United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-505-R-00-01
September 2000
Used or Fired Munitions
and Unexploded
Ordnance at Closed,
Transferred, and
Transferring
Military Ranges
Report and Analysis of
EPA Survey Results
-------
Disclaimer
The information in this report is based on narrative responses to a survey of EPA Regional
Offices conducted in the fall and winter of 1998-99. The survey instrument consisted of open-ended
questions and made no attempt to statistically survey the Remedial Project Managers with range
responsibilities. As such, the results of the survey represent a snapshot of information available from
those who participated in the survey. Finally, the reader should be aware that the report and its
contents do not represent official EPA policy.
-------
Acknowledgments
The Federal Facilities and Reuse Office (FFRRO) wishes to acknowledge the support the EPA
Regions and the Regional Project Managers for their participation in this survey effort. The
information provided by EPA Regional staff has provided previously unavailable insight into the
management of unexploded ordnance (UXO) at closed, transferred, and transferring ranges. In
addition, FFRRO acknowledges the contributions of Douglas Bell in the development and application
of the survey. EPA FFRRO is grateful for this support. '
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Purpose 1
1.2 Background 1
1.2.1 The Challenge 1
1.2.2 The Legal Framework for Range Cleanup 2
1.3 Overview and Design of Survey 3
1.4 Report Organization 7
2.0 GENERAL FACILITY AND RANGE INFORMATION 9
2.1 Introduction 9
2.2 Surrounding Area Characteristics 10
2.3 Range Status 11
2.4 Munitions Potentially Found on Ranges 12
2.5 Range Ownership 15
3.0 THREATS TO HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT 17
3.1 Introduction 17
3.2 Range Setting 17
3.2.1 Range Topography/Landforms 17
3.2.2 Identification of Explosives in Soils or Groundwater 17
3.3 Community Setting 19
3.3.1 Land Use 19
3.3.2 Surrounding Area Land Use 23
3.3.3 Proximity to Nearest Populations 23
3.4 The Presence of Used or Fired Munitions and UXO 23
3.4.1 Has UXO Been Found on Range? 23
3.4.2 Have Chemical or Biological Weapons Been Found or Suspected on
Range? 25
3.4.3 Known or Suspected Potential Off-Range or Off-Site Problems 26
3.5 Incidents Involving UXO 26
4.0 RANGE MANAGEMENT 29
4.1 Introduction 29
4.2 Survey Responses on Who Manages the Range? 29
4.3 Utilization of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 30
4.4 Activities on Range 32
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
5.0 UXO TECHNICAL ISSUES 35
5.1 Introduction 35
5.2 UXO Assessment Problems 35
5.3 Remediation Problems 36
5.4 Use of Statistical Methods To Define the Extent of UXO 37
5.4.1 Use of Statistical Methods on Ranges 37
5.4.2 Recommendations Based on Statistical Methods 37
5.5 Addressing UXO 39
5.5.1 Indications by DoD Organization or Contractors That UXO Will
Not or Cannot Be Addressed 39
5.5.2 Situations Out of Regulator's Control That Needed Immediate
Attention 39
6.0 REGULATORY STATUS AND ISSUES 41
6.1 Introduction 41
6.2 Range Regulatory Authorities 41
6.2.1 Under What Program Is Range Regulated? 41
6.2.2 Who Regulates the Range? 41
6.3 Compliance with CERCLA and the NCP at Sites Where USACE Has Been
Utilized 43
6.4 Submission of Draft Work Plans to the Department of Defense Explosives
Safety Board for Review and Approval 44
6.5 Open Burning, Open Detonation 45
6.6 Is the Range or Site Covered by a Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA), State
Cleanup Agreement, Permit, or Order? 47
6.7 Institutional Controls/Land Use Controls 49
7.0 CONCLUSIONS 51
7.1 Introduction 51
7.2 Applicability of Findings 51
7.3 Data Gaps 51
7.3.1 Inactive Versus Closed Ranges 51
7.3.2 Regulatory Programs 52
7.3.3 Applicability of Subpart X to OB/OD Ranges 52
7.3.4 Number, Size, and Distribution of Ranges 52
7.4 Risks to Human Health and Safety and the Environment 53
7.5 Range Status 53
7.6 Technical Issues 53
7.7 Regulatory Oversight 54
7.8 General Conclusions 54
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Survey Responses: Number of Facilities and Ranges Reported in Survey 5
Table 4-1. Stages of Response 33
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Distribution of Facilities Among EPA Regions (by facility) 5
Figure 2. Programmatic Category of Facility (by facility) 7
Figure 3. Characteristics of Surrounding Area (by facility) 10
Figure 4. Range Status 12
Figure 5. Munitions Employed at Ranges (by range) 13
Figure 6. Range Ownership Over Time (by range) 16
Figure 7. Range Topography/Landforms (by range) 18
Figure 8. Media Possibly Contaminated with Used or Fired Military Munitions (by range) . . 19
Figure 9. Past Land Uses (by range) 21
Figure 10. Present Land Uses (by range) 21
Figure 11. Ordnance-Related Land Use Over Time (by range) 22
Figure 12. Expected Future Land Uses (by range) 22
Figure 13. Land Use of Surrounding Area (by range) 24
Figure 14. Proximity to Nearest Populated Area (by range) 24
Figure 15. Has UXO Been Found on Range? (by range) 25
Figure 16. Have Chemical or Biological Weapons Been Found or Suspected? (by range) .... 25
Figure 17. Potential Off-Range Problems (by range) 26
Figure 18. Incidents Involving UXO (by range) 28
Figure 19. Who Manages the Range? (by range) 30
Figure 20. Organizations That Conducted Range Investigation and Cleanup Activities
(by range) 31
Figure 21. USACE Role in Investigation and Cleanup (by range) 31
Figure 22. Latest Phase of Cleanup Activities Conducted (by range) 32
Figure 23. Assessment Problems (by range) 36
Figure 24. Remediation Problems (by range) 37
Figure 25. Have Statistical Methods Been Used on Range? (by range) 38
Figure 26. Were Recommendations Generated That EPA Could Not Support? (by range) ... 38
Figure 27. Has Any DoD Organization Indicated That UXO Will Not or Cannot Be
Addressed? 40
Figure 28. Did You Face Any Situations Regarding UXO That You Felt Were Out of Your
Control but Needed Immediate Attention? (by range) 40
Figure 29. Under What Program Is the Range Regulated? (by facility) 42
Figure 30. Who Regulates the Range? (by range) 42
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure 31. Were Activities Conducted by USACE Consistent with CERCLA and the NCP?
(by range) 44
Figure 32. Were Draft Work Plans Submitted to the DDESB? (by range) 46
Figure 33. Have Any OB/OD Activities Been Performed at Range? (by range) 46
Figure 34. Who Performed OB/OD Activities? (by range) 47
Figure 35. Is the Range Covered Under an FFA, a State Cleanup Agreement or Permit, or an
Administrative Order? (by range) 48
Figure 36. Types of Agreements, Permits, or Orders? (by range) 49
Figure 37. Have Institutional Controls Been Implemented at Range, and if So, What Types?
(by range) 50
Figure 38. If Institutional Controls Are In Place, Have They Been Effective? (by range) .... 50
APPENDIXES
Methodology
Raw Data of Facility and Range Characteristics
Raw Data of Threats to Human Health and the Environment
Raw Data of Range Management
Raw Data of UXO Technical Issues
Raw Data of Regulatory Status and Issues
Letter from Tim Fields, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, EPA, to Sherri Wasserman Goodman, Deputy Under Secretary
for Environmental Security, DoD, April 22, 1999
DoD and EPA Management Principles for Implementing Response Actions at Closed,
Transferring, and Transferred (CTT) Ranges, March 7, 2000
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
IV
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overview
In the fall of 1998, the Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) surveyed Regional Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) to assess the
number and types of closed military munitions ranges that may have the potential to create an
imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health and welfare or to the environment. The
survey was prepared in response to the increasing number of requests by States, tribes, and other
stakeholders that EPA assist with a wide array of issues associated with unexploded ordnance (UXO)
at closed, transferred, and transferring (CTT) military ranges.
The completed surveys referenced in this report represent 61 facilities, with at least 203 CTT
and inactive ranges. Although this is a small portion of the actual number of CTT and inactive ranges
nationwide, the information pertaining to the ranges in this survey is important since these ranges
represent the beginning of what will be a very large environmental assessment and cleanup effort.
The survey on which this report is based consisted of 20 multiple-part questions (Appendix
A-l), which were designed to capture the wide variety of situations in which the EPA Regions are
now involved and to present opportunities for respondents to provide site-specific information. The
wide array of responses reflects the complex regulatory framework within which UXO is managed
at CTT ranges, as well as a wide variety of environmental settings and contamination scenarios. As
a result, these responses are subject to interpretation and must be viewed as a starting point for
developing a better understanding of activities at CTT ranges.
The survey results were utilized (in part) to identify issues of concern to EPA at CTT ranges
as described in a letter dated April 22, 1999, from Tim Fields, EPA Assistant Administrator at the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, to Sherri W. Goodman, Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense (Environmental Security). (See Appendix G.) In addition, survey results were used in
part as input to DoD and EPA Management Principles for Implementing Response Actions at Closed,
Transferring, and Transferred Ranges (see Appendix H).'
Report Organization
This report is divided into seven chapters and an Appendix. The seven chapters provide
background and analysis of each substantive area covered by the survey. The Appendix provides the
survey methodology, data tables that support the major findings in the report, and background
documentation about the CTT range issues of concern to the regulatory community.
'DoD and EPA, Interim Final Management Principles for Implementing Response Actions at Closed, Transferring,
and Transferred Ranges, March 7, 2000.
v
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
In the fall of 1998, the Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) surveyed Regional Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) to assess the
number and types of closed military munitions ranges that may have the potential to create an
imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health and welfare or to the environment. This
report summarizes the results of the survey and identifies questions and issues.
1.2 Background
1.2.1 The Challenge
As DoD's downsizing and base closure
activities have increased in recent years, large
numbers of military properties are being turned
over to non-DoD ownership and control.
Former military ranges may pose unique risks
as many of these areas are converted to new
uses. When necessary, investigation and
remediation of used or fired munitions, UXO,
and other contamination will be initiated to
provide adequate protection of human health
and the environment at these facilities. Current
estimates of potentially affected acreage are
incomplete. In 1997, the Joint Unexploded
Ordnance Steering Group estimated that 1,900
formerly used defense sites were known or
suspected to contain UXO and that 130 Base
Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC)
sites require review for potential UXO.2'3 In
April 1998, the Defense Science Board
estimated that over 15 million acres of land in
the United States are potentially contaminated
Types of military munitions discussed in this
report:
Used or Fired Military Munitions are those military
munitions that (1) have been primed, fused, armed, or
otherwise prepared for action, and have been fired,
dropped, launched, projected, placed, or otherwise
used; (2) are munitions fragments (e.g., shrapnel,
casings, fins, and other components, to include arming
wires and pins) that result from the use of military
munitions; or (3) are malfunctions or misfires.
The term Unexploded Ordnance, or UXO, means
military munitions that have been primed, fused,
armed, or otherwise prepared for action, and have been
fired, dropped, launched, projected, or placed in such
a manner as to constitute a hazard to operations,
installation, personnel, or material and remain
unexploded either by malfunction, design, or any other
cause.
Source: Military Munitions Rule (40
266.201)
miimww!.n«»aiaai i ¦ unfiSE
CFR Part
2Former!y used defense sites (FUDS) are areas that have been transferred to other Federal agencies, State, or local
governments, or private citizens and are no longer in DoD ownership.
3Report to Congress. Unexploded Ordnance Clearance: A Coordinated Approach to Requirements and Technology
Development. March 25, 1997. Page 10.
1
-------
with UXO.4 Contradictory estimates from a number of sources exist. These preliminary estimates
will likely be revised as more data are gathered. However, all estimates are consistently large.
Military munitions are defined by DoD as all ammunition products and components produced
or used by or for DoD or the U.S. Aimed Services for national defense and security. Environmental
and safety concerns at CTT ranges are derived from two sources: metal fragments (remnants of
Key definitions that will help you understand this report
Range - any land mass or water body that is or was used for conducting training, research, development, testing, ;
or evaluation of military munitions or explosives.
Active Range - a range that is currently in operation, construction, maintenance, renovation, or reconfiguration
to meet current DoD component training requirements and is being regularly used for range activities.
Inactive Range - a range that is not currently used but is still under military control, is considered by the military
to be a potential range area, and has not been put to a new use incompatible with range activities. :
Closed Range - a range that has been taken out of service and either has been put to new uses that are
incompatible with range activities or is not considered by the military to be a potential range area. Closed ranges '
remain under the control of the military.
Transferring Range - a military range that is proposed to be leased or transferred from DoD to another entity.
An active or inactive range will not be considered a "transferring range" until the transfer is imminent.
Transferred Range - a range that has been released from military control. Transferred ranges are those in the '
FUDS (Formerly Used Defense Sites) program, as well as those that have been transferred to other Federal, State, ;
and local agencies, and private parties under the Base Realignment and Closure Act.
Source: Military Munitions Rule (40 CFR Part 266.20-1) and Proposed DoD Range Rule (62 FR 50834, Section .
178.4, September 26, 1997)
I...; i ' ¦ 1 r.\..-tv -.J.- T^y
bullets, mortar shells, rockets, bombs, etc.) and chemical residuals from used or fired munitions, and
UXO from both used or fired munitions that failed to explode and munitions that were never used
but were discarded or otherwise abandoned.
1.2.2 The Legal Framework for Range Cleanup
The statutory history and regulatory debate over the management of used or fired military
munitions and UXO are long and beyond the scope of this report. However, some regulatory and
statutory context is essential to understanding the framework, the terms, and the significance of the
information presented in this report.
Although the Department of Defense has been implementing its Installation Restoration
Program since the mid-1970s, it was not until the passage of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), amending the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
4Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Unexploded Ordnance (UXO), Clearance, Active Range UXO
Clearance, and Explosive Ordnance Disposal Programs. April 1998. Page 2.
2
-------
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), that the program was formalized by statute.
Section 211 of SARA established the Defense Environmental Restoration Program, to be carried out
in consultation with the Administrator of EPA. The program has three explicit goals:
b Cleanup of contamination from hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants,
consistent with CERCLA cleanup requirements as embodied in SARA and the National
Contingency Plan (NCP).
b Correction of environmental damage, such as the detection and disposal of used or fired
military munitions, that creates an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health
and the environment.
b Demolition and removal of unsafe buildings and structures, including those at formerly
used defense sites.
In response to a 1992 mandate in the
Federal Facilities Compliance Act, EPA's
Military Munitions Rule (62 FR 6621, February
12, 1997; hereafter, the Munitions Rule)
identified when conventional and chemical
military munitions become hazardous wastes
that are subject to the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), Subtitle C,
hazardous waste management requirements.
The EPA Munitions Rule defined used
munitions as solid waste and potentially
hazardous waste. However, EPA has
postponed final action on the regulatory status
of used or fired munitions at CTT ranges until
DoD promulgates a Range Rule specifying
requirements for the investigation and cleanup
of closed and transferred ranges (62 FR 6632,
Preamble IV.H). At that point, EPA will make
a final determination as to whether and under
what circumstances used munitions will be
considered a hazardous waste, and what
regulatory requirements will be applicable to
management of this waste (62 FR 6632 Preamble IV.H). A draft Range Rule was proposed in the
Federal Register on September 26, 1997. The Final Range Rule is under development.
When is used or fired munitions a solid waste or a
potentially hazardous waste?
b When it is transported off range or from the site
of use for storing, reclaiming, treating, and
disposing or treating prior to disposal; or
b When it is recovered, collected, and then disposed
of by burial or landfilling either on or off range;
or
¦ When the munition lands off range and is not
promptly rendered safe and/or retrieved.
What was postponed at the time of the Military
Munitions Rule?
b Applicability of solid and hazardous waste
regulations to used or fired munitions that are
recovered and then treated on closed or
transferred ranges.
Source: Preamble, Final Military Munitions Rule (62
FR 6632, February 12, 1997.) EPA fact sheet entitled
"Military Munitions Final Rule."
3
-------
1.3 Overview and Design of Survey
During this period of regulatory development, the Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse
Office (FFRRO) and the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) in EPA's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) received several communications relating to the investigation and
cleanup of ranges from EPA field staff, State environmental officials, tribal officials, and the general
public. Most of the questions raised were critical of DoD range investigation and cleanup activities.
In order to obtain a more comprehensive and systematic picture from EPA field personnel, the
FFRRO developed a survey to obtain a better understanding of the following:
° Current management, ownership, and regulation of CTT ranges.
° Potential munitions hazards and contamination on CTT ranges and potential risks to
receptors.
~ The nature and extent of characterization activities that have taken place on the range,
including the use of statistical sampling methods for UXO.
0 The past, current, and future activities taking place on these ranges.
The survey tool was distributed to all EPA Regions and directed specifically toward RPMs
who have been involved in range activities. Since the survey questions were open ended, this report
is based on interpretations and assumptions, which are identified where appropriate. This report
contains the findings of 75 surveys representing 61 DoD facilities submitted by all 10 EPA Regions
in early 1999.3 Table 1-1 identifies the number of ranges and facilities covered by this report, and
Figure 1 identifies the Regional distribution of the completed surveys. Appendix B, Table B-l,
contains the list of facilities covered by this report.
5Of the 75 surveys received for DoD facilities containing CTT or inactive ranges, 6 of these contained 13 separate
entries, each addressing one or more ranges. In order to preserve the information provided about every range contained
in each of these 6 surveys, separate data were recorded for each range or groups of ranges, and the ranges were treated
as if they had each been covered in a separate survey, bringing the total number of fields in the database to 88. Data
tables found in the appendix therefore list 88 "separate" survey entries.
4
-------
Table 1-1. Survey Responses: Number of Facilities and Ranges Reported in Survey
(Appendix B, Tables B-2 and B-5)
Total Number of Facilities:
Total Number of Ranges:
Information in Report
61
203*
Range Status
No. of Facilities
No. of Ranges
In Report:
Inactive
10
100
Closed
16
45
Transferring
3
4
Transferred
11
11
Status Uncertain
8
15
Not Reported
13
28
Total in Report
61
203*
This number represents the minimum number of ranges included in the report.
R*
F =
¦
28
15
1
R =
F
r
100
li
1
R
F
^ 1
12 R
•7 F
| r
10
*7
n
R"
F *
r
13
7
"I
1
i
1
1
R=8 R=3 R-20
F = 3 F=3 F=3
¦ ¦ ¦
I t
1
1
I
I 1 1 1
R ¦ Number of rang**
F ¦ Number of facilities
EPA Raglon •
Figure 1. Distribution of Facilities Among EPA Regions (by facility)
(Appendix B, Table B-l)
5
-------
The 75 survey responses referenced in this report represent 61 facilities, with at least 203
ranges. Most of the completed surveys provided information about a number of ranges at a single
facility. On some surveys, the respondent differentiated between each range, and in a few cases the
respondent filled out separate surveys for each range at the facility. In yet other cases the survey
respondent provided no range-specific information, but indicated that the information applied to a
number of ranges. Given the complexity and number of ranges at large facilities, this latter approach
clearly did not capture the full range of information and issues associated with those ranges.
Survey responses from three facilities, Ft. McClellan, Redstone Arsenal, and NAF Adak,
included data for 61, 22, and 18 individual ranges, respectively; therefore, data about ranges
at these facilities may disproportionately skew the findings in this report in some cases.
However, the information presented provides a first glimpse into the relationship between the
numbers and types of ranges where EPA Regions have become involved. When the information from
these ranges clearly skews the overall data, the effect will be identified in the report. In addition, the
number of facilities, as well as the number of ranges, is provided in every figure to give the reader a
sense of both the number of ranges and facilities addressed in every analysis.
Although the focus of the survey (and
this report) is closed, transferred, and
transferring ranges, inactive ranges are also
included in the report. This inclusion is due to
the somewhat subjective nature of the definition
of a closed versus an inactive range and the fact
that DoD has not yet completed its inventory of
closed ranges. In some cases, a range may be
labeled inactive but may not have been used for
decades. A closed range is defined as a range
that has been taken out of service and either has
been put to new uses that are incompatible with
range activities or is not considered by the
military to be a potential range area.6 Inactive
ranges were therefore retained in this report, as
the DoD inventory of closed ranges may
determine some of these to be considered
closed. Some of the inactive ranges, however,
may become active in the future. Two such
inactive ranges are included in the survey data — Massachusetts Military Reservation and the Pelham
Range at Ft. McClellan — in order to be consistent with the inclusion of inactive ranges in the survey
data. Finally, where they could be identified, every effort was made to remove active ranges from
6DoD Proposed Range Rule, 60 FR 50834, Section 187.4, September 26, 1997.
6
Examples of reasons for inactive ranges to be
declared closed:
Land use is incompatible.
¦ A hotel or other structure has been built on top of
or in close proximity to the range.
¦ The surrounding area has become populated and
developed, thereby making use of property as a
range dangerous.
New munitions technology renders use of a
formerly active range impracticable for future
range use.
¦ Training with present-day M-16 rifles could not
be conducted on a range that was created for
training soldiers on old M-16 rifles that required
a smaller range area.
-------
the survey data. However, because of incomplete information provided in survey responses, it is
possible that some of the data provided by the Regions may address active ranges.
Finally, and not surprisingly, since this is a survey of EPA Regions, most of the ranges
identified are located on facilities for which EPA has a direct statutory or regulatory oversight
responsibility: facilities on the National Priorities List (NPL) and facilities that are affected by the
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Act. As shown in Figure 2,40 percent of the facilities in the
survey are NPL facilities and 48 percent are BRAC facilities.7
1.4 Report Organization
This report is divided into seven chapters and an Appendix. The seven chapters provide
background and analysis of each substantive area covered by the survey, including the conclusions.
The Appendix provides the survey methodology, data tables that support the major findings in the
report, and background documentation about the CTT range issues of concern to the regulatory
community.
NPL Only/FUDS
5%
NPL Only
18%
R = Number of ranges
F = Number of facilities
BRAC Non-NPL
28%
Other
10%
FUDS
11%
BRAC NPL
15%
BRAC NPL/Active
RCRA R=5
2% F=1
Active RCRA
8%
BRAC Non-NPL/Active
r, „ RCRA
5 »
Figure 2. Programmatic Category of Facility (by facility) (Appendix B, Table B-3)
7Of total facilities, 18 percent are both BRAC and NPL.
7
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
8
-------
2.0 GENERAL FACILITY AND RANGE INFORMATION
2.1 Introduction
Every military facility has a unique mission that determines the activities that occur within it.
Therefore, the nature of the used or fired military munitions likely to be found on its ranges, and the
potential for exposure of human receptors and the environment to the associated hazards, will vary
across facilities. The variety of range-related activities that may go on at a military facility include
training, research, munitions development, and testing and evaluation of military munitions and
explosives. Over their history, ranges may have been used for several different types of activities.
Range size varies from 10 or 15 acres, up to hundreds of square miles. Factors such as size and
activities add to the challenges of investigating and cleaning up the ranges. The majority of facilities
that are included in this study are located in rural areas or near small towns. Due to the changing
nature of the DoD mission, several of these former ranges are likely to be put to a different use in the
future.
Description of Ft. McClellan
Ft. McClellan, located in northeastern Alabama, is home to both the U.S. Army Chemical and Military Police
Corps and the U.S. Army Chemical Corps. Ft. McClellan is a large facility of 45,679 acres with 44 and 17
inactive ranges, respectively, at each of two areas on the base — the Main Post and Pelham Range. As Ft.
McClellan is being closed under BRAC, all of the 44 ranges on the Main Post will be transferred. Future uses
will include a divided limited-access highway, as well as commercial, residential, and wildlife areas. Pelham
Range will be retained by DoD as a location for National Guard training.
Observations on facility size
Large facilities host many different types of ordnance-related activities such as storage, testing, training, and
disposal. The Savanna Army Depot in Savanna, Illinois, is a good example of a facility that employed a wide
variety of munitions and currently poses potentially significant risks to human health and the environment.
The Savanna Army Depot was used for many different types of munitions-related activities, including training,
testing, disposal, storage, and impact ranges. Sites on the depot included a stokes mortar impact range, 75-155
mm impact ranges, function test ranges, open-burning/opcn-detonation areas, grenade burial area, antitank rrtines,
mustard burial area, landfills, multiple small arms burial, and pistol/rifle ranges. Munitions activities affected
an area estimated at 8,700 acres.
2.2 Surrounding Area Characteristics
As shown in Figure 3, almost 60 percent of the facilities covered in this report are located near
rural/remote areas or small or medium towns. Only a small number of facilities are located near urban
areas.
9
-------
Definitions of surrounding area characteristics
Rural - areas with sparse populations or population centers between 250 and 3,000 near the facility. Area
residents rely on larger population centers and must travel for most goods and services.
Small or medium towns - areas that are self-supporting and independent of large municipalities and towns.
Populations are between 3,000 and 10,000.
Suburban - areas with populations between 10,000 and 20,000 that are located in proximity to larger population
centers.
Urban - areas that are large municipalities with concentrated populations of over 20,000.
Unknow n/Not
Reported
13%
Rural/Remote
28%
Suburban
20%
F = Number of facilities
R = Number of ranges
Small or Medium Tow n
30%
Figure 3. Characteristics of Surrounding Area (by facility) (Appendix B, Table B-4)
2.3 Range Status
Almost 50 percent of the ranges in the survey are categorized as inactive (Figure 4). This may
be because these ranges have not yet been assessed by DoD to determine whether they should
actually be considered closed. The reader should also be aware that a disproportionately large
number of inactive ranges are located on only two facilities, Ft. McClellan and Redstone Arsenal.
Together, these facilities represent 83 out of the 100 inactive ranges. Many of these ranges have not
10
-------
been used in decades, such as the range at Redstone Arsenal described in the text box below. The
second largest category is closed ranges, at 22 percent, followed by "unknown" at 14 percent.8
Inactive ranges
The Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama, is a facility that contains 23 ranges, 22 of which are inactive. This
facility provides several good examples of ranges that have been inactive for years, but which have not been
officially closed by DoD. For example, the Inactive Mustard Gas Demilitarization Site/Range at the Redstone
Arsenal was last used in the mid- to late-1940s and is currently forested and partially underwater. Given current
environmental conditions, nearby populations, and today's more stringent regulatory framework, it is highly
unlikely the facility will be used for mustard gas demilitarization again.
About the report figures
In order to clarify the effect of the three facilities with a disproportionaltely large number of ranges on the figures
throughout this report, the number of associated facilities is included in the charts that are organized by range.
Conversely, charts that depict the number or percentage of facilities also include the number of ranges associated
with each category. One result of providing the number of facilities associated with every range is that the sum
of facilities is often greater than the 61 facilities covered in this report. There are also some instances where the
number of ranges totals more than 203 because of multiple answers.
Inactive
49%
Unknow n
14%
Closed
22%
Inactive or Closed:
Status Uncertain
7%
T ransferred
5%
2%
R=4
F=4
R = Number of ranges
F = Number of facilities
Figure 4. Range Status (Appendix B, Table B-5)
8 The large percentage of ranges with unknown status can be attributed to the fact that the survey did not explicitly ask
for information about range status, and thus, not all surveys contained this information.
11
-------
2.4 Munitions Potentially Found on Ranges
Munitions found on ranges generally come from two sources: munitions used for their
intended purpose in training activities, and munitions that were abandoned or discarded without being
used (also including UXO).
The types and quantities of munitions used on a given range change over its life cycle as a
result of changes in the military mission and advances in munition technologies. As technology
evolves and weapons systems are replaced, new types of military munitions are developed and
employed. Further, changes in training needs also may contribute to the variety of used or fired
munitions found on ranges. Determining the density of UXO is best accomplished through focused
investigative efforts that utilize previously existing information and acquired data (when necessary)
to identify all troop training and weapons testing activities, and all types, quantities, and condition of
UXO or explosive materials at CTT ranges.
The types of munitions reported by survey respondents to have been used on the ranges are
displayed in Figure 5. It is important to keep in mind that the quality of data and recordkeeping for
ranges is generally poorer for older ranges. For older ranges, delineating the munitions, their
locations, and the volume is more challenging than with ranges of more recent vintage.
In addition to munitions that landed on or beneath the ground surface, munitions were also
buried beneath the ground as a routine activity during troop training exercises on ranges. The age
of burial areas is largely dependent upon the age of the range and activities that have been performed
to date. While many older ranges have burial pits, a number of ranges that were active, but were later
closed and then transferred, have also been noted to have this problem In addition, burial pits may
contain a mix of used, exploded, unexploded, and unused munitions, as well as other types of wastes.
Burial pits pose a variety of remediation challenges. Also, the contents of the burial pits may not be
known, so they create many uncertainties in terms of potential exposure and environmental risks.
Environmental and safety hazards
Used or fired munitions and UXO can be found intact or in fragments, both of which may present potential
hazards. The human health hazards associated with UXO left intact are threats of injury, dismemberment, or
even death; however, from an ecological perspective, used or fired munitions that arc damaged or corroded may
be more hazardous because of the increased possibility that explosives or chemicals have leached into the
surrounding media.
The risks to human health and safety and the environment that are posed by different types
of used or fired munitions vary greatly. For example, projected grenades present a high explosive
hazard when encountered as UXO, in addition to potential ecological risks from the explosive and/or
toxic fillers employed, particularly when the munition is damaged in some way. Grenades may
contain explosives, white phosphorus (which is known to spontaneously combust when disturbed and
12
-------
exposed to air), chemical agents, or illumination flares, depending on their intended use. Small arms
and grenades generally are found within 1 foot of the ground surface.
F = Number of facilities
Figure 5. Munitions Employed at Ranges (by range) (Appendix B, Table B-6)
Mortar rounds can be filled with explosives, white phosphorus, or illumination flares, and they
pose serious human health risks when encountered as UXO, as they may explode when disturbed.
In addition, explosives or toxic fillers can leach into soils or groundwater if the mortar round is
degraded. Artillery rounds/projectiles are very similar to mortar rounds in their construction, types
of use, and fillers. Projectiles and mortars are usually located within 4 feet of the ground surface.
Submunitions (e.g., bomblets, grenades, and mines filled with explosives or chemical agents),
particularly those that are activated by movement or disturbance, pose serious safety threats.
Submunitions come in many varieties, including antipersonnel, antimateriel, antitank, dual-purpose,
incendiary, and chemical. They are normally spread over a large area by missiles, rockets, projectiles,
or other dispensers and typically land on the ground surface, making them easily accessible and
therefore a potentially serious threat to humans.
Missiles use gas pressure from rapidly burning material (propellant) to transport a payload to
a desired location. Missiles may present significant explosive hazards because of the possibility of
residual propellant remaining after they have landed, thus creating potential for ignition and violent
burning once they are disturbed. Further, missiles use proximity fuzes, which function when the
missile reaches a predetermined distance from the target and can be activated when disturbed, causing
13
-------
the missile warhead to explode. The warhead may consist of explosives, toxic chemicals, white
phosphorus, submunitions, riot-control agent, or illumination flares. Bombs are also a serious threat,
as their fillers consist of either explosives or other chemicals. Bomb fuzes may be impact, proximity,
or delay fuzes, meaning they may explode on impact when they reach a predetermined distance from
the target, or after a set amount of time. Bombs and missiles can be buried as deep as 30 feet beneath
the ground surface, thus making detection and removal potentially difficult and costly.9
Types of military munitions
~ Small Arms Munitions - Small arms munitions contain projectiles that are 0.5 inch or less in caliber and no
longer than approximately 4 inches. They are fired from various sizes of weapons, such as pistols, carbines,
rifles, automatic rifles, shotguns, and machine guns.
~ Hand Grenades - Hand grenades are small explosive- or chemical-type munitions that are designed to be
thrown at short range. Various classes of grenades may be encountered as UXO, including fragmentation,
smoke, and illumination grenades. All grenades have three main parts: a body, a fuze with a pull ring and
safety clip assembly, and a filler. Grenades arc made of metal, plastic, cardboard, or rubber bodies and may
contain explosives, white phosphorus, chemical agents, or illumination flares, depending on their intended
use. Fragmentation grenades are the most frequently used type of grenade.
~ Mortars - Mortar shells range from approximately 1 to 11 inches in diameter and can be filled with
explosives, white phosphorus, or illumination flares. The mortar fuze is located in either the nose or the base.
~ Projectiles/Artillery Rounds - Projectiles range from approximately I to 16 inches in diameter and from 2
inches to 4 feet in length. Like mortars, projectile fuzes are located in either the nose or the base.
~ Submunitions - Submunitions include bomblets and mines that are filled with cither explosives or chemical
agents. Submunitions are used for a variety of purposes, including antipersonnel, antimatericl, antitank, dual-
purpose, incendiary, and other. They are scattered over large areas by dispensers, missiles, rockets, or
projectiles. Submunitions are activated in a number of ways, including pressure, impact, movement, or
disturbance, while in flight or when near metallic objects.
~ Missiles - Missiles consist of a warhead, a motor section, and a fuze, and they are guided to their target by
any number of systems, including radar and video. Missiles rely exclusively on proximity fuzes.
~ Bombs - Bombs range from 1 to 3,000 pounds in weight and from 3 to 10 feet in length. Bombs consist of
a metal container (the bomb body), a fuze, and a stabilizing device. The bomb body holds the expjosive or
chemical filler.
Source: Unexploded Ordnance (UXO): An Overview. October 1996. Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal
Technology Division, UXO Countermcasures Department.
'Unexploded Ordnance (UXO): An Overview. October 1996. Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology
Division, UXO Countermeasures Department.
14
-------
2.5 Range Ownership
For facilities addressed by the survey respondents, DoD is the largest past, present, and future
range owner. Not surprisingly, because DoD is in the process of transferring range lands, DoD
ownership is expected to drop by almost 50 percent in the future (Figure 6) as ownership of former
ranges shifts to other Federal agencies, State or local governments, and private owners. In fact, after
DoD, State and local governments are predicted to be the second largest owner of former ranges in
the future.
Within the category of DoD range ownership, the Army is the largest landlord, with
ownership of 67 percent of all DoD ranges in the past, and current ownership of 63 percent of DoD
ranges. The Army is the Service responsible for the procurement, testing, and training of military
munitions for the entire military; therefore, it is not surprising that within DoD, the Army owns the
majority of ranges. In the future, as the total DoD ownership of ranges decreases, it is anticipated
that the Army's ownership of ranges will decrease to 49 percent of all DoD ranges.
250 -i—
R = 223
DoD Ranges
(Number of Ranges and Percent of Total DoD Ownership)
1
E
200
150
100
Present Future
Army 149 67% 119 63% 46 49%
Navy 36 16% 35 18% 11 12%
Air Force 31 14% 34 18% 19 20%
Other DoD 7 3% 1—1% 18 10%
Other Federa
Agency
State or Local
Government
Privately Ow ned
Unknow n
Num ber of ranges
Num ber of facilities
~ Past
SI Present
~ Projected Future
Figure 6. Range Ownership Over Time (by range) (Appendix B, Table B-7)
15
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
16
-------
3.0 THREATS TO HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Introduction
The potential threats to human health and the environment posed by munitions on the ranges
included in this report are significant. The location of ranges in and near surface water suggests
potential impacts to ecological receptors. Finally, data provided in the survey suggest known
presence of UXO at most ranges, and a number of encounters with UXO by the public. (See
Appendix C for data relating to this section.)
3.2 Range Setting
The ecological characteristics of a range and its surrounding area can determine the potential
risks to environmental receptors, as well as the likely complexity of cleanups. In addition, the
topography of a range can serve as an indication of potential future land uses.
3.2.1 Range Topography/Landforms
Respondents were asked to provide information about the environmental setting of their
ranges. This information is necessary to understand the potential environmental and safety hazards
associated with the range, as well as the potential exposure to human and ecological receptors.
As shown in Figure 7,42 percent of the ranges covered by this survey are located on rolling
hills, and another 21 percent are located on prairie or flat terrain. In addition, many of the ranges are
located on or near surface water, wetlands, or floodplains, thus making cleanup more difficult and
increasing the likelihood of exposure to sensitive ecological receptors.
3.2.2 Identification of Explosives in Soils or Groundwater
The media most likely to be contaminated by used or fired military munitions are soil and
groundwater. As shown in Figure 8, 70 percent of the ranges have potential soil contamination and
59 percent have potential groundwater contamination. These results are not surprising as used or
fired military munitions are most frequently found in soils. Where groundwater is present beneath
a range, there is a risk of groundwater contamination resulting from the leaching of explosives and
their breakdown products into the soils and groundwater. For example, one respondent stated that
HMX and RDX have been found in groundwater.
17
-------
The following narrative regarding the environmental characteristics and sensitivity of the Savanna Army
Depot was taken from the completed installation survey:
"The facility is approximately 13,062 acres located roughly 7 miles north of Savanna, Illinois, and adjacent to the
Mississippi River. Approximately 6,183 acres are considered bottomlands of the Mississippi and Apple Rivers
and are heavily wooded with roughly 5,800 acres associated with the backwaters of the Mississippi River. These
bottomlands routinely flood seasonally, with substantial flooding recently occurring about once every three
years....The geology of the bottomlands is fairly typical of areas of river sedimentation....Groundwater in the
bottomlands is extremely shallow with some wells becoming artesian with the change of seasons....The
bottomlands have been impacted by the 75 mm and 155 mm ranges, open burning and open detonation disposal
areas, bomb disassembly area, and old landfills."
Although environmental monitoring has not yet been conducted, the presence of UXO or explosive residues in
the bottomlands are potentially dangerous to human health and the environment. The shallow groundwater may
potentially be contaminated by buried UXO or other substances in the landfill. In addition, the routine flooding
of the bottomlands may cause buried UXO and explosive residues to migrate, potentially exposing human or
ecological receptors.
R=86
o
o:
a)
§
a> a)
s ?
C
c
CL
o
(J)
>»
Q.
O
0
CO
R = Number of ranges
F = Number of facilities
Figure 7. Range Topography/Landforms (by range) (Appendix C, Table C-l)
18
-------
R-143
F*42
1
R-110
F»29
F
1
I
!
1
P
R=52
I
I
F=16
1
R
r
*26 R>
F«5 Fs
m m
26
5 R"22
"1 amr
I
* ;
1 E
1 I
R«3 R»3
F*2 F-2
1
Soil Groundwater Sediment Surface Water Debris Other Unknow n Not Reported
R ¦ Number of ranges
F ¦ Number of facilities
Figure 8. Media Possibly Contaminated with Used or Fired Military Munitions (by range)
(Appendix C, Table C-2)
3.3 Community Setting
The risks of used or fired munitions and UXO to human health and safety are affected by
factors such as type of land uses on and around the range and the proximity of the range to nearby
populations. These factors make human access more likely, increasing the likelihood of exposure to
hazards from used or fired munitions and UXO.
3.3.1 Land Use
As might be expected, the past land use of over 90 percent of the ranges was ordnance-related
(Figure 9). EPA Regions reported that ordnance-related land use has dropped by 86 percent between
the past and present (Figures 9 and 10). However, land uses that have increased over time —
residential and industrial/commercial — may result in greater potential for human exposure.
Respondents reported that within ordnance-related land uses, training is the largest category for past
land use, while the present and future time periods reflect primarily munitions disposal and storage
uses (Figure 11). The exception to this are 17 ranges at Ft. McClellan, which are currently planned
to be used for National Guard training.
19
-------
As ordnance-related land uses have been decreasing, residential development of ranges has
increased and is expected to increase significantly in the future, as is industrial and commercial land
use. Growth in residential land use is already occurring on or near former ranges, including Ft. Ord
and the Lowry Bombing Range. In many cases, redevelopment for industrial or commercial uses is
logical because buildings and infrastructure are already in place at installations. In addition, the use
of former ordnance lands as wildlife refuges is also growing dramatically (Figure 12). According to
DDESB regulations, limited land-use range transfers of contaminated property may be arranged with
other Federal agencies, such as to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to develop wildlife
refuges.10 Restrictions are often included in these limited land-use transfers, which limit access to
authorized refuge personnel. Some transfers of ranges where cleanup is most difficult (i.e., former
impact areas) are handled in this manner.
Range use and size
The purpose and use of military ranges can be determining factors in the range size. As the uses of ranges can
vary dramatically, so can their sizes.
~ The Rocket Test Range on Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot in East Camden, Arkansas, was used to
flight-test rockets until the late 1950s. This rocket test range was 1 mile wide by 8 miles long, with a portion
of the area used to dispose of rockets by burning. The total area of the former Naval Ammunition Depot was
68,418 acres and was used for the manufacture, testing, storage, distribution, disassembly, reworking, and
destruction of ammunition, bombs, and explosives.
~ The Small Arms Range (SAR) at Griffis Air Force Base in Rome, New York, is a 350- by 200-foot area that
was used for small and heavy arms training by the 4l6lh Combat Support Group under the Air Combat
Command. T ypes of weapons employed on the range include M-16 and M-50 machine guns. The range has
been taken out of use and the Oneida Indian Nation hopes to use this range to train its police force in the
future.
~ The former Lowry Bombing and Gunnery Range in Arapahoe County, Colorado, is located on 59,000 acres
of short-grass prairie on the western edge of the Great Plains near the city of Denver. A variety of ranges were
located at Lowry, including a 758-acre air/ground gunnery range and a 209-acre bombing target range.
10DoD Ammunition and Explosives Safety Standards, August 1997, Chapter 12.3.2.5, DoD Directive 6055.9 STD.
20
-------
I
I 100
R=
F-
85
51
1
R=94
R«54
IPIfKl
I 1
F=8 R*41
R*36
F«12 R=50
W * in
-------
Figure 11. Ordnance-Related Land Use Over Time (by range) (Appendix C, Table C-4)
Figure 12. Expected Future Land Uses (by range) (Appendix C, Table C-3)
22
-------
3.3.2 Surrounding Area Land Use
Most ranges are surrounded by residential areas either on or near the facility. As shown in
Figure 13, the surrounding land use at over 70 percent of the ranges includes residential uses.
Agricultural, ranching, and mining activities, as well as industrial and commercial development, are
also common land uses around the facilities. Given that pressure to reuse CTT ranges will continue
to increase, the general trend is of concern, particularly from the standpoint that used/fired munitions
and significant amounts of UXO can be found on the majority of these properties.
3.3.3 Proximity to Nearest Populations
The majority of ranges (89 percent) are located within 5 miles of the nearest population center
(Figure 14). Even in rural areas, population centers have developed near military facilities to provide
goods and services to the community living on the base. In some cases, a population adjacent to or
near the range may be on-base residents. It should be noted that the facilities with the largest
numbers of ranges, Ft. McClellan, Redstone Arsenal, and NAF Adak, all fall within the categories
Adjacent, <1 Mile, and 1-5 Miles.
The increase in residential, industrial, commercial, and recreational development of ranges,
coupled with the close proximity to surrounding populations, indicates that potentially significant
risks to human health and safety exist at these ranges.
3.4 The Presence of Used or Fired Munitions and UXO
Used or fired munitions include the fragmented remains of exploded ordnance, as well as
UXO. In addition to potential for environmental and human health hazards, UXO and chemical or
biological weapons or fragments are of serious concern because of their potential to cause imminent
and substantial endangerment to public health or the environment. The EPA Regional survey asked
a number of questions regarding the scope of the UXO problem.
3.4.1 Has UXO Been Found on Range?
UXO has been found on 86 percent of the ranges in the survey (Figure 15). This large
number indicates the widespread UXO contamination on current and former ranges. In addition, the
extent of UXO highlights the importance of obtaining as much information as possible about these
sites. On only 11 percent of ranges has no UXO been found, while respondents for the remaining 3
percent either did not know or did not report the presence of UXO. The disproportionately large
number of ranges at Ft. McClellan, Redstone Arsenal, and NAF Adak are included in the category
UXO Found on Range.
23
-------
R=149
F*41
R*115
r-2*
R=106
F«18
R=28
F-7
R-24
F«3
R=5
F=5
R=2
— n
y / / /
.S
R ¦ Numbir of rang**
F * Number of facilities
Figure 13. Land Use of Surrounding Area (by range) (Appendix C, Table C-5)
>20 Miles
2%
10-20 Miles R-5
1% F=1
R=2 | (Jnknow n
F=1
5-10 Miles
7%
Adjacent
10%
1-5 Miles
37%
R = Number of ranges
F = Number of facilities
<1 Mile
40%
Figure 14. Proximity to Nearest Populated Area (by range) (Appendix C, Table C-6)
24
-------
O)
c
to
a:
01
-Q
E
3
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1 n-uo
1 F=49
R=23
F=16 R=3 R=2
F=2 i-=2
Yes
R =
F=
Nurber of ranges
Mmber of facilities
No
Unkncwn
Not Reported
Figure 15. Has UXO Been Found on Range? (by range) (Appendix C, Table C-7)
3.4.2 Have Chemical or Biological Weapons Been Found or Suspected on Range?
Fifty-five percent of respondents indicated that chemical or biological weapons were found
or suspected on their ranges, as shown in Figure 16.
Figure 16. Have Chemical or Biological Weapons Been Found or Suspected?
(by range) (Appendix C, Table C-7)
25
-------
3.4.3 Known or Suspected Potential Off-Range or Off-Site Problems
The vast majority of RPMs reported no off-range impacts. On only 20 percent of reported
ranges did the respondents believe that there was a possibility that munitions affected off-range areas.
Munitions may be found on off-range areas generally because munitions land off range or because
of environmental factors that can cause movement of UXO (Figure 17). Munitions testing, training,
and storage can cause munitions to land off range or outside the planned impact area. In addition,
certain soils, erosion, and frost heaving can transport buried, used, or fired munitions across distances
and vertically to the ground surface, making surface and off-range areas potential destinations for
transported used or fired munitions. Ft. McClellan and Redstone Arsenal, both with a very large
number of ranges, reportedly had no known or suspected off-range or off-site problems.
180
160
140
120
i> 80
E
60
40
20
1
R=153
F=39
R=42
F=19
R=2
R=8
F=2
F=6
Fbssibte Off-Range Irrpacts from Hyiicgedogy Conducive b UXO No Off-Range Impacts Reported
UXO Mgration
Other
R = Mnber of ranges
F = Number of facilities
Figure 17. Potential Off-Range Problems (by range) (Appendix C, Table C-8)
3.5 Incidents Involving UXO
In response to a question regarding UXO-related problems and incidents involving UXO, the
Regions reported a variety of problems, including accidental explosions, public encounters with UXO,
and the unexpected discovery of UXO during the investigation or cleanup of hazardous wastes.
26
-------
Descriptions of UXO "incidents" provided by survey respondents fall into three categories:
~ The accidental explosion of UXO
~ UXO encounters by the public
~ UXO uncovered during investigations
EPA Regions report that UXO "incidents" have occurred at 24 facilities. As illustrated in
Figure 18, two accidental explosions of UXO occurred in which injuries were sustained, and three
incidents causing fatalities occurred, with a total of five accidental UXO explosions at two different
ranges.1' In addition, a total of 38 individual encounters with UXO were documented by the survey,
none of which resulted in injuries or fatalities. Of those, 25 occurred at the Lowry Bombing Range
(see text box that follows).
Examples of UXO on former DoD property
In May 1997, 37 mm shells were discovered in the Tobyhanna State Park, adjacent to Tobyhanna Army Depot.
Portions of the old artillery range arc located in the 150-acre state park campground. The subsequent removal
action identified and recovered 210 additional live UXO items over a 500 acre area.
The Arapahoe County Sheriffs Office bomb squad has responded on at least 25 occasions to reports of potentially
live UXO on the surface of the Lowry Bombing Range, located near the City of Aurora, Colorado. During those
responses, the Sheriffs Office detonated approximately 37 pieces of potentially live ordnance. In addition, in
January 1996, a ranger drove over and ignited a white phosphorus burster with his pickup truck, which started
a small range fire. The USACE is currently engaged in a large-scale evaluation and cleanup of this FUDS
property as part of a settlement with the State of Colorado.
"Two of the fatal explosions and both of the explosions causing injuries occurred at Picatinny Arsenal.
27
-------
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
F=4
UXO Exploded
Accidentally
R =
F =
Number of range
Number of facilities
R-10
F=7
UXO Discovery
Incidents w ith Injuries 2
Incidents w ith Fatalities 3
UXO Encountered by
Public
R=6
F=6
Unexplained Event
* 25 encounters at one range
Figure 18. Incidents Involving UXO (by range) (Appendix C, Table C-9)
28
-------
4.0 RANGE MANAGEMENT
4.1 Introduction
Range management involves a wide variety of activities, including control of access to a
range, property management, and potentially range investigation and cleanup. The involvement of
governmental regulators in the management and cleanup of a CTT or inactive range is a function of
range ownership, as well as of the regulatory status of the installation on which the range is located.
In cases where the Army owns the range and the facility on which it is located, the Army will
probably also manage the range. At CTT ranges that are BRAC or FUDS, the Army (through
US ACE) is often involved in overseeing range investigations and cleanup. (See Appendix D for data
relating to this chapter.)
4.2 Survey Responses on Who Manages the Range?
Survey respondents identified DoD as the current manager of 91 percent of the ranges.
Within DoD, the Army manages the majority of ranges in the survey, with the Navy and Air Force
managing equal and significantly lower percentages, as illustrated in Figure 19. This is not surprising,
as the Army is also the largest owner of ranges, currently owning 63 percent of the DoD-owned
ranges in the survey. (See Figure 6.) The large number of respondents who identified the Army as
the range manager (123 ranges) reflects the large number of ranges at Ft. McClellan and Redstone
Arsenal, which are included in this category. Twenty-six facilities are represented by the ranges
managed by the Army.
The category Other Federal Agencies includes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). For
example, Nomans Land Island, off the shore of Massachusetts, is being converted to park land under
the management of the FWS. The category Other includes respondents who indicated that the range
is managed by a contractor, such as in the case of a Government-Owned, Contractor-Operated
(GOCO) facility, or by State or local authorities.
Who manages the range?
The Washington, D.C., Army Munitions Site in Spring Valley was used for the development, testing, and disposal
of chemical weapons during World War I and immediately thereafter. At that time, the area was rural with the
exception of the small university. The site, which is adjacent to and includes portions of American University,
was closed in the 1920s, and transferred to private ownership. The property was later developed for residential
use. Chemical and other weapons have been found during a scries of investigations over the past 10 years. The
cleanup of this FUDS site is being managed by the Army through USACE and the cleanup is being overseen by
EPA Region III and the D.C. Government. The property today is owned by individual homeowners and by
American University.
29
-------
U.S. Army U.S. Navy U.S. Air Force Other DoD Other Federal Privately Owned Other Not Reported
R = Number of rangas
F ¦ Number of facilities
Figure 19. Who Manages the Range? (by range) (Appendix D, Table D-l)
4.3 Utilization of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USACE is reported to have the most significant role in the management of ranges and range
investigation and cleanup. According to the survey responses, they have been involved in the
investigation and cleanup operations on almost all of the ranges that are currently undergoing or have
undergone investigation and cleanup in the past (Figure 20). In fact, USACE has been used on 65
percent of the total number of ranges reported in this survey. As the technical center of expertise for
DoD in matters relating to UXO, the U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center, in Huntsville,
Alabama, is involved in many of the UXO investigations and clearance activities throughout the
country. The mission of the center, also known as the Ordnance and Explosives Mandatory Center
of Expertise (MCX) and Design, is "To safely eliminate or reduce risks from ordnance, explosives
and recovered chemical warfare materiel at current or formerly used defense sites." The role of
USACE varies from range to range and includes the full spectrum of cleanup-related activities. On
the majority of ranges, USACE performs technical assessments (Figure 21). USACE is also involved
in remediation, contract oversight and management, as well as other activities such as design and
implementation of land use controls, including engineering, site access, and institutional controls. It
should be noted that the number of responses indicating U S ACE involvement in technical assessment,
contractual oversight and management, and other activities reflect responses from Ft. McClellan,
Redstone Arsenal, and N AF Adak, all of which have large numbers of ranges and all of which have
used USACE.
30
-------
U S Army U S Navy USACE EPA Other DoD
R = Number of rangti
F « Number of facilities
Figure 20. Organizations That Conducted Range Investigation and Cleanup Activities
(by range) (Appendix D, Table D-2)
Figure 21. USACE Role in Investigation and Cleanup (by range)
(Appendix D, Table D-3)
31
-------
4.4 Activities on Range
The types of environmental activities conducted at ranges vary from preliminary assessment
to post-remedial and post-removal activities. The majority of ranges reported in this survey are in
the time-consuming, detailed characterization phase (Figure 22). A significant number of ranges are
further along in the cleanup process, at the cleanup/response phase. One facility, Ft. McClellan,
represents 60 of the 126 ranges at which characterization has been performed. For the purpose of
this report, five categories of response activities are described in Table 4-1.
Figure 22. Latest Phase of Cleanup Activities Conducted (by range)
(Appendix D, Table D-2)
32
-------
Table 4-1. Stages of Response
Stage of Cleanup
Definition
CERCLA Term
RCRA Term
Preliminary
Assessment
Preliminary review of area or
site prior to deciding if more
detailed investigation or
cleanup is necessary.
Preliminary Assessment/
Site Investigation (PA/SI)
RCRA Facilities
Assessment (RFA)
Investigation
Detailed investigation of area
or site to determine risk (or no
risk) and to decide which
remedy is appropriate.
Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
— for remedial program
Removal Investigation or
Engineering Evaluation/
Cost Analysis (EE/CA) —
for the removal program
RCRA Facilities
Investigation (RFI)
Corrective Measures
Study (CMS)
Decision on
Cleanup/Response
Formal decision as to what the
cleanup activity should be (or
the formal decision not to
clean up). Usually involves
some kind of public review.
Record of Decision (ROD)
Action Memorandum (the
decision record for a
removal action)
Statement of Basis
RCRA Permit
Cleanup/Response
Construction of a remedy to
clean up the problem or
physical removal of the waste
from a site. This should also
include design phase. Design
occurs between decision and
cleanup and involves the
engineering design of the
remedy.
Remedial Action
Removal Action
Corrective Measures
Implementation
Post-Remedial/Post-
Removal Activities
Completion of construction,
completion of cleanup, long-
term operation of groundwater
cleanup systems.
Construction Completion
Remedy in Place
Response Complete
Remedial Action
Operations
Long-Term Remedial
Actions
Operation and
Maintenance
Corrective Measures
Implementation
Corrective Measures
Completion
33
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
34
-------
5.0 UXO TECHNICAL ISSUES
5.1 Introduction
Investigating a range to determine the nature and extent of contamination from UXO is
technically challenging. Used munitions, both exploded and unexploded, are often buried beneath the
surface of the land. If the munitions are on the surface, vegetative cover (e.g., brush, trees, etc.) often
obscures visual inspection and makes assessment both difficult and dangerous.
This chapter summarizes the scope of the UXO technical issues pertaining to ranges discussed
in this survey report. (See Appendix E for the data for this chapter.)
5.2 UXO Assessment Problems
The Regions reported that 84 of the 203 ranges (41 percent) have had at least one type of
assessment problem (Figure 23). However, they also reported that range assessment problems had
not been encountered at 34 ranges (17 percent). In addition, 69 ranges reportedly were not assessed
(34 percent). The problem most frequently reported was incomplete historical records of range
activities. Incomplete historical records may be an obstacle to an investigation, as they can help
define how an area was used as a range and identify the types of munitions that were employed there.
Inadequate historical information may make risk management decisions more challenging. Another
obstacle to assessment is difficult terrain, because thick vegetation and groundcover or rugged
landscapes can conceal UXO from detection and make access difficult to those conducting the
assessment. The category Other includes problems such as false alarms or the misidentification of
anomalies resulting from limitations in detection technologies. These false alarms often result in
incorrect estimations of UXO density and often lead to an increase in excavation and cleanup costs.
Because of the difficulty, danger, and time required to excavate UXO, the high investigation and
remediation costs per acre are exacerbated by a high false alarm rate.
The apparent inconsistency between the large number of ranges at which no assessment has
yet been performed and Figure 22, which shows that most ranges have reached the characterization
stage, is the result of contradictory information regarding activities at the 61 ranges at Ft. McClellan.
The survey respondent at Ft. McClellan expressed frustration with the investigative activities and
suggested that assessment has not "really" begun. However, fact sheets published by EPA and DoD
state that investigations have started on the ranges at the facility.
35
-------
F ¦ Number of facillti**
Figure 23. Assessment Problems (by range) (Appendix E, Table E-l)
5.3 Remediation Problems
According to survey respondents, almost 40 percent of the ranges have not yet initiated
remediation activities. (See Figure 24.) However, caution is advised with regard to this figure as
previous removal actions may have occurred without RPM knowledge. Many ranges (29 percent)
reported that no remediation problems were encountered. Among the 42 ranges reporting problems,
issues relating to cost were the most commonly cited remediation concerns (Figure 24). Respondents
also identified technical issues, such as the need for special equipment that is well suited to range-
specific conditions or uncertainty about which detection technologies to employ, as causes of
remediation problems. In addition, poorly performed assessments that may fail to define potential
range hazards were cited as a cause of remediation problems. The category Other describes a variety
of problems, including liability issues, noise complaints, unclear lines of authority relating to the
monitoring of removal and remediation activities, and the unavailability of technology for closed
detonation.
36
-------
R*
F
80
9
1
1
b
R=58
F'22
1 1
¦
R-19
F-2
R-23
F=12
1
|~|
R=14
F-12
J~~l
i
1 1
3
R-5 R-5 R,4
I ! rt ^
No Remedial No Problems Cost Issues Other Poorly Performed Technical Issues Too Dangerous to None Reported
Activities Conducted Encountered Assessment Attempt
R » Number of ranges
F ¦ Number of facilities
Figure 24. Remediation Problems (by range) (Appendix E, Table E-2)
5.4 Use of Statistical Methods To Define the Extent of UXO
5.4.1 Use of Statistical Methods on Ranges
USACE has developed statistical sampling techniques that are used in combination with risk
estimation procedures in order to determine the extent of cleanup. Statistical grid sampling methods
are frequently used in an attempt to determine the location and density of UXO on ranges. Statistical
grid sampling on ranges employs assumptions that some may question. For example, one technique
relies on an assumption of uniform distribution of UXO over a given area, which may not be the case.
Much concern has been expressed to EPA Headquarters about range characterization and sampling
techniques.
As illustrated in Figure 25, statistical methods were employed at almost 40 percent of ranges
in an attempt to define the extent of UXO contamination.
5.4.2 Recommendations Based on Statistical Methods
Of the 78 ranges (at 17 facilities) that report using statistical techniques, recommendations
based on statistical sampling that the Regions could not support were made at 71 ranges (at 11
facilities) (Figure 26).
37
-------
R = Number of ranges
F = Number of facilities
Not Applicable
Not Reported r=3
Figure 25. Have Statistical Methods Been Used on Range? (by range)
(Appendix E, Table E-3)
No Not Reported
6% 3%
R = Number of ranges
F * Number of facilities
Figure 26. Were Recommendations Generated That EPA Could Not Support? (by range)
(Appendix E, Table E-3)
38
-------
5.5 Addressing UXO
5.5.1 Indications by DoD Organization or Contractors That UXO Will Not or Cannot Be
Addressed
EPA Regions reported that at almost half of the 203 ranges surveyed (at 16 facilities), the
Army or Navy said that UXO will not or cannot be addressed (Figure 27). Survey narratives
identified several rationales for why UXO may not be addressed. First, the costs of remediation on
a large range can be enormous. In some cases, cost becomes a consideration that has far-reaching
consequences for the environmental investigation and cleanup program at the range (see text box that
follows). In addition, because it is possible that DoD plans to maintain ownership and control of an
inactive range for its potential future use, treating the UXO on range may not be a priority.
Alternatively, DoD may plan to transfer the land to a use not inconsistent with range use. For
example, the Oneida Indian Nation in New York State plans to train its police force at a range on
Griffis Air Force Base, thus allowing future use that is consistent with the current use of the range.
The large number of ranges on which a statement was reported that UXO will or cannot be addressed
also reflects the large number of ranges at Ft. McClellan (61) and NAF Adak (18) that fall into this
category.
UXO costs and assessments.
An example of a situation in which UXO may not be addressed is the case of NAF Adak, a facility on the remote
Adak Island in Alaska, at which over 30,000 acres have been affected by range activities and where more than
77,000 munitions or pieces of munitions have been discovered since 1945. In addition to its sprawling size, NAF
Adak has thick vegetation, variable topography, soft ground, and high water tables, which make UXO assessment
difficult and expensive. The Navy has maintained that it is technically infeasiblc and may be too costly to clear
UXO from NAF Adak. The remedial investigation was originally estimated to cost between $30 and $50 million.
EPA Region 10, the State of Alaska, and the Navy arc engaged in a collaborative effort to find an alternative
means to assess the site.
5.5.2 Situations Out of Regulator's Control That Needed Immediate Attention
Eighty percent of the respondents stated that they did not face any situations regarding UXO
that they felt were out of their control. The large number of responses indicating that there have not
been situations regarding UXO that are out of the regulator's control reflects the large number of
ranges at NAF Adak, Ft. McClellan, and Redstone Arsenal that fall into this category. Fourteen
percent, however, indicated that they had faced situations regarding UXO that they felt were out of
their control but needed immediate attention (Figure 28). The situations described by respondents
included a variety of concerns. One EPA respondent felt "out of the loop" and was therefore not
entirely comfortable with the manner in which issues were addressed. Another EPA respondent
highlighted a more specific concern that OB/OD was occurring without review of whether render safe
procedures would be applied to safely store ordnance until the arrival of a detonation chamber.
39
-------
120 -i
R = Number of ranges
F = Number of facilities
Unknown
Not Applicable
Not Reported
Figure 27. Has Any DoD Organization Indicated That UXO Will Not or Cannot Be
Addressed? (Appendix E, Table E-4)
R = Num ber of ranges
F = Num ber of facilities
Unknow n Not Reported
1% 5% Yes
No
80%
Figure 28. Did You Face Any Situations Regarding UXO That You Felt Were Out of Your
Control but Needed Immediate Attention? (by range) (Appendix E, Table E-5)
40
-------
6.0 REGULATORY STATUS AND ISSUES
6.1 Introduction
As described in Chapter 1.0, the framework for regulating the investigation and cleanup of
CTT and inactive ranges is complex and evolving. CERCLA, with its framework regulation provided
by the NCP, may provide the regulatory setting. RCRA also provides applicable statutory authority
and numerous regulatory requirements for the management of solid waste (Subtitle D) and hazardous
waste (Subtitle C). Safety and cleanup standards are effectively provided within the DDESB
regulations known as DOD 6055.9-STD. This report does not attempt to clarify regulatory
requirements, but confirms existing uncertainties at the field level over which organization can best
manage UXO and which regulatory authority best addresses UXO situations.
6.2 Range Regulatory Authorities
With potentially overlapping regulatory requirements, the regulatory landscape is complicated.
EPA plays an active oversight role at NPL and BRAC facilities, but the States usually take the lead
for oversight at non-NPL facilities. Under RCRA, State or Federal regulatory authorities may make
the State agency the lead regulator.
6.2.1 Under What Program Is Range Regulated?
There was no specific survey question asking respondents which programs regulate the
ranges; therefore, this information was derived or interpreted from other survey questions that
provided clues to the regulatory program governing the range. However, the survey instrument
asked the Regions to identity whether the range or site is under a Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA).
Responses to this and other questions were used to derive or interpret the regulatory program
governing ranges. For the purpose of this report, a range that is on an NPL facility and that is
specifically identified in an FFA as regulated by EPA was considered a CERCLA-regulated range.
A range that is regulated by the State and EPA and has a RCRA Subpart X permit was categorized
as a RCRA-regulated range.
Using the approach described above, survey reviewers were able to determine the regulatory
program governing 67 percent of the facilities. Twenty-three percent of the facilities are actively
regulated under CERCLA, 31 percent under RCRA and 13 percent under both CERCLA and RCRA,
as shown in Figure 29.
6.2.2 Who Regulates the Range?
According to survey responses, 54 percent of ranges are regulated solely by DoD (Figure 30),
with 83 percent of those ranges under Army regulation. Most ranges identified as regulated solely
by DoD are located within facilities that are still operated by DoD. State or local authorities and EPA
regulate most of the remainder of the ranges. It should be noted that over half of the 110 ranges
regulated by DoD are located at one facility - Ft. McClellan.
41
-------
Note: The categories CERCLA, RCRA and Both CERCLA and RCRA represent facilities for which the program that
governs at least one rangB is known. A facility for which it is not possible to discern from the surveys whether the
ranoes are reaulated or under what proaram thev are reaulated are cateaorized as Unknown.
R * Number of rang*!
F ¦ Number of facllitl**
Figure 29. Under What Program Is the Range Regulated? (by facility)
(Appendix F, Table F-l)
Figure 30. Who Regulates the Range? (by range) (Appendix F, Table F-2)
42
-------
6.3 Compliance with CERCLA and the NCP at Sites Where USACE Has Been Utilized
As discussed in Chapter 4.0, USACE was involved in the range assessment and cleanups at
65 percent (132) of ranges. In a different question, respondents were asked whether the activities
in which USACE was involved were conducted in compliance with CERCLA and the NCP. In
response to this question, the Regions reported that at only 31 ranges were CERCLA and NCP
requirements being met. Respondents felt that cleanup or other activities conducted by USACE were
not conducted in compliance with CERCLA and the NCP at 70 ranges. It should be noted that 61
of the 70 ranges at which CERCLA and NCP requirements were not being met are located at one
facility, Ft. McClellan. However, it is unclear as to how many ranges are represented by the eight
other facilities, each of which are counted as one range based on a single survey response. An
example that was given of nonconformance with CERCLA includes the inappropriate use of time-
critical/emergency responses as the default response action in situations that encompass long-term
cleanup and are not emergencies. The use of time-critical/emergency actions may eliminate some of
the regulatory oversight, reporting, and public involvement requirements by CERCLA in remedial
actions. Descriptions of deviations from CERCLA, as provided in two of the survey responses, are
described in the text box that follows.
Ft. Wingate Depot activity, Gallup, New Mexico
The New Mexico Environment Department regulates Ft. Wingate under RCR.A permitting. In response to the
question regarding whether USACE actions have been consistent with CERCLA and the NCP, the respondent
replied, "Not in the clearance operations. It seems that EPA has deferred to DoD's protocols for UXO and range
clearance operations, and the Corps has continued to 'do what it docs' in this work. There has been no public
notice or public participation in the process. The regulators were not given notice cither. We have been given
brief summaries during BRAC RAB (Restoration Advisory Board) meetings of the work done, but little written
documentation has been produced/offered. Without this documentation, we cannot evaluate what has been done."
Ft. McClellan, Anniston, Alabama
The Army regulates Ft. McClellan, which is a BRAC non-NPL facility. In response to the question regarding
whether USACE actions have been consistent with CERCLA and the NCP, the respondent replied, "...Deed
restrictions are not a concern with the DoD component. They will put the county on notice that a restriction is to
be put in place. However, there is no DoD requirement for follow-up. Nothing is done to ensure that any
secondary purchaser observes the controls. [The Army] has stated that once the property is transferred, their
responsibility is over. There is no incentive for DoD to attempt any type of institutional control enforcement. The
NCP does not envision this type of absolution."
43
-------
Unknown
2%
R=5
R ¦ Number of rangts
F » Number of facilities
Figure 31. Were Activities Conducted by USACE Consistent with CERCLA and the NCP?
(by range) (Appendix F, Table F-3)
6.4 Submission of Draft Work Plans to the Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board
for Review and Approval
The DDESB makes policy for all activities relating to munitions on DoD facilities to protect
human health and property from explosives hazards, including clearance. As part of its
responsibilities for ensuring explosives safety standards, the DDESB must review and approve all
plans for leasing, transferring, excessing, disposing of, or remediating DoD real property when
ammunition, explosives, or chemical contamination exists or is suspected to exist.12 According to
survey responses from the EPA Regions, draft work plans were submitted to the DDESB for review
and approval for just under 60 percent of ranges (Figure 32). The circumstances under which work
plans were and were not submitted are not known; therefore, it is not possible to know whether any
additional work plans should have been submitted to the DDESB for review and approval.
l2DoD Ammunition and Explosives Safety Standards, August 1997, Chapter 12, DoD Directive 6055.9 STD.
44
-------
The role of the Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board
The DDESB was established by Congress in 1928 as a result of a major disaster at the Naval Ammunition Depot
in Lake Denmark, New Jersey, in 1926. The accident caused heavy damage to the depot and surrounding areas
and communities, killed 21 people, and seriously injured 51 others.
The mission of the DDESB is to provide objective advice to the Secretary of Defense and Service Secretaries on
matters concerning explosives safety and to prevent hazardous conditions to life and property, both on and off DoD
installations, from the explosives and environmental effects of DoD munitions.
DDESB provides oversight of the development, manufacture, testing, maintenance, demilitarization, handling,
transportation, and storage of explosives, including chemical agents on DoD facilities worldwide.
6.5 Open Burning, Open Detonation
Open burning, open detonation (OB/OD) is a commonly used treatment to rid ranges of both
used and unused munitions for routine range maintenance; for destruction of excess, obsolete, or
unserviceable munitions; and for range cleanup purposes. OB/OD is performed on active, inactive,
and closed ranges. The conduct of OB/OD is regulated under RCRA, Subpart X. A RCRA Subpart
X permit may be required when used or fired munitions are moved off range for OB/OD or when
unused munitions are excessed and destroyed by OB/OD. A permit for OB/OD is required when this
approach is used in routine range clearance of an active range. In addition, the Military Munitions
Rule postponed applicability of Subpart X to "used or fired munitions that are recovered and then
treated at a closed or transferred range."13
Eighty-one percent of ranges in the survey have employed OB/OD. The specific
circumstances under which DoD conducted OB/OD at these ranges are not known, but respondents
indicated that of the ranges on which OB/OD was used, 31 percent obtained a RCRA Subpart X
permit (Figure 33).
As shown in Figure 34, the Army performed more OB/OD activities than any other
organization. OB/OD was also conducted by other DoD organizations, such as Navy and explosives
ordnance disposal (EOD) personnel, and by qualified non-DoD (contractor) personnel hired by the
Services or the USACE. The OB/OD activities performed by the Army represent 61 ranges located
at Ft. McClellan.
"Preamble, Final Military Munitions Rule (62 FR 6632, February 12, 1997).
45
-------
Figure 32. Were Draft Work Plans Submitted to the DDESB? (by range)
(Appendix F, Table F-4)
Figure 33. Have Any OB/OD Activities Been Performed at Range? (by range)
(Appendix F, Table F-5)
46
-------
Other
1%
Not Reported
A 0/
R = Number of ranges
F = Number of facilities
12%
US Army
45%
Figure 34. Who Performed OB/OD Activities? (by range) (Appendix F, Table F-5)
6.6 Is the Range or Site Covered by a Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA), State Cleanup
Agreement, Permit, or Order?
According to CERCLA Section 120(e)(2), DoD must enter into an interagency agreement
with the EPA Administrator "for the expeditious completion of all necessary remedial action" at a
DoD facility on the NPL. Those agreements are usually referred to as FFAs but may also be called
interagency agreements (IAGs). States may be a party to FFAs as well. In addition, other regulatory
agreements document the requirements that govern site cleanup. These may include State cleanup
agreements (between DoD and the State), State cleanup permits, and administrative orders.
When an FFA is in place, it governs the relationship between the regulators and the regulated
party (DoD), and usually specifies (either directly or by reference to another document) the sites on
the facility that are covered by the FFA. If the FFA lists the ranges either directly or by reference,
the cleanup is unambiguously covered by CERCLA and the FFA.
In order to obtain additional clarification of the regulatory status of the ranges in the survey,
the survey asked respondents whether the range is covered by any regulatory agreements. Only 78
ranges are specifically covered under some type of agreement (Figure 35). The distribution of
agreement types is shown in Figure 36, with the majority of agreements being FFAs. For 26 percent
of the ranges covered by written agreements, respondents did not identify the type of agreement that
applies to the range. Of the 120 ranges reportedly not covered by an agreement, 83 are located at
47
-------
two facilities, Redstone Arsenal and Ft. McClellan. However, it should be noted that an additional
24 facilities representing an unknown number of ranges report that they are not covered by an
agreement.
Of ranges covered by a regulatory agreement, 61 percent were described as covered by an
FFA (Figure 36). Given the number of facilities where the party regulating the range was not
reported, and given the level of uncertainty in all the numbers, this percentage is not inconsistent with
previously reported data, which showed that 23 percent of the ranges are regulated by EPA (Figure
30).
Figure 35. Is the Range Covered Under an FFA, a State Cleanup Agreement or Permit, or
an Administrative Order? (by range) (Appendix F, Table F-6)
48
-------
Not Distinguished
State Cleanup Agreement
3%
R=2
F*2
R ¦ Number of ranges
F ¦ Number of facilities
Note: One of the 78 ranges covered by an agreement selected two different types of agreements.
Figure 36. Types of Agreements, Permits, or Orders? (by range) (Appendix F, Table F-6)
6.7 Institutional Controls/Land Use Controls
Institutional or land use controls are engineering or site access controls that separate people
from hazards (e.g., a fence) or legal, regulatory, and procedural controls that perform the same
function (e.g., deed restrictions, zoning). All are commonly used to protect the public from UXO and
other environmental hazards. The techniques used on a range may include fencing the area of UXO
contamination, posting warning signs, notifying local authorities, placing deed restrictions on the
property, imposing groundwater or dig restrictions, or designing facility-specific security procedures.
According to survey respondents, 46 percent of ranges are known to employ institutional or
land use controls. The most commonly used type of land use control is fencing the area to keep out
trespassers (Figure 37), but a variety of facility-specific procedures are also used, such as posting
guards and patrols. Respondents also were asked if institutional controls have been effective. Of the
99 ranges that have employed institutional or land use controls, 33 percent reported that they have
been effective, 25 percent reported that they have not been effective, and 37 percent either did not
know or did not report on the effectiveness of these controls (Figure 38). These latter categories are
very important and likely point out the difficulties in measuring the effectiveness of institutional
controls.
49
-------
Figure 37. Have Institutional Controls Been Implemented at Range, and if So, What
Types? (by range) (Appendix F, Table F-7)
Figure 38. If Institutional Controls Are In Place, Have They Been Effective? (by range)
(Appendix F, Table F-7)
50
-------
7.0 CONCLUSIONS
7.1 Introduction
While the data in this report suggest certain conclusions, an understanding of these
conclusions must be moderated by the limitations of the report, which include limitations on the
applicability of the findings with regard to other ranges and facilities, and data gaps due to the nature
of the survey and its interpretation.
7.2 Applicability of Findings
Several factors limit the applicability of the findings in this report to a large population of
ranges:
1. The subset of ranges for which surveys were completed is small relative to the total
number of ranges.
2. The surveys were completed by EPA personnel at the Regional level. A high percentage
of ranges covered in the survey are those with which EPA is involved, such as those in
the NPL or BRAC program. A correspondingly lower percentage of ranges are at active
non-NPL facilities or are under private ownership (FUDS).
3. Finally, the numbers presented underestimate the number of ranges at the 61 facilities in
the survey. (See Section 7.3.4.)
7.3 Data Gaps
The survey on which this report is based was a broad survey that presented open-ended
questions. Although reviewers paid careful attention to interpretations of data, coding of responses
in such a questionnaire leaves room for error. In addition, the questionnaire relied on common
understanding of certain terms; therefore, the questions may have resulted in different interpretations
of the information required. Finally, the combining of responses for multiple ranges into one survey
may have obscured differences among ranges and dominated the responses to certain questions.
7.3.1 Inactive Versus Closed Ranges
The range status (e.g., inactive versus closed) was an interpreted answer based on responses
to other questions in the survey. Because of plans to conduct a comprehensive survey of inactive
ranges to determine which ones should be officially closed, and the controversies that will likely
surround this issue, it is important to have more reliable data on range status. In addition to obtaining
better data about range status, information about whether factors exist that would make the inactive
ranges incompatible with range use, and thus potentially subject to closure, would provide a more
useful and accurate picture of the ranges.
51
-------
7.3.2 Regulatory Programs
The regulatory program governing the ranges was also an interpreted answer. Survey
reviewers were able to ascertain the regulatory programs governing 67 percent of the facilities, but
the programs regulating the other 33 percent of facilities remain unknown. In addition, interpretation
about which regulatory program drives range cleanup may not always be accurate. This information
is important in determining what regulatory authorities apply and if activities on the range have been
conducted consistently with applicable regulations. Survey results show that DoD is the regulatory
agency at 54 percent of ranges, but it is unclear which regulatory frameworks should be and are
followed at DoD-regulated ranges. The survey did ask if cleanups conducted under the auspices of
USACE were being conducted consistently with CERCLA. However, information received from the
survey indicates that the USACE CERCLA-like procedures are often not consistent with CERCLA
and the NCP.
7.3.3 Applicability of Subpart X to OB/OD Ranges
The applicability of RCRA Subpart X to the ranges conducting OB/OD is not known and
should be clarified. OB/OD was performed by DoD on 81 percent of ranges. Because the
circumstances under which OB/OD occurred are unknown, it is impossible to determine whether the
31 percent of ranges that obtained a RCRA Subpart X permit includes all of the ranges that were
required to do so, and whether the remainder of ranges met the requirements for exemption.
7.3.4 Number, Size, and Distribution of Ranges
The actual number of ranges included in the survey is underestimated because the level of
information provided in the survey responses varied. A distinction was frequently not made between
individual ranges at facilities. Therefore, in analyzing the surveys, if individual ranges were not
identified, only one range was associated with the survey, regardless of whether the facility is believed
to have multiple ranges. This led to substantial undercounting of ranges at important facilities. In
some cases, the survey respondent identified a specific number of ranges at a facility with multiple
ranges. Those ranges may have inordinately influenced some of the findings. Distinguishing between
ranges on a facility would be useful to further solidify survey results and to illuminate the different
characteristics and situations on ranges at the same facility.
Information about the size of a range can provide an indication of the potential costs of range
investigation and cleanup. Because acreage is a factor in determining costs, this information would
be particularly helpful in predicting the financial requirements of range cleanups, particularly for those
ranges for which transfer is planned.
52
-------
7.4 Risks to Human Health and Safety and the Environment
Contamination resulting from used or fired munitions including UXO is found on almost all
ranges in the survey. UXO has been found on 86 percent of the ranges. EPA Regions report that
some of these ranges may have chemical or biological weapons.
Ranges in this report potentially pose significant risks to human health and safety because of
their proximity to surrounding populations, changes in land use, and new ownership and control of
the ranges. Fifty-eight percent of ranges are in rural areas or small towns and 87 percent of ranges
are located within 5 miles of the surrounding population. Most ranges are expected to undergo
commercial or residential development, in correlation with growing populations. In addition, range
ownership, and therefore control, is moving away from DoD and into other Federal agency, State or
local government, or private ownership. This evolution in range use and control, coupled with
encroaching populations, suggests mounting potential for health and safety risks to human or
ecological receptors.
Ranges in this survey are located in a variety of environments, including some ecologically
sensitive areas such as wetlands, surface waters, and floodplains. Detecting and clearing used or fired
munitions from aquatic ecosystems can be significantly more difficult than from other types of areas,
resulting in often difficult and costly assessment and remediation. The prevalence of used and fired
munitions on all ranges in the survey indicates that many different ecosystems face potential hazards
from contamination.
EPA Regions report that public encounters with UXO have occurred on 3 8 occasions at seven
ranges. While none of these reported encounters actually resulted in death or injury, such encounters
with UXO lead to public fear and may pose risks of death and injury.
7.5 Range Status
The focus of this report is closed, transferring, and transferred ranges; however, 49 percent
of the ranges for which information is provided are described as inactive by survey respondents. It
should be noted that these 49 percent of "inactive" ranges are located at only 12 different facilities,
while 17 facilities contain ranges that are reported to be closed. Many of these inactive ranges have
not been used for decades. Therefore, future classification is not certain.
7.6 Technical Issues
Several questions on the survey focused attention on potential problems related to assessment
and cleanup of ranges. As notable as the problems were that the survey identified, the numbers of
facilities and ranges that reported no assessment problems (34 percent of facilities with 17 percent
of ranges) and no cleanup problems (36 percent of facilities with 29 percent of ranges) should also
be noted. (These numbers do not include facilities and ranges where no assessment or remediation
was reported.) However, 84 ranges (41 percent) reported some level of assessment problem. The
53
-------
most frequently reported problems were lack of historical information on the range (former use and
types of munitions), and inaccessible terrain, which makes assessment and use of detection equipment
more difficult. In addition, two specific questions were asked concerning the use of statistically based
sampling at the ranges. It was apparent from the results that the appropriate use of statistically based
sampling to determine range response remains controversial. At 39 percent of the ranges where such
sampling was used (representing 17 facilities), respondents reported that unacceptable
recommendations were generated from this type of sampling more than 90 percent of the time.
Finally, the most frequently reported remediation problem was cost issues. Other issues associated
with remediation included issues stemming from inadequate assessment or other technical issues, and
the dangers associated with remediation of UXO.
7.7 Regulatory Oversight
Almost 90 percent of the ranges in this survey are in some phase of investigation or cleanup.
However, responses to several questions suggest that preparation for cleanup and cleanup activities
may be occurring with inadequate regulatory engagement. DoD is the lead regulatory agency at 54
percent of ranges. Anecdotal evidence about the lack of regulator involvement provides further
support for this conclusion, as illustrated in the text box below. Insufficient regulator involvement
from the beginning of an investigation could result in the delay of actions that require regulatory
concurrence, such as delisting of facilities from the NPL or property transfers in the case of BRAC
properties.
7.8 General Conclusions
The survey findings presented in this report illustrate the complex nature of CTT and inactive
ranges. Because of the prevalence of UXO on ranges, the growing populations on and around
ranges, and the transition of ranges from DoD to other governmental or private ownership and
control, ranges may present significant risks to human health and welfare and the environment.
Further contributing to the potential risks are the limited effectiveness of some statistical sampling
and risk estimation procedures and use of older UXO detection techniques, such as "mag and flag."
DoD and the rest of the country face an immense challenge in conducting range responses.
Since the time of this survey, much work has been done to improve the range response process,
including the development of "DoD and EPA Management Principles" for CTT ranges. The
principles provide interim guidance to DoD and EPA field staff to govern ongoing responses. These
principles are included in Appendix H of this report.
54
-------
APPENDIX A
METHODOLOGY
-------
Appendix A
Methodology
A.l Overview
In the fall of 1998, the Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office of the Environmental
Protection Agency sent a survey to its Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) to assess the number and
types of closed, transferring, or transferred military munitions ranges that may have the potential to
create an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health and welfare or to the
environment. Figure A-l provides a copy of the questionnaire sent to the EPA Regions for
completion. Eighty-nine completed surveys were submitted to EPA, representing 74 facilities and
at least 229 ranges. However, 14 surveys representing 13 facilities and 26 ranges were removed from
the data pool, as they reflect responses concerning active ranges and are not the subject of this report
(Figure A-2).
A.2 Challenges
Because the survey questions were open ended, in order to create a report that summarized
information from all of the questionnaires, the responses first had to be normalized into a common
information framework. This presented two major challenges. First, the information contained in the
open-ended questions had to be coded accurately so that the data from the questions could be put
into a database that could be analyzed. Second, in some cases, interpretation of the responses was
necessary in order to capture certain types of information. For example, respondents provided similar
information in different formats and in different parts of the questionnaire. Also, some of the
information to be captured was supplied by respondents elaborating on an answer. For example, the
questionnaire did not ask whether the range was an active, inactive, closed, or transferred range;
however, this information was frequently provided and was captured in the coding. In another
example, a direct question was asked concerning who regulates the range, but no direct question was
asked concerning which program the range was regulated under. However, this information was
frequently available in responses to several other questions.
Both of the challenges outlined above presented concerns related to quality assurance and
quality control (QA/QC) of the coding of responses. So reviewers could be confident that the results
were reported correctly, we imposed several layers of QA/QC.
A.3 Creating an Intermediate Questionnaire
The first step in normalizing the answers to the questionnaire was to create an "intermediate
coding instrument." Three analysts reviewed twenty survey questionnaires to create a list of potential
responses for each question. The lists developed by the three analysts were then consolidated. Figure
A-3 represents the intermediate coding instrument in its final refinement. The coding instrument
went through several iterations. A number of coding choices were dropped when analysts reviewing
them felt that not enough information was consistently available from all the questionnaires or felt that
too much interpretation was required to be confident of the results. The numbers found on the
coding instrument, and associated with each separate topic, are either directly related to a
A-l
-------
questionnaire number or are an additional piece of information that was provided for most
questionnaires. Where numbers are skipped, it is because some of the numbers were deleted for the
reasons mentioned above.
A.4 Guiding the Analysis
To ensure that analysts reviewing the questionnaires interpreted answers consistently, a
number of definitions were documented. The sources of these definitions varied and included the
EPA Munitions Rule, the draft DoD Range Rule, the National Contingency Plan, and other guidance
documents. Figure A-4 lists the general definitions that were given to reviewers. In addition, after
initial data gathering was complete, several interpretation issues were identified. These interpretation
issues were discussed with the EPA technical expert, and documented in a series of Interpretation
Guidelines (Figure A-5) provided to the analysts.
A.5 QA/QC of Results
Quality assurance and quality control of the recording of answers into the database and of the
interpretation of results took place on several levels. First, a hard-copy file folder was created for
each individual survey received. Fact sheets were downloaded from EPA and DoD web sites to
provide background information on the range and the facility. The intermediate survey instrument
(see Figure A-3) was filled out by hand and included in the file folder, along with any appropriate
notations concerning interpretations of data.
Second, specific QA/QC procedures were designed to ensure that answers to questions were
interpreted in a consistent manner and in a way that could be understood by a reader familiar with
range issues. The intermediate coding instrument with common definitions was designed to build in
quality up front. In addition, each questionnaire went through several layers of review. First, one
analyst filled in the intermediate form, then a second analyst independently went over the same form
to determine if the same answers were obtained. A Senior Policy Analyst supervised the coding
process and provided ongoing advice to ensure consistency. Any differences that required discussion
were flagged and brought to the Project Manager for review and resolution. Some of the issues were
brought by the Project Manager to an EPA technical expert for further discussion and resolution.
Third, data was entered into a Microsoft Access database specifically established for this
purpose. The data entry itself had QA/QC built in to ensure that no mistakes were made in this phase.
All data entry was checked by an analyst who was not responsible for original data entry.
Finally, as the data were analyzed, final QC checks were developed. Specific questions were
cross-checked against each other to make certain that the answers were consistent. For example,
information about who regulates a range, which regulatory program governs a range, and what
programmatic category a range is in were compared to make sure that these responses were
consistent. If the respondent stated that a range is regulated by EPA and coded the range as BRAC
NPL regulated under CERCLA, those responses would be consistent. However, if the respondent
indicated that the range is regulated by the State, but coded it as BRAC NPL regulated under
A-2
-------
CERCLA, reviewers would review the entire survey again to determine whether EPA is in fact
involved in regulating the range.
A.6 Understanding the Data
Two issues significantly affect interpretation of the data. Although the report addresses these
issues at various points, they are important enough to be highlighted here.
A.6.1 Number of Ranges
The facility respondents were asked to fill out one questionnaire for each facility or site.
Therefore, some respondents provided one set of answers for the entire facility, while others related
their answers to one or more specific ranges. In most cases the different information for different
ranges was contained within a single questionnaire. In other cases, separate questionnaire responses
were provided for each separate range. Given the fact that many facilities are quite large and have a
number of ranges, each with different past ordnance uses and sometimes with different environmental
settings and regulatory frameworks, it was clear that a single answer for the entire facility would not
be accurate or appropriate. In fact, many of the questionnaires that provided one answer for the entire
facility obscured the differences among the many ranges at the facility. (For example, one
questionnaire was received for Aberdeen Proving Ground. The number of ranges at Aberdeen was
not provided; therefore, this response was recorded in the database as one facility and one range.
Given Aberdeen's large size and the numerous and different types of ranges, use of one facility
questionnaire to record issues at Aberdeen probably understated the nature of the situation at this
facility.)
Whenever possible, given the data provided, range information was recorded in association
with the range to which it was connected. When the same information was provided for multiple
ranges, that information was recorded as multiple counts. For example, when the questionnaire
indicated that the responses contained in the questionnaire referred to 10 ranges, the information was
recorded for each of the 10 ranges. When no information was provided on the number of ranges and
no separate information was provided on different ranges, the facility questionnaire was recorded as
one range.
¦ One result of this approach is that on certain questions, facilities with a large number of
reported ranges dominate the analysis. Those instances are pointed out at key places in the text. A
second result is that the number of ranges recorded in the database is understated. The degree of this
underestimation is unknown.
A.6.2 Interpreting the Closure Status of the Range
EPA has jurisdiction over closed, transferring, and transferred ranges. In a determination
recorded in EPA's Munitions Rule, used munitions at active ranges (those ranges currently in active
use as ranges) and inactive ranges (those ranges not in use now, but possibly active in the future) are
regulated as hazardous waste, except under certain specific conditions. As the project staff reviewed
the questionnaires, it was clear that some of the ranges addressed were at active facilities, and in fact
A-3
-------
were active ranges. Many other ranges, both at active and closing facilities, were specifically referred
to as inactive. It was often unclear whether the specific reference to a range as "inactive" was made
with the legal definition of an inactive range in mind, or was made more casually and without
considering the definition of an inactive range.
A very important step toward understanding the data presented was categorizing the ranges
included in the surveys into one of five categories (active, inactive, closed, transferring, or
transferred). Since the question of whether a range is active, inactive, closed, transferring, or
transferred was not asked specifically, categorizing of ranges had to be accomplished by searching
text fields for appropriate references. Every effort was made to identify active ranges and remove
them from the database. Ten facilities and 23 ranges were removed. It is possible, however, that
some remain. After consulting with EPA technical staff, inactive ranges were left in the database.
This was done for two reasons. First, it was not always clear that the reference to an inactive range
was specific. Second, when the DoD range inventory is completed, it is possible that some of these
"inactive" ranges, many of which have been out of operation for years, will be declared to be closed.
The final classification of ranges in the report is found in Figure A-2. In addition to the
uncertainty associated with the classification of a range as inactive, the status of 21 percent of the
ranges and 34 percent of the facilities in the database is uncertain or just not reported.
A.7 Remainder of the Appendices
In addition to the material referred to in this methodological overview, the remainder of this
appendix consists of a series of data tables that support the figures and tables that are the heart of the
analysis contained in this report. These tables are provided so the reader can track the analysis and
review the supporting data. A reference to the corresponding figure or table in the report is provided
for each data table. The data tables are organized in the following manner:
Appendix B: Facility and Range Characteristics
B-l EPA Regions Represented by Facilities in Survey (Figure 1)
B-2 Facilities and Ranges Included in Survey (Table 1)
B-3 Programmatic Category (Figure 2)
B-4 Characteristics of Surrounding Area (Figure 3)
B-5 Range Status (Figure 4)
B-6 Munitions Employed at Range (Figure 5)
B-7 Range Ownership (Figure 6)
B-8 Distribution of Past, Present, and Future Range Ownership Within DoD (Figure 6)
Appendix C: Threats to Human Health and the Environment
C-l Range Topography/Landforms (Figure 7)
C-2 Media Possibly Contaminated with UXO (Figure 8)
C-3 Past, Present, and Predicted Future Land Uses (Figures 9, 10, and 12)
C-4 Ordnance-Related Land Use Over Time (Figure 11)
A-4
-------
C-5 Land Use of Surrounding Area (Figure 13)
C-6 Proximity to Nearest Populated Area (Figure 14)
C-7 Has UXO Been Found on Range and Have Chemical or Biological Weapons Been
Found or Suspected on Range? (Figures 15 and 16)
C-8 Potential Off-Range Impacts of UXO (Figure 17)
C-9 UXO and Military Munitions Incidents and Encounters (Figure 18)
Appendix D: Range Management
D-l Who Manages the Range? (Figure 19)
D-2 What Cleanup Activities Were Conducted at the Range? By Whom? (Figures 20 and
22)
D-3 What Was the Role of USACE in Range Cleanup? (Figure 21)
Appendix E: UXO Technical Issues
E-l Range Assessment Problems (Figure 23)
E-2 Range Remediation Problems (Figure 24)
E-3 Were Statistical Methods Employed? Were Recommendations Based on Statistical
Methods That EPA Could Not Support? (Figures 25 and 26)
E-4 Has Any Agency Indicated That UXO Would Not Be Treated? (Figure 27)
E-5 Have Any Situations Occurred That Were Out of Your Control? (Figure 28)
Appendix F: Regulatory Status and Issues
F-l Range Regulatory Programs and Authorities (Figure 29)
F-2 Who Regulates the Range (Figure 30)
F-3 Have Range Cleanup Activities Been Performed Consistently with Regard to CERCLA
and the NCP? (Figure 31)
F-4 Have Draft Workplans Been Submitted (or Will They Be) to the Department of
Defense Explosives Safety Board for Review and Approval? (Figure 32)
F-5 Have Any Planned OB/OD Activities Been Performed at the Range? By Whom?
(Figures 33 and 34)
F-6 Is the Range Covered Under a Federal Facilities Agreement, a State Cleanup
Agreement or Permit, or an Administrative Order? What Type of Agreement? (Figures
35 and 36)
F-7 Were Institutional Controls Employed? What Types? Were They Effective? (Figures
37 and 38)
Appendix G: Letter from Tim Fields, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, EPA, to Sherri Wasserman goodman, Deputy Under Secretary for
Environmental Security, DoD, April 22, 1999
Appendix H: DoD and EPA Management Principles for Implementing Response Actions
at Closed, Transferring, and Transferred (CTT) Ranges
A-5
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
A-6
-------
Figure A-l. Survey Instrument
The following survey instrument was developed by the EPA Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse
Office (FFRRO) and sent to all EPA Regions. Completed surveys were submitted to FFRRO
electronically in WordPerfect and in hard copy.
UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE SURVEY
Responses Due by January 8, 1999
It is important that EPA better understand Regional issues concerning Unexploded Ordnance
(UXO). Please fill out the following questionnaire (one for each facility/site) so that Headquarters can
better address Regional needs concerning UXO. [If you have any questions, please contact Douglas
Bell via e-mail at bell.douglas@epa.gov, or at (202) 260-8716], If possible, we would like your
responses provided within the following WordPerfect 6.1 document (but any version of WP will also
work).
For each site confirmed or suspected to contain UXO, please fill out the following information:
1. Site Information
Site Name:
Location:
BRAC (NPL): Date Proposed Date Final
BRAC (Non-NPL)
NPL: Date Proposed Date Final
Formerly Used Defense Site: Date DoD Relinquished Control
Private Sites (non-NPL)
2. Describe the range/site. Provide, to the best of your knowledge, the location, size, site setting
(topography, geology, etc.).
3. Describe the past, present, potential (future) land uses.
a) Past:
b) Present:
c) Potential Future:
4. To the best of your knowledge:
(If not known, please put don't know )
a) Who were the previous range/site owners?
b) Who are the present range/site owners?
c) Who will be the future range/site owners?
5. a) How close is the range or site to populated areas?
b) Describe the populated areas (e.g., farm, subdivision, etc.):
6. What UXO-related problems have you encountered? Please describe:
a) Assessment Problems:
b) Remedial Problems:
c) Incidents Involving UXO:
d) Other:
A-7
-------
7. a) Has UXO been found at the range/site? Yes No
b) If yes, please fill out the Unexploded Ordnance Summary Sheet provided with this survey.
Please note: Detailed information will be appreciated. However, if it is not reasonable for
you to submit information for each ordnance type, then you also may fill out the summary
sheets for the type or class of ordnance (for example, mortars, etc.)
8. Who currently manages the range or site?
9. Who currently regulates the range or site?
10. Has the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) been utilized at the site?Yes No
a) If so, in what capacity?
b) If the USACE has been utilized, have their activities been in your opinion consistent with
CERCLA and the NCP. Please explain:
11. Has DoD, a military service, the USACE, or a contractor indicated that UXO will not, or cannot be
addressed? Yes No
If yes, please describe:
12. Are there any off-range or off-site problems known or suspected? Yes No
a) If yes, please explain.
13. Have explosives (either bulk high explosives or explosive residues) been identified in on-range or
on-site soils or ground water? Yes No
a) If yes, please explain:
14. Is the range or site covered under a Federal Facility Agreement (FFA), a State cleanup agreement,
permit, or order? Yes No
a) If yes, please describe whether UXO is specifically included within the agreement.
15. Has the USACE or DoD used any statistical methods in an attempt to define UXO at the range
or site? Yes No
a) If yes, explain how this was used at the range or site.
b) Were any recommendations generated that EPA could not support? Please explain:
16. Have draft work plans to address explosives safety concerns and environmental cleanup been
submitted to the Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board for review and approval?
Yes No
a) If your answer was no, why was the plan not submitted to DDESB?
b) If the plan(s) was submitted, how long did it take for DDESB to review and approve the
plan?
A-8
-------
17. Have any open burning or open detonation (OB/OD) activities been performed at the range or site?
Yes No
a) If OB/OD activities have occurred, was a RCRA Subpart X permit obtained? Yes No
b) Who performed the OB/OD activities (e.g., Army, EOD, contractors, etc.) and how were
they conducted?
18. Have chemical or biological weapons been found, or are they suspected at any sites you
manage or are involved with? Yes No
a) If yes, please explain:
19. Have institutional controls been implemented at the range or site? Yes No
a) If so, please describe if these controls have been effective.
b) If the controls have not been effective, please explain why they are not, and provide
suggestions that might improve the situation.
20. Have you faced any situations regarding UXO that you felt were out of your control, but needed
immediate attention?
UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE SUMMARY SHEET
Please fill out for each type (or class) of unexploded ordnance at the range/site:
a) Type of Ordnance:
b) State of Ordnance (Live, Inert, or Unknown):
c) Condition (Undamaged, Damaged, Decomposed, Unknown):
d) General Dates (When was ordnance used):
e) Is Ordnance Accessible. Yes No
Thank you for taking the time to fill out this survey. Please return to Douglas Bell at EPA Headquarters
by January 8, 1998.
A-9
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
A-10
-------
Figure A-2. Facilities and Ranges Represented by the Surveys
The following table describes the number of completed surveys received by EPA, the number of
facilities and ranges represented by the surveys, and the number of inactive, closed, transferring, and
transferred ranges and facilities used in the report.
Range Number and Status
Information
Received
Information
in Report
Questionnaires Received*:
89
75
Total Number of Facilities:
74
61
Total Number of Ranges:
229
203
Range Status
# Facilities
# Ranges
In ReDort:
Inactive
10
100
Closed
16
45
Transferring
3
4
Transferred
11
11
Status Uncertain
8
15
Not Reported
16
31
Total in Report
64
206
Active Facilities and Ranges (not in Report)
13
26
* Note: Some respondents submitted one questionnaire per range, while others combined
information for multiple ranges in a single questionnaire.
A-ll
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
A-12
-------
Figure A-3. Intermediate Coding Instrument
The following forms are printouts of the data fields used in Versar's database. Reviewers used the
forms to code survey responses during the review process. The database allows data obtained from
completed surveys to be manipulated for interpretation.
A-13
-------
Survey Numberf]
Facility Information
Facility Name
J 21. Region
EPA ID Number
1
City
J State | | County £
Survey POC
POC Phone Number
Reviewer Name
Date Questionnaire Reviewed
I
1. Location Type
BRAC NPL
BRAC Non-NPL
NPL Only (Non-BRAC)
Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS)
Private (Non-NPL)
Active RCRA Permitted Facility
Other
Unknown
li. Date Proposed |
lii. Date Final I
22i. BRAC Round
I
IZJ
22ii. Is BRAC Use
Underway?
liii. If Other, Please
Specify:
liv. If Location is FUDS, Date DOD Relinquished Control
Number of Ranges Addressed by Questionnaire
Are There Any Indications That There Are Other Ranges Impacted by UXO At This Facility? ~
D UXO Summary Sheet Attached O Other Attachments
Please List All Attachments Used for This Survey
"5bi. Surrounding Characteristics
© Urban
© Suburban
© Small or Medium Town
© Rural/Remote
© Unknown/Not Reported
J
-------
Survey Number
Range Information
PAGE 1
23i. Range Name:
23ii. Range 11
24. Number of Ranges
Covered By This Record:
25i. Total Range Size:
25ii. Area of UXO Concern
I Acres
j Acres
26. Last Year Range Was Used (If Known)
j
"27. Range Status
© Active
© Inactive
© Closed
© Transferring
© Transferred
© Inactive or Closed: Status Uncertain
© Not Reported
28. Munitions Employed at
Range (Select All That Apply):
Small Arms Rounds
Large Caliber Rounds
Grenades
Mortar Rounds
Artillery Rounds / Projectiles
Missile
Bomb / Bomblets
Submunitions - Land Mines
Submunitions - Chemical
Military Munition Components
Unknown
Not Reported
Other (Specified)
29. Range Activities
(Select All That Apply):
2i. Topography/Landforms (Select All
That Apply):
Storage
Testing
Training
Disposal
Maintenance
Impact Range
Range Buffer Area
Unknown
Not Reported
Other (Specified)
Mountainous or Rocky
Steeply Sloping Hills
Rolling Hills
Prairie or Flat Terrain
Surface Water on / near Wetlands on Range
Surface Water on / near Wetlands Near Range
Floodplain Located On Range
Floodplain Located Near Range
Isolated Area (e g , Island)
Unknown
Not Reported
Other (Specified)
2ii. Soil Characteristics:
i
5bii. Surrounding Land Use
Generally Fine Grained / Impermeable
Generally Coarse Grained / Permeable
Multiple Layers
Mixed / Vanable
Shallow Bedrock
Unknown
Not Reported
Other (Specified)
Residential
Industrial / Commercial
Recreational
Military Use
Agncultural / Ranching / Mining
Educational
Unknown
Not Reported
Other (Specified)
30. Possible Media
Contaminated with UXO:
Soil
Surface Water
Sediment
Groundwater
Debris
Unknown
Not Reported
Other (Specified)
J
2iii. Vegetation:
Grass
Trees (Light)
Trees (Heavy)
Bushes / Shrubs / Brush
Unknown
Not Reported
Other (Specified)
-------
Survey Number
Range Information
PAGE 2
3a. Past Land Uses
3b. Present Land Uses
3c. Future Land Uses
Open Space (Vacant)
Industrial / Commercial
Recreational
Residential
Agricultural / Ranching / Mining
Ordnance Storage
Ordnance Testing
Ordnance Training
Ordnance Disposal
Ordnance Maintenance
Ordnance Impact Range
Ordnance Buffer
Military Use Other Than Ordnance
Eductaional
Wildlife Refuge
Open Space (Vacant)
Industrial / Commercial
Recreational
Residential
Agricultural / Ranching I Mining
Ordnance Storage
Ordnance Testing
Ordnance Training
Ordnance Disposal
Ordnance Maintenance
Ordnance Impact Range
Ordnance Buffer
Military Use Other Than Ordnance
Eductaional
Wildlife Refuge
Open Space (Vacant)
Industnal / Commercial
Recreational
Residential
Agricultural / Ranching / Mining
Ordnance Storage
Ordnance Testing
Ordnance Training
Ordnance Disposal
Ordnance Maintenance
Ordnance Impact Range
Ordnance Buffer
Military Use Other Than Ordnance
Eductaional
Wildlife Refuge
4a. Previous Range/Site Owners 4b. Present Range/Site Owners 4c. Predicted Future Range/Site Owners:
US Army
US Army
US Army
US Navy
US Navy
US Navy
US Air Force
US Air Force
US Air Force
US Marines
US Mannes
US Marines
Coast Guard
Coast Guard
Coast Guard
Other DoD Agency
Other DoD Agency
Other DoD Agency
Other Federal Agency
Other Federal Agency
Other Federal Agency
State or Local Government
State or Local Government
State or Local Government
Pnvately Owned
Privately Owned
Pnvately Owned
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Other (Specified)
Other (Specified)
Other (Specified)
Other Agency Name
Other Agency Name
Other Agency Name
31. Under What Program is the Range Regulated?
RCRA
CERCLA
Range Rule
Unknown
Not Reported
-
1
1
1
9. Who Regulates the Range?
US Army
US Navy
US Air Force
US Mannes
Coast Guard
Other DoD Agency
Other Agency Name
8. Who Manages the
Range?
US Army
US Navy
US Air Force
US Marines
Coast Guard
Other DoD Agency
Other Agency Name
J
-------
Survey Number
Range Information
PAGE 3
5a. Proximity of Range to Nearest Populated Area
© Immediately Adjacent to Range
© <1 Mile
© 1-5 Miles
© 5-10 Miles
© 10-20 Miles
© >20 Miles
© Unknown
7. Has Known UXO Been Found
on Range?
® Yes © Not Reported
© No © Unknown
Discovery of UXO Hampered Investigation at Range
Investigative Techniques Not Adequate fo UXO Assessment
Incomplete Histoncal Records
Misidentification of UXO Types at Range
Poorly Performed Range Investigation
No Assessment Performed
No Problems Encountered
None Reported
Other (Specified)
6a. Assessment Problems Related to UXO
'5biii. Relative Size of Nearest Populated Area
© >20,000 © <3,000
© 10,000 - 20,000 © Unknown
© 3,000 - 10,000 © Not Reported
6c. Have There Been Any Incidents Involving UXO?
© Yes © No © Unknown
© Not Reported © Not Applicable
If So,
How
How Many
With Injury?
How Many
With Death?
6b. Remediation Problems Related to UXO
Poorly Performed Assessment
Remediation is Technically Infeasible
Remediation Too Dangerous to Attempt
Remediation Too Costly to Perform
No Remedial Activities Conducted
No Problems Encountered
None Reported
Other (Specified)
18a. Explain Any Yes Answers Concerning
18. Were Chemical or Biological Weapons Found? Problems with UXO
Yes 1
No
Unknown j
Not Reported I
Not Applicable 1
-------
Survey Number:
Range Information
Page 4
' 10. Has USACE Been Used At The Range?
© Yes
© No
© Unkown
® Not Reported
@ Not Applicable
32a. Which of the Following
Activities Have Been Conducted
at the Range?
Preliminary Assessment
Investigation
Decision on Cleanup / Response
Cleanup / Response
Post-Remedial / Post Removal Activities
Other (Specified)
FUDS Project Manager
Technical Assessment
Remediation
Contractual Oversight / Management
Unknown
Other (Specified)
10a. If Yes, To What Capacity?
32b. By Which Organization?
DoD - Army
DoD - Navy
DoD - Mannes
DoD - Air Force
Coast Guard
USACE
EPA
Other DoD Organization
10b. Have the Activities Listed Been
Performed Consistently with Regards to
CERCLA and the NCP?
© Yes @ Not Applicable
® © Not Reported
© Unknown
[ 1. Has Any Agency Indicated that UXO
Will Not or Cannot Be Treated?
© Yes
© No
© Not Applicable
© Not Reported
© Unknown
1 lai. If An Agency Has Indicated that UXO
Will Not or Cannot be Treated, Which
Agency Was It?
US Army
I
US Navy
US Air Force
|
US Mannes
1
Coast Guard
I
USACE
1
EOB
!
EPA
i
State
I
Contractor
1
Unknown
i
Not Reported
j
Other (Specified)
j
1 laii. If Any Selected, Please Explain
-------
Survey Number
Range Information
Page 5
12. Do Any of the Off-Range Problems Exist?
Possibility of UXO to have impacted off the Range
Hydrogeology Conducive to UXO Migration
Buried Ordnance Floated to Different Depth
No Off-Range Impacts Reported
Other (Specified)
r 13. Have Known or Suspected Explosives
or Residue Been Identified on the Range?
© Yes © Not Applicable
© No © Not Reported
© Unknown
13a. If yes, please comment:
33. If UXO/Explosives Residue
Was Found, In Which Media
Was It Found In?
Soil
Surface Water
Sediment
Groundwater
Unknown
Not Reported
Other (Specified)
" 14. Is The Range Covered
Under An FFA, State Cleanup
Agreement, Permit or Order?
© Yes © Not Applicable
© No © Not Reported
© Unknown
L
Check All That Apply
FFA
State Cleanup Agreement
State Permit
State or EPA Order
Not Distinguished
J
12a. Is UXO Included in the Agreement?
© Yes
© No
Not Applicable
Not Reported
Unknown
-------
Survey Number:
Range Information
PAGE 6
15. Has USACE or DoD
Used Any Statistical
Methods to Define UXO at
® Yes
© No
© Unknown
© Not Reported
© Not Applicable
15bi. If Statistical Methods Were
Employed, Were Recommendations
Generated that EPA Could Not
© Yes © Not Reported
© No © Not Applicable
© Unknown
15a. If Yes, Please Explain
15bii. If Yes, Please Explain
" 16. Have/Will Draft Workplans to Address
Explosives Safety Concerns and Environmental
Cleanup Been/Be Submitted to the DoD Explosives
Safety Board for Review and Approval?
© Yes © Not Reported
© No © Not Applicable
© Unknown
" 17. Have Any Planned OB/OD
Activities Been Performed at
Range?
© Yes © Not Reported
© No © Not Applicable
© Unknown
17a. RCRA Subpart X Permit ObtainedO
I6a,b. Please Explain (please include review / approval time)
"17b. Who Performed the Activities
© EOD © US Army
© US Navy © US Air Force
© Military Personnel Other Than EOD
© USACE
© National Guard
© State or Local Authorities
© Civilian Contractors
© Other (Please Specify)
© Unknown © Not Reported
19. Have Any of the Following Institutional Controls Been Implemented at the Range?
Area Fenced
Warning Signs Posted
Facility-Specific Security Procedures
Notification of Local Authorities
Deed Restrictions
Groundwater Restnctions
No Institutional Controls in Place
Unknown
Not Reported
-------
Survey Number:
Range Information
PAGE 7
19a. If Institutional Controls are in Place,
Have They Been Effective?
Yes
No
Unknown
Not Reported
Not Applicable
19b. If Institutional Controls Have Not Been Effective,
Please Explain or Provide Suggestions to Improve the
20. Have You Faced Any Situations Regarding
UXO That You Felt Were Out of Your Control, But
Yes
No
Unknown
Not Reported
Not Applicable
Explain.
WerelssuesResolved?:
-------
Survey Number
Reviewer Comments
PAGE 8
-------
Survey Number
Summary Sheet
Range Number
Ordnance Caliber
Small Arms Rounds
Large Caliber Rounds
Grenades
Mortar Rounds
Artillery Rounds / Projectiles
Missile
Bomb / Bomblets
Submunitions - Land Mines
Submunitions - Chemical
Military Munition Components
Other (Specified)
Ordnance Type
State of Ordnance
Training or Dummy Rounds
Live Rounds
Other (Specified)
Live
Inert
Suspected Live
Unknown
Condition of Ordnance
Undamaged
Damaged
Decomposed
Unknown
Amount of Ordnance Collected or Suspected
lbs
"Non-Ordnance Scrap Recovered?
El Yes
0 No
E) Unknown
0 Not Reported
0 Not Applicable
If Yes, How Much?:
lbs
Year Ordnance Was First Used
Year Ordnance Use Ended
Ordnance is Accessible
General Public
T respassers
Military Personnel
Government Employees
Government Contractors
Ordnance Not Accessible
Other (Specified)
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
A-24
-------
Figure A-4. General Definitions
The following list of definitions was developed to ensure consistency and uniformity in the survey
review process and to aid reviewers in coding survey responses. The definitions are based on
definitions provided in the EPA Munitions Rule, the draft Range Rule, the National Contingency Plan,
and other guidance documents.
Definitions
1. Range — Any land mass or water body that is or was used for the conduct of training, research, development,
testing, or evaluation of military munitions or explosives. Examples include: missile, artillery, aerial
bombing, tank, naval surface warfare, mortar, anti-aircraft, grenade, small arms, demolition, and multi-
purpose ranges.
2. Impact area — The area that is specifically fired upon.
3. Active range — Range currently in use.
4. Inactive range — Range not in use now, but may be used in the future.
5. Closed range — Range that has been taken out of service and either put to new uses that arc incompatible
with range activities or that are not considered by the military to be a potential range.
6. Transferring range — A range whose ownership will be transferred, usually through the Base Realignment
and Closure Act.
7. Transferred range — A range where ownership has been transferred; a Formerly Used Defense Site
(FUDS).
8. Munitions Rule scope — Closed, transferred, and transferring ranges (not active or inactive ranges).
9. Facility classifications —
National Priorities List — Facility has been listed on the NPL. It is covered by Supcrfund regulatory
authority. EPA Regions and States are involved.
Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC) — Facilities that Congress has approved for closure or
realignment. May be NPL or non-NPL. When being realigned (as opposed to closed) certain area of the base
may be transferred to another base (or MACOM) so that the mission associated with that area can continue.
It is possible to have an active range at a BRAC facility if the range is being "realigned" to another military
"ownership." However, if the entire facility is closing (and the range is not being transferred), then the range
can be considered closed rather than inactive.
A-25
-------
10. Regulatory Authority —
Typically one of four authorities:
a. CERCLA/Superfund — Docs not now cover ranges...but at NPL sites, may be covered. State regulatory
authorities also apply. EPA is always involved.
b. RCRA — Covers open burning/open detonation permitted sites (OB/OD); Subpart X permit. Also may
provide regulatory authority for cleanup. States arc delegated under RCRA. Reference to RCRA authority
usually, but not always, means State regulation.
c. Range Rule — covers closed, transferring, and transferred ranges...Not yet promulgated and not yet in
force.
d. Explosive Ordnance Board — DoD body that governs anything to do with ranges.
11. More on BRAC — Non-NPL BRAC will be covered by Supcrfund, but the State will be more heavily
involved than EPA (EPA has some involvement). Either RCRA or CERCLA regulatory authority, or both.
Other State regulatory authorities may be involved.
12. Stages of cleanup (Range rule definitions arc not included because the range rule is not yet promulgated and
in use.)
Stage on
Survey
Definition
CERCLA Term
RCRA Term
Preliminary
Assessment
Preliminary review of area or site
prior to deciding if more detailed
investigation or cleanup is
necessary.
Preliminary Assessment/
Site Investigation (PA/SI)
RCRA Facilities
Assessment (RFA)
Investigation
Detailed investigation of area or site
to determine risk (or if there is no
risk) and to decide which remedy is
appropriate.
Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
— for remedial program
Engineering
Evaluation/Cost Analysis
(EE/CA) — for the
removal program
RCRA Facilities
Investigation (RF1)
Corrective Measures
Study (CMS)
Decision on
Cleanup/
Response
Formal decision as to what the
cleanup activity should be (or the
formal decision not to clean up).
Usually involves some kind of
public review.
Record of Decision (ROD)
Action Memorandum (the
decision record for a
"removal" action)
Statement of Basis
RCRA Permit
Cleanup/
Response
Construction of a remedy to clean
up the problem or physical removal
of the waste from a site. This
should also include design phase.
Design occurs between decision and
cleanup... and involves the
engineering design of the remedy.
Remedial Action
Removal Action
Corrective Measures
Implementation
A-26
-------
Stage on
Survey
Definition
CERCLA Term
RCRA Term
Post Remedial/
Post Removal
Activities
Completion of construction,
completion of cleanup, long- term
operation of groundwater cleanup
systems.
Construction completion
Remedy in place
Response Complete
Remedial Action
Operations
Long Term Remedial
Actions
Operation and
Maintenance
Corrective Measures
Implementation
Corrective Measures
Completion
13. Institutional controls —
Non-engineering/cleanup controls designed to keep potential receptors (people/animals) away from risk. Can
include governmental/ regulatory controls (e.g., deed restrictions, zoning, covenants with the land) or
physical controls (e.g., fencing, warning signs).
14. Surrounding area characteristics —
These definitions should not be absolute but provide guidelines on how to consider "naming" the surrounding
areas.
a. Rural — Rural areas are characterized by either sparse populations or population centers between 250
and 3000 near (anywhere from 1 to 10 miles) the facility. Area residents rely on larger population
centers and must travel for most goods and services.
b. Small or Medium town — Independent of large municipalities. Populations of between 3000 and
10,000. Self-supporting, separate, and distinct from nearby larger towns.
c. Suburban — Suburban facilities are located in areas with typical populations of between 10,000 and
20,000 and are found in proximity to a large municipality of higher population density.
d. Urban — Located in a large municipality with a somewhat concentrated population — population
greater than 20,000 people.
15. Types of military munitions addressed in report —
Used or Fired Military Munitions are those military munitions that (1) have been primed, fused, armed, or
otherwise prepared for action, and have been fired, dropped, launched, projected, placed, or otherwise used;
(2) are munitions fragments (e.g., shrapnel, casings, fins, and other components, to include arming wires and
pins) that result from the use of military munitions; or (3) arc malfunctions or misfires.
The term Unexploded Ordnance, or UXO, is also used frequently in this report, as most information taken
out of the surveys refers to UXO. UXO is a subset of Used or Fired Military Munitions that encompasses
military munitions that have been prepared for action and remain unexploded, and that are placed in such a
manner as to constitute a hazard.
A-27
-------
16. Definitions of nearby populated areas
Residential
Industrial/Commercial
Recreational
Military Use
Agriculture/Ranching/Mining
Educational
Unknown
Not Reported
Other
Bedroom community, subdivisions, base housing
Industrial park, defense contractors, manufacturing
Park, trails, open space
Other military use
Farms, rangeland, timber, mines
University or any other educational institution
Respondent doesn't know
Respondent left blank
Wildlife refuge, highway or other transportation, landfill, wetlands
17. Definitions of military munitions incidents and encounters —
Question 6 of the survey asked respondents to describe any incidents involving UXO. Responses to this
question were characterized into the following categories:
UXO Exploded Accidentally
UXO Discovery
UXO Encountered by Public
Unexplained Event
Accidental explosion of UXO.
UXO found during range investigations.
The public encountered UXO either on-rangc or off-range.
Respondent did not specify what type of incident occurred.
A-28
-------
Figure A-5. Interpretation Guidelines
The following guidelines were created to assist reviewers in interpreting responses in order to obtain
the important data from the surveys and to ensure consistency and uniformity in coding the surveys.
Interpretation Guidelines
Answers recorded as "not reported" mean that the person filling out the survey did not address
this.
Answers recorded as "unknown" mean that the person filling out the survey did not know the
answer.
1. Site Information
Site Name:
Location:
BRAC (NPL): Date Proposed Date Final
BRAC (Non-NPL)
NPL: Date Proposed Date Final
Formerly Used Defense Site: Date DoD Relinquished Control
Private Sites (non-NPL)
Some surveys address whole facilities and appear to cover more than one range, other surveys
address only one range, but there is an indication that there is more than one range present, and
still other surveys are applicable to a specific range only.
We will record information by facility and by range. We will report the results as
representing X number of surveys, with at least Y number of ranges.
In addition, this survey is meant to cover only closed, transferred and transferring ranges.
Given the ambiguity over the difference between closed and inactive ranges, we will keep in
inactive ranges. However, active ranges should be removed from the database.
2. Describe the Range/Site. Provide, to the best of your knowledge, the location, size, site
setting (topography, geology, etc.).
3. Describe the past, present, potential (future) land uses.
a) Past:
b) Present:
c) Potential Future:
A-29
-------
4. To the best of your knowledge: (If not known, please put "don't know.")
a) Who were the previous range/site owners?
b) Who are the present range/site owners?
c) Who will be the future range/site owners?
Answers to these are generally clear. With respect to "future," sometimes it is unclear as to whether
answer oriented toward immediate future versus longer term. Versar included the answer given.
5. a) How close is the range or site to populated areas?
b) Describe the populated areas (e.g, farm, subdivision, etc.):
Wide range of answers provided for (b). Versar has interpreted terms like "bedroom community"
and "barracks" as "residential."
6. What UXO-related problems have you encountered? Please describe:
a) Assessment Problems:
b) Remedial Problems:
c) Incidents Involving UXO:
d) Other:
Problems captured with regard to assessment and remediation can include:
1. Assessment or remediation problem caused by UXO when evaluating hazardous waste.
2. Assessment or remediation problem that has nothing to do with UXO.
3. Assessment or remediation difficulty related to understanding or cleanup of the UXO problem
itself.
Drop 1 and 2 above. Do not capture these. If this is all that is noted, record the assessment
or remediation problem as not reported.
There is some ambiguity with respect to word "incident." Most answer "no," but some respondents
reply that they are not sure what is meant by the term. A few include controlled detonation of UXO
as an "incident;" others appear to see the very presence of UXO as an incident. When answered
Yes, Versar added clarifying comment explaining what likely drove that answer.
An incident is an unplanned for event. Planned Open Burning! Open Detonation (OBIOD) is
not an incident. In addition, UXO is a waste. The bomb or ordnance material has be used as
planned, but there is still some unexploded ordinance. Incidents in the past when the
product was being manufactured or stored are not UXO incidents.
7. a) Has UXO been found at the Range/Site? (Circle) Yes No
b) If yes, please fill out the Unexploded Ordnance Summary Sheet provided with this
survey. Please note: Detailed information will be appreciated. However, if it is not
reasonable for you to submit information for each ordnance type, then you also may fill
out the summary sheets for the type or class or ordnance (for example, "mortars", etc.)
Answer generally clear. Sometimes, however, when answer is "Yes,"it is uncertain whether UXO
has actually been identified - sometimes, one feels that it is surely there, but has not actually been
observed. In this case, would really be suspected rather than found. Where (7a) is answered yes,
but no Summary sheet attached, a note has been put on the front of the folder. Versar has
answered question as answered by the survey.
We will indicate in the report that the level of evidence concerning the incident may vary.
A-30
-------
8. Who currently manages the range or site?
Answer generally clear.
9. Who currently regulates the range or site?
Sometimes, it is unclear as to whether the answer reflects who respondent thinks should be
regulating the range, and who actually does. As examples, (1) answer might note that EPA
regulates, but elsewhere in the survey noted that EPA is "hands off' or that "no one in Region
addressing UXO issues." (2) RCRA Range covered under State Permit, but regulated by DoD -
answer might be State or DoD, not always clear which is officially "correct," especially when
presence of UXO not specifically confirmed or investigated.
Also sometimes unclear as to whether answer reflects who regulates the UXO problem specifically,
or who regulates the site overall - this tends to be more of an issue when the site is clearly both a
Superfund and UXO concern.
In reviewing the questionnaire remember, if it is an NPL facility EPA is always involved at the
Facility level. However, the range may not be covered by CERCLA (or addressed under the
FFA). Therefore if you decide EPA regulates because it is an NPL facility, that would be a
wrong answer. If the responder has said the State is the regulator, and there is no other
indication that the range is regulated under CERCLA, then chances are EPA is not involved.
If it is an NPL facility cross check the FFA question (14) and the Subpart X question (17a). If
the range is not covered by the FFA then EPA is probably not involved in regulating the
range. If there is a Subpart X RCRA permit, chances are the range is regulated by the State.
(EPA may also be involved).
If the answer is very confusing, put it as not reported.
With regard to the intermediate survey question, what program regulates the range, it will be
even more confusing. This really may be not reported. Remember, if it is an NPL Facility, the
Facility as a whole may be regulated under CERCLA, but the range(s) may not.
10. Has the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) been utilized at the Site? Yes No
a) If so, in what capacity?
b) If the USACE has been utilized, have their activities been in your opinion consistent with
CERCLA and the NCP.
(b) seems to cause some confusion in some cases, as there seems to disagreement as to
whether UXO investigation/remediation should be designed to be consistent with
CERCLA. For example, one noted that this is a policy decision for AEC to determine, and that
USACE should not be making that policy decision.
If the person filling out the questionnaire says something like EPA should not be involved,
and doesn't answer whether or not the USACE activities are consistent with CERCLA and the
NCP, then the correct answer is "not reported."
11. Has DoD, a military service, the USACE, or a contractor indicated that UXO will not, or
cannot be addressed? (Circle) Yes No
a) If yes, please describe:
Answer is generally clear.
A-31
-------
12. Are there any off-range or off-site problems known or suspected? (Circle) Yes No
a) If yes, please explain.
Answer is generally clear, although sometimes there is uncertainty as to whether this refers to "off-
range" or "off-facility."
Go with the answer given. Note in the comment field any confusion.
13. Have explosives (either bulk high explosives or explosive residues) been identified in
on-range or on-site soils or groundwater. (Circle) Yes No
a) If yes, please explain:
There appears to be some confusion about this. Some questionnaires indicate that groundwater is
contaminated, but it is uncertain as to whether this contamination is caused by explosives or other
environmental issues. For example, some answer "yes" but then mention that VOC contamination
is an issue, but fail to mention if explosives were detected, or even analyzed for.
If it is unclear as to whether contamination discussed comes from the range (or from
somewhere else on the facility), note "unknown." If it is clear that the contamination comes
from some other hazardous waste sites, note "not reported."
14. Is the range or site covered under a Federal Facility Agreement (FFA), a State cleanup
agreement, permit, or order? (Circle) Yes No
If the answer is "yes," the type is usually unspecified. In some cases, it is possible to make an
interpretation, given other information in the survey (e.g., RCRA permitted facility with State as
regulator, if answered as so by #9).
a) If yes, please describe whether UXO is specifically included within the agreement.
If the agreement is FFA, respondent will sometimes note so here (e.g., "FFA does not cover UXO").
15. Has the USACE or DoD used any statistical methods in an attempt to define UXO at the
range or site? (Circle) Yes No
There appears to be some confusion as to what this refers to and/or includes. Some mention
"grid sampling"; others refer to "mag and flag."
"Mag and Flag" is an investigative technique. It is not statistical sampling. Use of the term
grid sampling usually indicates some statistically based sampling.
a) If yes, explain how this was used at the range or site.
This description is very rarely included.
b) Were any recommendations generated that EPA could not support? Please explain:
Generally, this answer is fairly clear, however, one issue emerged related to question 10. One
survey noted that EPA did not support the recommendation, not because they had strong feelings
about the recommendation itself, but because they were not involved in the process at all (hands-
off). That answer should be recorded as "not recorded."
A-32
-------
16. Have draft work plans to address explosives safety concerns and environmental cleanup
been submitted to the Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board for review and
approval? (Circle) Yes No
a) If your answer was no, why was the plan not submitted to DDESB?
b) If the plan(s) was submitted, how long did it take for DDESB to review and approve the
plan?
When the answer is yes, it is not always clear what purpose the work plan addressed -
environmental concerns in UXO/range areas, or UXO/explosives action itself. Just go with the
answer given.
17. Have any open burning or open detonation (OB/OD) activities been performed at the
range or site? (Circle) Yes No
a) If OB/OD activities have occurred, was a RCRA Subpart X permit obtained?
(Circle) Yes No
b) Who performed the OB/OD activities (e.g., Army, EOD, contractors, etc.) and how
were they conducted?
OB/OD is a planned activity to get rid of ordnance. It should not be considered an "incident."
18. Have chemical or biological weapons been found, or are they suspected at any sites you
manage or are involved with? (Circle) Yes No
a) If yes, please explain:
Answer is generally clear.
19. Have institutional controls been implemented at the range or site? (Circle) Yes No
a) If so, please describe if these controls have been effective.
b) If the controls have not been effective, please explain why they are not, and provide
suggestions that might improve the situation.
With a few exceptions, an answer is generally provided or can be interpreted from other
questionnaire answers. Areas of ambiguity include the following: (1) if groundwater restrictions are
specified, it is not always clear if these are designed to control UXO/explosives-related
contamination or other environmental contaminant problems; (2) if area is "fenced," it is not always
clear if this is just the range or if it is the entire facility.
The question is meant to apply to ICs that protect people from exposure to explosives. It
should be answered for the range. If you can't tell from the answer if the ICs are for the
range or for the facility as a whole, record it as unknown. If it is clear that the ICs are for the
facility as a whole, not the range, record that as not reported.
20. Have you faced any situations regarding UXO that you felt were out of your control, but
needed immediate attention?
Answer is generally clear.
A-33
-------
APPENDICES B-F
INTRODUCTION
The data tables provided in Appendices B-F provide raw data obtained from surveys
completed by EPA Regional staff. Raw data from 75 surveys representing 61 facilities and 203
ranges are provided in these appendices. However, since six surveys addressed 13 ranges or groups
of ranges separately, these 13 ranges are treated as separate data entries. Therefore, there are 88
separate "surveys" on each data table that lists surveys received from facilities. All data tables are
organized in one of two ways, by range/survey and by facility. Table B-2, for example, is organized
by range/survey and provides the number of ranges associated with each completed survey. As is
evident in that table, several survey responses contained information about multiple ranges. The
tables organized by facility contain data analyzed on a facility-wide basis, such as Table B-4, which
provides the characteristics of the area surrounding the facility. All tables list the figures in the text
of the report that are associated with those data.
-------
APPENDIX B
RAW DATA OF FACILITY AND RANGE CHARACTERISTICS
-------
Appendix B
Raw Data of Facility and Range Characteristics
The following tables provide raw data on the survey responses provided for each parameter in
Chapter 2, "Facility and Range Characteristics." All tables are sorted by EPA Region.
Table B-l EPA Regions Represented by Facilities in Survey
(Figure 1)
Facility
Region
Loring AFB
1
Massachusetts Military Reservation
1
Nomans Island
1
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
2
Former Rantan Arsenal
2
Griffiss Air Force Base
2
Naval Weapons Station Earle
2
Picatinny Arsenal
2
Plattsburgh Air Force Base
2
Seneca Army Depot
2
Aberdeen Proving Ground
3
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
3
Fort Picket
3
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
3
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgrcn
3
Tobyhanna Army Depot
3
Washington, DC, Army Munitions Site
3
Fort Campbell
4
Fort McClellan
4
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
4
MacDill Air Force Base
4
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
4
NAS Cecil Field
4
Naval Base Charleston
4
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
4
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
4
Redstone Arsenal
4
Sangamo Electric Dump
4
Fort Sheridan
5
Grissom Air Force Base
5
Jefferson Proving Grounds
5
Naval Surface Warfare Center
5
New Brighton/Arden Hills
5
Savanna Army Depot Activity
5
US Army Soldier Support Center
5
Barksdale Air Force Base
6
Bergstrom Air Force Base
6
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
6
B-l
-------
Facility
Region
Dyess Air Force Base
6
Eaker Air Force Base
6
Fort Chaffee #1
6
Fort Wingate Depot
6
Kirtland Air Force Base
6
Lackland Air Force Base
6
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
6
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
6
Melrose Air Force Range
6
Sandia National Laboratories
6
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
6
White Sands Missile Range
6
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
7
Jefferson Barracks
7
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
8
Lowry Bombing Range
8
Tooele Army Depot
8
Fort Ord
9
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
9
Salton Sea Test Base
9
Camp Bonneville
10
NAF Adak
10
Umatilla Army Depot
10
Table B-2 Facilities and Ranges Included in Each Survey Received
(Table 1)
Surveys from Facility
Number
of Ranges
Loring AFB
4
Massachusetts Military Reservation
2
Nomans Island
1
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
1
Former Raritan Arsenal
1
Griffiss Air Force Base
Naval Weapons Station Earle
1
Picatinny Arsenal
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #1
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #2
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #3
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #4
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #5
1
Seneca Army Depot
1
Aberdeen Proving Ground
1
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
1
Fort Picket
1
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
1
B-2
-------
Surveys from Facility
N umber
of Ranges
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #1
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #3
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #4
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #5
Tobyhanna Army Depot
1
Washington, DC, Army Munitions Site
1
Fort Campbell
3
Fort McClellan - #1
44
Fort McClellan - #2
17
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
1
MacDill Air Force Base
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
1
NAS Cecil Field
Naval Base Charleston
1
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
1
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
1
Redstone Arsenal
22
Sangamo Electric Dump
1
Fort Sheridan Closed Overwater Artillery Ranges
1
Fort Sheridan Small Arms Range
1
Grissom Air Force Base
Jefferson Proving Grounds
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center
New Brighton/Arden Hills
1
Savanna Army Depot Activity
1
US Army Soldier Support Center
Barksdale Air Force Base #1
1
Barksdale Air Force Base #2
1
Bergstrom Air Force Base
1
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
1
Dyess Air Force Base - # 1
1
Dyess Air Force Base - #2
1
Eaker Air Force Base
1
Fort Chaffee #1
1
Fort Wingate Depot
1
Kirtland Air Force Base - #1
1
Kirtland Air Force Base - #2
1
Kirtland Air Force Base - #3
1
Kirtland Air Force Base - #4
1
Kirtland Air Force Base - #5
1
Kirtland Air Force Base - #6
1
Kirtland Air Force Base - #7
1
Lackland Air Force Base - #1
1
Lackland Air Force Base - #2
1
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
1
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
1
B-3
-------
Surveys from Facility
Number
of Ranges
Melrose Air Force Range
1
Sandia National Laboratories
1
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
1
White Sands Missile Range #1 - Tula Peak
1
White Sands Missile Range #2 - OB/OD Disposal
1
White Sands Missile Range #3 - Red Rio Munitions
1
White Sands Missile Range #4 - Bomblet Disposal
1
White Sands Missile Range #5 - Oscura Range
1
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
1
Jefferson Barracks
1
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
1
Lowry Bombing Range
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1,1a
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 10/11
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lb
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lc
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 40, OU9
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 8, OU8
1
Fort Ord
1
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
1
Salton Sea Test Base
1
Camp Bonneville
1
NAF Adak
18
Umatilla Army Depot
1
Table B-3 Programmatic Category by Facility
(Figure 2)
Facility
Location Type
Loring AFB
BRACNPL
Massachusetts Military Reservation
NPL Only
Nomans Island
BRAC Non-NPL
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
FUDS
Former Raritan Arsenal
FUDS
Griffiss Air Force Base
BRAC NPL
Naval Weapons Station Earle
NPL Only
Picatinny Arsenal
NPL Only
Plattsburgh Air Force Base
BRAC N PL/Active RCRA
Sencca Army Depot
BRAC NPL
Aberdeen Proving Ground
NPL Only
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
NPL Only/FUDS
Fort Picket
BRAC Non-NPL
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
BRAC Non-NPL
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren
NPL Only
Tobyhanna Army Depot
NPL Only/FUDS
Washington, DC, Army Munitions Site
FUDS
B-4
-------
Facility
Location Type
Fort Campbell
Active RCRA
Fort McClellan
BRAC Non-NPL
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
NPL Only
MacDill Air Force Base
BRAC Non-NPL
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
BRAC Non-NPL
NAS Cecil Field
BRAC NPL
Naval Base Charleston
BRAC Non-NPL
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
BRAC Non-NPL
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
Other
Redstone Arsenal
NPL Only
Sangamo Electric Dump
NPL Only/FUDS
Fort Sheridan
Other
Grissom Air Force Base
BRAC Non-NPL
Jefferson Proving Grounds
BRAC Non-NPL/Active RCRA
Naval Surface Warfare Center
BRAC Non-NPL
New Brighton/Arden Hills
NPL Only
Savanna Army Depot Activity
BRAC NPL
US Army Soldier Support Center
BRAC Non-NPL/Active RCRA
Barksdale Air Force Base
Other
Bergstrom Air Force Base
BRAC Non-NPL
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
Active RCRA
Dyess Air Force Base
Other
Eaker Air Force Base
BRAC Non-NPL
Fort Chaffee #1
BRAC Non-NPL
Fort Wingate Depot
BRAC Non-NPL
Kirtland Air Force Base
Active RCRA
Lackland Air Force Base
Other
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
NPL Only
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
NPL Only
Melrose Air Force Range
Active RCRA
Sandia National Laboratories
Active RCRA
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
FUDS
White Sands Missile Range
Other
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
NPL Only
Jefferson Barracks
FUDS
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
FUDS
Lowry Bombing Range
FUDS
Tooele Army Depot
BRAC NPL
Fort Ord
BRAC NPL
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
BRAC Non-NPL
Salton Sea Test Base
BRAC Non-NPL
Camp Bonneville
BRAC Non-NPL
NAF Adak
BRAC NPL
Umatilla Army Depot
BRAC NPL
B-5
-------
Table B-4 Characteristics of Surrounding Area By Facility
(Figure 3)
Facility
Characteristics of
Surrounding Area
Loring AFB
Rural
Massachusetts Military Reservation
Not reported
Nomans Island
Rural
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
Suburban
Former Raritan Arsenal
Suburban
Griffiss Air Force Base
Rural
Naval Weapons Station Earlc
Small/Medium Town
Picatinny Arsenal
Suburban
Plattsburgh Air Force Base
Small/Medium Town
Seneca Army Depot
Suburban
Aberdeen Proving Ground
Small/Medium Town
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
Suburban
Fort Picket
Rural
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
Not reported
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgrcn
Small/Medium Town
Tobyhanna Army Depot
Rural
Washington, DC, Army Munitions Site
Urban
Fort Campbell
Rural
Fort McClellan
Small/Medium Town
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
Rural
MacDill Air Force Base
Suburban
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
Not reported
NAS Cecil Field
Rural
Naval Base Charleston
Small/Medium Town
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
Urban
Naval Weapons Station Charleston #2
Not reported
Redstone Arsenal
Small/Medium Town
Sangamo Electric Dump
Rural
Fort Sheridan Closed Overwater Artillery Ranges
Suburban
Grissom Air Force Base
Small/Medium Town
Jefferson Proving Grounds
Rural
Naval Surface Warfare Center
Rural
New Brighton/Arden Hills
Urban
Savanna Army Depot Activity
Rural
US Army Soldier Support Center
Small/Medium Town
Barksdale Air Force Base
Small/Medium Town
Bergstrom Air Force Base
Suburban
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
Urban
Dyess Air Force Base
Small/Medium Town
Eaker Air Force Base
Not reported
Fort Chaffee
Small/Medium Town
Fort Wingate Depot
Rural
Kirtland Air Force Base
Small/Medium Town
B-6
-------
Facility
Characteristics of
Surrounding Area
Lackland Air Force Base
Suburban
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
Rural
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
Rural
Melrose Air Force Range
Not reported
Sandia National Laboratories
Small/Medium Town
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
Suburban
White Sands Missile Range - Tula Peak
Rural
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
Small/Medium Town
Jefferson Barracks
Small/Medium Town
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
Rural
Lowry Bombing Range
Small/Medium Town
Tooele Army Depot SMWU
Not reported
Fort Ord
Small/Medium Town
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
Suburban
Salton Sea Test Base
Not reported
Camp Bonneville
Suburban
NAF Adak
Small/Medium Town
Umatilla Army Depot
Rural
Table B-5 Range Status
(Note: Numbers in cells represent number of ranges covered by survey)
(Figure 4)
Surveys Received From Facility
In
CI
Tr
Tran
Un
NR
Region 1
Loring AFB
4
Massachusetts Military Reservation
2
Nomans Island
1
Region 2
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
1
Former Raritan Arsenal
1
Gnffiss Air Force Base
2
Naval Weapons Station Earle
1
Picatinny Arsenal
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #1
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #2
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #3
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #4
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #5
1
Seneca Army Depot
1
Region 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground
1
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
1
Fort Picket
1
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #1
1
B-7
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
In
CI
Tr
Tran
Un
NR
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #3
1
Region 3 (Continued)
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #4
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #5
1
Tobyhanna Army Depot
1
Washington, DC Army Munitions Site
1
Region 4
Fort Campbell
3
Fort McClellan - #1
44
Fort McClellan - #2
17
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
1
MacDill Air Force Base
5
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
1
NAS Cecil Field
3
Naval Base Charleston
1
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
1 ~
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
1
Redstone Arsenal
22
Sangamo Electric Dump
1
Region 5
Fort Sheridan Closed Overwater Artillery Ranges
1
Fort Sheridan Small Arms Range
1
Grissom Air Force Base
2
Jefferson Proving Grounds
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center
4
New Brighton/Arden Hills
1
Savanna Army Depot Activity
1
US Army Soldier Support Center
2
Region 6
Barksdale Air Force Base #1
1
Barksdale Air Force Base #2
1
Bergstrom Air Force Base
1
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
1
Dyess Air Force Base - #1
1
Dyess Air Force Base - #2
1
Eaker Air Force Base
1
Fort Chaffee #1
1
Fort Wingate Depot
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#1
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#2
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#3
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#4
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#5
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#6
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#7
1
Lackland Air Force Base - #1
1
B-8
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
In
CI
Tr
Tran
Un
NR
Lackland Air Force Base - #2
1
Region 6 (Continued)
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
1
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
1
Melrose Air Force Range
1
Sandia National Laboratories
1
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
1
White Sands Missile Range #1 - Tula Peak
1
White Sands Missile Range #2 - OB/OD Disposal
1
White Sands Missile Range #3 - Red Rio Munitions
1
White Sands Missile Range #4 - Bomblet Disposal
1
White Sands Missile Range #5 - Oscura Range
1
Region 7
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
1
Jefferson Barracks
I
Region 8
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
1
Lowry Bombing Range
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1,1a
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 10/11
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lb
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lc
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 40, OU9
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 8, OU8
1
Region 9
Fort Ord
1
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
1
Salton Sea Test Base
1
Region 10
Camp Bonneville
1
NAF Adak
18
Umatilla Army Depot
1
Total Number of Ranges
100
45
4
11
15
28
Key: In = Inactive, CI = Closed, Tr = Transferring, Tran = Transferred, Un = Inactive or closed:
Status uncertain, NR = Status unknown
B-9
-------
Table B-6 Munitions Employed at Range
(Note: Numbers in cells represent number of ranges covered by survey)
(Figure 5)
Surveys Received From Facility
Arms
Cal
Cren
Mort
Art
Miss
Bomb | Mine
Sub
MMC
Unk
NR
Oth
Region 1
Loring AFB
4
4
Massachusetts Military Reservation
2
2
2
2
Nomans Island
1
1
1
1
1
Region 2
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
1
1
1
I
Former Raritan Arsenal
1
1
Griffiss Air Force Base
2
2
Naval Weapons Station Earle
1
1
1
Picatinny Arsenal
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #1
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #2
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #3
1
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #4
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #5
1
1
Seneca Army Depot
1
1
1
1
1
1
Region 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground
1
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fort Picket
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
1
1
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #1
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #3
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #4
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #5
1
Tobyhanna Army Depot
1
Washington, DC Army Munitions Site
I
Region 4
Fort Campbell
3
Fort McClellan - #1
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
Fort McClellan - #2
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
1
B-10
-------
Surveys Received From Facility Arms Cal | Gren Mort Art Miss |Bomb Mine | Sub MMC Unk NR Oth
Region 4 (Continued)
MacDill Air Force Base
5
5
5
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
1
NAS Cecil Field
3
3
3
Naval Base Charleston
1
1
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
1
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
1
Redstone Arsenal
22
22
22
22
22
22
Sangamo Electric Dump
1
1
1
1
Region 5
Fort Sheridan Closed Overwater Artillery Ranges
1
1
Fort Sheridan Small Arms Range
1
1
1
1
1
Grissom Air Force Base
2
2
2
Jefferson Proving Grounds
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center
4
4
New Brighton/Arden Hills
1
1
1
1
1
1
Savanna Army Depot Activity
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
US Army Soldier Support Center
2
Region 6
Barksdalc Air Force Base #1
1
Barksdale Air Force Base #2
1
Bergstrom Air Force Base
1
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
1
Dyess Air Force Base - #1
1
1
1
Dyess Air Force Base - #2
1
1
Eaker Air Force Base
1
1
Fort Chaffee #1
1
Fort Wingate Depot
1
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#1
1
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#2
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#3
1
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#4
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#5
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#6
1
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#1
1
1
B-ll
-------
Surveys Received From Facility | Arms Cal | Gren | Mort | Art | Miss |Bomb | Mine Sub |MMC | Unk | NR Oth
Region 6 (Continued)
Lackland Air Force Base - #1
1
1
1
Lackland Air Force Base - #2
1
1
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
1
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
1
1
1
Melrose Air Force Range
1
1
1
Sandia National Laboratories
1
1
1
1
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
1
1
1
White Sands Missile Range #1 - Tula Peak
1
White Sands Missile Range #2 - OB/OD Disposal
1
White Sands Missile Range #3 - Red Rio Munitions
1
White Sands Missile Range #4 - Bomblet Disposal
1
White Sands Missile Range #5 - Oscura Range
1
Region 7
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
1
1
1
Jefferson Barracks
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Region 8
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Lowry Bombing Range
1
1
1
1
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1,1a
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 10/11
1
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lb
1
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lc
1
1
1
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 40, OU9
1
1
1
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 8, OU8
1
1
Region 9
Fort Ord
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Salton Sea Test Base
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Region 10
Camp Bonneville
1
1
1
1
1
1
NAF Adak
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
Umatilla Army Depot
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Total Number of Ranges/Facilities
130/
33
129/
21
103/
21
121/
20
102/
20
117/
17
133/
26
88/11
112/
13
133/
29
7/4
11/9
39/20
Key: Arms = Small arms, Cal = Large caliber, Gren = Grenades, Mort = Mortar rounds, Art = Artillery rounds/Projectiles, Miss =Missiles,
Bomb = Bomb/Bomblets, Mine = Land mines, Sub = Submunitions Chemical, MMC = Military munition components, Unk = Unknown, NR
= Not reported, Oth = Other
B-12
-------
Table B-7 Range Ownership
(Figure 6)
Surveys Received From Facility
#of
Ranges
DoD
Fed
SL
Priv
Unk
NR
Oth
Region 1
Loring AFB
4
P X
F
Massachusetts Military Reservation
2
PX
F
Nomans Island
1
P
PXF
Region 2
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading
Co
1
P
PXF
PXF
Former Raritan Arsenal
1
P
PXF
PXF
PXF
Griffiss Air Force Base
P X
F
Naval Weapons Station Earle
1
X F
P
Picatinny Arsenal
1
P X F
P
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #1
1
P X
F
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #2
1
P X
F
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #3
1
P X
F
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #4
1
P X
F
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #5
1
P X
F
Seneca Army Depot
1
X
F
P
Region 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground
I
X F
F
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
1
P
PXF
PXF
Fort Picket
1
P X
F
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
1
PX
P
F
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #1
1
PX F
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #3
1
P X F
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #4
1
PX F
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #5
1
PX F
Tobyhanna Army Depot
1
PX F
PXF
Washington, DC, Army Munitions Site
1
P
P
PXF
Region 4
Fort Campbell
3
PX F
Fort McClellan - #1
44
PX
F
F
Fort McClellan - #2
17
PX F
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
1
PX F
MacDill Air Force Base
5
PXF
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
1
P X
F
NAS Cecil Field
3
P X
F
Naval Base Charleston
1
P X
F
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
1
P
PXF
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
1
X F
P
Redstone Arsenal
22
PXF
Sangamo Electric Dump
1
P
PXF
B-13
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
#of
Ranees
DoD
Fed
SL
Priv
Unk
NR
Oth
Region 5
Fort Sheridan Closed Overwater Artillery
Ranges
1
PXF
P
Fort Sheridan Small Arms Range
1
X
F
P
Gnssom Air Force Base
PX F
F
F
Jefferson Proving Grounds
1
PX
F
Naval Surface Warfare Center
PX F
New Brighton/Ardcn Hills
1
PX F
Savanna Army Depot Activity
1
PX
F
F
US Army Soldier Support Center
P
PXF
Region 6
Barksdale Air Force Base #1
1
P X
P
F
Barksdale Air Force Base #2
1
P X
P
F
Bergstrom Air Force Base
1
P
PXF
P
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
1
X F
P
Dyess Air Force Base - #1
1
PX F
Dyess Air Force Base - #2
1
PX F
Eaker Air Force Base
1
PX
F
Fort Chaffee #1
1
PX
F
Fort Wingate Depot
1
P
PXF
F
Kirtland Air Force Base -#1
1
P X F
PXF
P
Kirtland Air Force Base -#2
1
PX F
P
Kirtland Air Force Base -#3
1
PX F
PXF
Kirtland Air Force Base -#4
1
P X F
P
P
Kirtland Air Force Base -#5
1
P
PXF
P
Kirtland Air Force Base -U6
1
PX F
PXF
Kirtland Air Force Base -#7
1
P
PXF
P F
Lackland Air Force Base - #1
1
PXF
Lackland Air Force Base - #2
1
P X F
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
1
PXF
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
1
P X
F
Melrose Air Force Range
1
X F
P
Sandia National Laboratories
1
PXF
PXF
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
1
P
PXF
P X
White Sands Missile Range #1 - Tula Peak
1
PXF
White Sands Missile Range #2 - OB/OD
Disposal
1
PXF
White Sands Missile Range #3 - Red Rio
Munitions
1
PXF
White Sands Missile Range #4 - Bomblet
Disposal
1
PXF
White Sands Missile Ranee #5 - Oscura Ranee
1
PXF
B-14
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
#of
Ranees
DoD
Fed
SL
Priv
Unk
NR
Oth
Region 7
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
1
PX
F
Jefferson Barracks
1
PX F
PXF
PXF
Region 8
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
1
P
PX
PX
PX
F
Lowry Bombing Range
1
P
PXF
PXF
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1,1a
1
PX F
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 10/11
1
PX F
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lb
1
PXF
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lc
1
PX F
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 40, OU9
1
PXF
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 8, OU8
1
PXF
Region 9
Fort Ord
1
PX
PXF
F
F
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
1
PX
F
Salton Sea Test Base
1
X
PF
P
Region 10
Camp Bonneville
1
P X
PF
NAF Adak
18
P X
F
Umatilla Army Depot
1
PXF
Key: P = Past, X = Present, F = Future, Fed = Other Federal, SL = State or local, Priv = Private,
Unk = Unknown, NR = Not reported, Oth = Other
Table B-8 Distribution of Past, Present, and Future Range Ownership Within DoD
(Figure 6)
Surveys Received From Facility
#of
Ranges
Army
Navy
Air Force
Other
Region 1
Loring AFB
4
PX
Massachusetts Military Reservation
2
Nomans Island
1
P
Region 2
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
1
Former Raritan Arsenal
1
P
Griffiss Air Force Base
PX
Naval Weapons Station Earle
1
PXF
Picatinny Arsenal
1
PXF
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #1
1
PX
P
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #2
1
P
PX
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #3
1
PX
P
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #4
1
PX
P
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #5
1
PX
P
Seneca Army Depot
1
PX
Key: P = Past, X = Present, F = Future
B-15
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
#of
Ranges
Army
Navy
Air Force
Other
Region 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground
1
PXF
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
1
P
P
Fort Picket
1
PX
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
1
PX
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #1
1
PXF
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #3
1
PXF
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #4
1
PXF
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #5
1
PXF
Tobyhanna Army Depot
1
PXF
Washington, DC, Army Munitions Site
1
P
Region 4
Fort Campbell
3
PXF
Fort McClellan - #1
44
PX
Fort McClellan - #2
17
P X
F
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
1
PXF
MacDill Air Force Base
5
PXF
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
1
P X
NAS Cecil Field
3
PX
Naval Base Charleston
1
P X
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
1
P
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
1
PXF
Redstone Arsenal
22
PXF
Sangamo Electric Dump
1
P
Region 5
Fort Sheridan Closed Overwater Artillery Ranges
1
Fort Sheridan Small Arms Range
1
PX
Grissom Air Force Base
2
PXF
Jefferson Proving Grounds
1
PX
Naval Surface Warfare Center
4
PXF
PXF
New Bnghton/Arden Hills
1
PXF
Savanna Army Depot Activity
1
PX
US Army Soldier Support Center
2
P
Region 6
Barksdale Air Force Base #1
1
PX
Barksdale Air Force Base U2
1
PX
Bergstrom Air Force Base
1
P
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
1
PXF
Dyess Air Force Base - # 1
1
PXF
Dyess Air Force Base - #2
1
PXF
Eaker Air Force Base
1
PX
Fort Chaffee # 1
1
PX
Fort Wingate Depot
1
P
Kirtland Air Force Base - #1
1
P
PXF
Kirtland Air Force Base - #2
1
P
PXF
Kirtland Air Force Base - #3
1
P
PXF
B-16
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
ft of
Ranges
Army
Navy
Air Force
Other
Region 6 (Continued)
Kirtland Air Force Base - #4
1
P
PX F
Kirtland Air Force Base - #5
1
P
P
Kirtland Air Force Base - #6
1
P
PX F
Kirtland Air Force Base - #7
1
P
Lackland Air Force Base - #1
1
PX F
Lackland Air Force Base - #2
1
PX F
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
1
PX F
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
1
PX
Melrose Air Force Range
1
PX F
Sandia National Laboratories
1
PX F
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
I
P
White Sands Missile Range #1 - Tula Peak
1
PX F
White Sands Missile Range #2 - OB/OD Disposal
1
PX F
White Sands Missile Range #3 - Red Rio Munitions
1
PX F
White Sands Missile Range #4 - Bomblet Disposal
1
PX F
White Sands Missile Range #5 - Oscura Range
1
PX F
Region 7
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
1 | PX
Jefferson Barracks
' 1
PX F
PX
Region 8
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
1
P
Lowry Bombing Range
1
P
P
P
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1,1a
1
PX F
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 10/11
1
PX F
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lb
1
PX F
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1c
1
PX F
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 40, OU9
1
PX F
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 8, OU8
1
PX F
Region 9
Fort Ord
1
PX
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
1
PX
Salton Sea Test Base
1
P X
Region 10
Camp Bonneville
1
PX
NAF Adak
18
P
PX
Umatilla Army Depot
1
PX
F
B-17
-------
APPENDIX C
RAW DATA OF THREATS TO HUMAN HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT
-------
Appendix C
Raw Data of Threats to Human Health and the Environment
The following tables provide raw data on the survey responses provided for parameters in Chapter 3, "Threats to Human Health and the
Environment." All tables are sorted by EPA Region.
Table C-l Range Topography/Landforms
(Figure 7)
(Note; Numbers in cells represent number of ranges covered by survey)
Surveys Received From Facility
Mtn
Sip
Hills
Pra
svvo
SWN
FPO
FPN
ISO
LJnk
NR
Oth
Region 1
Loring AFB
4
Massachusetts Military Reservation
2
2
Nomans Island
1
1
1
Region 2
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
1
Former Raritan Arsenal
1
Griffiss Air Force Base
2
Naval Weapons Station Earle
1
Picatinny Arsenal
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #1
1
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #2
1
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #3
1
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #4
1
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #5
1
1
Seneca Army Depot
1
1
Region 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground
1
1
1
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
1
1
Fort Picket
1
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #1
1
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #3
1
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #4
1
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #5
1
1
C-l
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
Mtn
Sip | Hills
Pra
svvo
SWN
FPO
FPN
Iso
Unk
NR
Oth
Region 3 (Continued)
Tobyhanna Army Depot
1
1
1
Washington, DC Army Munitions Site
1
Region 4
Fort Campbell
3
Fort McClellan - #1
44
Fort McClellan - #2
17
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
1
MacDill Air Force Base
5
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
1
NAS Cecil Field
3
Naval Base Charleston
1
1
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
1
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
1
Redstone Arsenal
22
22
22
Sangamo Electric Dump
1
Region 5
Fort Sheridan Closed Overwater Artillery Ranges
1
Fort Sheridan Small Arms Range
1
Grissom Air Force Base
2
Jefferson Proving Grounds
1
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center
4
4
4
New Brighton/Arden Hills
1
1
1
Savanna Army Depot Activity
1
1
US Army Soldier Support Center
2
2
Region 6
Barksdale Air Force Base #1
1
Barksdale Air Force Base #2
1
Bergstrom Air Force Base
1
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
1
1
Dyess Air Force Base - #1
1
Dyess Air Force Base - #2
1
Eaker Air Force Base
1
Fort Chaffee #1
1
1
Fort Wingate Depot
1
C-2
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
Mtn
Sip | Hills
Pra
swo
SWN
FPO
FPN
Iso
Unk
NR
Oth
Region 6 (Continued)
Kirtland Air Force Base -#1
1
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#2
1
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#3
1
ICirtland Air Force Base -#4
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#5
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#6
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#7
1
Lackland Air Force Base - #1
1
Lackland Air Force Base - #2
1
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
1
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
1
1
1
Melrose Air Force Range
1
Sandia National Laboratories
1
1
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
1
White Sands Missile Range #1 - Tula Peak
1
White Sands Missile Range #2 - OB/OD Disposal
1
White Sands Missile Range #3 - Red Rio Munitions
1
White Sands Missile Range #4 - Bomblet Disposal
1
White Sands Missile Range #5 - Oscura Range
1
Region 7
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
1
Jefferson Barracks
1
1
Region 8
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
1
1
Lowry Bombing Range
1
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1,1a
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 10/11
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lb
1
1
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lc
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 40, OU9
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 8, OU8
1
C-3
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
Mtn
Sip | Hills
Pra
SWO
SWN
FPO
FPN
ISO
Unk
NR
Oth
Region 9
Fort Ord
1
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
1
1
Salton Sea Test Base
1
Region 10
Camp Bonneville
1
1
NAF Adak
18
Umatilla Army Depot
1
Total Number of Ranges
14
1
86
42
44
26
25
2
1
0
36
18
Key: Mtn = Mountainous, Sip = Steeply sloping hills, Hills = Rolling hills, Pra = Prairie or flat terrain, SWO = Surface water/wetlands on range,
SWN = Surface water/wetlands near range, FPO = Floodplain on range, FPN
= Floodplain near range, Iso = Isolated area, NR
= Not reported,
Oth = Other
C-4
-------
Table C-2 Possible Media Contaminated with UXO
(Figure 8)
(Note: Numbers in cells represent number of ranges covered by survey)
Surveys Received From Facility
Soil
Sur
Sed
Gro
Deb | Unk
NR
Oth
Region 1
Loring AFB
4
Massachusetts Military Reservation
2
2
2
Nomans Island
1
Region 2
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
1
Former Raritan Arsenal
1
Griffiss Air Force Base
2
Naval Weapons Station Earle
1
1
1
Picatinny Arsenal
1
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #1
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #2
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #3
1
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #4
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #5
1
Seneca Army Depot
1
1
Region 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground
1
1
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
1
1
Fort Picket
1
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
1
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgrcn #1
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #3
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgrcn #4
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgrcn #5
1
Tobyhanna Army Depot
1
Washington, DC Army Munitions Site
1
1
Region 4
Fort Campbell
3
Fort McClellan - #1
44
44
Fort McClellan - #2
17
17
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
1
1
MacDill Air Force Base
5
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
1
NAS Cecil Field
3
Naval Base Charleston
1
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
1
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
1
Redstone Arsenal
22
22
22
22
22
Sangamo Electric Dump
1
Region 5
Fort Sheridan Closed Overwater Artillery Ranges
1
Fort Sheridan Small Arms Range
1
Grisspm Air Force Base
2
Jefferson Proving Grounds
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center
4
4
C-5
-------
Surveys Received From Facility Soil | Sur | Sed Gro | Deb | Unk | NR | Oth
Region 5 (Continued)
New Brighton/Arden Hills
1
1
Savanna Army Depot Activity
1
US Army Soldier Support Center
2
Region 6
Barksdale Air Force Base #1
1
1
Barksdale Air Force Base #2
1
1
Bergstrom Air Force Base
1
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
1
Dyess Air Force Base - #1
1
1
Dyess Air Force Base - #2
1
1
Eaker Air Force Base
1
Fort Chaffee #1
1
1
Fort Wingate Depot
1
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#l
I
Kirtland Air Force Base -#2
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#3
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#4
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#5
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#6
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#7
1
Lackland Air Force Base - #1
1
Lackland Air Force Base - #2
1
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
1
1
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
1
1
Melrose Air Force Range
1
Sandia National Laboratories
1
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
1
1
White Sands Missile Range #1 - Tula Peak
1
White Sands Missile Range #2 - OB/OD Disposal
1
White Sands Missile Range #3 - Red Rio Munitions
1
White Sands Missile Range #4 - Bomblet Disposal
1
White Sands Missile Range #5 - Oscura Range
1
Region 7
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
1
Jefferson Barracks
1
Region 8
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
1
1
1
1
Lowry Bombing Range
1
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1, la
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 10/11
I
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lb
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lc
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 40, OU9
1
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 8, OU8
1
1
Region 9
Fort Ord
1
1
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
1
1
Salton Sea Test Base
1
C-6
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
Soil
Sur
Sed
Gro
Deb
Unk
NR
Oth
Region 10
Camp Bonneville
1
1
1
NAF Adak
18
Umatilla Army Depot
1
1
Total Number of Ranges
143
26
26
119
22
3
52
3
Key: Soil = Soil, Sur = Surface water, Sed = Sediment, Gro = Groundwater, Deb
= Debris, Unk
= Unknown,
Oth = Other, NR = Not reported
C-7
-------
Table C-3 Past, Present, and Predicted Future Land Uses
(Figures 9,10, and 12)
Surveys Received From Facility
U of
Ranges
Op
Comm | Rec
Res
Ag
Ord
Mil
Ed
Wild
Unk
NR
Oth
Region 1
Loring AFB
4
X
P
F
Massachusetts Military Reservation
2
F
P
F
X
P F
Nomans Island
1
P
PXF
Region 2
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
1
X F
XF
P
X F
P
Former Raritan Arsenal
1
X
P
X
F
Griffiss Air Force Base
X
P
F
Naval Weapons Station Earle
1
P
X F
Picatinny Arsenal
1
PF
PXF
PXF
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #1
1
X
PF
Pittsburgh Air Force Base - #2
1
X F
F
P
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #3
1
X F
F
P
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #4
1
X F
F
P
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #5
1
P
X F
Seneca Army Depot
1
P
PX
F
F
Region 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground
1
P
P
PXF
F
X
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
1
P X F
P F
P F
P
P
PXF
Fort Picket
1
PF
X
PX
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
1
F
F
F
P
P
X F
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #1
1
X
P
F
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #3
1
P
F
X
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #4
1
PX
F
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #5
1
P
F
X
Tobyhanna Army Depot
1
XF
X F
X F
P
F
X F
Washington, DC, Army Munitions Site
1
P
P
PX F
P
PXF
P
Key: P = Past, X = Present, F = Future, Op = Open space, Comm = Industrial/Commercial, Rec = Recreational, Res = Residential, Ag = Agricultural/
Ranching/Mining, Ord = Ordnance related, Mil = Military (not ordnance), Ed = Educational, Wild = Wildlife Refuge, Unk = Unknown, NR = Not
Reported, Oth = Other
C-8
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
#of
Ranges
Op
Comm
Rec
Res
Ag
Ord
Mil
Ed
Wild
Unk
NR
Oth
Region 4
Fort Campbell
3
PF
X F
Fort McClellan - #1
44
F
F
P
P
F
X
Fort McClellan - #2
17
P
F
X
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
1
P
F
X
MacDill Air Force Base
5
F
P
X F
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
1
X
F
F
F
P
X
NAS Cecil Field
3
F
P
X F
Naval Base Charleston
1
X F
P
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
1
X F
P
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
1
X
PF
Redstone Arsenal
22
P X F
PXF
PXF
PXF
P
PXF
PXF
PXF
P
Sangamo Electric Dump
1
X F
XF
X F
X F
P
Region 5
Fort Sheridan Closed Overwater Artillery Ranges
1
XF
P
PXF
Fort Sheridan Small Arms Range
1
P
PXF
P
Grissom Air Force Base
2
F
F
F
P
PX
PXF
Jefferson Proving Grounds
1
X F
XF
X F
PXF
p
Naval Surface Warfare Center
4
F
PF
F
P F
X
X
New Brighton/Arden Hills
1
P X F
F
p
X
P
Savanna Army Depot Activity
1
F
XF
F
P
PX
F
US Army Soldier Support Center
2
F
p
X
Region 6
Barksdale Air Force Base #1
1
P
p
F
X
Barksdale Air Force Base #2
1
X
P
p F
P
Bergstrom Air Force Base
1
X
P
P
F
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
1
PXF
PXF
Dvess Air Force Base - #1
1
F
P
X F
C-9
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
#of
Ranges
Op
Comm
Rec
Res
Ag
Ord
Mil
Ed
Wild
Unk
NR
Oth
Region 6 (Continued)
Dyess Air Force Base - #2
1
X
F
P
Eaker Air Force Base
1
P
X
X F
Fort Chaffee #1
1
X
F
F
P
Fort Wingate Depot
1
PX
F
Kirtland Air Force Base -#1
1
XF
PXF
PXF
P
PX
X F
X
Kirtland Air Force Base -#2
1
PX
X F
p
Kirtland Air Force Base -#3
1
PX
X F
PX
P
p
Kirtland Air Force Base -#4
1
PX
PXF
P
X
P
p
P
Kirtland Air Force Base -#5
1
PX
PXF
PX
P
p
Kirtland Air Force Base -#6
1
P
X F
PX
P
p
Kirtland Air Force Base -#7
1
X
F
F
P
p
Lackland Air Force Base - #1
1
PXF
PXF
PXF
P
p
Lackland Air Force Base - #2
1
PXF
PXF
PXF
P
p
XF
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
1
PXF
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
1
P
F
PX
Melrose Air Force Range
1
PXF
Sandia National Laboratories
1
F
PX
PX
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
1
XF
P
PXF
White Sands Missile Range #1 - Tula Peak
1
PXF
White Sands Missile Range #2 - OB/OD Disposal
1
PXF
White Sands Missile Range #3 - Red Rio Munitions
1
PXF
White Sands Missile Range #4 - Bomblet Disposal
1
PXF
White Sands Missile Range #5 - Oscura Range
1
PXF
Region 7
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
1
X
F
F
P
Jefferson Barracks
I
X F
X F
X F
P
X F
X F
C-10
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
# of
Ranges
Op
Comm
Rec
Res
Ag
Ord
Mil
Ed
Wild
Unk
NR
Oth
Region 8
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
1
F
PX F
XF
P
P
X F
Lowry Bombing Range
1
F
PX F
P X F
PX F
PX
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1,1a
1
PX
F
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 10/11
1
P
X F
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lb
1
PXF
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lc
I
PXF
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 40, OU9
1
P F
X
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 8, OU8
1
P F
X
Region 9
Fort Ord
1
X F
X F
X F
X F
P
X F
XF
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
1
P X F
F
P
X
Salton Sea Test Base
1
X
P
P
F
P
Region 10
Camp Bonneville
1
F
P
X
NAF Adak
18
X F
P X F
X F
P
P
PXF
Umatilla Armv Depot
1
P F
X
C-ll
-------
Table C-4 Ordnance-Related Land Use Over Time
(Figure 11)
Surveys Received From Facility
U of
Ranges
Sto
Test
Tr
Dis
Main
Imp
Buf
Region 1
Loring AFB
4
P
Massachusetts Military Reservation
2
Nomans Island
1
P
Region 2
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
1
P
Former Raritan Arsenal
1
P
Griffiss Air Force Base
P
P
Naval Weapons Station Earle
1
P
P
P
P
Picatinny Arsenal
1
PXF
X F
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #1
1
PF
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #2
1
P
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #3
1
P
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #4
1
P
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #5
1
P
Seneca Army Depot
1
PX
Region 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground
1
PXF
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
1
P
P
Fort Picket
1
X
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
1
P
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgrcn #1
1
P
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgrcn #3
1
P
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgrcn #4
1
PX
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgrcn #5
1
P
Tobyhanna Army Depot
1
P
Washington, DC, Army Munitions Site
1
P
P
Region 4
Fort Campbell
3
Fort McClellan - #1
44
P
Fort McClellan - #2
17
P
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
1
P
MacDill Air Force Base
5
P
P
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
1
P
NAS Cecil Field
3
Naval Base Charleston
1
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
1
P
Key: P = Past, X = Present, F = Future, Sto = Storage, Test = Testing, Tr = Training, Dis = Disposal,
Main = Maintenance, Imp = Impact range, Buf = Buffer
C-12
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
#of
Ranges
Sto
Test
Tr
Dis
Main
Imp
Buf
Region 4 (Continued)
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
1
X
Redstone Arsenal
22
P
P
Sangamo Electric Dump
1
Region 5
Fort Sheridan Closed Overwater Artillery
Ranges
1
P
P
Fort Sheridan Small Arms Range
1
P
P
Grissom Air Force Base
2
P
PX
Jefferson Proving Grounds
1
P
Naval Surface Warfare Center
4
X
X
New Brighton/Arden Hills
1
p
P
Savanna Army Depot Activity
1
PX
P
P
P
P
US Army Soldier Support Center
2
P
Region 6
Barksdale Air Force Base #1
1
P
Barksdale Air Force Base #2
1
PF
Bergstrom Air Force Base
1
P
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
i
PX F
PX F
Dyess Air Force Base - #1
i
P
Dyess Air Force Base - #2
i
P
Eaker Air Force Base
i
X
Fort Chaffee #1
l
P
Fort Wingate Depot
l
PX
Kirtland Air Force Base -#1
l
PX
P
Kirtland Air Force Base -#2
i
P
Kirtland Air Force Base -#3
l
P
P
Kirtland Air Force Base -#4
l
P
P
Kirtland Air Force Base -#5
i
P
Kirtland Air Force Base -#6
l
P
Kirtland Air Force Base -#7
i
P
Lackland Air Force Base - #1
i
P
P
Lackland Air Force Base - #2
l
P
P
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
l
P X F
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
l
P
P
Melrose Air Force Range
i
P
PXF
XF
Sandia National Laboratories
l
PX
P
PX
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
l
P
P
P
White Sands Missile Range #1 - Tula Peak
l
P X F
White Sands Missile Range #2 - OB/OD
Disposal
l
PX F
P X F
PXF
White Sands Missile Range #3 - Red Rio
Munitions
l
P
P X F
C-13
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
#of
Ranges
Sto
Test
Tr
Dis
Main
Imp
Buf
Region 6 (Continued)
White Sands Missile Range #4 - Bomblet
Disposal
1
P X F
White Sands Missile Range #5 - Oscura Range
1
PXF
Region 7
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
1
P
Jefferson Barracks
1
P
P
P
Region 8
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
1
P
P
P
P
Lowry Bombing Range
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1, la
1
X
P
X
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 10/11
1
P
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lb
1
P X F
PX
PX
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lc
1
P X F
PX
PX
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 40, OU9
1
F
PF
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 8, OU8
1
F
P
P
Region 9
Fort Ord
1
P
P
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
1
P
Salton Sea Test Base
1
P
P
P
Region 10
Camp Bonneville
1
P
NAF Adak
18
P
P
P
P
Umatilla Army Depot
1
PF
P
Table C-5 Land Use of Surrounding Area
(Figure 13)
(Note: numbers in cells represent ranges covered by survey)
Surveys Received From Facility |Res Ind | Rec |Mil | Agr | Edu | WR | Unk | NR | Oth
Region 1
Loring AFB
4
Massachusetts Military Reservation
2
Nomans Island
1
Region 2
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
1
1
Former Raritan Arsenal
1
1
1
1
Griffiss Air Force Base
2
Naval Weapons Station Earle
1
1
Picatinny Arsenal
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #1
1
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #2
1
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #3
1
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #4
1
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #5
1
1
1
C-14
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
Res
Ind
Rec
Mil
Agr
Edu
WR
Unk
NR
Oth
Seneca Army Depot
1
1
Region 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground
1
1
1
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
1
1
1
Fort Picket
1
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #1
1
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #3
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #4
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #5
1
Tobyhanna Army Depot
1
1
Washington, DC Army Munitions Site
1
1
Region 4
Fort Campbell
3
Fort McClellan - #1
44
44
44
Fort McClellan - #2
17
17
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
1
MacDill Air Force Base
5
5
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
1
NAS Cecil Field
3
Naval Base Charleston
1
1
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
1
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
1
Redstone Arsenal
22
22
22
22
Sangamo Electric Dump
1
1
1
Region 5
Fort Sheridan Closed Overwater Artillery Ranges
1
Fort Sheridan Small Arms Range
1
1
Grissom Air Force Base
2
Jefferson Proving Grounds
1
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center
4
New Brighton/Arden Hills
1
1
1
Savanna Army Depot Activity
1
US Army Soldier Support Center
2
2
Region 6
Barksdale Air Force Base #1
1
1
Barksdale Air Force Base #2
1
Bergstrom Air Force Base
1
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
1
Dyess Air Force Base - #1
1
1
1
Dyess Air Force Base - #2
1
1
1
Eaker Air Force Base
1
Fort Chaffee # 1
1
1
1
1
Fort Wingate Depot
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#1
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#2
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#3
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#4
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#5
1
C-15
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
Res
Ind
Rec
Mil
ARr
Edu
WR
Unk
NR
Oth
Kirtland Air Force Base -#6
1
Region 6 (Continued)
Kirtland Air Force Base -#7
1
Lackland Air Force Base - #1
1
1
1
Lackland Air Force Base - #2
1
1
1
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
1
Longhom Army Ammunition Plant
1
1
Melrose Air Force Range
1
1
Sandia National Laboratories
1
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
1
White Sands Missile Range #1 - Tula Peak
1
White Sands Missile Range #2 - OB/OD Disposal
1
White Sands Missile Range #3 - Red Rio Munitions
1
White Sands Missile Range #4 - Bomblet Disposal
1
White Sands Missile Range #5 - Oscura Range
1
Region 7
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
1
1
Jefferson Barracks
1
1
1
1
Region 8
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
1
l
Lowry Bombing Range
1
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1,1a
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 10/11
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lb
1
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lc
1
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 40, OU9
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 8, OU8
1
Region 9
Fort Ord
1
1
1
1
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
1
Salton Sea Test Base
1
1
Region 10
Camp Bonneville
1
1
NAF Adak
18
18
18
Umatilla Army Depot
1
Total Number of Ranges
149
106
32
2
115
5
24
0
9
28
Key: Res = Residential, Ind = Industrial/Commercial, Rec = Recreational, Mil = Military use,
Agr = Agricultural/Ranching/Mining, Edu = Educational, WR = Wildlife refuge, Unk = Unknown,
NR = Not reported, Oth = Other
Table C-6 Proximity to Nearest Populated Area
(Figure 14)
(Note: numbers in cells represent ranges covered by survey)
Surveys Received From Facility
Distance in Miles
Adj | <1 | 1-5 5-10 110-20 | >20 | Unk
Region 1
Loring AFB
4
Massachusetts Military Reservation
2
C-16
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
Distance in Miles
Adj
<1
1-5
5-10
10-20
>20
Unk
Nomans Island
1
Region 2
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
1
Former Raritan Arsenal
1
Griffiss Air Force Base
2
Naval Weapons Station Earle
1
Picatinny Arsenal
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #1
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #2
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #3
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #4
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #5
1
Seneca Army Depot
1
Region 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground
1
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
1
Fort Picket
1
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #1
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #3
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #4
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren U5
1
Tobyhanna Army Depot
1
Washington, DC Army Munitions Site
1
Region 4
Fort Campbell
3
Fort McClellan - #1
44
Fort McClellan - #2
17
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
1
MacDill Air Force Base
5
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
1
NAS Cecil Field
3
Naval Base Charleston
1
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
1
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
1
Redstone Arsenal
22
Sangamo Electric Dump
1
Region 5
Fort Sheridan Closed Overwater Artillery Ranges
1
Fort Sheridan Small Arms Range
1
Gnssom Air Force Base
2
Jefferson Proving Grounds
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center
4
New Brighton/Arden Hills
1
Savanna Army Depot Activity
1
US Army Soldier Support Center
2
Region 6
Barksdale Air Force Base #1 | I 1 I I I I |
C-17
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
Distance in Miles
Adj
<1
1-5
5-10
10-20
>20
Unk
Barksdale Air Force Base #2
1
Region 6 (Continued)
Bergstrom Air Force Base
1
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
1
Dyess Air Force Base - #1
1
Dyess Air Force Base - #2
1
Eaker Air Force Base
1
Fort Chaffee #1
1
Fort Wingate Depot
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#1
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#2
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#3
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#4
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#5
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#6
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#7
1
Lackland Air Force Base - #1
1
Lackland Air Force Base - #2
1
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
1
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
1
Melrose Air Force Range
1
Sandia National Laboratories
1
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
1
White Sands Missile Range #1 - Tula Peak
1
White Sands Missile Range #2 - OB/OD Disposal
1
White Sands Missile Range #3 - Red Rio Munitions
1
White Sands Missile Range #4 - Bomblct Disposal
1
White Sands Missile Range #5 - Oscura Range
1
Region 7
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
1
Jefferson Barracks
1
Region 8
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
1
Lowry Bombing Range
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1,1a
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 10/11
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lb
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lc
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 40, OU9
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 8, OU8
1
Region 9
Fort Ord
1
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
1
Salton Sea Test Base
1
Region 10
Camp Bonneville
1
NAF Adak
18
Umatilla Army Depot
1
Total Number of Ranges
21
79
75
14
2
5
7
C-18
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
Distance in Miles
Adj | <1 | 1-5 | 5-10 110-20 | >20 | Unk
Key: Adj = Adjacent to range, Unk = Unknown
Table C-7 Has UXO Been Found on Range and Have Chemical or Biological Weapons
Been Found or Suspected on Range?
(Figure 15)
Surveys Received From Facility
U of
Ranges
Has Known UXO
Been Found on
the Range?
Were Chemical or
Biological Weapons
Found?
Region 1
Loring AFB
4
No
No
Massachusetts Military Reservation
2
Yes
No
Nomans Island
1
Yes
NR
Region 2
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
1
Yes
No
Former Raritan Arsenal
1
Yes
Yes
Griffiss Air Force Base
Yes
Yes
Naval Weapons Station Earlc
1
Yes
No
Picatinny Arsenal
1
Yes
No
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #1
1
Yes
No
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #2
1
Yes
No
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #3
1
Yes
No
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #4
1
Yes
No
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #5
1
No
No
Sencca Army Depot
]
Yes
Unk
Region 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground
1
Yes
Yes
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
1
Yes
Yes
Fort Picket
1
No
No
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
1
Yes
Yes
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #1
1
NR
NR
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #3
I
Yes
No
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #4
1
No
No
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #5
1
Yes
No
Tobyhanna Army Depot
1
Yes
No
Washington, DC, Army Munitions Site
1
Yes
Yes
Region 4
Fort Campbell
3
No
No
Fort McClellan - #1
44
Yes
Yes
Fort McClellan - #2
17
Yes
Yes
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
1
Yes
NR
MacDill Air Force Base
5
Yes
Yes
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
1
No
No
NAS Cecil Field
3
Yes
No
Naval Base Charleston
1
No
No
C-19
-------
Survevs Received From Facility
#of
Ranges
Has Known UXO
Been Found on
the Range?
Were Chemical or
Biological Weapons
Found?
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
1
No
NR
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
1
No
No
Key: Unk = Unknown, NR = Not reported
Region 4 (Continued)
Redstone Arsenal
22
Yes
Yes
Sangamo Electric Dump
1
Yes
No
Region 5
Fort Sheridan Closed Overwater Artillery Ranges
1
No
No
Fort Sheridan Small Arms Range
1
Yes
No
Grissom Air Force Base
Yes
No
Jefferson Proving Grounds
1
Yes
No
Naval Surface Warfare Center
Yes
Yes
New Brighton/Arden Hills
1
Yes
No
Savanna Army Depot Activity
1
Yes
Yes
US Army Soldier Support Center
Yes
No
Region 6
Barksdale Air Force Base #1
1
Yes
NR
Barksdale Air Force Base #2
1
NR
NR
Bergstrom Air Force Base
1
No
No
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
1
No
No
Dyess Air Force Base - #1
1
No
No
Dyess Air Force Base - #2
1
No
No
Eaker Air Force Base
1
Yes
No
Fort Chaffee #1
1
Yes
No
Fort Wingate Depot
1
Yes
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#1
1
Yes
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#2
1
Yes
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#3
1
Yes
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#4
1
Yes
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#5
1
Yes
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#6
1
Yes
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#7
1
Yes
No
Lackland Air Force Base - #1
1
Unk
No
Lackland Air Force Base - #2
1
Unk
No
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
1
Yes
No
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
1
Yes
No
Melrose Air Force Range
1
Yes
No
Sandia National Laboratories
1
Yes
No
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
1
No
No
White Sands Missile Range #1 - Tula Peak
1
Yes
Unk
White Sands Missile Range #2 - OB/OD Disposal
1
Yes
Unk
White Sands Missile Range #3 - Red Rio Munitions
1
No
Unk
C-20
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
#of
Ranges
Has Known UXO
Been Found on
the Ranee?
Were Chemical or
Biological Weapons
Found?
White Sands Missile Range #4 - Bomblet Disposal
1
link
Unk
White Sands Missile Range #5 - Oscura Ranee
1
No
Unk
C-21
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
#of
Ranees
Has Known UXO
Been Found on
the Range?
Were Chemical or
Biological Weapons
Found?
Region 7
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
1
Yes
No
Jefferson Barracks
1
Yes
Yes
Region 8
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
1
Yes
Yes
Lowry Bombing Range
1
Yes
Yes
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1,1a
1
Yes
Yes
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 10/11
1
No
Yes
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lb
1
Yes
Yes
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lc
1
Yes
Yes
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 40, OU9
1
Yes
Yes
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 8, OU8
1
Yes
Yes
Region 9
Fort Ord
1
Yes
Yes
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
1
Yes
No
Salton Sea Test Base
1
Yes
No
Region 10
Camp Bonneville
1
Yes
Yes
NAF Adak
18
Yes
No
Umatilla Army Depot
1
Yes
NR
Table C-8 Potential Off-Range Problems
(Figure 17)
(Note: numbers in cells represent ranges covered by survey)
Surveys Received From Facility
Imp
Hydro
Buried
None
Oth
Region 1
Loring AFB
4
Massachusetts Military Reservation
2
Nomans Island
1
Region 2
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
1
Former Raritan Arsenal
1
Griffiss Air Force Base
2
Naval Weapons Station Earle
1
Picatinny Arsenal
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #1
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #2
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #3
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #4
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #5
1
Seneca Army Depot
1
C-22
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
Imp
Hydro
Buried
None
Oth
Region 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground
1
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
1
Fort Picket
1
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #1
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #3
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #4
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #5
1
Tobyhanna Army Depot
1
Washington, DC Army Munitions Site
1
Region 4
Fort Campbell
3
Fort McClellan - #1
44
Fort McClellan - #2
17
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
1
MacDill Air Force Base
5
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
1
NAS Cecil Field
3
Naval Base Charleston
1
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
1
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
1
Redstone Arsenal
22
Sangamo Electric Dump
1
Region 5
Fort Sheridan Closed Overwater Artillery Ranges
1
1
Fort Sheridan Small Arms Range
1
Grissom Air Force Base
2
Jefferson Proving Grounds
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center
4
New Brighton/Arden Hills
1
Savanna Army Depot Activity
1
US Army Soldier Support Center
2
Region 6
Barksdale Air Force Base #1
1
Barksdale Air Force Base #2
1
Bergstrom Air Force Base
1
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
1
Dyess Air Force Base - #1
1
Dyess Air Force Base - #2
1
Eaker Air Force Base
1
Fort Chaffee #1
1
Fort Wingate Depot
1
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#1
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#2
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#3
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#4
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#5
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#6
1
C-23
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
Imp | Hydro
Buried
None
Oth
Region 6 (Continued)
Kirtland Air Force Base -#7
1
Lackland Air Force Base - #1
1
Lackland Air Force Base - #2
1
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
1
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
1
Melrose Air Force Range
1
Sandia National Laboratories
1
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
1
White Sands Missile Range #1 - Tula Peak
1
White Sands Missile Range #2 - OB/OD Disposal
1
White Sands Missile Range #3 - Red Rio Munitions
1
White Sands Missile Range #4 - Bomblet Disposal
1
White Sands Missile Range #5 - Oscura Range
1
Region 7
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
1
Jefferson Barracks
1
Region 8
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
1
Lowry Bombing Range
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1, la
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 10/11
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lb
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lc
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 40, OU9
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 8, OU8
1
Region 9
Fort Ord
1
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
1
Salton Sea Test Base
1
Regior
10
Camp Bonneville
1
NAF Adak
18
Umatilla Army Depot
1
Total Number of Ranges
42
2
0
153
8
Key: Imp = Possibility UXO impacted off range, Hydro = Hydrogcology conducive to UXO
migration, Buried = Buried ordnance floated to different depth, None = No off range
impacts reported, Oth = Other
C-24
-------
Table C-9 UXO and Military Munitions Incidents and Encounters
(
figure 18)
LXO Exploded Accidentally
UXO
Discovery
(# Incidents)
Encountered
by Public
(# Incidents)
Surveys Received From Facility
(# Incidents)
# Injuries
# Deaths
Repion 1
Massachusetts Military Reservation III 1
Repion 2
Former Morean Depot/TA Gillespie Loadine Co
3
Former Raritan Arsenal
1
Picatinnv Arsenal
2
2
2
Repion 3
Aberdeen Provine Ground
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
Fort Ritchie Armv Garrison
1
Tobvhanna Armv Depot
3
Region 4
NAS Cecil Field 1 1 1 1 1
Repion 5
Fort Sheridan Small Arms Ranee
1
Grissom Air Force Base
Jefferson Provine Grounds
Naval Surface Warfare Center
New Briehton/Arden Hills
2
Savanna Armv Depot Activity
3
Repion 6
Fort Wineate Depot
2
Lonehorn Armv Ammunition Plant
1
Melrose Air Force Ranee
White Sands Missile Ranee #2 - OB/OD Disposal
1
0
1
Region 7
Cornhusker Armv Ammunition Plant
1
0
0
Jefferson Barracks
Reeion 8
Lowrv Bombine Ranee
1
0
o
25
Repion 10
Camp Bonneville
3
NAF Adak
1
C-25
-------
APPENDIX D
RAW DATA OF RANGE MANAGEMENT
-------
Appendix D
Raw Data of Range Management
The following tables provide raw data on the survey responses provided for each parameter in
Chapter 4, "Range Management." All tables are sorted by EPA Region.
Table D-l Who Manages the Range?
(Figure 19)
Surveys Received From Facility # of Ranges Who Manages the Range?
Region 1
Loring AFB
4
Army
Massachusetts Military Reservation
2
Army
Nomans Island
1
Other Federal agency
Region 2
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
1
Privately Owned
Former Rantan Arsenal
1
Other Federal Agency, Privately
Owned
Griffiss Air Force Base
2
Air Force
Naval Weapons Station Earle
1
Navy
Picatinny Arsenal
1
Army
Plattsburgh Air Force Base
5
Air Force
Seneca Army Depot
1
Army
Region 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground
1
Army
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
1
Army, Privately Owned
Fort Picket
1
Army
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
1
Army
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren
4
Navy
Tobyhanna Army Depot
1
Army
Washington, DC, Army Munitions Site
1
Privately Owned
Region 4
Fort Campbell
3
Other DOD
Fort McClellan
61
Army
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
1
Other DOD
MacDill Air Force Base
5
Air Force
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
1
Air Force
NAS Cecil Field
3
Other
Naval Base Charleston
1
Navy
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
1
Not Reported
Naval Weapons Station Charleston
1
Navy
Redstone Arsenal
22
Army
Sangamo Electric Dump
1
Other Federal Agency
D-l
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
# of Ranges
Who Manages the Range?
Region 5
Fort Sheridan Closed Overwater Artillery Ranges
1
Other
Fort Sheridan Small Arms Range
1
Army
Grissom Air Force Base
Air Force
Jefferson Proving Grounds
1
Army
Naval Surface Warfare Center
Army, Navy
New Brighton/Arden Hills
1
Army, Privately Owned
Savanna Army Depot Activity
1
Army
US Army Soldier Support Center
Not Reported
Region 6
Barksdale Air Force Base
Air Force
Bergstrom Air Force Base
1
Other
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
1
Navy
Dyess Air Force Base
Air Force
Eaker Air Force Base
1
Air Force
Fort Chaffee
1
Army
Fort Wingate Depot
1
Army
Kirtland Air Force Base
Air Force
Lackland Air Force Base
Air Force
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
1
Privately Owned
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
1
Army
Melrose Air Force Range
1
Air Force
Sandia National Laboratories
1
Air Force, Other Federal Agency
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
1
Army
White Sands Missile Range
Army
Region 7
Comhusker Army Ammunition Plant
1
Army
Jefferson Barracks
1
Air Force
Region 8
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
1
Privately Owned
Lowry Bombing Range
1
Army
Tooele Army Depot
Army
Region 9
Fort Ord
1
Not Reported
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
1
Navy
Salton Sea Test Base
1
Navy
Region 10
Camp Bonneville
I
Army
NAF Adak
18
Navy
Umatilla Army Depot
1
Army
D-2
-------
Table D-2 What Cleanup Activities Were Conducted at the Range? By Whom?
(Figures 20 and 22)
(Note: numbers in cells represent ranges covered by survey)
Surveys Received From Facility Prelim |Invest | Dec Cleanup | Post Oth (Organization
Region 1
Loring AFB
4
4
USACE
Massachusetts Military Reservation
Nomans Island
1
1
Navy
Region 2
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
1
1
1
USACE, EPA
Former Raritan Arsenal
1
USACE
Griffiss Air Force Base
2
USACE
Naval Weapons Station Earle
1
1
1
Navy
Picatinriy Arsenal
1
1
1
1
USACE
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #1
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #2
1
1
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #3
1
1
1
1
USACE
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #4
1
1
1
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #5
1
1
Seneca Army Depot
1
1
1
USACE
Region 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground
1
1
Army, EPA
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
1
1
1
USACE
Fort Picket
1
1
1
USACE
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
1
I
Army
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgrcn #1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #3
1
1
1
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgrcn #4
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgrcn #5
1
1
1
Tobyhanna Army Depot
1
1
1
1
USACE
Washington, DC Army Munitions Site
1
1
USACE
Region 4
Fort Campbell
Fort McClellan - #1
44
44
USACE
Fort McClellan - #2
17
17
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
1
MacDill Air Force Base
5
USACE
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
1
1
USACE
NAS Cecil Field
3
3
Naval Base Charleston
1
1
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
1
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
Redstone Arsenal
22
22
USACE
Sangamo Electric Dump
1
1
1
1
Army
Region 5
Fort Sheridan Closed Overwater Artillery Ranges
1
EPA
Fort Sheridan Small Arms Range
1
1
1
Grissom Air Force Base
2
2
2
USACE
Jefferson Proving Grounds
1
1
USACE
Naval Surface Warfare Center
4
4
USACE
D-3
-------
Surveys Received From Facility | Prelim |Invest | Dec | Cleanup | Post Oth (Organization
Region 5 (Continued)
New Brighton/Arden Hills
1
1
1
USACE
Savanna Army Depot Activity
1
USACE
US Army Soldier Support Center
2
USACE
Region 6
Barksdalc Air Force Base #1
1
Barksdale Air Force Base #2
Bergstrom Air Force Base
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
Dyess Air Force Base - #1
1
USACE
Dyess Air Force Base - #2
1
USACE
Eaker Air Force Base
1
Fort Chaffee #1
1
1
USACE
Fort Wingate Depot
1
1
Army
Kirtland Air Force Base-#1
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#2
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#3
Kirtland Air Force Base -#4
Kirtland Air Force Base -#5
Kirtland Air Force Base -#6
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#7
1
Other DOD
Lackland Air Force Base - #1
Lackland Air Force Base - #2
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
1
1
Army
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
1
1
Army
Melrose Air Force Range
1
USACE
Sandia National Laboratories
1
1
1
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
1
1
USACE
White Sands Missile Range #1 - Tula Peak
White Sands Missile Range #2 - OB/OD Disposal
1
1
1
USACE
White Sands Missile Range #3 - Red Rio Munitions
1
1
1
USACE
White Sands Missile Range #4 - Bomblet Disposal
White Sands Missile Range #5 - Oscura Range
1
1
1
USACE
Region 7
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
Jefferson Barracks
1
1
1
USACE
Region 8
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
1
1
1
Lowry Bombing Range
1
1
USACE
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1,1a
1
USACE
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 10/11
1
1
USACE
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lb
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lc
1
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 40, OU9
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 8, OU8
D-4
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
Prelim |Invest
Dec | Cleanup
Post
Oth
Organization
Regio
n 9
Fort Ord
1
1
1
1
Army,
USACE
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
1
1
Navy
Salton Sea Test Base
1
1
USACE
Region 10
Camp Bonneville
1
1
1
1
USACE
NAF Adak
18
18
USACE
Umatilla Army Depot
1
1
1
USACE
Total Number of Ranges
135
167
24
43
2
2
Key: Prelim = Preliminary assessment, Invest = Investigation, Dec = Decision on cleanup/response,
Cleanup = Cleanup/Response, Post = Post-remcdial/post-removal activities, Oth = Other
Table D-3 What was the Role of US ACE in Range Cleanup?
(Figure 21)
(Note: numbers in cells represent ranges covered by survey)
Surveys Received From Facility |FUDS Tech | Rem |Contract| Unk | Oth
Region 1
Loring AFB
4
4
Massachusetts Military Reservation
2
Nomans Island
Region 2
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
1
1
Former Raritan Arsenal
1
Griffiss Air Force Base
2
2
Naval Weapons Station Earle
Picatinny Arsenal
1
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #1
Pittsburgh Air Force Base - #2
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #3
1
1
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #4
1
1
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #5
Seneca Army Depot
1
1
1
Region 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground
1
1
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
1
1
Fort Picket
1
1
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #3
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #4
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #5
Tobyhanna Army Depot
1
1
Washington, DC Army Munitions Site
1
1
1
Region 4
Fort Campbell
Fort McClellan - #1
44
44
44
Fort McClellan - #2
17
D-5
-------
Surveys Received From Facility |FUDS|Tech | Rem |Contract| Unk | Oth
Region 4 (Continued)
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
MacDill Air Force Base
5
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
1
NAS Cecil Field
Naval Base Charleston
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
Redstone Arsenal
22
Sangamo Electric Dump
1
Region 5
Fort Sheridan Closed Overwater Artillery Ranges
Fort Sheridan Small Arms Range
1
1
Grissom Air Force Base
2
2
Jefferson Proving Grounds
1
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center
4
New Brighton/Arden Hills
1
1
Savanna Army Depot Activity
1
US Army Soldier Support Center
2
Region 6
Barksdale Air Force Base #1
Barksdale Air Force Base #2
Bergstrom Air Force Base
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
Dyess Air Force Base - #1
1
Dyess Air Force Base - #2
1
Eaker Air Force Base
1
Fort Chaffee #1
1
Fort Wingate Depot
1
1
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#2
Kirtland Air Force Base -#3
Kirtland Air Force Base -#4
Kirtland Air Force Base -#5
Kirtland Air Force Base -#6
Kirtland Air Force Base -#7
Lackland Air Force Base - #1
Lackland Air Force Base - #2
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
1
Melrose Air Force Range
1
Sandia National Laboratories
1
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
1
White Sands Missile Range #1 - Tula Peak
1
White Sands Missile Range #2 - OB/OD Disposal
1
1
White Sands Missile Range #3 - Red Rio Munitions
1
White Sands Missile Range #4 - Bomblet Disposal
1
White Sands Missile Range #5 - Oscura Range
1
D-6
-------
Surveys Received From Facility |FUDS|Tech | Rem |Contract| Link | Oth
Region 7
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
Jefferson Barracks
1
1
Region 8
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
1
Lowry Bombing Range
1
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1,1a
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 10/11
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lb
Tooele Army Depot SMWU Ic
1
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 40, OU9
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 8, OU8
1
Region 9
Fort Ord
1
1
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
1
Salton Sea Test Base
1
1
Region 10
Camp Bonneville
1
1
NAF Adak
18
Umatilla Army Depot
1
1
Total Number of Ranges
5
101
25
84
1
74
Key: FUDS = FUDS Project Manager, Tech = Technical assessment, Rem = Remediation, Contract
= Contractual oversight/management, Unk = Unknown, Oth = Other
D-7
-------
APPENDIX E
RAW DATA OF UXO TECHNICAL ISSUES
-------
Appendix E
Raw Data of UXO Technical Issues
The following tables provide raw data on the survey responses provided for each parameter in Chapter 5, "UXO Technical Issues."
tables are sorted by EPA Region.
Table E-l Range Assessment Problems
(Figure 23)
(Note: numbers in cells represent ranges covered by survey)
Surveys Received From Facility
Disc
Inv
Incom
MisID
Poor
Cost
Terr
NR
Oth
No
Assess
No
Prob
Region 1
Loring AFB
4
Massachusetts Military Reservation
2
Nomans Island
1
Region 2
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
1
Former Raritan Arsenal
1
GrifFiss Air Force Base
2
Naval Weapons Station Earle
1
Picatinny Arsenal
1
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #1
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #2
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #3
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #4
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #5
1
Seneca Army Depot
1
Region 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground
1
1
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
1
Fort Picket
1
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
1
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #1
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #3
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #4
1
E-l
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
Disc
Inv
Incom
MisID
Poor
Cost
Terr
NR
Oth
No
Assess
No
Prob
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #5
1
Region 3 (Continued)
Tobyhanna Army Depot
1
Washington, DC Army Munitions Site
1
1
Region 4
Fort Campbell
3
Fort McClellan - #1
44
Fort McClellan - #2
17
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
1
MacDill Air Force Base
5
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
1
NAS Cecil Field
3
Naval Base Charleston
1
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
1
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
1
Redstone Arsenal
22
Sangamo Electric Dump
1
Region 5
Fort Sheridan Closed Overwater Artillery Ranges
1
1
Fort Sheridan Small Arms Range
1
Grissom Air Force Base
2
Jefferson Proving Grounds
1
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center
4
New Brighton/Arden Hills
1
Savanna Army Depot Activity
1
US Army Soldier Support Center
2
Region 6
Barksdale Air Force Base #1
1
Barksdale Air Force Base #2
1
Bergstrom Air Force Base
1
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
1
Dyess Air Force Base - #1 .
1
Dyess Air Force Base - #2
I
Eaker Air Force Base
1
E-2
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
Disc
Inv
Incom
MisID
Poor
Cost
Terr
NR
Oth
No
Assess
No
Prob
Fort Chaffee #1
1
Region 6 (Continued)
Fort Wingate Depot
1
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#1
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#2
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#3
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#4
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#5
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#6
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#7
1
Lackland Air Force Base - #1
1
Lackland Air Force Base - #2
1
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
1
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
1
Melrose Air Force Range
1
Sandia National Laboratories
1
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
1
1
White Sands Missile Range #1 - Tula Peak
1
White Sands Missile Range #2 - OB/OD Disposal
1
White Sands Missile Range #3 - Red Rio Munitions
1
White Sands Missile Range #4 - Bomblet Disposal
1
White Sands Missile Range #5 - Oscura Range
1
Region 7
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
1
Jefferson Barracks
1
Region 8
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
1
Lowry Bombing Range
1
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1,1a
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 10/11
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lb
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lc
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 40, OU9
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 8, OU8
I
E-3
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
Disc
Inv
Incom
MisID
Poor
Cost
Terr
NR
Oth
No
Assess
No
Prob
Region 9
Fort Ord
1
1
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
1
Salton Sea Test Base
1
Region 10
Camp Bonneville
1
NAF Adak
18
Umatilla Army Depot
1
Total Number of Ranges
8
10
24
1
4
3
22
16
22
69
34
Key: Disc = Discovery of UXO hampered investigation, Inv = Investigative techniques not adequate, Incom = Incomplete historical records,
MisID = Misidentification of UXO types, Poor = Poorly performed investigation, Cost = Too costly, Terr = Terrain, NR = None reported,
Oth = Other, No Assess = No assessment performed. No Prob = No problems encountered
E-4
-------
Table E-2 Range Remediation Problems
(Figure 24)
(Note: numbers in cells represent ranges covered by survey)
Surveys Received From Facility
Poor
Inf
Danger
Cost
No
Rem
No
Prob
NR
Oth
Region 1
Loring AFB
4
Massachusetts Military Reservation
2
Nomans Island
1
Region 2
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
1
Former Raritan Arsenal
1
Griffiss Air Force Base
2
Naval Weapons Station Earle
1
Picatinny Arsenal
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #1
1
Pittsburgh Air Force Base - #2
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #3
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #4
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #5
1
Seneca Army Depot
1
Region 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground
1
1
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
1
Fort Picket
1
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
1
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgrcn #1
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #3
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgrcn #4
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #5
1
Tobyhanna Army Depot
1
Washington, DC Army Munitions Site
1
Region 4
Fort Campbell
3
Fort McClellan - #1
44
Fort McClellan - #2
17
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
1
MacDill Air Force Base
5
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
NAS Cecil Field
3
Naval Base Charleston
1
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
1
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
1
Redstone Arsenal
22
Sangamo Electric Dump
1
Region 5
Fort Sheridan Closed Overwater Artillery Ranges
1
1
Fort Sheridan Small Arms Range
1
Grissom Air Force Base
2
Jefferson Proving Grounds
I
E-5
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
Poor
Inf
Danger
Cost
No
Rem
No
Prob
NR
Oth
Region 5 (Continued)
Naval Surface Warfare Center
4
New Brighton/Arden Hills
1
Savanna Army Depot Activity
1
US Army Soldier Support Center
2
Region 6
Barksdale Air Force Base #1
1
Barksdale Air Force Base #2
1
Bergstrom Air Force Base
1
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
1
Dyess Air Force Base - #1
1
Dyess Air Force Base - #2
1
Eaker Air Force Base
1
Fort Chaffee #1
1
Fort Wingate Depot
1
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#1
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#2
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#3
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#4
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#5
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#6
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#7
1
Lackland Air Force Base - #1
1
Lackland Air Force Base - #2
1
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
1
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
I
Melrose Air Force Range
1
Sandia National Laboratories
1
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
1
1
White Sands Missile Range #1 - Tula Peak
1
White Sands Missile Range #2 - OB/OD Disposal
1
White Sands Missile Range #3 - Red Rio Munitions
1
White Sands Missile Range #4 - Bomblct Disposal
1
White Sands Missile Range #5 - Oscura Range
1
Region 7
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
1
Jefferson Barracks
1
Region 8
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
1
Lowry Bombing Range
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1,1a
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 10/11
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lb
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1c
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 40, OU9
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 8, OU8
1
E-6
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
Poor
Inf
Danger
Cost
No
Rem
No
Prob
NR
Oth
Region 9
Fort Ord
1
1
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
1
Salton Sea Test Base
1
Region 10
Camp Bonneville
1
NAF Adak
18
Umatilla Army Depot
1
Total Number of Ranges
5
5
4
19
80
58
23
14
Key: Poor = Poorly performed assessment, Inf
= Remediation is technically infeasible, Danger =
Remediation is too dangerous to attempt, Cost = Remediation is too costly to perform, No Rem
= No
remedial activities conducted, No Prob = No problems encountered, NR =
None reported, Oth =
Other
Table E-3 Were Statistical Methods Employed on Range? Were Recommendations Based
on Statistical Methods Generated that EPA Could Not Support?
(1
figure 25)
If Statistical Methods were
Has USACE or DoD
Used any Statistical
Employed, Were
Recommendations
#of
Methods to Define
Generated That EPA Could
Surveys Received From Facility
Ranges
UXO at the Range?
Not Support?
Region 1
Loring AFB
4
No
Massachusetts Military Reservation
2
No
Nomans Island
1
Yes
Not Reported
Region 2
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
1
No
Former Raritan Arsenal
1
Not Reported
Griffiss Air Force Base
Not Reported
Naval Weapons Station Earle
1
No
Picatinny Arsenal
1
No
Pittsburgh Air Force Base - #1
1
No
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #2
1
No
Pittsburgh Air Force Base - #3
1
No
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #4
1
No
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #5
1
No
Seneca Army Depot
1
Yes
Yes
Region 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground
1
No
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
1
Yes
Yes
Fort Picket
1
Yes
No
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
1
Yes
Yes
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #1
1
Not Applicable
E-7
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
# of
Ranges
Has USACE or DoD
Used any Statistical
Methods to Define
UXO at the Range?
If Statistical Methods were
Employed, Were
Recommendations
Generated That EPA Could
Not Support?
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #3
1
No
Region 3 (Continued)
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #4
1
No
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #5
1
No
Tobyhanna Army Depot
1
Unknown
Washington, DC, Army Munitions Site
1
No
Region 4
Fort Campbell
3
No
Fort McClellan - #1
44
Yes
Yes
Fort McClellan - #2
17
Not Reported
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
1
Not Reported
MacDill Air Force Base
5
No
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
1
Unknown
NAS Cecil Field
3
No
Naval Base Charleston
1
No
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
1
Not Applicable
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
1
Not Applicable
Redstone Arsenal
22
No
Sangamo Electric Dump
1
Yes
No
Region 5
Fort Sheridan Closed Overwater Artillery Ranges
1
No
Fort Sheridan Small Arms Range
1
Yes
Yes
Grissom Air Force Base
2
Yes
No
Jefferson Proving Grounds
1 '
Yes
Yes
Naval Surface Warfare Center
4
No
New Brighton/Arden Hills
1
No
Savanna Army Depot Activity
1
Yes
Yes
US Army Soldier Support Center
2
Unknown
Region 6
Barksdale Air Force Base #1
1
Not Reported
Barksdale Air Force Base #2
1
Not Reported
Bergstrom Air Force Base
1
No
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
J
No
Dyess Air Force Base - #1
1
No
Dyess Air Force Base - #2
1
No
Eaker Air Force Base
1
No
Fort Chaffee #1
1
No
Fort Wingate Depot
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#1
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#2
]
No
E-8
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
#of
Ranges
Has USACE or DoD
Used any Statistical
Methods to Define
UXO at the Range?
If Statistical Methods were
Employed, Were
Recommendations
Generated That EPA Could
Not Support?
Kirtland Air Force Base -#3
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#4
1
No
Region 6 (Continued)
Kirtland Air Force Base -#5
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#6
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#7
1
No
Lackland Air Force Base - #1
1
No
Lackland Air Force Base - #2
1
No
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
1
Unknown
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
1
No
Melrose Air Force Range
1
No
Sandia National Laboratories
1
No
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
1
No
White Sands Missile Range #1 - Tula Peak
1
No
White Sands Missile Range #2 - OB/OD Disposal
1
No
White Sands Missile Range #3 - Red Rio
Munitions
1
No
White Sands Missile Range #4 - Bomblet Disposal
1
No
White Sands Missile Range #5 - Oscura Range
1
No
Region 7
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
1
No
Jefferson Barracks
1
Yes
Yes
Region 8
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
1
Not Reported
Lowry Bombing Range
1
Yes
Not Reported
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1,1a
1
No
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 10/11
1
No
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lb
1
No
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lc
1
No
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 40, OU9
1
No
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 8, OU8
1
No
Region 9
Fort Ord
1
Yes
Yes
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
1
No
Salton Sea Test Base
1
Yes
No
Region 10
Camp Bonneville
1
Yes
Yes
NAF Adak
18
Yes
Yes
Umatilla Army Depot
1
Not Reported
E-9
-------
E-10
-------
Table E-4 Has Any Agency Indicated that UXO Would Not Be Treated?
(Figure 27)
Surveys Received From Facility
ft of
Ranges
Has an Agency
Indicated that UXO
Will Not or Cannot
Be Treated?
If Yes, Which
Agency?
Region 1
Loring AFB
4
No
Massachusetts Military Reservation
2
Yes
Other
Nomans Island
1
No
Region 2
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
1
No
Former Raritan Arsenal
1
Not Reported
Griffiss Air Force Base
Not Reported
Naval Weapons Station Earle
1
No
Picatinny Arsenal
1
No
Pittsburgh Air Force Base - #1
1
No
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #2
1
No
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #3
1
No
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #4
1
No
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #5
1
No
Seneca Army Depot
1
No
Region 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground
1
No
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
1
Yes
EOB
Fort Picket
1
No
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
1
No
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #1
1
No
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #3
1
No
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #4
1
No
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #5
1
No
Tobyhanna Army Depot
1
Yes
Army
Washington, DC, Army Munitions Site
1
No
Region 4
Fort Campbell
3
No
Fort McClellan - #1
44
Yes
Army
Fort McClellan - #2
17
Yes
Army
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
1
Yes
Not Reported
MacDill Air Force Base
5
No
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
1
No
NAS Cecil Field
3
Yes
Navy
Naval Base Charleston
1
No
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
1
Not Applicable
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
1
No
Redstone Arsenal
22
No
Sangamo Electric Dump
1
No
E-ll
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
#of
Ranges
Has an Agency
Indicated that UXO
Will Not or Cannot
Be Treated?
If Yes, Which
Agency?
Region §
Fort Sheridan Closed Overwater Artillery Ranges
1
No
Fort Sheridan Small Arms Range
1
Yes
EOB
Grissom Air Force Base
No
Jefferson Proving Grounds
1
Yes
Army
Naval Surface Warfare Center
No
New Brighton/Arden Hills
1
No
Savanna Army Depot Activity
1
Yes
Army
US Army Soldier Support Center
Unknown
Region 6
Barksdale Air Force Base #1
1
Not Reported
Barksdale Air Force Base #2
1
Not Reported
Not Reported
Bergstrom Air Force Base
1
No
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
1
No
Dyess Air Force Base - #1
1
No
Dyess Air Force Base - #2
1
No
Eaker Air Force Base
1
No
Fort Chaffee #1
1
No
Fort Wingate Depot
1
Yes
Army
Kirtland Air Force Base -#1
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#2
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#3
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#4
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#5
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#6
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#7
1
No
Lackland Air Force Base - #1
1
No
Lackland Air Force Base - #2
1
No
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
1
No
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
1
No
Melrose Air Force Range
1
No
Sandia National Laboratories
1
Not Applicable
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
1
Yes
EOB
White Sands Missile Range #1 - Tula Peak
1
No
White Sands Missile Range #2 - OB/OD Disposal
1
No
White Sands Missile Range #3 - Red Rio Munitions
1
No
White Sands Missile Range #4 - Bomblet Disposal
1
No
White Sands Missile Range #5 - Oscura Range
1
No
Region 7
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
1
No
Jefferson Barracks
1
Yes
EOB
E-12
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
#of
Ranges
Has an Agency
Indicated that UXO
Will Not or Cannot
Be Treated?
If Yes, Which
Agency?
Region 8
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
1
No
Lowry Bombing Range
1
No
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1,1a
1
Yes
Army
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 10/11
1
Yes
Army
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lb
1
Not Reported
Army
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1c
1
Yes
Army
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 40, OU9
1
Yes
Army
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 8, OU8
1
No
Region 9
Fort Ord
1
No
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
1
No
Salton Sea Test Base
1
Yes
Navy
Region 10
Camp Bonneville
1
Yes
EOB
NAF Adak
18
Yes
Navy
Umatilla Army Depot
1
Not Reported
Table E-5 Have Any Situations Occurred that Were out of Your Control?
(Figure 28
Facility
#of
Ranges
Have You Faced Any Situations
Regarding UXO That You Felt
Were Out of Your Control, But
Needed Immediate Attention?
Region 1
Loring AFB
4
No
Massachusetts Military Reservation
2
Yes
Nomans Island
1
Not Reported
Region 2
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
1
Yes
Former Raritan Arsenal
1
Not Reported
Griffiss Air Force Base
No
Naval Weapons Station Earle
1
No
Picatinny Arsenal
1
No
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #1
1
No
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #2
1
No
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #3
1
No
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #4
1
No
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #5
1
No
Seneca Army Depot
1
No
E-13
-------
Facility
#of
Ranges
Have You Faced Any Situations
Regarding UXO That You Felt
Were Out of Your Control, But
Needed Immediate Attention?
Region 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground
1
No
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
1
Not Reported
Fort Picket
1
No
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
1
Not Reported
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #1
1
No
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #3
1
No
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #4
1
No
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #5
1
No
Tobyhanna Army Depot
1
No
Washington, DC, Army Munitions Site
1
Not Reported
Region 4
Fort Campbell
3
Not Reported
Fort McClellan - #1
44
No
Fort McClellan - #2
17
No
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
1
No
MacDill Air Force Base
5
No
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
1
No
NAS Cecil Field
3
No
Naval Base Charleston
1
No
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
1
Unknown
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
1
No
Redstone Arsenal
22
No
Sangamo Electric Dump
1
No
Region 5
Fort Sheridan Closed Overwatcr Artillery Ranges
1
Yes
Fort Sheridan Small Arms Range
1
Yes
Grissom Air Force Base
2
No
Jefferson Proving Grounds
1
Yes
Naval Surface Warfare Center
4
No
New Brighton/Arden Hills
1
No
Savanna Army Depot Activity
1
No
US Army Soldier Support Center
2
Unknown
Region 6
Barksdale Air Force Base #1
1
No
Barksdale Air Force Base #2
1
No
Bergstrom Air Force Base
1
No
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
1
No
Dyess Air Force Base - #1
1
No
Dyess Air Force Base - #2
1
No
Eaker Air Force Base
1
No
Fort Chaffee U1
1
No
E-14
-------
Facility
#of
Ranges
Have You Faced Any Situations
Regarding UXO That You Felt
Were Out of Your Control, But
Needed Immediate Attention?
Region 6 (Continued)
Fort Wingate Depot
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#1
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#2
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#3
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#4
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#5
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#6
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#7
1
No
Lackland Air Force Base - #1
1
No
Lackland Air Force Base - #2
1
No
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
1
No
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
1
No
Melrose Air Force Range
1
No
Sandia National Laboratories
1
No
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
1
Yes
White Sands Missile Range #1 - Tula Peak
1
No
White Sands Missile Range #2 - OB/OD Disposal
1
Yes
White Sands Missile Range #3 - Red Rio Munitions
1
No
White Sands Missile Range #4 - Bomblet Disposal
1
No
White Sands Missile Range #5 - Oscura Range
No
Region 7
Cornhuskcr Army Ammunition Plant
1
No
Jefferson Barracks
1
Not Reported
Region 8
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
1
Not Reported
Lowry Bombing Range
1
Yes
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1,1a
1
No
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 10/11
1
No
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lb
1
No
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lc
1
No
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 40, OU9
1
No
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 8, OU8
1
No
Region 9
Fort Ord
1
Yes
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
1
No
Salton Sea Test Base
1
No
Region 10
Camp Bonneville
1
Yes
NAF Adak
18
Yes
Umatilla Army Depot
1
Not Reported
E-15
-------
APPENDIX F
RAW DATA OF REGULATORY STATUS AND ISSUES
-------
Appendix F
Raw Data of Regulatory Status and Issues
The following tables provide raw data on the survey responses provided for each parameter in
Chapter 6, "Regulatory Status and Issues." All tables are sorted by EPA Region.
Table F-l Range Regulatory Programs and Authorities
(Figure 29)
Facility
#of
Ranges
Under What Program is the
Range Regulated?
Region 1
Loring AFB
4
CERCLA
Massachusetts Military Reservation
2
CERCLA
Nomans Island
1
Not Reported
Region 2
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
1
Not Reported
Former Raritan Arsenal
1
Other
Gnffiss Air Force Base
2
CERCLA
Naval Weapons Station Earle
1
RCRA, CERCLA
Picatinny Arsenal
1
RCRA, CERCLA
Plattsburgh Air Force Base
5
CERCLA
Seneca Army Depot
1
RCRA
Region 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground
1
RCRA, CERCLA
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
1
Other
Fort Picket
1
Not Reported
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
1
Unknown
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren
4
CERCLA
Tobyhanna Army Depot
1
CERCLA
Washington, DC, Army Munitions Site
1
CERCLA
Region 4
Fort Campbell
3
Other
Fort McClellan
61
Unknown
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
1
RCRA
MacDill Air Force Base
5
RCRA
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
1
Other
NAS Cecil Field
3
CERCLA
Naval Base Charleston
1
RCRA
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
1
Other
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
1
RCRA
Redstone Arsenal
22
RCRA, CERCLA
Sangamo Electric Dump
1
CERCLA
Region 5
Fort Sheridan
2
CERCLA
Grissom Air Force Base
2
Unknown
F-l
-------
Facility
#of
Ranges
Under What Program is the
Range Regulated?
Jefferson Proving Grounds
1
RCRA
Region 5 (Continued)
Naval Surface Warfare Center
4
RCRA
New Brighton/Arden Hills
1
CERCLA
Savanna Army Depot Activity
1
RCRA, CERCLA
US Army Soldier Support Center
RCRA
Region 6
Barksdale Air Force Base
RCRA
Bergstrom Air Force Base
1
Unknown
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
1
Unknown
Dycss Air Force Base
RCRA
Eaker Air Force Base
1
RCRA
Fort Chaffee #1
1
RCRA
Fort Wingate Depot
1
RCRA
Kirtland Air Force Base
RCRA
Lackland Air Force Base
Not regulated as range
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
1
RCRA, CERCLA
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
1
RCRA,CERCLA
Melrose Air Force Range
1
RCRA
Sandia National Laboratories
1
RCRA
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
1
RCRA
White Sands Missile Range
RCRA
Region 7
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
1
CERCLA
Jefferson Barracks
1
CERCLA
Region 8
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
1
Unknown
Lowry Bombing Range
1
Unknown
Tooele Army Depot
RCRA
Region 9
Fort Ord
1
Unknown
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
1
Unknown
Salton Sea Test Base
1
Unknown
Region 10
Camp Bonneville
1
Unknown
NAF Adak
18
RCRA, CERCLA
Umatilla Army Depot
1
CERCLA
F-2
-------
Table F-2
Who Regulates the Range
(Figure 30)
Surveys Received From Facility
#of
Ranges
Who Regulates the Range?
Region 1
Loring AFB
4
Not Regulated
Massachusetts Military Reservation
2
Other DOD
Nomans Island
1
Navy
Region 2
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
1
Not Reported
Former Raritan Arsenal
1
State or Local Agency
Griffiss Air Force Base
State or Local Agency, EPA
Naval Weapons Station Earle
1
EPA
Picatinny Arsenal
1
State or Local Agency, EPA
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #1
1
State or Local Agency, EPA
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #2
1
State or Local Agency, EPA
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #3
1
State or Local Agency, EPA
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #4
1
State or Local Agency, EPA
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #5
1
State or Local Agency, EPA
Seneca Army Depot
1
Army, State or Local Agency, EPA
Region 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground
1
Army
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
1
Not Regulated
Fort Picket
1
Not Reported
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
1
Army
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #1
1
Navy
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #3
1
Navy
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #4
1
Navy
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #5
1
Navy
Tobyhanna Army Depot
1
Not Reported
Washington, DC, Army Munitions Site
1
Army
Region 4
Fort Campbell
3
Not Regulated
Fort McClellan - #1
44
Army
Fort McClellan - #2
17
Army
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
1
Other DOD
MacDill Air Force Base
5
Not Reported
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
1
Not Regulated
NAS Cecil Field
3
Navy
Naval Base Charleston
1
State or Local Agency
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
1
Not Reported
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
1
State or Local Agency
Redstone Arsenal
22
Army
SanRamo Electric Dump
1
Other Federal Agency
F-3
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
#of
Ranges
Who Regulates the Range?
Region §
Fort Sheridan Closed Overwater Artillery Ranges
1
Not Regulated
Fort Sheridan Small Arms Range
1
State or Local Agency
Grissom Air Force Base
Air Force
Jefferson Proving Grounds
1
Army
Naval Surface Warfare Center
State or Local Agency, EPA
New Brighton/Arden Hills
1
State or Local Agency, EPA
Savanna Army Depot Activity
1
State or Local Agency, EPA
US Army Soldier Support Center
State or Local Agency, EPA
Region 6
Barksdale Air Force Base #1
1
Not Reported
Barksdale Air Force Base #2
1
State or Local Agency
Bergstrom Air Force Base
1
State or Local Agency
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
1
State or Local Agency, EPA
Dyess Air Force Base - #1
1
Not Regulated
Dyess Air Force Base - #2
1
Not Regulated
Eaker Air Force Base
1
State or Local Agency
Fort Chaffee #1
1
Army
Fort Wingate Depot
1
State or Local Agency
Kirtland Air Force Base -#l
1
Other DOD
Kirtland Air Force Base -#2
1
Other DOD
Kirtland Air Force Base -#3
1
Other DOD
Kirtland Air Force Base -#4
1
Other DOD
Kirtland Air Force Base -#5
1
Other DOD
Kirtland Air Force Base -#6
1
Other DOD
Kirtland Air Force Base -#7
1
Other DOD
Lackland Air Force Base - #1
1
Not Regulated
Lackland Air Force Base - #2
1
Not Regulated
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
1
State or Local Agency, EPA
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
1
State or Local Agency, EPA
Melrose Air Force Range
1
State or Local Agency
Sandia National Laboratories
1
Other Federal Agency
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
1
Other DOD, State or Local Agency, EPA
White Sands Missile Range #1 - Tula Peak
1
Not Regulated
White Sands Missile Range #2 - OB/OD Disposal
1
State or Local Agency
White Sands Missile Range #3 - Red Rio Munitions
1
State or Local Agency
White Sands Missile Range #4 - Bomblet Disposal
1
Not Regulated
White Sands Missile Range #5 - Oscura Range
1
State or Local Agency
Region 7
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
1
Army
Jefferson Barracks
1
Other DOD, State or Local Agency, EPA
F-4
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
#of
Ranges
Who Regulates the Range?
Region 8
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
1
State or Local Agency
Lowry Bombing Range
1
State or Local Agency
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1,1a
1
State or Local Agency
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 10/11
1
State or Local Agency
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lb
1
State or Local Agency
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lc
1
State or Local Agency
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 40, OU9
1
State or Local Agency
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 8, OU8
1
State or Local Agency
Region 9
Fort Ord
1
Army, State or Local Agency, EPA
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
1
Navy
Salton Sea Test Base
1
State or Local Agency, EPA
Region 10
Camp Bonneville
1
State or Local Agency, EPA
NAF Adak
18
Navy, State or Local Agency, EPA
Umatilla Army Depot
1
State or Local Agency, EPA
Table F-3 Have Range Cleanup Activities Been Performed Consistently with Regard to
CERCLA and the NCP?
(Figure 31)
Surveys Received From Facility
#of
Ranges
Have the Cleanup Activities been
Performed Consistently with
Regard to CERCLA and the NCP?
Region 1
Loring AFB
4
Yes
Massachusetts Military Reservation
2
Not Applicable
Nomans Island
1
Not Applicable
Region 2
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
1
No
Former Raritan Arsenal
1
Yes
Griffiss Air Force Base
No
Naval Weapons Station Earle
1
Not Reported
Picatinny Arsenal
1
Not Reported
Pittsburgh Air Force Base - #1
1
Not Applicable
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #2
1
Not Reported
Pittsburgh Air Force Base - #3
1
Yes
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #4
1
Yes
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #5
1
Not Reported
Seneca Army Depot
1
Yes
F-5
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
U of
Ranges
Have the Cleanup Activities been
Performed Consistently with
Regard to CERCLA and the NCP?
Region 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground
1
Yes
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
1
No
Fort Picket
1
Yes
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
1
Yes
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #1
1
Not Applicable
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #3
1
Not Reported
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #4
1
Not Applicable
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #5
1
Not Reported
Tobyhanna Army Depot
1
Unknown
Washington, DC, Army Munitions Site
1
Yes
Region 4
Fort Campbell
3
Not Applicable
Fort McClellan - # 1
44
No
Fort McClellan - #2
17
No
Homestead Air Force Base
1
Lexington Bluegrass Army Depot
1
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
1
Not Applicable
MacDill Air Force Base
5
Yes
Marine Corps Recruiting Depot - Parris Island
1
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
1
Unknown
NAS Cecil Field
3
Not Applicable
Naval Base Charleston
1
Not Applicable
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
1
Not Applicable
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
1
Not Applicable
Redstone Arsenal
22
Not Reported
Sangamo Electric Dump
1
Yes
Region 5
Fort Sheridan Closed Overwater Artillery Ranges
1
Not Applicable
Fort Sheridan Small Arms Range
1
Yes
Grissom Air Force Base
2
Not Applicable
Jefferson Proving Grounds
1
No
Naval Surface Warfare Center
4
Not Reported
New Brighton/Arden Hills
1
Not Applicable
Savanna Army Depot Activity
1
Unknown
US Army Soldier Support Center
2
Not Reported
Region 6
Barksdalc Air Force Base #1
1
Not Reported
Barksdale Air Force Base #2
1
Not Reported
Bergstrom Air Force Base
1
Not Applicable
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
1
Not Applicable
F-6
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
U of
Ranges
Have the Cleanup Activities been
Performed Consistently with
Regard to CERCLA and the NCP?
Region 6 (Continued)
Dyess Air Force Base - #1
1
Not Reported
Dyess Air Force Base - #2
1
Yes
Eaker Air Force Base
1
Not Applicable
Fort Chaffee #1
1
Yes
Fort Wingate Depot
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#l
1
Not Applicable
Kirtland Air Force Base -#2
1
Not Applicable
Kirtland Air Force Base -#3
1
Not Applicable
Kirtland Air Force Base -#4
1
Not Applicable
Kirtland Air Force Base -U5
1
Not Applicable
Kirtland Air Force Base -#6
1
Not Applicable
Kirtland Air Force Base -#7
1
Not Reported
Lackland Air Force Base - #1
1
Not Applicable
Lackland Air Force Base - #2
1
Not Applicable
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
1
Not Reported
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
1
Yes
Melrose Air Force Range
1
Yes
Sandia National Laboratories
1
Unknown
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
1
No
White Sands Missile Range #1 - Tula Peak
1
Unknown
White Sands Missile Range #2 - OB/OD Disposal
1
Not Reported
White Sands Missile Range #3 - Red Rio Munitions
1
Not Reported
White Sands Missile Range #4 - Bomblet Disposal
1
Not Reported
White Sands Missile Range #5 - Oscura Range
1
Not Reported
Region 7
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
1
Not Applicable
Jefferson Barracks
1
Yes
Region 8
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
1
Not Reported
Lowry Bombing Range
1
No
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1,1a
1
Yes
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 10/11
1
Yes
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lb
1
Not Reported
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lc
1
Yes
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 40, OU9
1
Yes
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 8, OU8
1
Yes
Region 9
Fort Ord
1
Yes
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
1
Not Applicable
Salton Sea Test Base
1
Yes
F-7
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
U of
Ranges
Have the Cleanup Activities been
Performed Consistently with
Regard to CERCLA and the NCP?
Region 10
Camp Bonneville
1
No
NAF Adak
18
Not Applicable
Umatilla Army Depot
1
Not Reported
Table F-4 Have/Will Draft Workplans Been/Be Submitted to Department of Defense
Explosives Safety Board for Review and Approval?
(Figure 3
2)
Surveys Received From Facility
#of
Ranges
Have/Will Draft Workplans to
Address Explosives Safety Concerns
and Environmental Cleanup Been/Be
Submitted to the DDESB for Review
and Approval?
Region 1
Loring AFB
4
Yes
Massachusetts Military Reservation
2
No
Nomans Island
1
Yes
Region 2
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
1
Unknown
Former Raritan Arsenal
1
Unknown
GrifFiss Air Force Base
Unknown
Naval Weapons Station Earle
1
Unknown
Picatinny Arsenal
1
Yes
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #1
1
No
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #2
1
No
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #3
1
Yes
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #4
1
Yes
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #5
1
No
Seneca Army Depot
1
Yes
Region 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground
1
Yes
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
1
Yes
Fort Picket
1
No
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
1
No
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #1
1
Yes
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #3
1
Yes
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #4
1
Yes
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #5
1
Yes
Tobyhanna Army Depot
1
Yes
Washington, DC, Army Munitions Site
1
Yes
F-8
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
U of
Ranges
Have/Will Draft Workplans to
Address Explosives Safety Concerns
and Environmental Cleanup Been/Be
Submitted to the DDESB for Review
and Approval?
Region 4
Fort Campbell
3
No
Fort McClellan - #1
44
Yes
Fort McClellan - #2
17
Yes
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
1
Yes
MacDill Air Force Base
5
Unknown
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
1
Unknown
NAS Cecil Field
3
Unknown
Naval Base Charleston
1
Unknown
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
1
Not Applicable
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
1
Not Applicable
Redstone Arsenal
22
No
Sangamo Electric Dump
I
No
Region 5
Fort Sheridan Closed Overwater Artillery Ranges
1
Unknown
Fort Sheridan Small Arms Range
1
Unknown
Grissom Air Force Base
2
Yes
Jefferson Proving Grounds
1
Yes
Naval Surface Warfare Center
4
Yes
New Brighton/Arden Hills
1
Yes
Savanna Army Depot Activity
1
Yes
US Army Soldier Support Center
2
Unknown
Region 6
Barksdale Air Force Base #1
1
Not Reported
Barksdale Air Force Base #2
1
Not Reported
Bergstrom Air Force Base
1
No
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
1
Unknown
Dyess Air Force Base - #1
1
No
Dyess Air Force Base - #2
1
No
Eaker Air Force Base
1
Unknown
Fort Chaffee #1
1
No
Fort Wingate Depot
1
Yes
Kirtland Air Force Base -#1
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#2
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#3
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#4
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#5
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#6
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#7
1
No
Lackland Air Force Base - #1
1
No
Lackland Air Force Base - #2
1
No
F-9
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
#of
Ranges
HaveAVill Draft Workplans to
Address Explosives Safety Concerns
and Environmental Cleanup Been/Be
Submitted to the DDESB for Review
and Approval?
Region 6 (Continued)
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
1
Unknown
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
1
Unknown
Melrose Air Force Range
1
No
Sandia National Laboratories
1
Unknown
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
1
Unknown
White Sands Missile Range #1 - Tula Peak
1
Yes
White Sands Missile Range #2 - OB/OD Disposal
1
Yes
White Sands Missile Range #3 - Red Rio Munitions
1
Yes
White Sands Missile Range #4 - Bomblet Disposal
1
Yes
White Sands Missile Range #5 - Oscura Range
1
Yes
Region 7
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
1
Unknown
Jefferson Barracks
1
Yes
Region 8
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
1
Not Applicable
Lowry Bombing Range
1
Yes
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1,1a
1
Not Reported
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 10/11
1
Not Reported
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lb
1
Unknown
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lc
1
Unknown
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 40, OU9
1
Not Reported
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 8, OU8
1
Not Reported
Region 9
Fort Ord
1
Yes
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
1
Yes
Salton Sea Test Base
1
Yes
Region 10
Camp Bonneville
1
No
NAF Adak
18
Yes
Umatilla Army Depot
1
Not Reported
F-10
-------
Table F-5 Have any Planned OB/OD Activities Been Performed at the Range? By Whom?
(Figures 33 and 34)
Have any
Planned
Was
OB/OD
RCRA
Activities Been
Subpart X
#of
Performed at
Permit
Who Performed the
Surveys Received From Facility
Ranges
the Range?
Obtained?
Activities?
Region 1
Loring AFB
4
Yes
No
EOD
Massachusetts Military Reservation
2
Yes
No
Civilian Contractors
Nomans Island
I
Yes
No
Civilian Contractors
Region 2
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
1
No
No
Former Raritan Arsenal
1
Yes
No
Civilian Contractors
Griffiss Air Force Base
Yes
No
Civilian Contractors
Naval Weapons Station Earle
1
Yes
Yes
Navy
Picatinny Arsenal
1
Yes
Yes
Army
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #1
1
No
No
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #2
1
No
No
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #3
1
Yes
No
EOD
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #4
1
No
No
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #5
1
No
No
Seneca Army Depot
1
Yes
Yes
Army
Region 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground
1
Yes
No
Army
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
1
Unknown
No
Fort Picket
1
No
No
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
1
No
No
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #1
1
Yes
Yes
Other Than EOD
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #3
1
Yes
Yes
Other Than EOD
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #4
1
Yes
Yes
Other Than EOD
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #5
1
Yes
Yes
Other Than EOD
Tobyhanna Army Depot
1
Yes
No
USACE
Washington, DC, Army Munitions Site
1
No
No
Region 4
Fort Campbell
3
No
No
Fort McClellan - #1
44
Yes
No
Army
Fort McClellan - #2
17
Yes
No
Army
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
1
Yes
No
Civilian Contractors
MacDill Air Force Base
5
Yes
Yes
Not Reported
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
1
No
No
NAS Cecil Field
3
Yes
No
EOD
Naval Base Charleston
1
Unknown
No
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
I
No
No
F-ll
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
#of
Ranges
Have any
Planned
OB/OD
Activities Been
Performed at
the Range?
Was
RCRA
Subpart X
Permit
Obtained?
Who Performed the
Activities?
Region 4 (Continued)
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
1
Yes
No
EOD
Redstone Arsenal
22
Yes
Yes
Other Than EOD
Sangamo Electric Dump
1
Yes
No
Civilian Contractors
Region 5
Fort Sheridan Closed Overwater Artillery Ranges
1
No
No
Fort Sheridan Small Arms Range
1
No
No
Grissom Air Force Base
2
No
No
Jefferson Proving Grounds
1
Yes
No
Army
Naval Surface Warfare Center
4
Yes
Yes
Army
New Brighton/Arden Hills
1
Yes
Yes
Army
Savanna Army Depot Activity
1
Yes
Yes
EOD
US Army Soldier Support Center
2
No
No
Region 6
Barksdale Air Force Base #1
1
Not Reported
No
Barksdale Air Force Base #2
1
Yes
No
Unknown
Bergstrom Air Force Base
1
Yes
No
EOD
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
1
Yes
No
Navy
Dyess Air Force Base - #1
1
Yes
No
EOD
Dyess Air Force Base - #2
1
No
No
Eaker Air Force Base
1
Yes
Yes
Air Force
Fort Chaffee #1
1
No
No
Fort Wingate Depot
1
Yes
No
Army
Kirtland Air Force Base -#I
1
No
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#2
1
No
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#3
1
No
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#4
1
No
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#5
1
No
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#6
1
No
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#7
1
No
No
Lackland Air Force Base - #1
1
No
No
Lackland Air Force Base - #2
1
No
No
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
1
Yes
No
Not Reported
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
1
Yes
Yes
Other
Melrose Air Force Range
1
Yes
Yes
EOD
Sandia National Laboratories
1
No
No
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
1
Yes
Yes
Civilian Contractors
White Sands Missile Range #1 - Tula Peak
1
Unknown
No
White Sands Missile Range #2 - OB/OD Disposal
1
Yes
Yes
EOD
F-12
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
U of
Ranges
Have any
Planned
OB/OD
Activities Been
Performed at
the Range?
Was
RCRA
Subpart X
Permit
Obtained?
Who Performed the
Activities?
White Sands Missile Range #3 - Red Rio
Munitions
1
Yes
No
Unknown
Region 6 (Continued)
White Sands Missile Range #4 - Bomblet Disposal
1
Unknown
White Sands Missile Range #5 - Oscura Range
1
No
No
Region 7
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
1
Yes
No
Army
Jefferson Barracks
1
Yes
No
USACE
Region 8
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
1
Yes
No
Not Reported
Lowry Bombing Range
1
Yes
No
Civilian Contractors
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1,1a
1
Yes
Yes
Unknown
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 10/11
1
Yes
Yes
Unknown
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lb
1
Yes
Yes
Army
Tooele Army Depot SMWU Ic
1
Yes
Yes
Unknown
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 40, OU9
1
Yes
Yes
Unknown
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 8, OU8
1
Yes
Yes
Unknown
Region 9
Fort Ord
1
Yes
No
Other Than EOD
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
1
Yes
No
Other Than EOD
Salton Sea Test Base
1
Yes
No
Army
Region 10
Camp Bonneville
1
Yes
No
EOD
NAF Adak
18
Yes
No
Navy
Umatilla Army Depot
1
Not Reported
No
Table F-6 Is the Range Covered Under a Federal Facilities Agreement, a State Cleanup
Agreement or Permit, or an Administrative Order? What Type of Agreement?
(Figures 35 and 36)
Surveys Received From Facility
U of
Ranges
Is Range Covered by an
Agreement?
What type of
Agreement?
Region 1
Loring AFB
4
Yes
Not Distinguished
Massachusetts Military Reservation
2
Yes
Federal Facilities Agmt
Nomans Island
1
No
Region 2
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
1
No
Former Raritan Arsenal
1
Unknown
Griffiss Air Force Base
2
No
Naval Weapons Station Earle
1
Yes
Not Distinguished
Picatinny Arsenal
1
Yes
Not Distinguished
F-13
-------
ft of
Is Range Covered by an
What type of
Surveys Received From Facility
Ranges
Agreement?
Agreement?
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #1
1
Yes
Federal Facilities Agmt
Pittsburgh Air Force Base - #2
1
Yes
Federal Facilities Agmt
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #3
1
Yes
Federal Facilities Agmt
Region 2 (Continued)
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #4
1
Yes
Federal Facilities Agmt
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #5
1
Yes
Federal Facilities Agmt
Seneca Army Depot
1
Yes
Federal Facilities Agmt
Region 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground
1
Yes
Federal Facilities Agmt
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
1
No
Fort Picket
1
No
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
1
No
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #1
1
Yes
Federal Facilities Agmt
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #3
1
Yes
Federal Facilities Agmt
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #4
1
Yes
Federal Facilities Agmt
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #5
1
Yes
Federal Facilities Agmt
Tobyhanna Army Depot
1
Yes
Federal Facilities Agmt
Washington, DC, Army Munitions Site
1
No
Region 4
Fort Campbell
3
No
Fort McClellan - #1
44
No
Fort McClellan - #2
17
No
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant BG#5
1
Yes
Federal Facilities Agmt
MacDill Air Force Base
Yes
Not Distinguished
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
1
Yes
Not Distinguished
NAS Cecil Field
Yes
Federal Facilities Agmt
Naval Base Charleston
1
Yes
Not Distinguished
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
1
Unknown
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
1
No
Redstone Arsenal
22
No
Sangamo Electric Dump
1
Yes
Federal Facilities Agmt
Region 5
Fort Sheridan Closed Ovcrwater Artillery Ranges
1
No
Fort Sheridan Small Arms Range
1
No
State Permit
Grissom Air Force Base
No
Jefferson Proving Grounds
1
No
Naval Surface Warfare Center
Yes
Not Distinguished
New Brighton/Arden Hills
1
Yes
Federal Facilities Agmt
Savanna Army Depot Activity
1
Yes
Federal Facilities Agmt
US Army Soldier Support Center
Yes
State Permit
Region 6
Barksdale Air Force Base #1
1
Unknown
Barksdale Air Force Base #2
1
Unknown
Bergstrom Air Force Base
1
No
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
1
Yes
State Permit
Dyess Air Force Base - #1
1
No
Dyess Air Force Base - #2
1
Yes
Not Distinguished
Eaker Air Force Base
1
Yes
State Permit
Fort Chaffee #1
1
No
Fort Wingate Depot
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#1
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#2
1
No
F-14
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
# of
Ranges
Is Range Covered by an
Agreement?
What type of
Agreement?
Kirtland Air Force Base -#3
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#4
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#5
1
No
Region 6 (Continued)
Kirtland Air Force Base -#6
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#7
1
No
Lackland Air Force Base - #1
1
No
Lackland Air Force Base - #2
1
No
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
1
Yes
State Permit
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
1
Yes
Federal Facilities Agmt
Melrose Air Force Range
1
No
Sandia National Laboratories
1
Yes
State Permit
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
1
No
White Sands Missile Range #1 - Tula Peak
1
No
White Sands Missile Range #2 - OB/OD Disposal
1
Yes
State Permit
White Sands Missile Range #3 - Red Rio
Munitions
1
Yes
Not Distinguished
White Sands Missile Range #4 - Bomblet Disposal
1
No
White Sands Missile Range #5 - Oscura Range
1
Yes
Not Distinguished
Region 7
Comhusker Army Ammunition Plant
1
Yes
Not Distinguished
Jefferson Barracks
1
No
Region 8
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
1
Unknown
Lowry Bombing Range
1
Yes
State Cleanup Agmt.
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1,1a
1
Yes
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 10/11
1
Yes
Federal Facilities Agmt
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lb
1
Yes
Federal Facilities Agmt
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lc
1
Yes
Federal Facilities Agmt
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 40, OU9
I
Yes
Federal Facilities Agmt
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 8, OU8
1
Yes
Federal Facilities Agmt
Region 9
Fort Ord
1
Yes
Federal Facilities Agmt
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
1
Yes
State Cleanup Agmt.
Salton Sea Test Base
1
No
Region 10
Camp Bonneville
1
No
NAF Adak
18
Yes
Federal Facilities Agmt
Umatilla Army Depot
1
Yes
Federal Facilities Agmt
F-15
-------
Table F-7 Were Institutional Controls Employed? What Types? Were they Effective?
(Figures 37 and 38)
Surveys Received From Facility
Fence
Signs
FS
Notify
Deed
CW
None
Unk
NR
Controls
Effective?
Region 1
Loring AFB
4
4
4
Yes
Massachusetts Military Reservation
2
Nomans Island
1
1
No
Region 2
Former Morgan Depot/TA Gillespie Loading Co
1
Former Raritan Arsenal
1
Griffiss Air Force Base
2
2
2
Yes
Naval Weapons Station Earle
1
1
Yes
Picatinny Arsenal
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #1
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #2
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #3
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #4
1
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - #5
1
Not Reported
Seneca Army Depot
1
y
Region 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground
1
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
1
Fort Picket
1
Fort Ritchie Army Garrison
1
1
No
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #1
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #3
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #4
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Dahlgren #5
1
Tobyhanna Army Depot
1
1
Washington, DC Army Munitions Site
1
Region 4
Fort Campbell
3
3
Yes
Fort McClcllan - #1
44
Fort McClellan - #2
17
Louisiana Armv Ammunition Plant BG#5
1
1
1
Yes
F-16
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
Fence
Signs
FS
Notify
Deed
GW
None
Unk
NR
Controls
Effective?
Region 4 (Continued)
MacDill Air Force Base
5
5
Yes
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
1
NAS Cecil Field
3
Naval Base Charleston
1
Not Reported
Naval Ordnance Station Louisville
1
Naval Weapons Station Charleston - #2
1
Redstone Arsenal
22
22
Not Reported
Sangamo Electric Dump
I
Yes
Region 5
Fort Sheridan Closed Overwater Artillery Ranges
1
Fort Sheridan Small Arms Range
1
Yes
Grissom Air Force Base
2
Yes
Jefferson Proving Grounds
1
Naval Surface Warfare Center
4
New Brighton/Arden Hills
1
1
Yes
Savanna Army Depot Activity
1
1
Not Reported
US Army Soldier Support Center
2
Unknown
Region 6
Barksdale Air Force Base #1
1
Not Reported
Barksdale Air Force Base #2
1
1
Not Reported
Bergstrom Air Force Base
1
Dallas Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
1
Not Reported
Dyess Air Force Base - #1
1
Not Reported
Dyess Air Force Base - #2
1
Yes
Eaker Air Force Base
1
Fort Chaffee #1
1
Fort Wingate Depot
1
Yes
Kirtland Air Force Base -#1
1
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#2
1
Kirtland Air Force Base -#3
1
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#4
1
1
Yes
Kirtland Air Force Base -#5
1
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#6
1
1
No
Kirtland Air Force Base -#7
1
Yes
F-17
-------
Surveys Received From Facility
Fence
Signs
FS
Notify
Deed
GW
None
Unk
NR
Controls
Effective?
Region 6 (Continued)
Lackland Air Force Base - #1
1
Lackland Air Force Base - #2
1
Lone Star Ammunition Plant
1
Not Reported
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
1
Melrose Air Force Range
1
1
Yes
Sandia National Laboratories
1
Not Reported
Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot
1
Unknown
White Sands Missile Range #1 - Tula Peak
1
1
Not Reported
White Sands Missile Range #2 - OB/OD Disposal
White Sands Missile Range #3 - Red Rio Munitions
1
Not Reported
White Sands Missile Range #4 - Bomblet Disposal
1
Not Reported
White Sands Missile Range #5 - Oscura Range
Region 7
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
1
Yes
Jefferson Barracks
1
Region 8
Black Hills Ordnance Depot
1
1
Not Reported
Lowry Bombing Range
1
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 1, la
1
Yes
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 10/11
1
Yes
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lb
I
Yes
Tooele Army Depot SMWU lc
1
Yes
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 40, OU9
1
Yes
Tooele Army Depot SMWU 8, OU8
1
Yes
Region 9
Fort Ord
1
1
1
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
1
Salton Sea Test Base
1
No
Region 10
Camp Bonneville
1
NAF Adak
18
18
No
Umatilla Army Depot
1
Not Reported
Total Number of Ranges
80
35
43
5
5
3
102
5
2
Key: FS = Facility-Specific, Notify = Notification, Deed = Deed Restriction, GW = Groundwater Restriction, None = No Institutional Controls, Unk = Unknown,
NR = Not Reported
F-18
-------
APPENDIX G
LETTER FROM TIM FIELDS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE
OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, EPA, TO SHERRI
WASSERMAN GOODMAN, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY, DoD, APRIL 22, 1999
-------
^to sr^
A \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
? WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
APR 22 1999
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Ms. Sherri W. Goodman
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Environmental Security)
Department of Defense
3000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, D.CV2030I-3000
Dear
During the past several years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made a significant
commitment to support the development of a Department of Defense (DoD) Range Rule. We have also
supported numerous related DoD efforts, including the Range Rule Risk Methodology and the Military
Munitions Dialogue. Through our cooperative efforts, substantial progress has been made on the
resolution of many overarching issues, improving the process presented within the proposed Rule, and
developing a process to assess risks from unexploded ordnance (UXO). I am encouraged by DoD's recent
decision to modify the Range Rule Risk Methodology towards a risk management strategy. I believe this
decision will lead to more realistic assessments for remedial decisions at military ranges.
Both EPA and DoD had hoped that by this time a promulgated Range Rule would have addressed
the multitude of serious issues at closed, transferred, and transferring military ranges. However, the
completion of the Range Rule is still uncertain. During the last several years, EPA has become
increasingly concerned with the UXO and hazardous chemical contamination situations at military ranges
nationwide. For many reasons, it appears that closed, transferred, and transferring military ranges are not
being adequately addressed in a manner consistent with accepted environmental or explosive safety
standards and practices. Although the final Range Rule would presumably help to address some of these
issues at specific sites, we feel a number of these issues go beyond the scope of the Range Rule, and are
fundamental policy issues. Therefore, I believe these issues are better addressed by national policy, sooner
rather than later. Judging by the increasing number of sites with UXO or UXO-related issues, we are now
at a juncture where these issues need both your and my immediate attention.
Many ranges or sites known or suspected to contain UXO and other hazardous constituents have
already been transferred from DoD control, and many more are in the process of being transferred. The
risks from many of these Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) ranges and Formerly Used Defense Sites
(FUDS) have not been adequately assessed, and if required, addressed. As these formerly remote or
restricted ranges are developed or as the public increases its use of these properties, the risks correspond-
ingly will increase. Consequently, I would like to schedule a two hour meeting with you soon to begin a
dialogue on our concerns. I do not believe we can resolve the myriad of issues in such a short meeting,' but
I feel it is important for us to begin to lay the foundation for working towards a joint resolution.
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Ol Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Poslconsumer)
-------
2
The enclosed list of EPA issues should be used as the basis for our discussion. Overall, EPA's,
and in many cases, the States, Tribes, and public stakeholders concerns with the Service's and the Army
Corps of Engineer's (USACE) activities can be summarized as follows: 1) range assessment and
investigation issues where utilization of selected field screening, detection, statistical sampling, and other
investigation techniques often result in mis-characterization of UXO and hazardous contaminants; 2) non-
compliance with EPA and DoD existing regulatory authorities; 3) generally poor coordination and
information distribution with Federal, State, Tribal and local government regulators as evidenced by
incomplete UXO and contaminant information from the Services and USACE on a site-specific and
national basis; 4) remedy selection and implementation problems such as large-scale. UXO cleanups being
planned or performed as "CERCLA-like" actions; and 5) general concerns over property transferred with
remaining UXO. The enclosed list of EPA concerns elaborates on each of these five general points.
Our concerns are critical to ongoing responses as well as longer-term (Range Rule) efforts at
closed, transferred, and transferring military ranges. Although I recognize that DoD has made significant
progress over the last several years in addressing or beginning to address a number of these concerns, we
have reached a critical crossroads where we must address the growing number of issues. It is my hope
that resolution of these issues will establish a solid foundation for both EPA and DoD to effectively
address future environmental restoration activities. 1 am optimistic we can find an appropriate solution to
each issue, and further develop a viable DoD Range Rule and other policies as appropriate. Ultimately,
solving these issues will lead to better protection of human health and the environment and will increase
the public confidence in our actions.
As always, I look forward to working with you and DoD to resolve these issues. My Office will
be contacting you in the near future to set up a meeting. In the meantime, questions about the enclosure
can be directed to Douglas Bell at (202) 260-8716, or Ken Shuster at (703) 308-8759.
cc: Raymond Fatz, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health, Army
Elsie Munsell, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Environment and Safety, Navy
Thomas McCall, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health,
Air Force
Patricia Rivers, Chief, Environmental Division, USACE
Col. Wilkerson, Deputy Director, Army Environmental Programs
Col. Tompkins, Chairman, DoD Explosives Safety Board
Timothy fc/elds, Jr. ff
Acting Assistant Administrator
Enclosure
-------
ENCLOSURE
EPA ISSUES AT CLOSED, TRANSFERRED, AND
TRANSFERRING MILITARY RANGES
During the last several years an increasing number of issues have arisen relative to UXO,
hazardous contaminants, and military range cleanup. The following represents a description of
the major EPA issues or concerns along with installations where we have encountered these
problems. This list should not be construed as exhaustive.
1) Range Assessment and Investigation
a) Range investigations often lack sufficient site-specific information. The Services and the
USACE generally are not adhering to CERCLA standards and procedures for assessment
and cleanup. The PA/SI, RI/FS, Removal, Remedial, and NOFA processes need to be
equivalent to those specified under CERCLA and the NCP. [For example, at the Black Hills
Army Depot the PA/SI did not meet the minimum requirements set by EPA for assessment. The
RJ/FS workplans and all associated documents were based upon this deficient PA/SI and were
also determined not to meet EPA minimum requirements. Other sites with similar issues
include Savanna Army Depot, Badlands Bombing Range, Lowry Bombing Range, Fort Ritchie,
Fort Meade, and the Nansemond Ordnance Depot.]
b) There has been an increasing tendency for UXO investigations to use statistical grid
sampling methods. Although statistical grid sampling may yield additional information,
extrapolation of these results often lead to inappropriate decisions. The statistical grid
sampling approach used by the USACE would only be appropriate if one expected a
relatively uniform distribution of UXO, which is not the case at military ranges. EPA
believes that in order to achieve protection of human health and the environment, UXO
investigations should be based on a combination of information such as historical data (e.g.,
archives, photos, interviews), range use information, visual site inspections, previous
detection surveys, previous Explosives and Ordnance Demolition (EOD) Unit response
actions, and the resultant knowledge of impact zones and "hot spots." [For example, at the
Lowry Bombing Range the USACE proposed and attempted to use the statistical sampling and
extrapolation methodology. The State of Colorado has recently indicated that those methods
significantly underestimated the amount of ordnance present (inert or live). Other sites that have
similar issues are Savanna Army Depot, Fort Ord, Fort Ritchie, and the Nansemond Army
Depot.]
c) Military ranges generally are not designated by the Services or the USACE as areas of
concern (AOC) even when the installation is listed on the Superfund National Priorities
List (NPL). EPA believes all areas at closed, transferred, and transferring bases with
tixoisi/)99/lM)/rrtiQi)i
- DELIBERA TIVE PROCESS -
1
-------
known or suspected UXO are areas of concern and need to be evaluated in the CERCLA
and NCP context. More recently, the Services and the USACE have unilaterally excluded
UXO areas from proposed CERCLA Records of Decisions (RODs) or from RODs being
implemented where UXO was included in the remedy (e.g., NAF Adak, Umatilla Army
Depot). [At the Umatilla Army Depot, the Army has indicated that they will not address UXO
as specified in the ROD. This decision is now in dispute resolution. At NAF Adak, the Navy
has recently indicated that they do not wish to proceed with a ROD for a separate UXO operable
unit. At Savanna Army Depot, the entire depot (approximately 21 square miles) was initially
utilized as a firing range. Activities up to 1997 were not directed at UXO assessment and
response, rather they were directed in large degree toward open burning and disposal grounds
and non-explosive chemical contamination. Up to this time, UXO in potential firing areas was
not included within the realm of the potential cleanup, therefore, most UXO prone or suspected
areas were not considered areas of concern. In 1998, the Army tentatively agreed to evaluate
several options for assessing areas known or suspected to be contaminated with UXO. The
USACE has proposed to use Sitestats/Gridstats which EPA believes is a very problematic
analytical method (see lb above). Other facilities that have ranges with similar issues include,
but are not limited to: Jefferson Proving Ground, Lowry Bombing Range, Badlands Bombing
Range, Fort Meade, Camp Bonneville, Fort Ord, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Tobyhanna Army
Depot, NAF Adak, and Fort Ritchie.]
d) EPA is encouraged by DoD's recent shift to address ranges through a "risk
management" strategy focusing on both range assessment and remediation for UXO and
other constituents. DoD needs to continue to develop and ultimately implement this
approach through the USACE and the Services. However, despite this recent change in
strategy, EPA has noted at a number of ranges the USACE continues to apply statistical
sampling and risk assessment methods which often lead to premature "informed risk
management decisions." Since the proposed Range Rule process is heavily dependent upon
accurate "informed risk management decision making," DoD needs to ensure that this
revised strategy develops accurate information, reduces short-term risks, and sets the stage
to achieve long-term risk reduction goals. The current approach utilized by the USACE
generally does not address these goals. [For example, at Fort Ritchie, the Army had proposed
to surface clear and provide contractor support in UXO areas that have been proposed by the
LRA to include a residential area. Based in large degree upon the statistical sampling, the Army
wanted to perform only a surface clearance, even though the DDESB standards recommend
much more conservative clearance for residential land use. It is important to note that in many
areas where UXO clearance is not performed to the frost line or sufficient depth, additional UXO
is likely to surface via frost heaving or erosional processes (i.e., mortars have been found to
surface on a golf course). These and other UXO-related issues require the Army develop a long-
term UXO remedial strategy for this area. Other ranges with similar circumstances include
Savanna Army Depot, Lowry Bombing Range, Fort Meade, Nansemond Army Depot, Fort Ord,
Jefferson Proving Ground, and Badlands Bombing Range.]
uxoist/399/hq/regioiii
- DELIBERA TIVE PROCESS -
2
-------
e) DoD is generally not applying the best available technologies to assess and remediate
UXO. In most cases, there appears to be a standard approach to default to the traditional
methods known as "mag and flag". Yet, according to the USACE and others, application
of these methods often results in more expensive, slower, and less accurate UXO detections
than other demonstrated technologies. DoD needs to begin using better technologies
earlier to achieve the most protective level of UXO cleanup, while continuing to examine
the capabilities, uncertainties, and acceptabilities of the various detection approaches. [For
example, at Fort Ritchie only surface clearance is proposed for areas known to be contaminated
with UXO that will be used for residential and commercial purposes. When asked what
measures would be used during excavation, the Army indicated they would only have personnel
on-site with a magnetometer. At Badlands Bombing Range, the artillery impact area was
surveyed using mag and flag but this location would have been suitable for using multiple towed
array sensor methods that have yielded more reliable results at other similar locations at
Badlands.]
f) In those cases where UXO investigations at ranges (or UXO sites) have been performed,
the general approach has been to limit investigation to known ranges/ UXO sites only.
Investigations should not be limited to within the "fenceline," especially when information
suggests that UXO problems are more extensive. [Although Aberdeen Proving Ground has
agreed to perform additional clearance V* mile around the existing facility, no additional
investigation is being performed off-site (e.g., especially in the adjacent rivers or in the
Chesapeake Bay). Other sites with similar issues include the Badlands Bombing Range, Savanna
Army Depot, Tooele Army Depot, Lowry Bombing Range, Jefferson Proving Ground, and NAF
Adak.]
2) Non-Compliance with Regulatory Authorities
a) DDESB 6055.9 Standards for depth of clearance generally are not being followed. [For
example, at Fort Ritchie a surface clearance is proposed for a residential area. DDESB 6055.9
Standards (Chapter 12) specifies that default depths of clearance to 10 feet should be used unless
an alternative is justified and approved by the DDESB based on detailed site-specific
information. As no detailed investigations have taken place over the range areas at Fort Ritchie,
a default clearance depth of 10 feet should be used (unless bedrock is shallower). Please note
that EPA views Chapter 12 as critical due to the nature of explosives safety issues. In addition,
many other range situations have already been documented to have uncontrolled listed wastes
(and/or hazardous substances) and may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to
human health and the environment. Other ranges with similar problems include: Savanna Army
Depot, Fort Meade, Fort Ord, Badlands Bombing Range, Lowry Bombing Range, Umatilla
Army Depot, Camp Bonneville, Jefferson Proving Ground, Nansemond Ordnance Depot, Tooele
Army Depot, and NAF Adak.]
uioisi/399/bq/refioiis
- DELIBERA TIVE PROCESS -
3
-------
b) Current EPA environmental regulations, including, but not limited to, RCRA and
CERCLA, are applicable, but generally are not being followed. [This is particularly relevant
to the depth of clearance of UXO. Many UXO-contaminated areas at closed, transferred, or
transferring military ranges are: 1) not being investigated, or 2) when discovered, are not being
addressed consistent with human health, environmental, or explosives safety regulations. These
types of situations have been noted at many ranges including: Savanna Army Depot, Fort Meade,
Fort Ord, Badlands Bombing Range, Lowry Bombing Range, Umatilla Army Depot, Camp
Bonneville, Jefferson Proving Ground, Nansemond Ordnance Depot, Tooele Army Depot, and
NAF Adak. Other information pertinent to this issue is presented in 1(a) above, and 4(a) below.]
3) Communication. Coordination and Dissemination of Information
Efforts by the Services and the USACE to communicate the scope, nature, and extent of
UXO response activities have not always been successful. In some cases, there has been
little or no effort. Regulators and the public need to be better informed during all stages of
the efforts to address military ranges. The over-reliance on time-critical response actions
also tends to reduce coordination with the regulators and other non-DoD parties. [For
example, the regulators and the public have been discouraged by the USACE lack of cooperation
at the Black Hills Army Depot. Adequate information and answers concerning investigations
and cleanup activities have not been provided to these parties. At Fort Wingate there has been
little or no public involvement concerning UXO issues. At BRAC RAB meetings only cursory
information is presented on the USACE activities. Neither the State, Tribes, or the general
public have received sufficient documentation on the USACE UXO activities at Fort Wingate
that has both BRAC and FUDS properties. Another example is with the proposed transfer of
property at Fort McClellan. The Army has been in the process of negotiating a transfer of UXO
contaminated property with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). It appears that State
and Federal regulatory agencies have not been contacted to participate in these negotiations.
Similar situations have been noted at the Badlands Bombing Range, Lowry Bombing Range,
Jefferson Proving Ground, Fort Ord, and Fort Ritchie.]
4) Remedy Selection and Implementation
a) EPA believes some range UXO detection/clearance operations may not be appropriate
for CERCLA removal nor RCRA emergency situations. To further complicate matters is
the Service/USACE preference to implement "CERCLA-like" accelerated actions. Some of
these actions may not be consistent with CERCLA and the NCP and generally result in less
regulator and public oversight/involvement. Using time-critical/emergency responses as
the sole response paradigm should not be a default approach for the Services/USACE,
especially for range problems that are well beyond the scope of such actions. [For example,
at Fort Ord clearance was conducted for several years as a time-critical removal action. Similar
circumstances are noted at Jefferson Proving Ground, Umatilla Army Depot, and Fort Meade.]
viotii/399/bq/repons
- DELIBERA TIVE PROCESS -
4
-------
b) There is a general over-reliance on institutional controls as the principal remedy
component or as the only remedy to ensure protectiveness. Where employed, the
institutional controls may not be adequately defined, roles and responsibilities are left
unclear and ultimately they may not prevent future incidents where UXO is encountered.
The Services and the USACE are not always implementing adequate access controls (e.g.,
fencing, posting of guards, patrols, etc.) where needed. In addition, periodic inspections
need to be performed at many locations where UXO has been identified, is suspected, or
may have surfaced via erosion or frost heaving at previously cleared areas. [For example, at
NAF Adak institutional controls are proposed for vast areas outside the town where UXO will
generally not be cleared, nor has the area been adequately investigated despite DoD records
indicating potentially extensive UXO contamination. This appears to be a problem because the
recent reuse proposals to expand the town's uses are expected to lead to an increase in the
population (primarily members of the Aleut Tribe, especially children). At Tobyhanna Army
Depot, a 20,000 acre UXO area is now a State park where only signs were posted. The park was
closed in 1997 when 53 unexploded 37 mm shells were found and a recent removal action has
found significant additional UXO. Other examples of access problems have been noted at Camp
Elliott (Tierrasanta), Camp Bonneville, Jefferson Proving Ground, Lowry Bombing Range,
Badlands Bombing Range, Fort Ritchie, Fort Wingate, and Nansemond Army Depot.]
c) Effective regulatory and DoD oversight is an important aspect of remedy
implementation. When it is not implemented, the risk of incidents increase. [For example,
the UXO from the Fort Irwin cleanup was mistaken for clean scrap and transported to a scrap
yard for recycling (in violation of RCRA - the UXO went to a non-permitted facility without
manifest). An employee was killed when he attempted to cut live UXO with welding equipment.
Other examples of where better oversight was needed include, Fort Ord, Jefferson Proving
Ground, and Fort Meade where UXO contaminated areas were inappropriately slated for
transfer.]
5) Transfer of UXO Contaminated Land
a) EPA believes DoD generally should retain ownership and/or control of UXO areas that
are not yet assessed and/or cleaned up as determined by DoD, the appropriate regulatory
agencies and the public (e.g., permanently dudded" impact areas; UXO burial sites; sites
not yet scheduled to be remediated). Federal land management agencies generally want
DoD to complete all environmental restoration prior to any transfer to them. Present land
transfer practices by DoD indicate that UXO contaminated lands continue to be
transferred. [At Fort McClellan the transfer of approximately 10,000 acres of UXO
contaminated land has been proposed. The area has not been adequately assessed and UXO
contamination not yet addressed. The proposed transfer is to the USFWS who do not appear to
have sufficient resources to address UXO contamination of this magnitude. At Jefferson Proving
aiotuft99/bq/rtgiont
- DELIBERA TIVE PROCESS -
5
-------
Ground, a portion of UXO contaminated property north of the firing line was proposed for
transfer to the USFWS. The area was proposed to be used for recreational purposes, but it has
not been thoroughly assessed and UXO not addressed. It has also been mentioned that the
USFWS has since decided not to proceed with the transfer. At Nomans Land Island, although
the fed-to-fed transfer has already taken place, DoD has a continuing obligation to address UXO
safety issues there, as does the USFWS (i.e., to secure the property against trespassers, per the
transfer agreement). Although the area is planned to be used as a wildlife refuge, it is known to
be frequented by boating enthusiasts, and UXO safety issues remain because storm events and
other processes (freeze/thaw) will continue to expose UXO in areas where only surface clearance
has been performed. At Fort Wingate, two closed test ranges containing UXO are slated for
transfer to the DOl. The land may then be re-developed for residential, commercial, open space,
and subsistence farming/ranching uses. Much of these lands are proposed to be transferred to the
DOI. Another example is the UXO contaminated areas transferred to the State at the Tobyhanna
Army Depot.]
b) In some cases, the Services and the USACE have performed only a cursory investigation
(see # 1). Based upon limited information, property has been and is being transferred.
Rather than sufficiently assessing sites and making the property safe for use or transfer,
the DoD and the Services appear to be transferring the land and then waiting for others to
identify problems for DoD response. [For example, DoD is contacted periodically about
newly found UXO at a number of transferred sites. This has been noted at the Aberdeen Proving
Ground, Raritan Arsenal, Morgan Depot, White Sands Missile Range, Lowry Bombing Range,
Badlands Bombing Range, Fort Ritchie, Tobyhanna Army Depot, Fort Ord, Fort Meade
(i.e.,Tipton Air Field), Jefferson Proving Ground, Raritan Arsenal, Morgan Depot, and at EPA
private sites such as the Cohen Property Site in Massachusetts. Although the EOD units have a
good response record, their responses tend to be limited to the newly found UXO, with generally
no further investigation performed to determine the nature and extent of any additional UXO.
This EOD "house call" type follow-up cannot substitute for adequate investigations.]
uioiii/399/liq/regioBi
- DELIBERA TIVE PROCESS -
6
-------
APPENDIX H
INTERIM FINAL DoD AND EPA MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES FOR
IMPLEMENTING RESPONSE ACTIONS AT CLOSED, TRANSFERRING,
AND TRANSFERRED (CTT) RANGES
-------
Interim Final
March 7, 2000
DoD and EPA
Management Principles for Implementing Response Actions at
Closed, Transferring, and Transferred (CTT) Ranges
Preamble
Many closed, transferring, and transferred (CTT) military ranges are now or soon will
be in the public domain. DoD and EPA agree that human health, environmental and
explosive safety concerns at these ranges need to be evaluated and addressed. On
occasion, DoD, EPA and other stakeholders, however, have had differing views
concerning what process should be followed in order to effectively address human
health, environmental, and explosive safety concerns at CTT ranges. Active and
inactive ranges are beyond the scope of these principles.
To address concerns regarding response actions at CTT ranges, DoD and EPA
engaged in discussions between July 1999 and March 2000 to address specific policy
and technical issues related to characterization and response actions at CTT ranges.
The discussions resulted in the development of this Management Principles document,
which sets forth areas of agreement between DoD and EPA on conducting response
actions at CTT ranges.
These principles are intended to assist DoD personnel, regulators, tribes, and other
stakeholders to achieve a common approach to investigate and respond appropriately
at CTT ranges.
General Principles
DoD is committed to promulgating the Range Rule as a framework for response
actions at CTT military ranges. EPA is committed to assist in the development of
this Rule. To address specific concerns with respect to response actions at CTT
ranges prior to implementation of the Range Rule, DoD and EPA agree to the
following management principles:
• DoD will conduct response actions on CTT ranges when necessary to address
explosives safety, human health and the environment. DoD and the regulators must
consider explosives safety in determining the appropriate response actions.
• DoD is committed to communicating information regarding explosives safety to the
public and regulators to the maximum extent practicable.
1
-------
Interim Final
March 7, 2000
• DoD and EPA agree to attempt to resolve issues at the lowest level. When
necessary, issues may be raised to the appropriate Headquarters level. This
agreement should not impede an emergency response.
• The legal authorities that support site-specific response actions at CTT ranges
include, but are not limited to, the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as delegated by Executive Order (E.O.)
12580 and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP);
the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP); and the DoD Explosives
Safety Board (DDESB).
• A process consistent with CERCLA and these management principles will be the
preferred response mechanism used to address UXO at a CTT range. EPA and
DoD further expect that where this process is followed, it would also meet any
applicable RCRA corrective action requirements.
• These principles do not affect federal, state, and tribal regulatory or enforcement
powers or authority concerning hazardous waste, hazardous substances, pollutants
or contaminants, including imminent and substantial endangerment authorities; nor
do they expand or constrict the waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States
contained in any environmental law.
1. State and Tribal Participation
DoD and EPA are fully committed to the substantive involvement of States and
Indian Tribes throughout the response process at CTT ranges. In many cases, a
State or Indian Tribe will be the lead regulator at a CTT range. In working with the
State or Indian Tribe, DoD will provide them opportunities to:
• Participate in the response process, to the extent practicable, with the DoD
Component.
• Participate in the development of project documents associated with the
response process.
• Review and comment on draft project documents generated as part of
investigations and response actions.
• Review records and reports.
2
-------
Interim Final
March 7, 2000
2. Response Activities under CERCLA
DoD Components may conduct CERCLA response actions to address explosives
safety hazards, to include UXO, on CTT military ranges per the NCP. Response
activities may include removal actions, remedial actions, or a combination of the
two.
• DoD may conduct response actions to address human health, environmental, and
explosives safety concerns on CTT ranges. Under certain circumstances, other
federal and state agencies may also conduct response actions on CTT ranges.
• Removal action alternatives will be evaluated under the criteria set forth in the
National Contingency Plan (NCP), particularly NCP §300.410 and §300.415.
• DoD Components will notify regulators and other stakeholders, as soon as possible
and to the extent practicable, prior to beginning a removal action.
• Regulators and other stakeholders will be provided an opportunity for timely
consultation, review, and comment on all phases of a removal response, except in
the case of an emergency response taken because of an imminent and substantial
endangerment to human health and the environment and consultation would be
impracticable (see 10 USC 2705).
• Explosives Safety Submissions (ESS), prepared, submitted, and approved per
DDESB requirements, are required for Time Critical Removal Actions, Non-Time
Critical Removal Actions, and Remedial Actions involving explosives safety
hazards, particularly UXO.
• The DoD Component will make available to the regulators, National Response
Team, or Regional Response Team, upon request, a complete report, consistent
with NCP §300.165, on the removal operation and the actions taken.
• Removal actions shall, to the extent practicable, contribute to the efficient
performance of any anticipated long-term remedial action. If the DoD Component
determines, in consultation with the regulators and based on these Management
Principles and human health, environmental, and explosives safety concerns, that
the removal action will not fully address the threat posed and remedial action may
be required, the DoD Component will ensure an orderly transition from removal to
remedial response activities.
3
-------
Interim Final
March 7, 2000
3. Characterization and Response Selection
Adequate site characterization at each CTT military range is necessary to
understand the conditions, make informed risk management decisions, and
conduct effective response actions.
• Discussions with local land use planning authorities, local officials and the public,
as appropriate, should be conducted as early as possible in the response process
to determine the reasonably anticipated future land use(s). These discussions
should be used to scope efforts to characterize the site, conduct risk assessments,
and select the appropriate response(s).
• Characterization plans seek to gather sufficient site-specific information to: identify
the location, extent, and type of any explosives safety hazards (particularly UXO),
hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants, and "Other Constituents";
identify the reasonably anticipated future land uses; and develop and evaluate
effective response alternatives.
• Site characterization may be accomplished through a variety of methods, used
individually or in concert with one another, including, but not limited to: records
searches, site visits, or actual data acquisition, such as sampling. Statistical or
other mathematical analyses (e.g., models) should recognize the assumptions
imbedded within those analyses. Those assumptions, along with the intended
use(s) of the analyses, should be communicated at the front end to the regulator(s)
and the communities so the results may be better understood. Statistical or other
mathematical analyses should be updated to include actual site data as it becomes
available.
• Site-specific data quality objectives (DQOs) and QA/QC approaches, developed
through a process of close and meaningful cooperation among the various
governmental departments and agencies involved at a given CTT military range, are
necessary to define the nature, quality, and quantity of information required to
characterize each CTT military range and to select appropriate response actions.
• A permanent record of the data gathered to characterize a site and a clear audit trail
of pertinent data analysis and resulting decisions and actions are required. To the
maximum extent practicable, the permanent record shall include sensor data that is
digitally-recorded and geo-referenced. Exceptions to the collection of sensor data
that is digitally-recorded and geo-referenced should be limited primarily to
emergency response actions or cases where impracticable. The permanent record
shall be included in the Administrative Record. Appropriate notification regarding
the availability of this information shall be made.
• The most appropriate and effective detection technologies should be selected for
each site. The performance of a technology should be assessed using the metrics
and criteria for evaluating UXO detection.technology described in Section 4.
4
-------
Interim Final
March 7, 2000
• The criteria and process of selection of the most appropriate and effective
technologies to characterize each CTT military range should be discussed with
appropriate EPA, other Federal State, or Tribal agencies, local officials, and the
public prior to the selection of a technology.
• In some cases, explosives safety, cost, and/or technical limitations, may limit the
ability to conduct a response and thereby limit the reasonably anticipated future
land uses. Where these factors come into play, they should be discussed with
appropriate EPA, other federal, State or Tribal agencies, local officials, and
members of the public and an adequate opportunity for timely review and comment
should be provided. Where these factors affect a proposed response action, they
should be adequately addressed in any response decision document. In these
cases, the scope of characterization should be appropriate for the site conditions.
Characterization planning should ensure that the cost of characterization does not
become prohibitive or disproportionate to the potential benefits of more extensive
characterization or further reductions in the uncertainty of the characterization.
• DoD will incorporate any Technical Impracticability (Tl) determination and waiver
decisions in appropriate decision documents and review those decisions
periodically in coordination with regulators.
• Selection of site-specific response actions should consider risk plus other factors
and meet appropriate internal and external requirements.
4. UXO Technology
Advances in technology can provide a significant improvement to
characterization at CTT ranges. This information will be shared with EPA and
other stakeholders.
• The critical metrics for the evaluation of the performance of a detection technology
are the probabilities of detection and false alarms. A UXO detection technology is
most completely defined by a plot of the probability of detection versus the
probability or rate of false alarms. The performance will depend on the technology's
capabilities in relation to factors such as type and size of munitions, the munitions
depth distribution, the extent of clutter, and other environmental factors (e.g., soil,
terrain, temperature, geology, diurnal cycle, moisture, vegetation). The
performance of a technology cannot be properly defined by its probability of
detection without identifying the corresponding probability of false alarms.
Identifying solely one of these measures yields an ill-defined capability. Of the two,
probability of detection is a paramount consideration in selecting a UXO detection
technology.
• Explosives safety is a paramount consideration in the decision to deploy a
technology at a specific site.
5
-------
Interim Final
March 7, 2000
• General trends and reasonable estimates can often be made based on
demonstrated performance at other sites. As more tests and demonstrations are
completed, transfer of performance information to new sites will become more
reliable.
• Full project cost must be considered when evaluating a detection technology.
Project cost includes, but is not limited to, the cost of deploying the technology, the
cost of excavation resulting from the false alarm rate, and the costs associated with
recurring reviews and inadequate detection.
• Rapid employment of the better performing, demonstrated technologies needs to
occur.
• Research, development, and demonstration investments are required to improve
detection, discrimination, recovery, identification, and destruction technologies.
5. Land Use Controls
Land use controls must be clearly defined, established in coordination with
affected parties (e.g., in the case of FUDS, the current owner; in the case of BRAC
property, the prospective transferee), and enforceable.
• Because of technical impracticability, inordinately high costs, and other reasons,
complete clearance of CTT military ranges may not be possible to the degree that
allows certain uses, especially unrestricted use. In almost all cases, land use
controls will be necessary to ensure protection of human health and public safety.
• DoD shall provide timely notice to the appropriate regulatory agencies and
prospective federal land managers of the intent to use Land Use Controls.
Regulatory comments received during the development of draft documents will be
incorporated into the final land use controls, as appropriate. For Base Realignment
and Closure properties, any unresolved regulatory comments will be included as
attachments to the Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST).
• Roles and responsibilities for monitoring, reporting and enforcing the restrictions
must be clear to all affected parties.
• The land use controls must be enforceable.
• Land use controls (e.g., institutional controls, site access, and engineering controls)
may be identified and implemented early in the response process to provide
protectiveness until a final remedy has been selected for a CTT range.
• Land use controls must be clearly defined and set forth in a decision document.
6
-------
Interim Final
March 7, 2000
• Final land use controls for a given CTT range will be considered as part of the
development and evaluation of response alternatives using the nine criteria
established under CERCLA regulations (i.e., NCP), supported by a site
characterization adequate to evaluate the feasibility of reasonably anticipated future
land uses. This will ensure that land use controls are chosen based on a detailed
analysis of response alternatives and are not presumptively selected.
• DoD will conduct periodic reviews consistent with the Decision Document to ensure
long-term effectiveness of the response, including any land use controls, and allow
for evaluation of new technology for addressing technical impracticability
determinations.
• When complete UXO clearance is not possible at military CTT ranges, DoD will
notify the current land owners and appropriate local authority of the potential
presence of an explosives safety hazard. DoD will work with the appropriate
authority to implement additional land use controls where necessary.
6. Public Involvement.
Public involvement in all phases of the CTT range response process is crucial to
effective implementation of a response.
• In addition to being a requirement when taking response actions under CERCLA,
public involvement in all phases of the range response process is crucial to effective
implementation of a response.
• Agencies responsible for conducting and overseeing range response activities
should take steps to proactively identify and address issues and concerns of all
stakeholders in the process. These efforts should have the overall goal of ensuring
that decisions made regarding response actions on CTTs reflect a broad spectrum
of stakeholder input.
• Meaningful stakeholder involvement should be considered as a cost of doing
business that has the potential of efficiently determining and achieving acceptable
goals.
• Public involvement programs related to management of response actions on CTTs
should be developed and implemented in accordance with DOD and EPA removal
and remedial response community involvement policy and guidance.
7. Enforcement
Regulator oversight and involvement in all phases of CTT range investigations
are crucial to an effective response, increase credibility of the response, and
7
-------
Interim Final
March 7, 2000
promote acceptance by the public. Such oversight and involvement includes
timely coordination between DoD components and EPA, state, or tribal
regulators, and, where appropriate, the negotiation and execution of enforceable
site-specific agreements.
• DoD and EPA agree that, in some instances, negotiated agreements under
CERCLA and other authorities play a critical role in both setting priorities for range
investigations and response and for providing a means to balance respective
interdependent roles and responsibilities. When negotiated and executed in good
faith, enforceable agreements provide a good vehicle for setting priorities and
establishing a productive framework to achieve common goals. Where range
investigations and responses are occurring, DoD and the regulator(s) should come
together and attempt to reach a consensus on whether an enforceable agreement is
appropriate. Examples of situations where an enforceable agreement might be
desirable include locations where there is a high level of public concern and/or
where there is significant risk. DoD and EPA are optimistic that field level
agreement can be reached at most installations on the desirability of an enforceable
agreement.
• To avoid, and where necessary to resolve, disputes concerning the investigations,
assessments, or response at CTT ranges, the responsible DoD Component, EPA,
state, and tribe each should give substantial deference to the expertise of the other
party.
• At NPL sites, disputes that cannot be mutually resolved at the field or project
manager level should be elevated for disposition through the tiered process
negotiated between DoD and EPA as part of the Agreement for the site, based upon
the Model Federal Facility Agreement.
• At non-NPL sites where there are negotiated agreements, disputes that cannot be
mutually resolved at the field or project manager level also should be elevated for
disposition through a tiered process set forth in the site-specific agreement.
• To the extent feasible, conditions that might give rise to an explosives or munitions
emergency (e.g., ordnance explosives) are to be set out in any workplan prepared
in accordance with the requirements of any applicable agreement, and the
appropriate responses to such conditions described, for example as has been done
In the Matter of Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot Site, Suffolk, Virginia, Inter
Agency Agreement to Perform a Time Critical Removal Action for Ordnance and
Explosives Safety Hazards.
• Within any dispute resolution process, the parties will give great weight and
deference to DoD's technical expertise on explosive safety issues.
8
-------
Interim Final
March 7, 2000
8. Federal-to-Federal Transfers
DoD will involve current and prospective Federal land managers in addressing
explosives safety hazards on CTT ranges, where appropriate.
• DoD may transfer land with potential explosives safety hazards to another federal
authority for management purposes prior to completion of a response action, on
condition that DoD provides notice of the potential presence of an explosives safety
hazard and appropriate institutional controls will be in place upon transfer to ensure
that human health and safety is protected.
• Generally, DoD should retain ownership or control of those areas at which DoD has
not yet assessed or responded to potential explosives safety hazards.
9. Funding for Characterization and Response
DoD should seek adequate funding to characterize and respond to explosives
safety hazards (particularly UXO) and other constituents at CTT ranges when
necessary to address human health and the environment.
• Where currently identified CTT ranges are known to pose a threat to human health
and the environment, DoD will apply appropriate resources to reduce risk.
• DoD is developing and will maintain an inventory of CTT ranges.
• DoD will maintain information on funding for UXO detection technology
development, and current and planned response actions at CTT ranges.
10. Standards for Depths of Clearance
Per DoD 6055.9-STD, removal depths are determined by an evaluation of site-
specific data and risk analysis based on the reasonably anticipated future land
use.
• In the absence of site-specific data, a table of assessment depths is used for interim
planning purposes until the required site-specific information is developed.
• Site specific data is necessary to determine the actual depth of clearance.
9
-------
Interim Final
March 7, 2000
11. Other Constituent (OC) Hazards
CTT ranges will be investigated as appropriate to determine the nature and extent
of Other Constituents contamination.
• Cleanup of other constituents at CTT ranges should meet applicable standards
under appropriate environmental laws and explosives safety requirements.
• Responses to other constituents will be integrated with responses to military
munitions, rather than requiring different responses under various other regulatory
authorities.
10
-------
Interim Final
March 7, 2000
References
A. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.
B. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (more
commonly called the National Contingency Plan), 40 C.F.R. § 300 et seq.
C. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.
D. Military Munitions Rule: Hazardous Waste Identification and Management;
Explosives Emergencies; Manifest Exception for Transport of Hazardous Waste
on Right-of-Ways on Contiguous Properties; Final Rule, 40 C.F.R. § 260, et al.
E. Defense Environmental Restoration Program, 10 U.S.C. § 2701-2708, 2810.
F. Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board, 10 U.S.C. § 172
G. Executive Order (E.O.) 12580, Superfund Implementation, January 13, 1987, and
E.O. 13016, Amendment to Executive Order 12580, August 28, 1996.
H. DoD Ammunition and Explosives Safety Standards, DoD Directive 6055.9-STD,
dated July 1999
11
------- |