instrumere access is d

During the nds. If a risk

immediate to verify thatwould be d

l sources toing site-spec

Although de is expecteded on the F

at depths u

4: Subsurfa

ative uses aminimizes rec

ve-Year Revoval operatioII).

oval would ious investigground surf

cessible areaof clearancents. Howe

ons at the Cog controls oral housing, fdestroyed u

ed to a nearbhipped to an

UXO may exbe cleared ents, such asdifficult.

removal actk-based critevicinity of tt the MC hasdeveloped do use for ricific soil scre

depth to deted to be betwFormer Conwup to 8 feet b

for MRS-R

ce Removal

a combinatioceptor interaviews. Surfaons. Altern

be conductegations. Thface and in ta and metae is typicalever, the monway BGRr evacuationfacilities, etcsing blow iny designatedoffsite smel

xist in the pto allow a

s handheld m

tion, soil sameria exceedanthe detonatios been remov

during the reisk-based creening level

ection of speween 1 and 6

way BGR; bgs on this M

R04, Former

4-3

ls with Surf

on of activitaction. Theace clearanc

native 4 will

ed by trainee objective

the subsurfacallic anomaly predeterm

maximum dep, not within n may be nec. If UXOn place proced area for delter for destru

paved areas access for tmetal detecto

mples will bnce is idention for offsitved. Risk bemedial desriteria inclus (SSLs) usi

ecific equipm6 feet based

however, inMRS, and u

r Conway BoHo

face Clearan

ties to achiee activities

ce is a concul be conside

ed UXO tecof the UXO

ce. Geophyalies would mined to bepth of subsuMRS-R04 heeded whenis encounteredures. Mu

emolition. Auction.

after implemthe geophysors may be u

be collected ified, a thin lte disposal. ased screeni

sign phase pde EPA reging EPA Soi

ment can varon previousndividual iteup to 18 feet


nce, ICs and

eve a reductconsist of U

urrent activityered for init

chnicians inO removal isical data wbe identifi

e the detectiurface UXOhave been 8 n working cred, it is ant

unitions that All MDAS w

mentation ofsical instrumused for area

at demolitiolayer of soil Confirmatiing levels anprior to the gional screel Screening

ry, the appros investigatioems have bt bgs on ano


Final OctoberRevisi

d Five-Year

tion in the UUXO subsuy associatedtial screenin

n those areas to identifyould be collied for intrion depth o

O encounterefeet bgs (Ulose to occuticipated thaare acceptab

would be cert

f this alternaments. Smas near struc

on sites and will be remon sampling

nd criteria foremoval ac

ening levelsGuidance.

oximate depons and rembeen locatedother MRS a

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

r

UXO urface d with ng for

s not y and ected

rusive of the ed in SAE, upied at the ble to tified,

ative. maller ctures

d near moved g will or soil ction. s and

pth of ovals

d and at the


former Creliable dtechnolog 4.2.4.6 hazards; as roads, 4.2.4.7 Alternaticoncernin 4.2.4.8 required 4.3 A4.3.1 Trelative t

•

•

•

The detaalternativ 4.3.2 NenvironmprotectioVII). Ththere wou 4.3.3 ICthus redu

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

Conway BGRdetection ofgy.

The complehowever, sobuildings, s

Educationalive 2, woulng UXO haz

In addition under Altern

APPLICATIThis section to identified

EffectvolumhazardImpleimplemCost maint

iled analysisves.

NOFA (Altement, as it do

n. This altehe screening uld be no ac

Cs with Fivucing the pot

R. It shoulf munitions

etion of the ome munitiosidewalks, an

l awarenessld provide azards at the s

to ICs, a Fnative 4 to m

ION OF SCdiscusses thscreening crtiveness – th

me through tds; and afforementabilitymenting the – the costs ain.

s and evalua

ernative 1) oes not furthrnative doescriteria for i

ction and no

ve-Year Revtential for ex

for MRS-R

ld be noted in MRS-R0

UXO remoons may be mnd paved par

s, pamphletadditional psite.

Five-Year Rmonitor and r

CREENINGhe performanriteria. The he degree totreatment; mrds long-termy – the tealternative.of construct

ation in Chap

does not pher reduce pos meet the efimplementabcost.

views (Alterxposure path

R04, Former

4-4

that these d04 is unlikel

oval would rmissed and mrking areas w

ts, training, protection b

eview (as dreview the e

CRITERIAnce of the foscreening cr

o which an aminimizes rem protectionechnical an

tion and any

pter 5 will co

provide longotential explffectiveness bility and co

rnative 2) whway comple

r Conway BoHo

depths reprely beyond 4

result in a smunitions uwill not be cl

etc., similby providing

described uneffectiveness

A BY ALTEour alternatiriteria includlternative re

esidual potenn. nd administ

y long-term

ompare addi

g-term protelosive safetyscreening cr

ost would be

will mitigate petion and mi


esent unusua4 to 6 feet b

ignificant reunder existinleared.

ar to that g informatio

nder Alternats of the altern

ERNATIVEives describede the followeduces the mntial explosi

trative feasi

costs to op

itional criter

ection of huy hazards or riterion for Me met by this

possible recinimizing po


Final OctoberRevisi

al situationsbgs with pr

eduction in Ung structures

described uon to the p

tive 2) wounative.

E ed in Sectio

wing: mobility or

ive safety

ibility of

perate and

ria for each o

uman healthafford long-

MRS-R04 (Rs alternative

eptor interacotential expl

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

, and resent

UXO such

under public

ld be

n 4.2

of the

h and -term

Range since

ction, osive


safety hatreatmentmaterialsmaintainFive-Yea 4.3.4 Spotential alternativreductionalternativSurface Con the aAlternati 4.3.5 S(AlternaHand remand removolume feasible, availablethe costs long-termevaluatioimplemen(Range V

TA

MR

MRS(Rang

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

azards. Thist. Implemes necessary ed through ar Reviews.

urface Cleexplosive s

ve will provin of the mobve can readiClearance wattainability ive 3 will be

ubsurface ative 4) woulmoval is curoval can be of UXO thand the skil

e. The cost fassociated w

m effectiveneon based ontability, an

VII).

ABLE 4-1: S

RS A

S-R04 ge VII) C

alternative entation is tto implemensign and kioAlternative

arance withsafety hazardide long-term

bility or voluily be imple

with ICs and of the efferetained for

Removal ld meet the e

rrently the mdifficult an

hrough its rlled labor (i.for implemenwith previouess ICs, and

on its abilind cost scree

SUMMARYSCREE

Alternative 1 NOFA

Considered

for MRS-R

is not effecttechnically ant such are osk mainten2 will be ret

h ICs andds to humanm effectiven

ume of potenemented. CFive-Year R

ectiveness, ir MRS-R04 (

with Surfeffectiveness

most widely und time consremoval. Im.e., UXO Tenting an UXus investigatd Five-Year Rty to reduning require

Y OF ALTEENING FOR

Alternative5-Year Re

Conside

R04, Former

4-5

tive in termsand adminisreadily avai

nance, occastained for M

Five-Year n health to aness through ntial UXO is Costs are preReviews willmplementab(Range VII)

face Clearas criteria forused methodsuming. Thmplementati

echnicians) tXO removal itions. ImplemReviews. Th

uce the moements. Alte

ERNATIVER MRS-R04

e 2 ICs, eviews

Sur

red

r Conway BoHo

s of reducingstratively feailable. Lon

sional UXO MRS-R04 (Ra

Reviews (a limited deg

the processlimited to th

esented in Cl be retainedbility, and c.

ance, ICsr residual UXd for removahere will be ion is technto implemenis presented mentation ofhe alternativ

obility or vernative 4 w

ES CONSID4 (RANGE VAlternative 3 rface ClearanICs, 5-Year

Reviews

Considered


g mobility orasible, and

ng term effecavoidance c

ange VII).

(Alternativegree. Implem of Five-Yehe ground suChapter 5 od for further cost screenin

and FiveXO currentlyal of UXO ba reduction

nically and nt such a rem

in Chapter 5f this alternave will be retvolume of

will be retain

ERED FORVII)

ce, Alter

Subsuw/SurICs, 5

C


Final OctoberRevisi

r volume thrthe servicesctiveness wiclasses, and

e 3) will rementation oar Reviews. urface only. of this docum

evaluation bng requirem

e-Year Revy within an Mbut, hand dign in mobility

administratmedy is gene5 and is baseative will protained for fupotential U

ned for MRS

R INITIAL

rnative 4 UXOurface Removrface Clearanc5-Year Review

Considered

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

rough s and ill be with

educe f this The This ment. based

ments.

views MRS. gging y and tively erally ed on ovide urther UXO, S-R04

O val ce, ws


5.1 IN5.1.1 Tand presidentified

• • • •

A detaile 5.1.2 Tdevelopeare as fol

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Note thatassumed of alternaare otherassessed project pthese fac

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

D

NTRODUCThe purpose sent a Propd for the deta

AlternAlternAlternAlternYear R

ed descriptio

The alternatied to addressllows:

OveraCompLong-ReducShort-ImpleCost State Comm

t state accepacceptance

atives. Thesrwise cost ef

until commplanning (TPtors.

DETAILED

CTION of the detailosed Plan failed analysinative 1: NOnative 2: ICsnative 3: Surnative 4: SubReviews

on of each alt

ves are coms the statutor

all protectionpliance with -term effectiction of toxic-term effecti

ementability

acceptance munity accep

ptance and cfrom the loc

se two criteriffective and

ments on the PP) process

for MRS-R

CHAD ANALY

ed analysis ifor regulatois include th

OFA s with Five-Yrface Clearanbsurface Rem

ternative is p

mpared and ry requireme

n of human hARARs veness and pcity, mobilitiveness

ptance

community acal public ania can play ameet other cFS and the and other p

R04, Former

5-1

APTER 5YSIS OF A

is to evaluatory agencieshe following:

Year Reviewnce with ICsmoval with S

provided in C

evaluated wents and pre

health and th

permanencety, or volume

acceptance ond from stata role in weicriteria. TheProposed P

public involv

r Conway BoHo

ALTERNA

te and compas and public:

ws s and Five-YSurface Clea

Chapter 4.

with respecteferences of

he environme

e

of the remedte agencies righing the baese criteria c

Plan are recevement help


ATIVES

are the identc review.

Year Reviewsarance, ICs, a

t to nine evCERCLA.

ent

dy are based regarding thealance betwecannot be fueived; howevps foster an


Final OctoberRevisi

tified alternaThe alterna

s and Five-

valuation crThe nine cr

on the degre implementeen remedielly evaluatedver, the techunderstandin

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

atives atives

riteria riteria

ree of tation s that d and hnical ng of


5.1.3 Ecomparedidentify reducing followingperformin 5.2 EAlternatibalancingof the cri 5.2.1 TThresholalternativ 5.2.1.1 The seleunacceptThe overeffect eacthree comAll threecriteria aexisting e 5.2.1.2 The NCPTBCs, hephase, thRCRA Sassessmefor this ethe red requiremmunitionaction-spApplicab

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

Each of the d against onthe key trathe UXO e

g sections dng the analy

EVALUATIives are comg criteria, aniteria.

Threshold Cld criteria (ive must mee

Overall Prected alternatable hazardsrall protectivch alternativmponents: the componentalso considerenvironment

CompliancP requires thence, the abihe EndangerSubpart X went conclusioevaluation. Hcockaded w

ments for thens to designapecific ARAble sections o

four alternane another tade-offs. Texposure hazdescribe eachysis.

ON CRITEmpared and nd modifying

Criteria i.e., protecti

et or have spe

otection of Hative must s posed by Uveness to huve has on thehe UXO souts are requirrs the envirotal/ecologica

ce with ARAhat all projecility of an alred Species were determons in ChaptHowever, pewoodpecker. e endangeredated areas fo

AR in portionof the Clean

for MRS-R

tives are anto determine

The alternatizard were seh of the eva

ERIA evaluated w

g criteria. T

iveness, comecifically wa

Human Heaadequately

UXO. In adduman healthe exposure hurce charactered for a sa

onmental impal factors at t

ARs and TBct sites meetternative to Act (ESA)

mined to be ter 7 of the Rertinent secti

Specificad species. or demolitions of RCRA

n Water Act,

R04, Former

5-2

nalyzed indive their respeves identifi

elected with aluation crite

with the NCThe followin

mpliance wiaived to be e

alth and theprotect hum

dition, the Rh and the enhazard (UXOeristics, the fety threat fpact that impthe MRS.

BCs t ARARs (ormeet ARAR(USC, 200the only A

RI, TBCs haions of the Elly, SectionThe possibi

on for the vaA Subpart X,

Section 404

r Conway BoHo

vidually agaective strenged as the mrespect to e

eria and the

CP criteria, ng sections d

th ARARs) eligible for s

e Environmman health

RAO needs tonvironment O) and envirreceptor, an

from UXO tplementation

r that an ARRs and TBCs07), Clean WARARs appave been deteESA are appln 16 USC 1ility of consarious altern, Miscellane4 must be co


ainst each crgths and wemost practiceach evaluati

evaluation

including thdescribe the

are requireelection.

ment and the en

o be achievewas evaluatronment. End interactioto exist. Thn of an alter

RAR waiver s is evaluate

Water Act, Slicable. Baermined to blicable due t1538 (a) (1solidation shnatives are geous treatmeomplied with


Final OctoberRevisi

riterion and eaknesses ancable solutioion criteria.process use

hreshold crifactors and

ements that

nvironment ed by the remted based onxposure inv

on between the protectivernative has o

be obtainedd. During thSection 404ased on thebe non-applito the presen) (B) “prohhots and mogoverned forent units OBh if onsite ac

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

then nd to on in The

ed for

iteria, each

each

from medy. n the olves them. eness

on the

d) and he RI , and

e risk cable

nce of hibit” oving r this

B/OD. ctions


place filindividua 5.2.2 BPrimary hazards, among adevelopeor volummaximumbelow ar“permaneoffer advthat achisome conbalancingeffectivendecision offers the 5.2.2.1 The permeliminateresidual pcontrols t 5.2.2.2 The shoralternativhuman haddress implemen 5.2.2.3 This critsignificanwhen theMMRP

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

l or dredgeal alternative

Balancing Crbalancing crshort-term

alternatives ed for treatinme. In additm extent prare weighed aent.” The N

vantages in teeve long-terntamination g process takness to selecin the Deci

e best balanc

Long-termmanence crites the potentpotential expto manage th

Short-termrt-term effeve during thhealth and t

adverse imntation phas

Reduction terion addrently reduce me principal tProjects, no

ed material e is discusse

riteria riteria (i.e., effectivenesthat meet th

ng principal ttion, remedieacticable, anagainst each

NCP explainerms of the rrm effectiveproblems w

kes that prect one or moision Documce of all fact

m Effectiveneterion evalutial for UXOplosive safethe residual p

m Effectivenctiveness cr

he implementhe environmmpacts to tses of the rem

of Toxicity,sses the stamobility or vthreats at a on-removal

for MRS-R

into wetland in Section

long-term ess, implemenhe thresholdthreats at thees are requirnd to be coh other to des that in genreduction ofness and pe

will not be suference intoore remediesment (DD) iors to achiev

ess and Permates the deg

O exposure hty hazards w

potential exp

ness riterion addrntation phasement prior tthe workermedy.

, Mobility oatutory prefevolume of thsite are redualternatives

R04, Former

5-3

nds onsite.5.3 Individu

effectivenessntability, and criteria. e project sitered to be pe

ost effective.etermine whneral, preferef toxicity, moermanence. uitable for t

o account, ans that are cois one that dve permanen

manence gree to whicazard. This

with the alterplosive safety

resses the pe. Alternatito the remes and com

or Volume erence for sehe hazardousuced througs have neg

r Conway BoHo

The compual Analysis

s, reductionnd cost) formCERCLA r

e through redermanent (e.. The five hich remedieential weighobility, or voHowever, th

treatment annd weighs thost effective.determines wnce to the ma

ch an alternacriterion alsrnative in ply hazards.

potential conives were ev

edy being cmmunity du

electing rems substances

gh destructioligible impa


pliance of As if applicabl

of potential m the basisrequires thaductions in tog., removal balancing c

es are cost eht is given toolume throughe NCP also

nd permanenhe proportio. The final rwhich cost-aximum exte

ative permanso evaluates lace, and the

nsequences valuated forompleted.

uring the c

medies that s. This prefeon or removact in redu


Final OctoberRevisi

ARARs for le.

explosive ss for compaat alternativeoxicity, mobof UXO), t

criteria desceffective an

o alternativesgh treatmento recognizes

nt remedies. nality of cosrisk manageeffective rement practicab

nently reducthe magnitu

e effectivene

and risks or their effecShort-term

construction

permanentlyerence is satial of UXO.

ucing source

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

each

safety arison es be bility, to the cribed nd are s that t, and s that The

sts to ement medy ble.

ces or ude of ess of

of an cts on

risks and

y and isfied For

es or


associate 5.2.2.4 The impimplemenalternativservices, requirem 5.2.2.5 The cost indirect, those cosassociateof-magni(based oncosts wilvariable f 5.2.3 MThe comfrom the degree oinvestigaevaluated 5.3 IN5.3.1 A5.3.1.1 The NOFprovides provides would berisks for 5.3.1.2 ThresholAlternati

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

ed exposure h

Implementplementabilintability forve is techn

and matments.

Cost criterion evand long-te

sts associateed with admiitude level en site condill depend onfactors.

Modifying Cmmunity and

local publicof commun

ations providd and assesse

NDIVIDUAAlternative 1

DescriptionFA alternatia baseline fthe baselin

e implementthe site wou

Assessmenld Criteria ive 1 provid

hazards.

tability ity criterionr a specific cically possierials; adm

valuates the ferm operatioed with the iinistration, oestimates bastions), cost n true labor

Criteria d state accepc and from snity participde an indicaed until com

AL ANALYS1 –NOFA n ive does notfor the site u

ne with comted with the uld essentiall

t

des no reduc

for MRS-R

n evaluatescleanup. Thible; availab

ministrative

financial coson and mainimplementat

oversight, ansed on a varestimating grates, actua

ptance criterstate agenciepation and ation of com

mments on th

SIS OF ALT

t implementunder know

mparison of NOFA alte

ly be the sam

ction in pote

R04, Former

5-4

s the alterhe evaluatiobility of ne

and regul

st to implemntenance costion of the a

nd contingenriety of inforguides, and al weather co

ria are basedes regarding

specific cmmunity acche FS and the

TERNATIV

t any responwn or reasona

other alternernative, lonme as those i

ential explos

r Conway BoHo

rnative’s tecon includes cecessary onlatory requ

ment the altersts (30-year alternative. Icies. Cost ermation, inclprior experionditions, fi

d on the dethe implem

concerns voceptance. The Proposed P

VES

nse or remeable expecte

natives. Becg-term humdentified in

sive safety h


chnical andconsideratio

n-site and ouirements;

rnative. Thiduration).

Indirect costestimates preluding produience at the inal project

gree of assuentation of aoiced durinhese criteriaPlan are rece

edy. The Ned future concause no rean health anthe baseline

hazards due


Final OctoberRevisi

d administrn of whethe

off-site faciland monit

is includes dDirect cost

ts are those esented are ouctivity estimsite. The ascope, and

umed accepalternatives. ng the preva cannot be eived.

NOFA alternnditions. N

emedial activnd environme risk assessm

to UXO. T

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

rative er the lities, toring

direct, ts are costs

order-mates actual other

tance The

vious fully

native NOFA

vities mental ment.

There


will be npathways There arimplemen BalancinThe NOmeasuresunder thi This alter There wenvironm There are The presbe no act 5.3.1.3 Alternatino additiremedy tor volumexplosive 5.3.2 A5.3.2.1 Alternatiinternet, informatiinstructiodue to a warning for UXOsigns.

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

no changes is will be unc

re no ARAntation.

ng Criteria OFA alternats. All curreis alternative

rnative prov

would be noment as a resu

e no implem

ent worth cotion.

Summary ive 1 does noional protecto reduce po

me. Uncertae safety haza

Alternative 2Description

ive 2 will bkiosks, signion, library ons of what t

history of and does no

O awareness.

n protectivechanged.

ARs associa

tive includeent and potee.

vides no redu

o additional ult of this al

mentability co

ost and capit

ot reduce thection to humotential futurainty exists aard managem

2 –ICs with n

be considerenage, and tra

repository to do if MECmunitions u

ot restrict ac. Annual m

for MRS-R

eness for hum

ated with A

es no contrential future

uction in mob

potential eternative bei

oncerns pose

tal cost of Al

e potential eman health inre UXO expabout the loment. No co

Five-Year R

d for MRS-aining. The location, pi

C is encountuse in that access to the

maintenance

R04, Former

5-5

man health a

Alternative

rols for exp potential e

bility or volu

explosive saing impleme

ed by this rem

lternative 1

xposure hazn the MRS osure. In adng-term effe

osts are assoc

Reviews

-R04 (Rangpamphlets w

ictures of mtered. The siarea. Howeareas. Trainwould be co

r Conway BoHo

and the envi

1 that wo

posure and xplosive saf

ume of UXO

afety hazardented, since n

medy, since

are estimate

zard from cuas Alternat

ddition, therectiveness ociated with t

ge VII). Thwould be pr

munitions likigns may indever the signning would onducted to


ironment. E

ould restrict

no long-tefety hazards

O.

ds posed to no action wo

no action w

ed to be $0, s

urrent levels.tive 1 does re is no reduof this approhis alternativ

he ICs consirinted to inclkely to be edicate that acnage wouldconsist of oreplace and


Final OctoberRevisi

Existing expo

t or modify

erm manages would con

workers oould be taken

would be take

since there w

There wounot implem

uction in moboach for poteve.

ist of pamphlude the webencounteredccess is restr

d only serve occasional cld repair dam

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

osure

fy its

ement ntinue

r the n.

en.

would

uld be ment a

bility ential

hlets, b-site , and ricted

as a lasses

maged


5.3.2.2 ThresholImplemewould rereducing reduced behaviorcan occu“attractiv There arimplemen BalancinNo UXOby sourcinteractioyear revconsisten This alter There woresult of be some required) The longSuch a ch Implemeallow the The totalbe $170,recurringpamphlet

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

Assessmenld Criteria ntation of s

esult in educexposure tothrough ed

, e.g. voluntur because thve nuisance”

re no ARAntation.

ng Criteria O would be re

e removal bon). Controliews of the

nt supply of p

rnative prov

ould be no this alternatshort-term

).

g-term effecthange should

ntability cone installation

l 30-year pre,212 which

g five-year ts, additiona

t

signs aroundcational awao UXO. Altducational atary compliahe source re” wherein per

ARs associa

emoved; thebut through cls for exposue effectivenepamphlets, i

vides no redu

additional ptive being impotential ex

tiveness for d be identifi

ncerns are mn of signage i

esent worth cincludes an

review costal signs and i

for MRS-R

d an MRS mareness to ththough proteawareness,ance, or restemains and arsons becom

ated with A

erefore, potencontrols to lure would iness of contrinternet, and

uction in mob

potential expmplemented.xplosive saf

the alternated during th

minimal. Adin the area.

cost of this an initial capts of $113,5internet main

R04, Former

5-6

meets the ohe human reective of humAlternative rict access taccess is sti

me interested

Alternative

ntial explosilimit or mitinclude long-trols. Long

d sign mainte

bility or volu

plosive safet. Due to thefety hazards

tive could bhe five year r

dministrative

alternative fopital cost of500. The cntenance.

r Conway BoHo

overall proteeceptor interman health b

2 cannot to residual Uill possible.

d in seeing w

2 that wo

ive safety haigate an expterm manage

g-term manaenance.

ume of UXO

ty hazards pe potential su

associated

e impacted reviews.

ely, it is sole

for MRS-R04f $27,000 acapital cost


ection threshraction and tbecause expcompletely

UXO. Intera The signag

what is in the

ould restrict

azards wouldosure pathwement measuagement wo

O.

posed to the ubsurface Uwith signag

if a land us

ely the lando

4 (Range VIand annual m

is primaril


Final OctoberRevisi

hold factor. the possibili

posure to UXcontrol hu

action with Uge may creaarea.

t or modify

d not be manway (i.e., recures such as uld also inc

communityUXO, there wge installatio

e change oc

owner’s opti

II) is estimatmaintenancely for the i

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

ICs ity of XO is uman UXO

ate an

fy its

naged ceptor

five-clude

y as a would on (if

ccurs.

ion to

ted to e and initial


5.3.2.3 The RAOreceptor in mobilrelatively 5.3.3 A5.3.3.1 This alterFive-yearFive-Yeareview th 5.3.3.2 ThresholSince thecontact wAlternatiof the suAlternati The ARAESA conClean Wdemolitiowoodpecmechanisany brusminimize BalancinInstitutioassociatecontinue long-termfive-year

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

Summary O is achievinteraction b

lity or volumy low when c

Alternative 3Descriptionrnative is cor Reviews. ar review (ahe effectiven

Assessmenld Criteria e risk assesswith UXO, ive 3. Potenurface UXOive 3 cannot

ARs associatncerning RedWater Act, on areas. ckers or theisms will be sh cutting ne impacts to

ng Criteria onal Controlsed with UXO

to be effectm managemer reviews.

ved through by educationme of UXOcompared to

3 – Surface n omprised of

The surfaceas describedness of the al

t

sment concla complete

ntial explosivO. ICs may

completely

ted with Alted Cockade Wand RCRAThe surfac

ir habitats. utilized to eecessary coowildlife and

s, including O by modifytive as longent measure

for MRS-R

implementanal awareneO. The coso the other al

Clearance w

Surface Clee clearance wd under Altelternative.

luded that the exposure pve safety hay mitigate icontrol beha

ernative 3 thWoodpeckersA Subpart Xce clearance

However, aeliminate undordination w

d wetlands.

UXO educaying the rec

g as they arees such as re

R04, Former

5-7

ation of thiss. Howevest associatedlternatives.

with ICs an

arance and Iwould be coernative 2) w

here is potepathway (su

azards wouldinteraction aavior.

hat would res, ProtectionX concernine would noareas wherederbrush onwith the app

ation and awceptor’s behae maintainedeassessment

r Conway BoHo

is alternativeer, this alternd with impl

nd Five-Year

ICs listed in onsidered forwould be re

ential for huubsurface Ud be manageactivities wi

strict or modn of Wetlandng consolidot entail da underbrushly allowing propriate ag

wareness wilavior to anyd. Controls t of the effe


e through dnative provilementing th

r Reviews

Alternativer MRS-R04 equired for

uman receptoUXO) is stiled by limitedith residual

dify its implds through Sdated shots amaging or

h is too denthe trees to encies will

l reduce they UXO enco

for exposurectiveness of


Final OctoberRevisi

decreased huides no reduhis alternati

s 2, coupled(Range VIIAlternative

ors to comell possible ud source remUXO; how

ementation iection 404 oand design

r destroyingnse to walk

remain. Pribe conducte

e residual haounters. ICsre would incf controls d

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

uman uction ve is

d with I). A

3 to

e into under moval wever,

is the of the nated g the other ior to ed to

azards s will clude

during


This altesource mUXO wil Similar tbe somealternativpotential Alternatitype of rcompatib For MRSbe $2,60initiate th 5.3.3.3 Implemeprovide hhealth. 5.3.4 AReviews 5.3.4.1 This altealso minand FiveChapter 4 5.3.4.2 ThresholA high lewith Altwould sigthere wougreatest p

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

ernative provmaterial from

ll remain.

to the tasks ue potential eve. The remto cause an

ive 3 (Surfacremedy is efble with the c

S-R04 (Rang0,000 whichhe ICs, and $

Summary ntation of thhighest level

Alternative 4

Descriptionernative usesimizes recep

e-year Revie4. This alter

Assessmenld Factors evel of overernative 4 tgnificantly ruld be no wprotection to

vides some m the surface

undertaken iexplosive sa

moval wouldaccidental d

ce Clearanceffective and clearance op

ge VII), the 3h includes $2$113,500 for

his alternativl of potentia

4 – Subsurfa

n s a combinatptor interactews. A detrnative will b

t

rall protectivthrough sourreduce the Uay to know

o the potentia

for MRS-R

reduction in only means

in support oafety hazard

d be performdetonation as

e) can be reais similar to

perations and

30-year total2,420,000 tor annual mai

ve does achieal explosive

ace Remova

tion of activtion. The actailed describe evaluated

veness of hurce removal

UXO hazard,if all UXO hal receptors.

R04, Former

5-8

n mobility s that some m

of the EE/CAds posed to

med by qualifs part of the

adily implemo previous cld implement

l present woo conduct thintenance an

eve the RAOsafety hazar

al with Surf

vities to achictivities coniption of ead for MRS-R

uman health l of UXO ( but it wouldhas been rem

r Conway BoHo

and volumemunitions m

A and RI/FSo the field fied UXO teremedy.

mented from learance andtable.

orth cost of thhe UXO cleand recurring F

O at the MRSrd reduction

face Clearan

ieve a reducnsist of a subach of theseR04 (Range V

and the envsurface andd not compl

moved. This


e of UXO. may be misse

S field activicrew by im

echnicians; h

a technical pd removal ac

his alternativarance operaFive-year Re

S but this altn for the prot

nce, ICs, an

ction in the Ubsurface UXe componentVII).

vironment wod subsurfaceletely elimins alternative


Final OctoberRevisi

The removed and subsu

ities, there wmplementinghowever, the

perspective. ctivities. IC

ve is estimatations, $27,0eviews.

ternative doetection of hu

nd Five-Year

UXO hazardXO removal,ts is include

ould be achi). Alternati

nate hazards would affor

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

val of urface

would g this ere is

This Cs are

ted to 00 to

es not uman

r

d and , ICs, ed in

ieved ive 4 since

rd the


The ARAESA conClean Wdemolitiotrees of aor their hwill be co BalancinAlternatiremoval UXO thareceptors There wmaterial;as roads, Similar tpotential removal an accide Alternatieffective Conway. The totalthe total associateremoval completeadditiona For MRSbe $4,46initiate th

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

ARs associatncerning RedWater Act, on areas. Ta certain diamhabitats. Prionducted to

ng Factors ive 4 would of UXO in

at is not locs the possibil

would be sig however, sobuildings, s

to the tasks explosive

would be peental detonat

ive 4 would band is sim

l 30-year prenumber of

ed with five-action is co

e the removaal public mee

S-R04 (Rang0,000 whichhe ICs, and $

ted with Alted Cockade Wand RCRA

The subsurfameter eliminior to any brminimize im

meet the lothe MRS.

cated duringlity of UXO

gnificant redome munitio

sidewalks, an

undertaken safety hazarerformed by tion as part o

be readily imilar to previ

esent worth f acres that -year reviewomplete, andal action. Ineting fundin

ge VII), the 3h includes $4$113,500 for

for MRS-R

ernative 4 thWoodpeckersA Subpart Xace clearancenating the porush cutting nmpacts to wi

ong-term effThe residua

g the removaresidual exi

duction of ons may be nd paved par

in support ords for the qualified U

of the remed

mplemented ious intrusiv

cost of this would requ

ws are variabd each MRSn addition, t

ng is included

30-year total4,300,000 tor annual mai

R04, Former

5-9

hat would res, ProtectionX concernine brush clea

ossibility of dnecessary coldlife and w

ffectiveness al potential eal action is ist according

mobility anmissed and rking areas w

of the previofield crew

UXO technicidy.

from a technve clearance

alternative iuire clearancble since thisS varies in the budgets d in the remo

l present woo conduct thintenance an

r Conway BoHo

strict or modn of Wetlandng consolidaring woulddamaging oroordination wetlands.

and permanexplosive saaddressed th

g to the curre

nd volume munitions u

will not be cl

ous investigby implemeians; howev

nical perspece activities p

is MRS-specce. It shous review proterms of theassociated w

oval action b

orth cost of thhe UXO cleand recurring F


dify its implds through Sdated shots d have stipulr destroying with the app

nence criteriaafety hazardshrough the ent and futur

through remunder existinleared.

gations, thereenting this aer, there is p

ctive. This tperformed in

cific since could also be ocess does noe length of with educatibudget.

his alternativarance operaFive-Year R


Final OctoberRevisi

ementation iection 404 oand design

lation for cuthe woodpe

propriate age

a through sos associated ICs ensurinre land usage

moval of song structures

e would be alternative. potential to c

type of remen other MR

osts are basenoted that

ot begin unttime requirion vary bec

ve is estimatations, $27,0Reviews.

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

is the of the nated utting ckers

encies

ource with

g the e.

ource such

some The cause

edy is RSs at

ed on costs

til the ed to cause

ted to 00 to


5.3.4.3 The RAOoverall peffectivenUXO souhowever,implemen 5.4 CIn the folevaluatioterms ofsupportinprovided 5.4.1 O5.4.1.1 interactiosafety haprotectivan alternevaluatedalternativ

•

•

•

•

5.4.2 CThe evalu

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

Summary O is achieveprotection ofness, permaurce remova, there woulnting this alt

COMPARATllowing anal

on criteria tof the threshong cost data d in the follow

Overall ProtThe protec

on with UXOazards, none

veness factornative wouldd in terms oves withinM

AlternbecauAlterninteraAlterncleara“resuractivitAlternhumangroun

Compliance uation of the

ed through if human heaanence, and al. Alternativld be some ternative.

TIVE ANAlysis, the alto identify thold and balis provided

wing section

tection of Huctiveness crO. Althouge of the altr was includd have on tof whether iRS-R04 (Ra

natives 1 anduse they do nnative 2 provctions with pnative 3 proance removerface” via naties. native 4 pron health by

nd and subsu

with ARARe ability of t

for MRS-R

implementatalth and thereduction o

ve 4 would bpotential ex

ALYSIS OF ternatives arehe relative alancing critein Appendi

ns.

uman Healtriterion wasgh MRS-R04ternatives caed in the evthe existingt would red

ange VII). d 2 provide

not remove ovides limitedpotential UXovides a limes UXO froatural mecha

ovides the bey permanentrface.

Rs and TBCthe alternativ

R04, Former

5-10

tion of this ae environmeof mobility be readily imxplosive saf

ALTERNAe evaluated

advantages aeria. Table x A. Detail

th and the Es evaluated4 (Range Van totally e

valuation basg environmeduce the amo

the least ovor restrict accd protection bXO. mited level om the surfaanical proces

est overall ply removing

Cs ves to comp

r Conway BoHo

alternative, nt. The baor volume

mplemented fety hazards

ATIVES in relation to

and disadvan5.1 summa

ls regarding

Environmend in terms VII) has UXOeliminate thesed on the efent and ecolount of UXO

verall proteccess to potenby potential

of protectioace only. Usses (erosion

protection ing hazardous

ly with ARA


and this altelancing factwould be afrom a techn posed to th

o one anothentages of eaarizes the ethe compara

nt of possible

O-related poe hazard. Affects that imlogy. EachO relative to

ction of humntial UXO. ly mitigating

on in that UXO can pn) or human

n terms of ps sources bo

ARs include


Final OctoberRevisi

ernative protors of long-achieved thrnical perspeche field crew

er for each oach alternatievaluation, aative analysi

e future huotential expl

An environmmplementatih alternativeo the other

man health

g receptor

a surface potentially n intrusive

protecting oth above

d a review o

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

vides -term rough ctive; w by

of the ve in

and a is are

uman osive

mental on of

e was three

of the


action an•

•

•

5.4.3 LThe permeliminate

•

•

•

•

•

5.4.4 SShort teralternativprotectivon the ex

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

nd location-sAlternto EndAlternwoodpdestroof thecomplassessactionmovinmitigamanagNo TB

Long-term Emanence crites the potent

AlternmanagexplosAlternto mitAlthoupermasubsurAlternand pMRS.All althat th

hort-term Erm effectiveve, generallveness. This xisting enviro

specific ARAnatives 1 anddangered spenatives 3 anpecker on t

oying and hae location-spleted by thes the wetlann-specific Ang munitionsated in thegement pracBCs have be

Effectivenesterion evalutial for UXOnative 1 prgement mesive safety hnative 2 leavtigate receptough Alternaanently remorface UXO mnative 4 wasermanence b

lternatives exhe remedies

Effectiveneseness addrely creating was assesseonment and

for MRS-R

ARs discussed 2 have no ecies or Wet

nd 4 have ththe ESA, coandling munpecific ARAe USFWS fnd areas andRARs inclus to a designe Remedial tices.

een identified

s and Permates the deg

O exposure harovides no asures. A

hazards woulves UXO in or interactioative 3 canoving existinmay remain.s determinedbased on th

xcept Alternremain effec

ss esses the ha

short termed for the poecology.

R04, Former

5-11

ed earlier in ARARs assotlands and mhe ARARs aompliance wnitions under

ARs will be efor the endad collaboratioude the consnated demoli

Design th

d for this site

manence gree to whicazard. controls fo

All current ld continue uplace and re

on but can’t pn offer liming hazard s. d to providee ability to

native 1 requctive.

azards genem hazards ossible detrim

r Conway BoHo

the report. ociated with

munitions actassociated wwith CWA or RCRA Subensured by hangered specon on mitigsolidate shoition area. Through imp

e.

ch an alterna

or exposureand poten

under this alelies on eduprevent interited long tesources from

the best lonsignificantly

uire Five-Ye

rated by thto site w

mental impa


h them (e.g. ntivities)

with the red on the wetlabpart X. Cohaving an ascies and theation measu

ots and possThese impacplementation

ative perman

e and no ltial future lternative.

ucation and araction. erm effectivm the ground

ng-term effey reduce UX

ear Reviews

he act of imworkers andact an alterna


Final OctoberRevisi

no impact

cockaded ands, and ompliance ssessment e USACE ures. The sibility of cts will be of best

nently reduc

long-term potential

awareness

veness by d surface,

ectiveness XO in the

s to verify

mplementingd environmative would

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

ces or

g the mental

have


•

•

•

5.4.5 RFor reducunaccept

• •

•

5.4.6 ImImplemealternativ

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

Alternimpacenvirothe MenviroAlternpotenttempoduringecologAlternsafetysuch ecause excavprotecdestroassessand w

Reduction ofction of mobtable MC risk

AlternAlternprohibdrivewThereimplemof theAlternmobilboth t

mplementabntability ad

ve.

natives 1 andcts on workeonment. HoMRS whichonment and enative 3 extial explosivorarily disrupg operationsgical receptonative 4 requy hazards to exposures ahabitat disr

vation and dection can boying any psment is com

wetland.

f Toxicity, Mbility or voluks), natives 1 andnative 3 provbits the USways, sidewefore, residumentation o UXO at thenative 4 is lity and voluthe surface a

bility ddresses the

for MRS-R

d 2 present ers or the puowever, thesh would noecology and

xposes workve safety hapt movemens, and mightors in the areuires typicalUXO techni

are inherent ruption dueemolitions wbe addresseossible enda

mpleted by th

Mobility or ume of UXO

d 2 offer no rvides a limitACE from

walks, etc. dual UXOf this alterna

e site. the most

ume of UXOand subsurfac

e technical

R04, Former

5-12

no significaublic. And he Alternativot limit in

d UXO. kers and thazards durinnt of animalt also disturea. l short term icians duringto the profeto vegetatio

would also cd with stipangered spehe governing

Volume O (toxicity is

reduction in ted reductiondestroying

during reacqmay exist

ative. No al

effective alO in that it rece within the

and admin

r Conway BoHo

ant short-termhave no detr

ves would noteraction b

he public tong clearance ls by providrb but not d

exposures tg intrusive oession. Alteon and brushcause disruptpulations inecies habitatg agencies fo

not addresse

mobility or n in mobilityany paved

quisition or in these

lternative co

lternative inemoves all de MRS.

nistrative fe


m impacts orimental effeot remove Uetween the

o limited soperations

ding a noisedestroy habi

to potential operations. Hernative 4 ch removal. tions. Envir

n place to t in the areaor endangere

ed due to the

volume of Uy and volumsurfaces, eremoval oppaved are

ompletely rem

n terms of detectable U

asibility of


Final OctoberRevisi

or adverse ect on the

UXO from existing

short-term and may

nuisance itat to the

explosive However,

could also Intrusive

ronmental eliminate

a after an ed species

e absence of

UXO. me. Policy

.g. roads, perations. eas after moves all

reducing UXO from

f conducting

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

f

g the


•

•

•

5.4.7 C5.4.7.1 criterion costs areadapted estimates 5.4.7.2 scope, anAlternatirelatively 5.4.7.3 has the hGeophyssummariz 5.4.8 SThe Statehowever,The State

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

Alternimplemand no2 is awareAlternrequirthe arwouldAlternspeciaareas of ROAltern

Cost The cost crincludes di

e those costsfrom costs

s prepared fo

The actual nd other varive 1, which y low costs c

Costs rangehighest costical Mappinzes costs for

tate Accepte has review, they disagre regulator re

native 1 andment. Altero services oralso both t

eness alreadynative 3 is bre specializereas of intered make the imnative 4 is alized personof interest to

OEs would mnatives 3 and

riterion evalirect implems associated associated

or other sites

costs will driable factors

requires nocompared to

e from $0 (At primarily bng (DGM), r all alternati

tance wed the Drafree that Alteeview of the

for MRS-R

d Alternativrnative 1 is br materials atechnically y in place froboth technicd personnel.est to performplementab

technicallynnel. The ro perform thmake the impd 4 also requ

uates the finmentation, lo

with the imwith similar

s.

depend on ts. The alter action; therAlternatives

Alternative 1because of and intrusivives, and Ap

ft Final FS rnative 1 (N

e Draft Final

R04, Former

5-13

ve 2 were dboth technicaare necessaryand admini

om previous ally and adm. The right orm the surfaility of this A

y and adminright of entr

he surface anplementabili

uire the deve

nancial cost ong-term opmplementatior activities

true labor rarnative withrefore, no cos 3 and 4, wh

) to over $4the costs in

ve investigatppendix A pr

for MRS-R0NOFA) is an l FS is provid

r Conway BoHo

determined ally and admy for implemistratively finvestigatio

ministrativelof entries muace clearanceAlternative inistratively ries must be

nd subsurfaceity of this A

elopment of d

to implemeeration, andon of the alon the form

ates, actual the lowest

osts are incuhich are the

4.4 million (Ancurred durintion over surovides addit

04, and hasacceptable rded in Appe


to be the eministrativelymentation. Afeasible, wions. ly feasible bust be obtaine. The lack impossible. feasible bu

e obtained we clearance.

Alternative imdetailed wor

ent the alternd maintenanternative. T

mer Conway

site conditiocost to imp

urred. Alternmost costly

Alternative 4ng the maguch a large tional cost in

concurred wremedial actndix C.


Final OctoberRevisi

easiest to y feasible,

Alternative th public

but would ned within

of ROEs

ut require within the The lack

mpossible rk plans.

native. Thece costs. DThese costs y BGR and

ons, final prlement wou

natives 2 reqto implemen

4). Alternatg-and-dig, D

area. Tablenformation.

with the anation for the M

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

e cost Direct

were d cost

roject uld be quires nt.

tive 4 Digital

e 5-1

lysis; MRS.


5.4.9 CCommunPlan are that Alter 5.4.10 S5.4.10.1 the evaluIn some indicatin 5.4.10.2

•

•

•

•

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

Community nity acceptanreceived. Trnative 1 wo

ummary ofThe four a

uation of poscases, moreg that those

The followAlternsafetyAlternUXO Alternlong-tadditiAlternpermaremov

Acceptancence cannot b

The communould not be a

f Comparatialternatives ssible solutioe than one aalternatives

wing conclunative 1 is ny hazards andnative 2 is cfor MRS-R0

native 3 provterm permanonal educatinative 4 achanence, and val.

for MRS-R

e be fully evalnity acceptanacceptable to

ive Analysiswere evalua

ons for reducalternative whave similar

usions were dnot effective d has no longonsidered to04 (Range Vvides limitednence. Staion efforts. hieves the breduction o

R04, Former

5-14

luated and ance is yet to o the commu

s ated in termscing the potewas identifier compliance

derived fromin reducing

g-term permo be effectivVII). d reduction

ate and com

balancing facf mobility a

r Conway BoHo

ssessed untibe determin

unity due to l

s of seven criential UXO ed within the with the cr

m the comparg exposures tmanence. ve in reducin

in mobility mmunity acc

ctors of lonand volume


il comments ned, howevelack of hazar

iteria. Tableexposure ha

he same evariterion.

rative analysto potential

ng human ex

and volumeceptance wil

ng-term effecthrough UX


Final OctoberRevisi

on the Proper it is anticiprd reduction

e 5-1 summaazard at the Mluation cate

sis: explosive

xposure to

e, with no ll require

ctiveness, XO source

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

posed pated

n.

arizes MRS. gory,


Criter

Protective

ARARComplia

Long-TeEffective

and Perma

Short-teEffective

ReductioToxicit

MobilityVolum

Implement

Cost

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

TABLEAlt

ria No F

eness

Leaalte

sourcereduc

expoten

saf

R ance

Nassoc

a

erm ness

anence

No reex

potensafety

noef

erm ness

Noimpa

on of ty, y or

me

No

ability impacti

$

E 5-1: EVAternative 1

urther Action (NOFA)

ast protective ernative. No e reduction. No ction of future xposures to ntial explosive fety hazards.

No ARARs ciated with the alternative.

UXO-related eduction of xposures to ntial explosive y hazards, and o long-term ffectiveness.

o short-term cts on workers or public.

reduction of source.

Readily lemented. No ion required.

$0 No cost.

for MRS-R

ALUATIONAltern

ICs (StandaYear R

No sourceSigns and edmitigate inte

UXO, thuexposures

explosive saVoluntary

requ

No ARARswith the a

No reductihazards, b

effective apossible

intera

No short-termworkers

No reductio

Signs can bespecifi

$170,000 Colittle

R04, Former

5-15

N OF REMEnative 2

alone) with 5-Reviews

e reduction. ducation can eraction with

us reducing to potential

afety hazards. compliance

uired.

s associated alternative.

ion of UXO but can be at reducing e receptor action.

m impacts on or public.

on of source.

e installed for c areas.

omparatively cost.

r Conway BoHo

EDIAL ALTAlternat

UXO Surface with ICs and

Review

UXO removasource redu

Provides protethrough hazaremoval and v

complia

Pertinent sectiEndangered Sp

and ProtecWetlands Act

any brush cnecessary coo

with the appagencies w

conducted to impacts to wi

wetlan

Limited effecbecause of

reduction andreceptor inte

Public accessduring remov

Limited redusource. UXO h

removed fromareas

Similar operatconducted

previous cleImplemen

$2,600,000 Cbut justifia

locations with UXO hazard

developed for


TERNATIVtive 3 Clearance d 5-Year ws

R

al (limited uction). ectiveness

ard source voluntary

ance.

ph

ions of the pecies Act

ction of t. Prior to cutting ordination propriate will be minimize

ildlife and nds

PE

W

n

ci

ctiveness f hazard d reduced eraction

prohibited val work.

P

uction in hazards are m surface s.

S

tions were during earance

ntable.

S

Costs high able for significant

ds. Costs r 30 years.

lo

d


Final OctoberRevisi

VES AlternativUXO Subsur

Removal with IC5-Year Revie

UXO remov(significant so

reduction). Proprotectiveness thhazard source red

and voluntacompliance

Pertinent sectionEndangered Spec

and ProtectionWetlands Act. P

any brush cutnecessary coordi

with the appropagencies will

conducted to minimpacts to wildli

wetlands.

Reduction of U

Public access produring removal

Significant reducsource.

Similar operationconducted dur

previous clearImplementab

$4,460,000 Costbut justifiable

ocations with sigUXO hazards.

developed for 30

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

ve 4 face Cs and ews

val ource ovides hrough duction

ary e.

s of the cies Act n of

Prior to tting ination priate l be nimize ife and

UXO

ohibited work.

ction in

ns were ring

rance ble.

ts high e for gnificant Costs

0 years.


State Accep

CommunAccepta

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

ptance

nity nce

Com

for MRS-R

With the exce

mmunity accepta

R04, Former

5-16

eption of Alterna

ance will be asse

r Conway BoHo

ative 1, the State

essed after the pu


e has concurred.

ublic comment p


Final OctoberRevisi

period

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00


Code of F

– R EnSafe In

20 EOD Te

AssJan

EODT, 2

Co Parsons E

Co Parsons E

(EE Parsons

Ev SCDHEC USA Env US Arm

EnExGu

USACE,

FoCoSep

USACE,

(ER USACE,

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

Federal RegRemedial Inv

nc, 2011. R11.

chnology, Insociated Dnuary 2009.

2010. Finalonway Bomb

Engineeringonway Bomb

EngineeringE/CA). Sept

Engineeringvaluation Rep

C, 2008. Do

vironmental,

my Corps onvironmentalxplosives Arunnery Rang

(Rock Islanormer Used onclusions anptember, 19

2004. FormR) 200-3-1.

2006. Eng

gulation (CFRvestigation/F

Risk Screenin

nc. (EODT)Documentatio

l Work Planbing and Gun

g Science, Inbing and Gun

g Science, Intember, 2003

g Science, Inport. 2006.

oc. No. 3161

, 2005, Phas

of Engineersl Restoratiorchives Searge. Septemb

nd District), Defense S

nd Recomme95.

merly Used DMay 10.

gineering an

for MRS-R

CHAREF

R), 2010. TFeasibility St

ng Evaluatio

), 2009. Fion in supp

n for the Rennery Range

nc., 2002. Fnnery Range

nc., 2003. F3.

nc., 2006.

, Amendmen

e III Target

s (USACE)on Program rch Report er, 1995.

1995b. FinSites Ordnaendations fo

Defense Site

nd Design: M

R04, Former

6-1

APTER 6FERENCE

itle 40: Prottudy and Sel

on for Conw

inal Technicport of Rem

emedial Invee Horry Cou

Final Removae, Conway, S

Final Engin

Conway FU

nt of R.61-6

Anomaly Re

), (Rock Islfor Forme

– Findings

nal Defense ance and Eor the former

es (FUDS) P

Military Mu

r Conway BoHo

ES

ection of Enlection of Re

way Bombing

cal Project Pmedial Inve

estigation annty, South C

al Report TiSouth Caroli

eering Eval

UDS Final M

8, Water Cla

emoval Rep

land Districer Used De

for the for

EnvironmenExplosives Ar Conway Bo

Program Pol

unitions Resp


nvironment. emedy. July

g and Gunne

Planning Mestigation/F

nd FeasibiliCarolina. Ma

ime Critical ina. Decemb

luation Cost

MC Samplin

assifications

ort

ct), 1995a. efense Sitesrmer Conwa

ntal RestoraArchives Sombing and

licy. Engine

ponse Proce


Final OctoberRevisi

40 CFR 300y, 2010.

ery Range.

MemorandumFeasibility S

ity Study Foay 2010.

Removal Acber, 2002.

t Analysis R

ng, Analysis,

s and Standa

Final Des Ordnanceay Bombing

ation ProgramSearch Repod Gunnery Ra

eering Regul

ess. Engine

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

0.430

April

m and Study.

ormer

ction,

eport

, and

ards.

fense and

g and

m for ort – ange.

lation

eering


Pam United S

Lia USC, 200 US Envir

33 USEPA,

05 USEPA,

19 Internet Departme

20 USEPA,

IntEP

USEPA,

2011

04-D-0018 r: 0012 1

mphlet (EP)

tates Code (ability Act o

07. Endange

ronmental PUSC 1251 e

1994a. Guid5. Septembe

1994b. Na94.

resources:

ent of Natur10.

2008. Mterim. PA505B0800

2011. Regio1. http://www

1110-1-18.

(USC), 1980of1980 (CER

ered Species

rotection Aget.seq.

dance for theer.

ational Oil a

al Resources

Munitions anhttp://ww

01. October

onal Screeniw.epa.gov/re

for MRS-R

April.

0. ComprehRCLA), as am

s. Title 16 U

gency (USEP

e Data Qual

and Hazardo

s (DNR), 20

nd Explosiveww.epa.gov/f2008.

ing Levels feg3hwmd/ris

R04, Former

6-2

ensive Envirmended. Tit

USC 1531-15

PA), 1972. S

lity Objectiv

ous Substanc

010. http://w

es of Concfedfac/docum

for Chemicask/human/rb

r Conway BoHo

ronmental Rtle 42 USC 9

544.

Section 404 o

ves Process E

ces Pollution

www.dnr.sc.g

cern Hazardments/mec_m

al Contaminab-concentrati


Response, Co9601 et seq.

of the Clean

EPA QA/G-4

n Contingen

gov/species/in

d Assessmenmethodology

ants at Supeion_table/ind


Final OctoberRevisi

ompensation

n Water Act.

4. EPA 600/

ncy Plan. Ju

ndex.html. M

nt Methodoy_document

erfund Sites, dex.htm.

eport Range rolina

r 2012 on: 00

n, and

Title

/R96-

uly 1,

March

ology. t.htm.

June

APPENDIX A COST ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

for the Feasibility Study Report MRS-R04 (Range VII)


Prepared for:


Attn: CEHNC-OE-DC (Ms. Chris Cochrane) 4820 University Square








October 2012

Feasibility Study Report for MRS-R04, Former Conway Bombing and Gunnery Range


Alternative 1: NOFA

Applicable to MRS-R04 Range VII = $0

Alternative 2: ICs with 5-Year Reviews

MRS-R04 Range VII 30 yr cost $170,212.00

Alt. 2 Assumptions:1. Annual sign maintenace est. @ 10% on initial costs.2. Training class cost.3. Internet site will be set up to be used for information outreach, etc.4. Training classes for residents/community and 5-Year Reviews are conducting concurrently.5. USACE oversight not included.

Alternative 3: Surface Clearance with ICs and 5-Year Reviews

MRS-R04 Range VII - $ 2,600,000.00

Alt. 3 Assumptions:A. Removal operations (including brush cutting and survey) estimated for 649 acres B. Assume 100,000 square feet per team per day = 283 team days

Alternative 4: Subsurface Removal with Surface Clearance and ICs and 5-Year Reviews

MRS-R04 Range VII - $ 4,460,000.00

A. Removal operations (including brush cutting and survey) estimated for 649 acres B. Same assumptions for ICs as with Alt. 2

C. Assume 50,000 square feet per team per day = 566 team daysD. 142 days per team = 28.5 weeks of ClearanceE. 4 – 7 man team = (4) Tech III, (8) Tech II, (16) Tech I, SUXOS, UXOSO, UXOQC and FOA

D. 4 – 7 man team = (4) Tech III, (8) Tech II, (16) Tech I, SUXOS, UXOSO, UXOQC and FOA

Alt. 4 Assumptions:

Appendix A Cost Estimating Summary

Alernative Remedial Actions

C. 71 days per team = 14.5 weeks of Clearance per team

W912DY-04-D-0018Task Order: 0012HB# 48894 A-1

Final October 2012Revision: 00

Feasibility Study Report for MRS-R04, Former Conway Bombing and Gunnery Range


Year Captial Cost ($) Annual O&M Cost ($)Perodic Cost ($)

Training Class and 5 Year Review

Total Cost + 0% Tax ($) Discount Factor at 7% Present Value at 7% Year

0 $26,700 $26,700 1.000 $26,700 01 $2,670 $2,670 0.935 $2,496 12 $2,670 $2,670 0.873 $2,331 23 $2,670 $2,670 0.816 $2,179 34 $2,670 $2,670 0.763 $2,037 45 $2,670 $25,000 $27,670 0.713 $19,729 56 $2,670 $2,670 0.666 $1,778 67 $2,670 $2,670 0.623 $1,663 78 $2,670 $2,670 0.523 $1,396 89 $2,670 $2,670 0.544 $1,452 9

10 $2,670 $25,000 $27,670 0.508 $14,056 1011 $2,670 $2,670 0.475 $1,268 1112 $2,670 $2,670 0.444 $1,185 1213 $2,670 $2,670 0.415 $1,108 1314 $2,670 $2,670 0.388 $1,036 1415 $2,670 $25,000 $27,670 0.362 $10,017 1516 $2,670 $2,670 0.339 $905 1617 $2,670 $2,670 0.317 $846 1718 $2,670 $2,670 0.296 $790 1819 $2,670 $2,670 0.277 $740 1920 $2,670 $25,000 $27,670 0.258 $7,139 2021 $2,670 $2,670 0.242 $646 2122 $2,670 $2,670 0.226 $603 2223 $2,670 $2,670 0.211 $563 2324 $2,670 $2,670 0.197 $526 2425 $2,670 $25,000 $27,670 0.184 $5,091 2526 $2,670 $2,670 0.172 $459 2627 $2,670 $2,670 0.161 $430 2728 $2,670 $2,670 0.15 $401 2829 $2,670 $25,000 $27,670 0.141 $3,901 29

Total $26,700 $77,430 $104,130 $254,130 $113,475$254,130$73,759

$170,212

Total Cost + 0% Tax ($)Lower End of TPV Range at -35%Upper End of TPV Range at +50%

Alternative 2 - Institutional Controls with Five Year Reviews



Feasibility Study Reportfor MRS-R04, Former Conway Bombing and Gunnery Range


Task, Title, Type, Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Price

Work Plan EA 1 N/A 16,000.00$

Range VII MRS-R04 Surface Clearance EA 1 N/A 2,420,000.00$

Range VII MRS-R04 Subsurface Clearance EA 1 N/A 4,300,000.00$

Reporting Range VII MRS-R04 EA 1 N/A 25,000.00$

PRICING SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4 REMOVAL ACTIONS



Feasibility Study Reportfor MRS-R04, Former Conway Bombing and Gunnery Range


MRS-R04 Surface Clearance

MRS-R04 Subsurface Clearance

Planning PlanningTotal Cost: $16,109.14 $16,109.14Total Hours: 196 196Total Labor: $14,215.48 $14,215.48Total Travel: $0.00 $0.00Total ODC's $1,893.66 $1,893.66

Brush Clearing Brush ClearingTotal Cost: $486,750.00 $486,750.00

Survey SurveyTotal Cost: $64,900.00 $64,900.00

Clearance ClearanceTotal Cost: $1,896,216.45 $3,716,759.31Total Hours: 19,626 38,739 Total Labor: $1,235,769.68 $2,444,379.96Total Travel: $505,595.20 $977,944.00Total ODC's $154,851.57 $294,435.35

Reporting ReportingTotal Cost: $24,671.10 $24,671.10Total Hours: 219 219Total Labor: $18,914.35 $18,914.35Total Travel: $540.51 $540.51Total ODC's $1,420.25 $1,420.25



APPENDIX B MEC HA

for the Feasibility Study Report MRS-R04 (Range VII)


Prepared for:










October 2012

MEC HA Workbook v1.0November 2006

2. This MS Excel workbook contains 9 worksheets, designed to be used in order. After the 'Instructions ' sheet, the first 5 sheets ask for information about the following topics:

Summary Info - General information regarding the site.Munitions/Explosive Info - MECs and bulk explosives present at the site.Current and Future Activities - Current land use activites as well as planned future activities, if any.Remedial-Removal Action - General information regarding remediation/removal alternatives being considered for the site.Post-Response Land Use - Land use activities associated with the alternatives listed in the 'Remedial-Removal Action' sheet.

The remaining 3 sheets calculate and summarize the scores. The Input Factors sheet performs the Input Factor Score calculations, which are summarized in the Scoring Summaries sheet. The Hazard Level sheet presents the Hazard Level Category for current use activities, future use activities, and each response alternative

December-07

Instructions

MEC HA Workbook v1.02

OverviewThis workbook is a tool for project teams to assess explosive hazards to human receptors at munitions response sites (MRSs) following the Munitions and Explosives of Concern Hazard Assessment (MEC HA) methodology. The MEC HA allows a project team to evaluate potential explosive hazard associated with a site, given current site conditions, under various cleanup, land use activities, and land use control alternatives. A complete description of the methodology can be found in the MEC HA Guidance (Public Review Draft, November 2006). Please reference this guidance when completing the worksheets.

1. Open this file. Enable macros if prompted to do so. This spreadsheet will not work if your security setting is set to 'high' or 'very high'. To change your security level, go to the menu bar and select Tools/Macro/Security. Then close and reopen this spreadsheet.

Instructions Worksheet Public Review Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

g p g y pbased on the respective scores.

Instructions Worksheet Public Review Draft - Do Not Cite or QuoteB-1


3. Starting with the Summary Info sheet, fill in any yellow cells. Some cells have drop-down lists from which you can select an answer. Select the cell. A down arrow to the right indicates that a drop-down list is available. Yellow buttons can be used to enter reference information. Blue cells can be used for any general comments you wish to make. Any faded cells can be ignored--these are questions that the spreadsheet has determined are not relevant for your situation.

The computer will calculate information based on your inputs. Calculated information will appear as red text.

4. The MEC HA menu bar can be used to navigate to different worksheets.

Blue Comment

Yellow Cell (User Input)

Faded Cells (Ignore)

Red Text (Calculated

Information)

Instructions Worksheet Public Review Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

Blue Comment

Yellow Cell (User Input)

Faded Cells (Ignore)

Red Text (Calculated

Information)

Instructions Worksheet Public Review Draft - Do Not Cite or QuoteB-2


5. Small red triangles in the upper-right corners indicate that help text is available by putting the mouse cursor on that cell.

Instructions Worksheet Public Review Draft - Do Not Cite or QuoteInstructions Worksheet Public Review Draft - Do Not Cite or QuoteB-3


MEC HA Summary InformationComments

Site ID: Range VIIDate: 1/9/2012

A. Enter a unique identifier for the site:

Ref. No.1234 Phase III Target Anomaly Removal Report, August 2005

56 Time Critical Removal Action (TCRA), Septemeber 2002789

101112

B. Briefly describe the site:1. Area (include units):2. Past munitions-related use:

3. Current land-use activities (list all that occur):

Yes5. What is the basis for the site boundaries?

6. How certain are the site boundaries?

Reference(s) for Part B:

C. Historical Clearances

2. If a clearance occurred:a. What year was the clearance performed? 2002, 2003, 2005, 2008

Reference(s) for Part C:

Please identify the single specific area to be assessed in this hazard assessment. From this point forward, all references to "site" or "MRS" refer to the specific area that you have defined.

Range Identification: I04SC002501R02

NAVSEA OP 1664 VOL 2, U.S. Explosive Ordnance, February 1954TM 9-1984, Disposal of American and Allied Bomb Fuzes, November 1942

Title (include version, publication date)

Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EECA), Septemeber 2003

Archives Search Report - FindingsArchives Search Report - Conclusions and Recommendations

Provide a list of information sources used for this hazard assessment. As you are completing the worksheets, use the "Select Ref(s)" buttons at the ends of each subsection to select the applicable information sources from the list below.

SSFR, OE Investigation and Removal, September 12, 2008

TM 9-1904, Ammunition Inspection Guide, March 1944

D. Attach maps of the site below (select 'Insert/Picture' on the menu bar.)

Complete Round Chart #5981, October 1944googleearth.comRI/FS, Former Conway Bombing and Gunnery Range, EODT 2011

Archives Search Report - FindingsArchives Search Report - Conclusions and RecommendationsSSFR, OE Investigation and Removal, September 12, 2008 Phase III Target Anomaly Removal Report, August 2005Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EECA), Septemeber 2003 Time Critical Removal Action (TCRA), Septemeber 2002

SSFR, OE Investigation and Removal, September 12, 2008 Phase III Target Anomaly Removal Report, August 2005Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EECA), Septemeber 2003 Time Critical Removal Action (TCRA), Septemeber 2002

649 Acres

Target Area

UXO Teams conducted both a Surface and Sub surface clearance with Metal Detectors. UXO items located, identified and destroyed were; 1544ea M54 4lb Incendiary Bombs, 44ea M38A2 100lb Pratice Bombs, 1ea 2.75" Rocket, 2ea M1A1 Spotting Charge, 37ea M48 20lb Practice Bombs, 2ea

Recreational (Golf Course/parks) and residential.

b. Provide a description of the clearance activity (e.g., extent, depth, amount of munitions-related items removed, types and sizes of removed items, and whether metal detectors were used):

4. Are changes to the future land-use planned?

1. Have there been any historical clearances at the site? No, none

Site boundaries were based on the Archives Search Report dated, 2004 and boundaries were modified based on historical MEC finds.

Select Ref(s)

Select Ref(s)

Summary Info Worksheet Public Review Draft - Do Not Cite or QuoteB-4



Cased Munitions Information

Item No.Munition Type (e.g., mortar, projectile, etc.)

Munition Size

Munition Size Units Mark/ Model

Energetic Material Type

Is Munition Fuzed? Fuzing Type

Fuze Condition

Minimum Depth for Munition (ft)

Location of Munitions

Comments (include rationale for munitions that are "subsurface only")

1 Bombs 8.13 inches M38Spotting Charge No Impact UNK 3

Surface and Subsurface









6 Bombs 8.13 inches M38Spotting Charge No Impact Unarmed 2


Reference(s) for table above:

Bulk Explosive InformationItem No. Explosive Type Comments

1 N/A23456789

10


SSFR, OE Investigation and Removal, September 12, 2008 Phase III Target Anomaly Removal Report, August 2005Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EECA), Septemeber 2003 Time Critical Removal Action (TCRA), Septemeber 2002TM 9-1904, Ammunition Inspection Guide, March 1944NAVSEA OP 1664 VOL 2, U.S. Explosive Ordnance, February 1954TM 9-1984, Disposal of American and Allied Bomb Fuzes, November 1942Complete Round Chart #5981, October 1944

Select Ref(s)

Select Ref(s)

Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info Worksheet Public Review Draft - Do Not Cite or QuoteB-5


DO NOT EDIT. Used to calculate scores.Fuze Condition Unarmed? (1=yes, 0=no)

Munitions Fuzed? (1=yes, 0=no)

Munitions Size in mm For MEC List IF1 Score

0 0 8.13 Item #1. Bombs (8.13inches, Spotting Charge) 1





1 0 8.13 Item #6. Bombs (8.13inches, Spotting Charge) 10 Max Hazard: #REF!

Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info Worksheet Public Review Draft - Do Not Cite or QuoteB-6



Activities Currently Occurring at the Site

Activity No. Activity

Number of people per year who participate in the activity

Number of hours per year a single person spends on the activity

Potential Contact Time (receptor hours/year)

Maximum intrusive depth (ft) Comments

1 Residental 2,000 4,380 8,760,000 6Represents high rate of development

2 Commercial 1,000 104 104,000 0Average of shoppers and workers

3 Parks/Recreation 500 50 25,000 0456789

101112

Total Potential Contact Time (receptor hrs/yr): 8,889,000Maximum intrusive depth at site (ft): 6

Reference(s) for table above:Archives Search Report - FindingsArchives Search Report - Conclusions and RecommendationsSSFR, OE Investigation and Removal, September 12, 2008 googleearth.com

Select Ref(s)

Current and Future Activities Worksheet Public Review Draft - Do Not Cite or QuoteB-7




Number of hours per year a single person spends on the activity



1Continued Residential and Commercial Development 500 2,000 1,000,000 6

Represents additional receptors in the MRS

23456789

101112

Total Potential Contact Time (receptor hrs/yr): 1,000,000Maximum intrusive depth at site (ft): 6

Reference(s) for table above:Archives Search Report - FindingsArchives Search Report - Conclusions and RecommendationsSSFR, OE Investigation and Removal, September 12, 2008 googleearth.com

Activities Planned for the Future at the Site (If any are planned: see 'Summary Info' Worksheet, Question 4)

Select Ref(s)

Current and Future Activities Worksheet Public Review Draft - Do Not Cite or QuoteB-8



Planned Remedial or Removal Actions

Response Action No. Response Action Description

Expected Resulting Minimum MEC Depth (ft)

Expected Resulting Site Accessibility

Will land use activities change if this response action is implemented? What is the expected scope of cleanup? Comments

1 No Futher Action (NOFA) 2Full Accessibility No No MEC cleanup

2 Institutional Controls (LUC'S) 2Full Accessibility No No MEC cleanup

3 Surface Clearance 2Full Accessibility No

cleanup of MECs located on the surface only

4 Surface/SubSurface Clearance 0Full Accessibility No

cleanup of MECs located both on the surface and subsurface

56

Future


RI/FS, Former Conway Bombing and Gunnery Range, EODT 2011

For those alternatives where you answered 'No' in Column E, are land-use activities to be assessed against current or future land uses?

Select Ref(s)

Remedial-Removal Action Worksheet Public Review Draft - Do Not Cite or QuoteB-9





Number of hours a single person spends on the activity



1 023456789

101112

Total Potential Contact Time (receptor hrs/yr):Maximum intrusive depth at site (ft): 0







123456789

101112

Total Potential Contact Time (receptor hrs/yr):Maximum intrusive depth at site (ft):


This worksheet needs to be completed for each remedial/removal action alternative listed in the 'Remedial-Removal Action' worksheet that will cause a change in land use.

Archives Search Report - FindingsArchives Search Report - Conclusions and RecommendationsSSFR, OE Investigation and Removal, September 12, 2008 googleearth.comRI/FS, Former Conway Bombing and Gunnery Range, EODT 2011

Land Use Activities Planned After Response Alternative #1: No Futher Action (NOFA)

Land Use Activities Planned After Response Alternative #2: Institutional Controls (LUC'S)

Select Ref(s)

Select Ref(s)

Post-Response Land Use Worksheet Public Review Draft - Do Not Cite or QuoteB-10







1 02 Maintenance 100 1 23456789

101112








123456789

101112



Land Use Activities Planned After Response Alternative #4: Surface/SubSurface Clearance

Land Use Activities Planned After Response Alternative #3: Surface Clearance

Select Ref(s)

Select Ref(s)








123456789

101112








123456789

101112



Land Use Activities Planned After Response Alternative #6:

Land Use Activities Planned After Response Alternative #5:

Select Ref(s)

Select Ref(s)



Site ID: Range VII

Date: 1/9/2012

Energetic Material Type Input Factor Categories Comments

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

100 100 10070 70 7060 60 6050 50 5040 40 4030 30 30

Score 40

Baseline Conditions: 100Surface Cleanup: 40Subsurface Cleanup: 40

0 feet

Yes

MEC Item(s) used to calculate the ESQD for current use activities

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

30 30 300 0 0

Score303030

Yes

MEC Item(s) used to calculate the ESQD for future use activities

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

30 30 300 0 0

Score303030

Item #1 M38 100lb practice bomb

Item #1 M38 100lb practice bomb

Surface Cleanup:

3. Please describe the facility or feature.

Baseline Conditions:Surface Cleanup:

The following table is used to determine scores associated with the location of additional human receptors (current use activities):

Inside the MRS or inside the ESQD arcOutside of the ESQD arc

4. Current use activities are 'Inside the MRS or inside the ESQD arc', based on Question 2.'

5. Are there future plans to locate or construct features or facilities where people may congregate within the MRS, or within the ESQD arc?

Subsurface Cleanup:

Subsurface Cleanup:

6. Please describe the facility or feature.

Unknown at this time, Commercial and Residential development has continued in the Carolina Forest Area.

The following table is used to determine scores associated with the location of additional human receptors (future use activities):

Inside the MRS or inside the ESQD arc

Residential subdivisions, Recreation Parks and continued Commercial/residential construction

Outside of the ESQD arc

Baseline Conditions:7. Future use activities are 'Inside the MRS or inside the ESQD arc', based on Question 5.'

The following table is used to determine scores associated with the energetic materials. Materials are listed in order from most hazardous to least hazardous.

1. What is the Explosive Safety Quantity Distance (ESQD) from the Explosive Siting Plan or the Explosive Safety Submission for the MRS?2. Are there currently any features or facilities where people may congregate within the MRS, or within the ESQD arc?

M38 100lb practice bomb

High Explosive and Low Explosive Filler in Fragmenting RoundsWhite PhosphorusPyrotechnicPropellantSpotting ChargeIncendiary

Location of Additional Human Receptors Input Factor Categories

Select MEC(s)

Select MEC(s)

Input Factors Worksheet Public Review Draft - Do Not Cite or QuoteB-13


Site Accessibility Input Factor Categories

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

Full Accessibility 80 80 80

Moderate Accessibility 55 55 55

Limited Accessibility 15 15 15

Very Limited Accessibility 5 5 5

Score



Reference(s) for above information:





Baseline Conditions:Surface Cleanup:Subsurface Cleanup:

Baseline Conditions:Surface Cleanup:Subsurface Cleanup:

Based on the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet, this alternative will lead to 'Full Accessibility'.

Response Alternative No. 4: Surface/SubSurface Clearance

Select the category that best describes the site accessibility under the future use scenario

Archives Search Report - FindingsArchives Search Report - Conclusions and RecommendationsSSFR, OE Investigation and Removal, September 12, 2008 googleearth.comRI/FS, Former Conway Bombing and Gunnery Range, EODT 2011

Full Accessibility

Full Accessibility

Current Use Activities

Future Use Activities

Response Alternative No. 6: Please enter site accessibility information in the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet to continue.

Select the category that best describes the site accessibility under the current use scenario

A site with guarded chain link fence or terrain that requires special equipment and skills (e.g., rock

climbing) to access

Some barriers to entry, such as barbed wire fencing or rough terrain

No barriers to entry, including signage but no fencing

Response Alternative No. 2: Institutional Controls (LUC'S)

Response Alternative No. 3: Surface Clearance

Response Alternative No. 1: No Futher Action (NOFA)Based on the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet, this alternative will lead to 'Full Accessibility'.


Significant barriers to entry, such as unguarded chain link fence or

requirements for special transportation to reach the site

Description

The following table is used to determine scores associated with site accessibility:


Response Alternative No. 5: Please enter site accessibility information in the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet to continue.

Select Ref(s)



Potential Contact Hours Input Factor Categories

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

Many Hours 120 90 30

Some Hours 70 50 20

Few Hours 40 20 10Very Few Hours 15 10 5

8,889,000receptor hrs/yr

120 Score

1,000,000receptor hrs/yr

120 Score

1,000,000Score


1,000,000Score


1,000,000Score


1,000,000Score


ScoreBaseline Conditions:Surface Cleanup:Subsurface Cleanup:


Total Potential Contact Time based on the contact time listed for future use activities (see 'Current and Future Activities' Worksheet)

The following table is used to determine scores associated with the total potential contact time:

Response Alternative No. 2: Institutional Controls (LUC'S)

Based on the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet, land use activities will not change if this alternative is implemented.

Description

<10,000 receptor-hrs/yr

Response Alternative No. 1: No Futher Action (NOFA)

Future Use Activities :

Current Use Activities :

Based on the table above, this corresponds to a input factor score for baseline conditions of

Input factors are only determined for baseline conditions for future use activities. Based on the 'Current and Future Activities' Worksheet, the Total Potential Contact Time is:Based on the table above, this corresponds to a input factor score of:

Input factors are only determined for baseline conditions for current use activities. Based on the 'Current and Future Activities' Worksheet, the Total Potential Contact Time is:

≥1,000,000 receptor-hrs/yr

100,000 to 999,999 receptor hrs/yr

10,000 to 99,999 receptor-hrs/yr


Response Alternative No. 3: Surface Clearance

Based on the table above, this corresponds to input factor scores of:


Based on the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet, land use activities will not change if this alternative is implemented.Total Potential Contact Time based on the contact time listed for future use activities (see 'Current and Future Activities' Worksheet)Based on the table above, this corresponds to input factor scores of:


Not enough information has been entered in the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet. Please complete the table before returning to this section.

Based on the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet, land use activities will not change if this alternative is implemented.Total Potential Contact Time based on the contact time listed for future use activities (see 'Current and Future Activities' Worksheet)

Response Alternative No. 5:

Total Potential Contact Time based on the contact time listed for future use activities (see 'Current and Future Activities' Worksheet)


Not enough information has been entered in the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet. Please complete the table before returning to this section.

Total Potential Contact TimeBased on the table above, this corresponds to input factor scores of:


Total Potential Contact TimeBased on the table above, this corresponds to input factor scores of:



Amount of MEC Input Factor Categories

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

Target Area 180 120 30

OB/OD Area 180 110 30

Function Test Range 165 90 25

Burial Pit 140 140 10

Maneuver Areas 115 15 5

Firing Points 75 10 5

Safety Buffer Areas 30 10 5

Storage 25 10 5

Explosive-Related Industrial Facility

20 10 5

Score


Description

Areas where the serviceability of stored munitions or weapons systems

are tested. Testing may include components, partial functioning or complete functioning of stockpile or

developmental items.

Areas at which munitions fire was directed

Sites where munitions were disposed of by open burn or open detonation

methods. This category refers to the core activity area of an OB/OD area.

See the "Safety Buffer Areas" category for safety fans and kick-

outs.

The following table is used to determine scores associated with the Amount of MEC:

The location of a burial of large quantities of MEC items.

Areas used for conducting military exercises in a simulated conflict area

or war zone

The location from which a projectile, grenade, ground signal, rocket,

guided missile, or other device is to be ignited, propelled, or released.

Areas outside of target areas, test ranges, or OB/OD areas that were designed to act as a safety zone to contain munitions that do not hit

targets or to contain kick-outs from OB/OD areas.

Any facility used for the storage of military munitions, such as earth-covered magazines, above-ground magazines, and open-air storage

areas.Former munitions manufacturing or

demilitarization sites and TNT production plants

Select the category that best describes the most hazardous amount of MEC:Target Area



2 ft6 ft

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

240 150 95

240 50 25

150 N/A 95

50 N/A 25

150 Score

Deepest intrusive depth: 6 ft

150 Score

2 ft

6 ft

ScoreBaseline Conditions: 150Surface Cleanup:Subsurface Cleanup:

2 ft

6 ft

ScoreBaseline Conditions: 150Surface Cleanup:Subsurface Cleanup:

Because the shallowest minimum MEC depth is less than or equal to the deepest intrusive depth, the intrusive depth overlaps. MECs are located only subsurface, based on the 'Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info' Worksheet. Therefore, the category for this input factor is 'Baseline Condition: MEC located only subsurface. Baseline Condition or After Cleanup: Intrusive depth overlaps with minimum MEC depth.'. For 'Future Use Activities', only Baseline Conditions are considered.

Baseline Condition: MEC located only subsurface. Baseline Condition or After Cleanup: Intrusive depth does not overlap with minimum MEC depth.

Response Alternative No. 1: No Futher Action (NOFA)

Current Use Activities

The shallowest minimum MEC depth, based on the 'Cased Munitions Information' Worksheet:The deepest intrusive depth:The table below is used to determine scores associated with the minimum MEC depth relative to the maximum intrusive depth:

Future Use Activities

Baseline Condition: MEC located surface and subsurface. After Cleanup: Intrusive depth overlaps with subsurface MEC.Baseline Condition: MEC located surface and subsurface, After Cleanup: Intrusive depth does not overlap with subsurface MEC.Baseline Condition: MEC located only subsurface. Baseline Condition or After Cleanup: Intrusive depth overlaps with minimum MEC depth.

Because the shallowest minimum MEC depth is less than or equal to the deepest intrusive depth, the intrusive depth will overlap after cleanup. MECs are located only subsurface, based on the 'Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info' Worksheet. Therefore, the category for this input factor is 'Baseline Condition: MEC located only subsurface. Baseline Condition or After Cleanup: Intrusive depth overlaps with minimum MEC depth.' For 'Current Use Activities', only Baseline Conditions are considered.

Minimum MEC Depth Relative to the Maximum Intrusive Depth Input Factor Categories

Expected minimum MEC depth (from the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet):Based on the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet, land use activities will not change if this alternative is implemented.Maximum Intrusive Depth, based on the maximum intrusive depth listed for future use activities (see 'Current and Future Activities' Worksheet)

Because the shallowest minimum MEC depth is less than or equal to the deepest intrusive depth, the intrusive depth overlaps. MECs are located only subsurface, based on the 'Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info' Worksheet. Therefore, the category for this input factor is 'Baseline Condition: MEC located only subsurface. Baseline Condition or After Cleanup: Intrusive depth overlaps with minimum MEC depth.'

Response Alternative No. 2: Institutional Controls (LUC'S)Expected minimum MEC depth (from the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet):Based on the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet, land use activities will not change if this alternative is implemented.Maximum Intrusive Depth, based on the maximum intrusive depth listed for future use activities (see 'Current and Future Activities' Worksheet)




2 ft

6 ft

ScoreBaseline Conditions:Surface Cleanup: N/ASubsurface Cleanup:

0 ft

6 ft

ScoreBaseline Conditions:Surface Cleanup:Subsurface Cleanup: 95

ft

ft


ft

ft


Not enough information has been entered to calculate this input factor.

Expected minimum MEC depth (from the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet):Not enough information has been entered in the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet. Please complete the table before returning to this section.



Response Alternative No. 3: Surface Clearance Expected minimum MEC depth (from the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet):Based on the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet, land use activities will not change if this alternative is implemented.


Expected minimum MEC depth (from the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet):

Maximum Intrusive Depth, based on the maximum intrusive depth listed for future use activities (see 'Current and Future Activities' Worksheet)


Maximum Intrusive Depth, based on the maximum intrusive depth listed for future use activities (see 'Current and Future Activities' Worksheet)

Response Alternative No. 5: Expected minimum MEC depth (from the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet):Not enough information has been entered in the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet. Please complete the table before returning to this section.

Maximum Intrusive Depth

Not enough information has been entered to calculate this input factor.


Maximum Intrusive Depth



Migration Potential Input Factor Categories

No

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

30 30 1010 10 10

ScoreBaseline Conditions: 10Surface Cleanup: 10Subsurface Cleanup: 10

Reference(s) for above information:

MEC Classification Input Factor Categories

No

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

180 180 180110 110 110105 105 10555 55 5545 45 4545 45 45

ScoreBaseline Conditions: 110Surface Cleanup: 110Subsurface Cleanup: 110

MEC Size Input Factor Categories

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

Small 40 40 40

Large 0 0 0

SmallScore


Based on the definitions above and the types of munitions at the site (see 'Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info' Worksheet), the MEC Size Input Factor is:

Has a technical assessment shown that MEC in the OB/OD Area is DMM?

PossibleUnlikely

Cased munitions information has been inputed into the 'Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info' Worksheet; therefore, bulk explosives do not comprise all MECs for this MRS.

Based on the question above, migration potential is 'Unlikely.'

The following table is used to determine scores associated with the migration potential

Description

Any munitions (from the 'Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info' Worksheet)

weigh less than 90 lbs; small enough for a receptor to be able to move and

initiate a detonation

Unlikely

Is there any physical or historical evidence that indicates it is possible for natural physical forces in the area (e.g., frost heave, erosion) to expose subsurface MEC items, or move surface or subsurface MEC items?If "yes", describe the nature of natural forces. Indicate key areas of potential migration (e.g., overland water flow) on a map as appropriate (attach a map to the bottom of this sheet, or as a separate worksheet).

Based on your answers above, the MEC classification is 'UXO'.

The following table is used to determine scores associated with MEC Size:

All munitions weigh more than 90 lbs; too large to move without equipment

UXOFuzed DMM Special CaseFuzed DMM

· Submunitions· Rifle-propelled 40mm projectiles (often called 40mm grenades)· Munitions with white phosphorus filler· High explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds

Unfuzed DMMBulk Explosives

· Hand grenades

· Mortars

None of the items listed in the 'Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info' Worksheet were identified as 'fuzed'.The following table is used to determine scores associated with MEC classification categories

UXOUXO Special Case

· Fuzes

Are any of the munitions listed in the 'Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info' Worksheet:

The 'Amount of MEC' category is 'Target Area'. It cannot be automatically assumed that the MEC items from this category are DMM. Therefore, the conservative assumption is that the MEC items in this MRS are UXO.

Select Ref(s)



Scoring Summary

Site ID: Range VII a. Scoring Summary for Current Use Activities

Date: 1/9/2012 Response Action Cleanup: No Response ActionInput Factor Category Score

100

Inside the MRS or inside the ESQD arc 30Full Accessibility 80≥1,000,000 receptor-hrs/yr 120Target Area 180Baseline Condition: MEC located only subsurface. Baseline Condition or After Cleanup: Intrusive depth overlaps with minimum MEC depth. 150Unlikely 10UXO 110Small 40

Total Score 820Hazard Level Category 2

Site ID: Range VII b. Scoring Summary for Future Use Activities

Date: 1/9/2012 Response Action Cleanup: No Response ActionInput Factor Category Score

100



Site ID: Range VII

Date: 1/9/2012 Response Action Cleanup: No MEC cleanupInput Factor Category Score

100



c. Scoring Summary for Response Alternative 1: No Futher Action (NOFA)

Input FactorI. Energetic Material Type

II. Location of Additional Human ReceptorsIII. Site Accessibility

IV. Potential Contact HoursV. Amount of MEC

VI. Minimum MEC Depth Relative to Maximum Intrusive Depth

VII. Migration PotentialVIII. MEC Classification

IX. MEC Size






IX. MEC Size






IX. MEC Size

Scoring Summaries Worksheet Public Review Draft - Do Not Cite or QuoteB-20


Site ID: Range VII d. Scoring Summary for Response Alternative 2: Institutional Controls (LUC'S)

Date: 1/9/2012 Response Action Cleanup: No MEC cleanupInput Factor Category Score

100



Site ID: Range VII

Date: 1/9/2012 Response Action Cleanup:cleanup of MECs located on the surface only

Input Factor Category Score40

Inside the MRS or inside the ESQD arc 30Full Accessibility 80≥1,000,000 receptor-hrs/yr 90Target Area 120Baseline Condition: MEC located only subsurface. Baseline Condition or After Cleanup: Intrusive depth overlaps with minimum MEC depth. N/AUnlikely 10UXO 110Small 40


Site ID: Range VII f. Scoring Summary for Response Alternative 4: Surface/SubSurface Clearance

Date: 1/9/2012 Response Action Cleanup:cleanup of MECs located both on the surface and subsurface

Input Factor Category Score40



e. Scoring Summary for Response Alternative 3: Surface Clearance






IX. MEC Size






IX. MEC Size

Input Factor



IX. MEC Size

I. Energetic Material Type





Site ID: Range VII g. Scoring Summary for Response Alternative 5:

Date: 1/9/2012 Response Action Cleanup:Input Factor Category Score


Target Area

UnlikelyUXOSmall

Total ScoreHazard Level Category

Site ID: Range VII h. Scoring Summary for Response Alternative 6:

Date: 1/9/2012 Response Action Cleanup:Input Factor Category Score


Target Area

UnlikelyUXOSmall

Total ScoreHazard Level Category


VII. Migration Potential

VIII. MEC ClassificationIX. MEC Size




VII. Migration Potential



VIII. MEC ClassificationIX. MEC Size






2 8202 8202 8202 820

4 5204 465

No

No

No

h. Response Alternative 6: Characteristics of the MRS

e. Response Alternative 3: Surface Clearance

Are significant ecological resources located within the MRS or within the ESQD arc?

Are cultural resources located within the MRS or within the ESQD arc?

Is critical infrastructure located within the MRS or within the ESQD arc?

b. Future Use Activities

f. Response Alternative 4: Surface/SubSurface Clearance g. Response Alternative 5:

Score

MEC HA Hazard Level Determination

c. Response Alternative 1: No Futher Action (NOFA)d. Response Alternative 2: Institutional Controls (LUC'S)

Hazard Level Categorya. Current Use Activities

Hazard Level Worksheet Public Review Draft - Do Not Cite or QuoteB-23

APPENDIX C STATE REGULATOR REVIEW

OF DRAFT FINAL FS for the

Feasibility Study Report MRS-R04 (Range VII)


Prepared for:










October 2012

kara.gizzi

Text Box

C-1

kara.gizzi

Text Box

C-2

FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT · FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT for MRS-R04 (Range VII) Former...

Documents

Transcript of FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT · FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT for MRS-R04 (Range VII) Former...