ordnance safety n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Ordnance Safety PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Ordnance Safety

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 100

Ordnance Safety - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Ordnance Safety. DO NOT TOUCH! DO NOT MOVE! Note/record location Call 911 or local law enforcement. Technical Project Planning (TPP) Meeting 7. Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS), Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS)

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

Ordnance Safety

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Presentation Transcript
    1. Ordnance Safety • DO NOT TOUCH!DO NOT MOVE! • Note/record location • Call 911 or local law enforcement

    2. Technical ProjectPlanning (TPP) Meeting 7 Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS), Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) Kirtland AFB Precision Bombing Ranges (N-1, N-2, N-3, N-4 and “New” Demolition Area) (A.K.A. West Mesa) FUDS ID K06NM044501

    3. Agenda Pre-meeting Coffee (optional) – 8:30-9:00 • Introductions and Agenda Review • Review results of the follow-up MRS boundary meeting • Explain MRS N-2/NDA split from rest of MRSs • Summary of the RI Report • Summary of the FS Report • Summary of Regulator Comment Resolution • Present MEC HA Results Break -10:00-10:15 • Introduction to the RD/RA • USACE Goal • Presentation of Conceptual Site Model • Discussion of Stakeholder values • Development of DQOs

    4. Agenda (continued) Lunch - 11:45-1:00 • Presentation of Recommended RA Alternative Break – 2:30 – 2:45 • Presentation of EM61 and MetalMapper Technologies • Presentation of Alternative Geophysical Survey and RA Design Approaches • UXO Estimator • VSP • Probabilistic Approach • Discussion and Selection Design Approach for the RD/RA • Presentation of Hazard Assessment Approach • Final Discussions Meeting End – 5:00

    5. West Mesa Project Map

    6. MRS N-2/NDA Addressed First • The RI and FS reports address MRSs N-2 and NDA only. • The primary reason this RI/FS report is focused on N-2 and NDA is because there is a more urgent need to reduce potential hazards at these sites than at the other MRSs. • The City of Albuquerque intends to develop this land within the next five years. • Separating these “high priority” sites from the other six MRSs will allow USACE to expedite progress to select a remedial alternative for these two MRSs, and thus mitigate the majority of hazards that would be potentially encountered during future planned land development activities. • A result of the RI and Technical Project Planning (TPP) discussions is that MRSs N-2 and NDA were combined into one MRS. • These areas are henceforth designated as MRS N-2/NDA.

    7. MRS N-2/NDA Boundary • Primary Purpose - Develop a systematic defensible approach for defining the West Mesa MRS boundaries. • DOD and EPA have no formal approach to defining MRS boundaries. • Julie Jacobs (NMED) spoke with a representative of UXOPro.com, who suggested using a specified distance beyond the furthest MD item to help define the MRS boundary. • AR 750-10, Range Regulations for Firing Ammunition in Time of Peace, May 1939 – January 1944; AAF Manual 85-0-1, Army Air Forces Gunnery and Bombardment Ranges, June 1945; Army Air Corps Studies and Reports on Bombing Analysis and Bombing Accuracy, 1942. In reference to 100-lb AN-M30 General Purpose bombs this research states: • From studies completed in WWII, “99 percent of the bombs should be found within 3,000 feet for bombers flying at 25,000 feet or below and at speeds up to 250 mph. The same study implied a 2,000-foot radius should include 95 percent of the bombs under the same conditions.”

    8. Approach for Determining West Mesa MRS Boundaries • First, establish the 3000-ft radius boundary from each target feature center. • Use dig results from the EE/CA, TCRA and WAA to determine where anomalies identified as MD fall outside or within 250 ft of the 3000-ft boundary. • Draw boundary to include the MD item plus a buffer of 250-ft beyond the item. • If there is an MD item further away, but within 250 ft of the MD, move the boundary 250 ft beyond that item. • If an MD item is discovered outside of the 250-ft buffer this MD item shall be considered an isolated incidence and not be included in the MRS boundary. • In an instance where a MEC is discovered within the 250-ft buffer or outside of the MRS boundary the boundary will be moved to include the location of the MEC item plus the 250-ft buffer. • All agreed that if during subsequent phases of investigation or remedial action, if MEC and MD items are found adjacent to a boundary, the boundary will be refined.

    9. MRS N-2/NDA Boundary (continued) • Figures display: • proposed MRS boundaries 3,000 ft from target centers, • anomaly density contours, • colorized anomaly concentrations from heli-mag surveys, • anomalies identified by the EE/CA, • likelihood 2 anomalies identified by the WAA, • dig results from the WAA and EE/CA that were MD items greater than three lbs, • and TCRA dig results for MD greater than three lbs.

    10. MRS N-2/NDA Boundary (continued)

    11. MRS N-2/New Demolition Area

    12. The result of applying these criteria is that Former MRSs N-2 and NDA are combined into one MRS designated as MRS N-2/NDA. This approach: • Serves to encompass all high-density anomaly areas delineated through statistical spatial analysis and indicative of specific impact areas • Provides supporting documentation for boundary selection in the form of DoD studies specific to the munitions used at the site • Provides built-in contingences that allow refinement of the MRS boundary if MD meeting a specified criteria are discovered, outside of the initial MRS boundary in the future; and • It makes the conservative assumption that the two target areas should be treated similarly, and assumes the higher risk of HE bombs cannot be ruled out, given a 100-lb HE bomb was found elsewhere outside the NDA target in 1996.

    13. Summary of the Remedial Investigation

    14. Goals of the RI • Determine nature and extent of MC contamination at each MRS, • Verify the type of MEC items within each MRS, • Determine the density and distribution of MEC items within each MRS, • Redefine the boundaries of each identified MRS, • Redefine the boundary of the West Mesa MRA, if necessary • Determine the presence or absence and distribution of 100-lb HE bombs within MRSs N-2 and New Demolition Area, • Assess MEC Hazard with MEC HA, and • Develop a FS to identify and evaluate munitions response alternatives for each MRS.

    15. Data Gaps and RI Actions

    16. MRSs N-2/NDA MC Sampling 8 random SUs and 4 biased SUs performed at N-2 target area No HE MC detected 8 random SUs and 5 biased SUs performed at NDA target area No HE MC detected

    17. Intrusive MEC Investigation Excavation Results

    18. Intrusive MEC Investigation

    19. Intrusive MEC Investigation Reacquisition of 100 Anomaly Locations EM 61 Anomaly Location Verification

    20. Intrusive MEC Investigation HE - Bomb Fragmentation M38 Sand-filled Practice Bomb

    21. Summary of Feasibility Study

    22. Ranking - ■ High ability to meet criteria ◘ Moderate ability to meet the criteria □ Does not meet criteria << - Low cost to implement compared to other criteria TBD - to be determined. These criteria will be further evaluated following the comment period for the RI/FS report.

    23. Summary of RI /FS Regulator Comment Resolution New Mexico Environment Department • NMED does nor concur with the RI/FS • Clear definitions / consistency of terminology • Corrections to MRSPP and MEC HA scoring sheets • Horizontal Anomaly Density not explained clearly • “High-Density” Area not mentioned in the RI, but discussed in the evaluation of alternatives EPA • Is a 0-4” surface sample sufficient if craters have aeolian deposits in them? • 5-year review clock starts when construction of the remedy starts • 5 -year review cost of $5k is low • Schedule for Proposed Plan

    24. Revised Conceptual Site Models

    25. Revised Conceptual Site Models CSMs visually represent 5 site profiles Facility Profile Physical Profile Release Profile Land Use and Exposure Profile Ecological Profile CSMs incorporate site profiles to provide a visual representation of site hazards and exposure pathways for assessment of remedial alternatives

    26. Profile Information for MRS N-2/NDA (current land use)

    27. Profile Information for MRS N-2/NDA (future land use)

    28. CSM Pathway Analysis • The pathway analysis determines if there is a complete pathway for either human or environmental exposure to HTRW or MEC • Pathway analyses is depicted in a 3D model the draft final RI/FS report

    29. West Mesa MRA Preliminary Pathway Analysis

    30. CSM Pathway Analysis for MRS N-2/NDA (current land use)

    31. CSM Pathway Analysis for MRS N-2/NDA (future land use)

    32. CSM Pathway Analysis for MRS New Demolition Area (future land use)

    33. MEC Hazard Assessment

    34. MEC Hazard Assessment • MEC Hazard Assessments (MEC HA) according to guidance provided by EPA Munitions and Explosives of Concern Hazard Assessment Methodology Interim 2008. • A MEC HA was produced for MRS N-2/NDA • The MEC HA produces a qualitative hazard level number value based on weighted scoring of: • Physical site conditions, • Site land use, • Former DoD site usage, and • Data collected during the RI and previous investigations • MEC HA hazard levels range from 4 (low) to 1 (very high) • MEC HA may be utilized to determine projected future hazard levels as well as current hazard levels

    35. MEC Hazard Assessment Input Factors

    36. MEC Hazard Assessment Results

    37. MEC HA Hazard Level Determination

    38. Introduction to the RD/RA

    39. USACE Goal for MRS N-2/NDA • RD/RA work will result in sufficient site clearance to support a decision for no further RA (i.e. MEC removal) with LUCs)

    40. RD/RA Starting Point