INTERGOVERNMENTAL DATA QUALITY TASK FORCE
Uniform Federal Policy
For
Quality Assurance Project Plans
(UFP-QAPP)
Munitions Response QAPP Toolkit
Module 2:
Remedial Action
Final, March 2023
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page i
INTERGOVERNMENTAL DATA QUALITY TASK FORCE
Uniform Federal Policy
For
Quality Assurance Project Plans
(UFP-QAPP)
Munitions Response QAPP Toolkit
Module 2:
Remedial Action
Final, March 2023
GREGORY
GERVAIS
Digitally signed by
GREGORY GERVAIS
Date: 2023.03.31 16:15:59
-04'00'
3/31/23
Gregory Gervais, P.E. Date
Director, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
KIDD.RICHARD.GO Digitally signed by
ODWIN.IV.1163856 S5^ARDG0ฐDWN 'V1
081 Date: 2023.04.07 07:03:49 -04'00'
4/7/23
Richard Kidd
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Environment & Energy Resilience
Date
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page ii
Acknowledgement
The Intergovernmental Data Quality Task Force (IDQTF) would like to thank the members of the IDQTF
Munitions Response Subgroup for their time and efforts preparing this document. Comprised of
technical experts and stakeholders representing DoD, the Strategic Environmental Research
Demonstration Program (SERDP), the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP),
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO),
and the states of Colorado and California, the IDQTF Munitions Response Subgroup includes the
following members:
Jordan Adelson, Ph.D., Navy Laboratory Quality and Accreditation Office, NAVSEA 04Q
William Corl, Ph.D., Navy Laboratory Quality and Accreditation Office, NAVSEA 04Q
Bryan Harre, Naval Facilities Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center, NAVFAC EXWC
John Jackson, Military Munitions Division, USACE/EMCX, Huntsville District
Brian Jordan, DoD Cleanup, OSD/ODASD (Environment & Energy Resilience)
Doug Maddox, P.E., U.S. EPA Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
Herb Nelson, Ph.D., SERDP & ESTCP
Ed Walker, California EPA, Department of Toxic Substances Control
James Salisbury, Military Munitions Division, USACE/EMCX, Huntsville District
Andrew Schwartz, Military Munitions Division, USACE/EMCX, Huntsville District
Jeff Swanson, P.E., Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment
Jon Ussery, Air Force Civil Engineer Center, AFCEC/CZR
Anne Andrews, Ph.D., Prince Street Consulting (Contract support)
Carla Garbarini, NSTECH (Contract support)
Daniel Steinhurst, Ph.D., Nova Research, Inc. (Contract support)
The IDQTF also thanks the members of the Munitions Response Dialog, including Mr. Brian Jordan (DoD
Co-chair), Mr. Doug Maddox (EPA Co-chair), and Ms. Tracie White (State Co-chair) for their support, and
gratefully acknowledges the National Association of Ordnance Contractors for their helpful insights and
contributions made during the development of this document.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page iii
Table of Contents
Preface 1
Uses and Limitations of Analog Technology 5
Abbreviations, acronyms, and trade names 9
Glossary 13
Worksheet #1 & 2: Title and Approval Page 19
Worksheet #3 & 5: Project Organization and QAPP Distribution 21
Worksheet #4, 7 & 8: Personnel Qualifications and Sign-off Sheet 25
Worksheet #6: Communication Pathways and Procedures 31
Worksheet #9: Project Planning Session Summary 39
Worksheet #10: Conceptual Site Model 41
Worksheet #11: Data Quality Objectives 55
Worksheet #12: Measurement Performance Criteria 75
Worksheet #14 & 16: Project Tasks and Schedule 91
Worksheet #17: Survey Design and Project Workflow 95
Worksheet #22: Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Quality Control 142
Worksheet #29: Data Management, Project Documents, and Records 192
Worksheet #31, 32 & 33: Assessments and Corrective Action 196
Worksheet #35: Data Verification and Validation Procedures 198
Worksheet #37: Data Usability Assessment 200
List of Tables
Table 1: Crosswalk: Optimized UFP-QAPP Worksheets to MR-QAPP Module 2: RA 3
Table 4-1: DoD Personnel 25
Table 4-2: Prime Contractor and Subcontractor(s) 27
Table 4-3: Explosives Safety Operations Organization 29
Table 6-1: Communication Pathways and Procedures 31
Table 9-1: Project-Planning Participants 39
Table 9-2: Action Items 39
Table 10-1: Conceptual Site Model Summary for MRS A1 - Maneuver Area Development Area 46
Table 10-2: Conceptual Site Model Summary for MRS A2 - Maneuver Area Recreational Area 48
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page iv
Table 10-3: Conceptual Site Model Summary for MRS B1 - Mortar Range Flat Terrain Area 50
Table 10-4: Conceptual Site Model Summary for MRS B2 - Mortar Range Steep Terrain Area 51
Table 10-5: Conceptual Site Model Summary for MRS C - Bomb Target 53
Table 11-1: Summary of Selected Remedy 56
Table 11-2: Data Collection Goals and Information Inputs (DQO Steps 2 and 3) 59
Table 11-3: Target Population [Example] 65
Table 12-1: MPC for MRS Al, Maneuver Area Development Area - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal
using non-AGC DGM Detection and Cued AGC 75
Table 12-2: MPC for MRS A2, Maneuver Area Recreational Area - MEC Surface Removal using
Instrument-Aided Visual Identification 80
Table 12-3: MPC for MRS Bl, Mortar Range - Flat Terrain Area - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal
using non-AGC DGM 82
Table 12-4: MPC for MRS B2, Mortar Range - Steep Terrain Area - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal
using Analog Detection 85
Table 12-5: MPC for MRS C, Bombing Target - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using Dynamic AGC
followed by Cued AGC 87
Table 14-1: Project Tasks and Schedule 91
Table 22-1: MRS Al - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using non-AGC DGM Detection and Cued
AGC 142
Table 22-2: MRS A2 - MEC Surface Removal using Instrument-Aided Visual Identification 157
Table 22-3: MRS Bl - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using non-AGC DGM 163
Table 22-4: MRS B2 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using Analog Detection 172
Table 22-5: MRS C- MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using Dynamic AGC followed by Cued AGC
178
Table 29-1: Minimum Required Documents and Records 192
Table 31-1: Assessment Schedule 196
Table 35-1: Data Verification and Validation Procedures 198
Table 37-1: Data Usability Assessment 202
Table A-l: Dynamic One-Pass AGC Surveys 204
Table A-2: Simultaneous Location and Mapping MQOs 208
Table D-l: Summary of non-conformances, root causes, and corrective action 214
Table D-2: MPC Evaluation for MRS Al - Detection Survey 215
Table D-3: Summary of non-conformances, root causes, and corrective action 223
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page v
Table D-4: MPC Evaluation for MRS A1 - Cued Survey 224
Table D-5: Summary of non-conformances, root causes, and corrective action 230
Table D-6: MPC Evaluation for MRS A1 - Project Conclusion 231
Table D-7: Summary of non-conformances, root causes, and corrective action 237
Table D-8: MPC Evaluation for MRS A2 - Project Completion 238
Table D-9: Summary of non-conformances, root causes, and corrective action 246
Table D-10: MPC Evaluation for MRS B1 - Detection Survey 247
Table D-ll: Summary of non-conformances, root causes, and corrective action 255
Table D-12: MPC Evaluation for MRS B1 - Project Conclusion 255
Table D-13: Summary of non-conformances, root causes, and corrective action 262
Table D-14: MPC Evaluation for MRS B2 - Project Conclusion 263
Table D-15: Summary of non-conformances, root causes, and corrective action 271
Table D-16: MPC Evaluation for MRS C - Detection Survey 272
Table D-17: Summary of non-conformances, root cause analysis, and corrective action 280
Table D-18: MPC Evaluation for MRS C - Cued Survey 280
Table D-19: Summary of non-conformances, root causes, and corrective action 286
Table D-20: MPC Evaluation for MRS C - Project Conclusion 287
Table E-l: Overview of the Remedy for Camp Example MRS A1 297
List of Figures
Figure 3-1: Project Organizational Structure 22
Figure 3-2: Explosives Safety Operations Organizational Structure 23
Figure 9-1: Example Planning Process for RA 40
Figure 10-1: MRS A1 (Maneuver Area Development Area) and MRS A2 (Maneuver Area Recreational
Area) 43
Figure 10-2: MRS B1 (Mortar Range Flat Terrain Area) and MRS B2 (Mortar Range Steep Terrain Area).44
Figure 10-3: MRS C (Bomb Target) 45
Figure 10-4: Initial Vertical CSM for MRS B1/B2 52
Figure 10-5: Initial Vertical CSM for MRS C 54
Figure 17-1: MRS A1 96
Figure 17-2: MRS A2 106
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page vi
Figure 17-3: MRS B1 110
Figure 17-4: MRS B2 116
Figure 17-5: MRSC 120
Figure 17-6: MRS A1 Decision Diagram 131
Figure 17-7: MRSA2 Decision Diagram 134
Figure 17-8: MRS B1 Decision Diagram 135
Figure 17-9: MRS B2 Decision Diagram 137
Figure 17-10: MRS C Decision Diagram 138
Figure D-l. Vertical CSM for MRS A1 at the conclusion of the RA 229
Figure D-2: Final MRS A1 CSM: Maneuver Area Aerial View 235
Figure D-3: Final MRS A2 CSM: Maneuver Area Aerial View 243
Figure D-4. Vertical CSM for MRS B1 at the conclusion of the RA 253
Figure D-5: Final MRS B1 CSM: Mortar Target Aerial View 257
Figure D-6. Vertical CSM for MRS B2 at the conclusion of the RA 261
Figure D-7: Final MRS B2 CSM: Mortar Target Aerial View 267
Figure D-8. Vertical CSM for MRS C at the conclusion of the RA 285
Figure D-9: Final MRS C CSM: Bomb Target Aerial View 291
Figure E-l: MRS A1 Maneuver Area Development Area 296
Figure E-2: Final CSM for MRS A1 showing findings of the RA 298
Figure E-3: Depth profile of recovered munitions, seeds, and maximum reliable detection depths 299
Appendices
QAPP Appendix A: Measurement Quality Objectives for Geophysical Systems not Illustrated in this
Document 204
QAPP Appendix B: Site-specific Records of Decision [Reserved] 209
QAPP Appendix C: Standard Operating Procedures [Reserved] 210
QAPP Appendix D: Example Data Usability Assessment Reports 212
QAPP Appendix E: Example Memorandum Supporting Unrestricted Use/Unlimited Exposure 292
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page vii
[This page intentionally left blank.]
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 1 of 303
Preface
The IDQTF Munitions Response Subgroup has developed the Munitions Response Quality Assurance
Project Plan (MR-QAPP) Toolkit to assist project teams in planning for the characterization and
remediation of munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) using geophysical methods at Department of
Defense (DoD) installations and formerly used defense sites (FUDS) (collectively referred to as Munitions
Response Sites (MRS)). The MR-QAPP Toolkit is based on requirements and guidance contained in the
Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans (UFP-QAPP, IDQTF, 2005) and makes use of
applicable worksheets contained in the Optimized UFP-QAPP Worksheets (IDQTF, 2012), which have
been adapted for this purpose.
This Toolkit employs the systematic planning process (SPP) to illustrate scientifically sound approaches
to characterizing and remediating MEC at MRS in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended. It does not address the
characterization or remediation of munitions constituents (MC) or chemical warfare materiel (CWM). A
separate systematic planning process must be used, and separate data quality objectives (DQOs)
documented, for projects involving the characterization and remediation of MC or CWM. In addition, all
worksheets pertaining to chemical sampling and analysis contained in the 2012 Optimized UFP-QAPP
worksheets must be completed.
The use of the Toolkit will help project teams plan data collection efforts and generate QAPPs
addressing all elements of the national consensus standard ANSI/ASQ E4-2004, Quality Systems for
Environmental Data and Environmental Technology Programs.
MR-QAPP Module 1, Update 1, March 2020, provides guidance and illustrates approaches for planning
and implementing the Remedial Investigation (Rl)/Feasibility Study (FS) phase of the process. MR-QAPP
Module 2 (this document) provides guidance and illustrates approaches for planning and implementing
the Remedial Action (RA).
Planning for the Remedial Action begins during the FS, where Remedial Action Objectives (RAO) are first
established. Following development of a proposed plan and a public comment period, the remedy
selection decision is documented in the site-specific Record(s) of Decision (ROD), which formally
documents the RAO; describes components of the remedy (e.g., treatment, engineering controls, and
institutional controls); and specifies remediation goals (i.e., cleanup levels).
A site-specific MR-QAPP prepared in accordance with this document will contain all procedures
necessary to conduct and demonstrate successful RA implementation and achievement of RAO
applicable to MEC removal presented in the site-specific ROD. [Note: Procedures necessary to
demonstrate achievement of RAOs related to land use controls (LUC) would be described in a separate
document (e.g., a Land Use Control Implementation Plan).
As in Module 1, this document places heavy emphasis on the role of the Data Usability Assessment
(DUA) in decision-making. Specifically, achievement of the RAO will require an evaluation during the
DUA of whether 1) key underlying assumptions presented in the conceptual site model (CSM) are
correct; 2) data completeness objectives were achieved, 3) the remedy was implemented as planned,
and 4) if Unlimited Use (UU)/Unrestricted Exposure (UE) is a feasible and desirable end state for the RA
at any MRS, all necessary lines of evidence defined in the DQOs support UU/UE.
Using green text, this document provides instructions and guidance for completing each worksheet to
make sure all specifications necessary to implement the remedy and achieve the RAO are captured. Blue
text provides examples of the types of information typically needed, based on a fictional site, "Camp
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 2 of 303
Example/' which includes former targets, ranges, and a maneuver area. Other types of MRSs exist (e.g.,
old disposal/burial pits, etc.) for which different lines of evidence may be needed.
Where applicable, minimum recommended requirements contained in worksheets are presented in
black text. Project teams must provide the rationale for changes to black text, which are subject to
regulatory review and acceptance. A convenient and efficient way to do this is to provide an appendix to
the project-specific QAPP describing any changes and providing the rationale. [Note: Specifications
contained in the site-specific ROD supersede any specifications in this document presented in black
text.]
As in Module 1, the examples make use of both digital and analog geophysical technology, to illustrate
the appropriate applications of each. It should be noted, however, that the use of analog technology is
appropriate only in cases where it is the only viable option. The examples do not address all currently
available detection/classification systems. Appendix A includes measurement quality objectives (MQO)
applicable to currently available geophysical systems not addressed in the examples.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 3 of 303
Table 1: Crosswalk: Optimized UFP-QAPP Worksheets to MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Optimized UFP-QAPP Worksheets
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
1 & 2
Title and Approval Page
Included
3 & 5
Project Organization and QAPP Distribution
Included
4, 7 & 8
Personnel Qualifications and Sign-off Sheet
Included
6
Communication Pathways and Procedures
Included
9
Planning Process for Remedial Action
Included
10
Conceptual Site Model
Included
11
Data Quality Objectives
Included
12
Measurement Performance Criteria
Included
13
Secondary Data Uses and Limitations
Not included - At the start of the RA, all relevant
previously collected data, including secondary data, should
be compiled in the CSM.
14 & 16
Project Tasks & Schedule
Included
15
Project Action Limits and Laboratory-Specific
Detection/Quantitation Limits
Not applicable - No chemical testing being performed
17
Sampling Design and Rationale
Included - Title changed to "Survey Design and Project
Workflow"
18
Sampling Locations and Methods
Not applicable - No environmental samples being
collected
19 & 30
Sample Containers, Preservation, and Hold
Times
Not applicable - No environmental samples being
collected
20
Field Quality Control (QC)
Worksheet not included - Field QC procedures are
included on Worksheet #22
21
Field Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
Worksheet not included - SOPs are referenced on
Worksheet #17 and Worksheet #22
22
Field Equipment Calibration, Maintenance,
Testing, and Inspection
Included - Title changed to "Equipment Testing,
Inspection, and Quality Control
23
Analytical SOPs
Not applicable - No laboratory analysis being performed
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 4 of 303
Table 1: Crosswalk: Optimized UFP-QAPP Worksheets to MR-QAPP Module 2: RA (Continued)
Optimized UFP-QAPP Worksheets
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
24
Analytical Instrument Calibration
Not applicable - No laboratory analysis being performed
25
Analytical Instrument and Equipment
Maintenance, Testing, and Inspection
Not applicable - No laboratory analysis being performed
26 & 27
Sample Handling, Custody, and Disposal
Not applicable - No samples being collected
28
Analytical Quality Control and Corrective
Action
Not applicable - No laboratory analysis being performed
29
Project Documents and Records
Included - Title changed to "Data Management, Project
Documents and Records"
31, 32 & 33
Assessments and Corrective Action
Included
34
Data Verification and Validation Inputs
Worksheet not included - Use is optional
35
Data Verification Procedures
Included - Title changed to "Data Verification and
Validation Procedures"
36
Data Validation Procedures
Worksheet not included - Data validation is addressed in
Worksheet #35
37
Data Usability Assessment
Included
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 5 of 303
Uses and Limitations of Analog Technology
Introduction: Due in large part to efforts conducted under the Strategic Environmental Research and
Development Program (SERDP) and the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program
(ESTCP) and supported by the Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC), geophysical
technology employed to permit the detection, and removal of MEC at munitions response sites has
matured and been successfully demonstrated. Available tools now include advanced geophysical
classification (AGC) sensor platforms, "one-pass" detection/classification systems, planning and data
analysis software, and more accurate and reliable geolocation and navigation tools. According to The
DoD/EPA Management Principles for Implementing Response Actions at Closed, Transferring, and
Transferred Ranges (March 7, 2000) "Rapid employment of the better performing, demonstrated
technologies needs to occur."
Relevant Requirements: The DoD Information Quality Guidelines (February 10, 2003) prescribe policy
and procedures for ensuring and maximizing the quality of information disseminated to the public by
DoD. Specifically, the level of quality necessary for influential scientific data requires that such
information be capable of being substantially reproduced. With regard to analysis of risks to health,
safety, or the environment, the guidelines adopt the quality principles of the Safe Drinking Water Act,
which are to use:
The best available, peer-reviewed science, and
Data collected by accepted methods or best available methods.
As further provided and explained in The DoD/EPA Management Principles, adequate characterization
of ranges, which is necessary to make informed risk management decisions and conduct effective
response actions, requires the following:
A permanent record of the data including a clear audit trail of data analysis and resulting
decisions and actions. Exceptions should be limited to emergency response actions or cases
where impractical.
Selection of the most appropriate and effective detection technologies.
Regulatory and public involvement when selecting the most appropriate detection technologies
at a site.
Geophysical Detection Systems: EM 200-1-15 provides a comprehensive description of the capabilities
and limitations of various geophysical systems used to detect geophysical anomalies associated with
items of concern (IOC). The two principal sensor technologies used are electromagnetic induction (EMI)
and magnetometer, both of which can be operated in either an analog or digital recording mode. The
detection and location of IOC depend on the ability of the systems to distinguish the measured signals
arising from IOC from those of the surrounding environment.
In 2005-2006, the Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC), together with the SERDP,
conducted a survey of existing studies to document the application and performance of munitions
detection technologies available at that time, including magnetometer and EMI in both analog and
digital modes. The study found that while both technologies are capable of detecting most munitions
under typical site conditions, there are large variations in performance across demonstrators, even
when using systems based around the same basic sensors. It further found that digital sensors generally
achieved a higher probability of detection (Pd) and lower false-alarm rate than mag and flag. Across all
technologies the report observed, "The ability of a system to achieve optimum performance is a
function of both the capabilities of the detection technology and quality of its implementation. Real-
world challenges such as terrain, geologic noise, overlapping signatures, surface clutters, variations in
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 6 of 303
operator technique, target selection, and data processing all detract from and affect optimum
performance. Quality control and quality assurance programs are critical to achieving successful results
with any munitions detection technology."
Analog geophysical tools produce an audible output, meter deflection, and/or numeric output, which is
interpreted in real time by the instrument operator. Analog tools include handheld EMI detectors and
ferrous locators (magnetometers). The operator holding the sensor serves as the survey platform,
positioning system, and data-processing system. Unexploded ordnance (UXO) technicians have used
analog tools ("Mag & Flag" or "Mag & Dig") for many years to screen areas for IOC and conduct
clearance activities. When an anomaly is detected, the location is marked immediately by placing a small
flag in the ground. Analog tools can be useful in certain applications because they provide real-time field
observations, anomaly locations can be manually flagged at the time the signal is observed and
excavated immediately following the survey, and there are few constraints due to vegetation or
topography. Their use is limited by the following, however:
Data quality depends on human factors that cannot be measured (including
attentiveness/distraction and individual interpretations of audible signals).
Decisions are made in the field based on the operator's judgment.
The instrument response provides no information regarding the source of the anomaly;
therefore, it is unable to distinguish munitions from non-hazardous debris or geology.
The probability of detection for munitions of concern has been demonstrated to be between 50
and 72% (ITRC 2006).
No permanent electronic record (of either location coordinates or instrument response) is
provided; therefore, no auditable decision record exists.
Digital geophysical tools measure the same physical properties but also digitally record and geo-
reference data to measurement locations. All digital tools provide a permanent electronic record of the
data, ensuring data reproducibility and permitting after-the-fact data analysis. Data can be interpreted
immediately or at anytime after data collection is complete. Digital instruments also include advanced
EMI sensors that provide information on the physical attributes of the anomaly source, enabling the
classification of anomalies as targets of interest (TOI) or non-TOI. Their use is limited in areas where
vegetation or topography limit access or impede the function of positioning systems.
Quality Considerations: The data recorded using digital methods support a range of quality checks that
can verify the quality of the overall data package, as well as the proper operation of individual
components of the detection system; for example, (1) in the instrument verification strip (IVS),
measured responses morning and evening consistent with known responses of previously characterized
munitions or test objects verify sensor operation and correspondence of measured and known seed
locations verify geolocation, (2) in field data, track files verify actual coverage is consistent with planned
coverage and reveal any deficiencies, (3) locations and signals of seeds in field data verify ongoing
performance of the system, (4) measures of battery strength and/or transmit current verify the sensor
is operating within specifications, (5) anomaly selection criteria are quantitative and analyst adherence
to specified criteria can be verified. These checks and others can be used to verify the system is in
control throughout data collection and analysis operations.
None of the above quality measures can be applied to analog systems, constraining quality control and
quality assurance options. In the absence of demonstrating that a system (and/or its components) is
continuously in control with quantitative parameters, quality control is limited to whether the system is
detecting the items of interest. This approach requires extensive seeding to demonstrate that the
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 7 of 303
system is operating as required throughout data collection operations, requiring that each system (i.e.,
operator) encounter and detect multiple seeds per day that represent the IOC. If the data are only to be
used to identify the location of a high-density area, the IOC (and therefore the seeds) may be any metal
object. However, if the data are ultimately to be used to estimate the site-specific performance of a
technology in a remedial action, the seeds must represent the munitions of interest at the depth of
interest.
Summary: Because of recent, significant developments in geophysical technology, analog tools currently
do not represent the best available science for most applications. Specifically, they do not provide a
permanent, auditable record of the data and do not generate data capable of being substantially
reproduced. Developing rigorous QC measures capable of assessing operator performance is more
challenging and less precise than for digital methods. For these reasons, analog geophysical tools should
not be used for munitions response activities, except in an iterative multi-survey approach or in rare
cases where threatened or endangered vegetation or difficult terrain preclude the use of digital tools.
Furthermore, when using analog technology and making analog data publicly available, project teams
must disclose the uses and limitations of the data; specifically, the probability of detection is inferior to
that achieved using digital methods, and the manner in which coverage is assessed is qualitative and
subjective.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 8 of 303
[This page intentionally left blank.]
-------
Abbreviations, acronyms, and trade names
AFCEC/CZR - Air Force Civil Engineer Center
AGC-Advanced geophysical classification
ANSI/ASQ- American National Standards Institute/American Society for Quality
bgs - below ground surface
CA - Corrective action
CAR - Corrective action request
CERCLA-Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
cm - centimeter
CSM - Conceptual site model
CWM - Chemical warfare materiel
DAGCAP - DoD Advanced Geophysical Classification Accreditation Program
DD - Decision document
DDESB - Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board
DESR- Defense Explosives Safety Regulation
DFW - Definable feature of work
DGM - Digital geophysical mapping
DMM - Discarded military munitions
DoD - Department of Defense
DQI - Data quality indicator
DQO - Data quality objective
DUA - Data usability assessment
EOD - Explosive ordnance disposal
EM61ฎ - Time-domain electromagnetic metal detector (Geonics)
EMI - Electromagnetic induction
EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESTCP - Environmental Security Technology Certification Program
EXWC- Expeditionary and Warfare Center
FCR- Field change request
FFRRO - Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
FS - Feasibility Study
FUDS - Formerly used defense sites
GIS - Geographic information system
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 10 of 303
GPS - Global positioning system
HAZWOPER - Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response
HD - High anomaly density
HE - High explosive
i/a/w - in accordance with
IDQTF - Intergovernmental Data Quality Task Force
IOC - Item of concern
ISO - Industry standard object
ISO80 - Schedule 80 small ISO
ISS - Informed source selection
ITRC - Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council
ITS - Instrument test strip
IVS - Instrument verification strip
LD - Low anomaly density
LUC - Land use control
m - meter
MC- Munitions constituents
MD - Munitions debris
MEC- Munitions and explosives of concern
mm - millimeter
MPC- Measurement performance criteria
MPPEH - Material potentially presenting an explosive hazard
MQO - Measurement quality objective
MRDC - Maximum reliable depth of classification
MRDD - Maximum reliable depth of detection
MR-QAPP - Munitions Response Quality Assurance Project Plan
MRA - Munitions response area
MRS - Munitions response site
mV - millivolt
mV/A - millivolt per Ampere
N/A - Not applicable
NAVFAC- Naval Facilities
NAVSEA- Naval Sea Systems Command
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 11 of 303
NMEA- National Marine Electronics Association
Oasis montajฎ - Suite of tools for modeling and analyzing geophysical data (Seequent)
OB/OD - Open burning/open detonation
OSD - Office of the Secretary of Defense
OASD - Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
Pd - Probability of detection
PLS- Professional licensed surveyor
PM - Project manager
OA - Quality assurance
QAPP - Quality assurance project plan
QC - Quality control
RA - Remedial action
RACR - Remedial action completion report
RAO - Remedial action objective
RCA - Root cause analysis
RD - Remedial design
Rl - Remedial investigation
RMS - Root mean square
ROD - Record of decision
RPM - Remedial project manager
RTK - Real time kinematic
RTS - Robotic total station
Schonstedtฎ GA-52Cx - A handheld analog magnetometer used to detect ferrous metal (Radiodetection)
SERDP - Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
SLAM-Simultaneous Location and Mapping
SNR - Signal to noise ratio
SOP - Standard operating procedure
SPP - Systematic planning process
SRA - Saturated response area
SUXOS - Senior Unexploded Ordnance Supervisor
TBD - To be determined
TEMTADSฎ - Time-Domain Electromagnetics Multi-Sensor Towed Array Detection System (U.S. Navy)
TOI - Target of interest
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 12 of 303
TP-Technical paper
UFP-QAPP - Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans
USACE/EMCX - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Environmental and Munitions Center of Expertise
USGS - U.S. Geological Survey
UU/UE- Unlimited Use/Unrestricted Exposure
UX-Analyze - A data analysis tool that is part of Oasis montajฎ
UXO - Unexploded ordnance
UXOQCS - Unexploded Ordnance Quality Control Specialist
UXOSO - Unexploded Ordnance Safety Officer
VSP - Visual Sample Plan
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 13 of 303
Glossary
[Note: This glossary includes the MR-QAPP Module 1 glossary as well as terms used in Module 2. The
hierarchy for the sources of definitions presented here is 1) statute, 2) regulation, 3) DoD/EPA policy,
and 4) DoD/EPA guidance documents.]
Anomaly: [IDQ.TF] Measured response associated with one or more sources that can be distinguished
from background.
Background anomaly density: [IDQ.TF Module 1] The anomaly density in an area where anomalies occur
solely from geologic material or anthropogenic clutter not related to DoD range activities. This
information may not be known prior to field investigation activities. Background anomalies are assumed
to be uniformly distributed throughout the site, or throughout defined sub-areas of the site, as
explained in the preliminary CSM. Initial estimates of background density are based on information
contained in the CSM, including site history, geology, and the results of previous investigations. The
actual background density can be measured using geophysical sensors in areas where no range activities
have occurred.
Buffer zone: [IDQ.TF Module 1] A low anomaly density (LD) area surrounding a confirmed high use area
(HUA) designed to accommodate uncertainty associated with establishing HUA boundaries. The buffer
zone will always be located in the LD area; that is, the anomaly density in the buffer zone will always be
below the critical density. Project teams will determine the size and configuration of buffer zones based
on uncertainty in the sampling design and site-specific properties related to range design, e.g., type of
munitions used and surface danger zone (SDZ)/weapon danger zone (WDZ) calculations. Within a buffer
zone, the presence of intact munitions is much less likely than in a HUA but has not been ruled out.
Critical (anomaly) density: [IDQ.TF Module 1 - A Visual Sample Plan (VSP) input parameter] Defined in
VSP as "the upper bound of acceptable anomaly density", i.e., the estimated, site-specific upper bound
of anomaly density considered to be attributable to background (non-munitions-related) sources. It is
the project-specific, user-defined value for anomaly density (inclusive of background) used to delineate
high anomaly density (HD) areas from low anomaly density (LD) areas.
Delivery unit: [IDQ.TF] One or more survey units grouped into a single unit for the purpose of conducting
the data usability assessment. Final verification and validation digs are tied to the delivery unit. Delivery
units will encompass one or more contiguous geographic areas for which 100% of relevant coverage
metrics have been achieved. Delivery units are established by the project team during project planning.
Smaller sites may have only one delivery unit per MRS while larger sites may have more.
Dig list: [IDQTF] List of anomaly locations that must be excavated to determine their sources. For AGC,
the dig list will include TOI, verification digs, validation digs, and inconclusive AGC analyses; for non-AGC
digital methods, the dig list will include TOI.
Discarded Military Munitions (DMM): [10 U.S.C. 2710(e)(2)] Military munitions that have been
abandoned without proper disposal or removed from storage in a military magazine or other storage
area for the purpose of disposal. The term does not include unexploded ordnance, military munitions
that are being held for future use or planned disposal, or military munitions that have been properly
disposed of consistent with applicable environmental laws and regulations.
Engineering controls: [EPA DD Guidance] Physical barriers to exposure.
Explosive: [DESR 6055.09] A substance or a mixture of substances that is capable by chemical reaction of
producing gas at such temperature, pressure, and speed as to cause damage to the surroundings.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 14 of 303
Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS): [FUDS Program Policy, ER 200-3-1, May 2004, included in AFCEC
MMRP Guide] Facility or site (property) that was under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense and
owned by, leased to, or otherwise possessed by the United States at the time of actions leading to the
contamination by hazardous substances. By the DoD Environmental Restoration Policy, the FUDS
program is limited to those real properties that were transferred from DoD control prior to 17 October
1986. FUDS properties can be located within the 50 States, District of Columbia, Territories,
Commonwealths, and possessions of the United States.
High anomaly density (HD) area: [IDQTF Module 1] Area within a munitions response site (MRS) where
the anomaly density has been determined to be > critical density. HD areas will be presumed to result
from munitions use unless it can be demonstrated otherwise.
High explosive (HE): [DESR 6055.09] An explosive substance designed to function by detonation (e.g.,
main charge, booster, or primary explosive).
High use area (HUA): [IDQTF Module 1] HD area where munitions use has been confirmed. Unexploded
ordnance (UXO) and/or DMM are anticipated to be present in HUAs.
Informed source selection: [SERDP-ESTCP] The use of extra information inherent in the signals from
advanced EMI sensors, when used in dynamic mode (anomaly detection), to discriminate against
sources resulting from environmental noise, geologic noise, and small clutter, thereby reducing the
number of sources requiring further investigation.
Institutional Controls: [DoDM 4715.20] A subset of Land Use Controls that are primarily legal
mechanisms to ensure the continued effectiveness of LUCs imposed as part of a remedial decision. [EPA
DD Guidance] Non-engineering methods intended to affect human activities in such a way as to prevent
or reduce exposure to hazardous substances.
Items of Concern (IOC): [IDQTF] Munitions-related items that must be removed from the MRS during the
RA. IOC are documented in the CSM as potentially present at the site and include UXO, DMM, and
hazardous munitions components. The IOC will inform the data collection and analysis plan, as well as
the items included in the AGC TOI library. On well characterized sites with known limited use, IOC may
be a short list of specific items. On other complex or poorly characterized sites, IOC may include a wide
variety of munitions potentially present.
Land Use Control (LUC): [DoDM 4715.20] Any type of physical, legal, or administrative mechanism that
restricts access to real property to prevent or reduce risks to human health and the environment.
Physical mechanisms encompass a variety of engineered remedies to contain or reduce contamination
and physical barriers to limit access to property, such as fences or signs. The legal mechanisms used for
LUCs are generally the same as those used for institutional controls as discussed in the NCP. Legal
mechanisms include restrictive covenants, negative easements, equitable servitudes, and deed notices.
Administrative mechanisms include notices, adopted local land use plans and ordinances, construction
permitting, or other land use management systems to ensure compliance with use restrictions.
Library-matching: [SERDP-ESTCP] The process by which the AGC-derived polarizability decay curves (EMI
fingerprints) of unknown objects are compared to a library of polarizabilities for known munitions.
Low anomaly density (LD) area: [IDQTF Module 1] Area(s) within an MRS where the anomaly density has
been determined to be < critical density. LD areas can include both low use areas (LUA) and no-
evidence-of-use areas (NEU).
Low use area (LUA): [IDQTF Module 1] LD area where the potential presence of munitions has been
confirmed or cannot be ruled out. Examples of LUA include buffer zones and maneuver areas.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 15 of 303
Maneuver area: [IDQ.TF Module 1] A type of LUA for which the CSM indicates activities involving
munitions (e.g., transport, training, and practice) may have occurred. Typically, the anomaly density in a
maneuver area is less than the critical density; however, there can be areas with elevated anomaly
density within a maneuver area due to historical munitions use and/or non-munitions-related use.
Material potentially presenting an explosive hazard (MPPEH): [DoDI 4140.62, August 20, 2015 Ch3 -
September 9, 2019] Material owned or controlled by the DoD that, before determination of its
explosives safety status, potentially contains explosives or munitions (e.g., munitions containers and
packaging material; munitions debris remaining after munitions use, demilitarization, or disposal; and
range-related debris) or potentially contains a high enough concentration of explosives that the
material presents an explosive hazard (e.g., equipment, drainage systems, holding tanks, piping, or
ventilation ducts that were associated with munitions production, demilitarization, or disposal
operations). Excluded from MPPEH are: Military munitions and military munitions-related materials,
including inert components (e.g., fins, launch tubes, containers, packaging material), that are to be used
or reused for their intended purpose and are within a DoD Component-established munitions
management system. Non-munitions-related material (e.g., horseshoes, rebar, other solid objects) and
munitions debris that are solid metal fragments that do not realistically present an explosive hazard,
other items (e.g., gasoline cans, compressed gas cylinders) that are not munitions or munitions-related
material but may present an explosion hazard. [Note: There are no clear exceptions for "munitions
debris that are solid metal fragments that do not realistically present an explosive hazard" in the Army
and Navy requirements, unless specifically defined and approved in the project Explosive Safety
Submission and Explosive Safety Plan.]
Munitions and explosives of concern (MEC): [DESR 6055.09] A term distinguishing specific categories of
military munitions that may pose unique explosives safety risks: 1) UXO, as defined in 10 U.S.C 101(e)(5);
2) DMM, as defined in 10 U.S.C 2710(e)(2); or 3) munitions constituents, as defined in 10 U.S.C.
2710(e)(3), present in high enough concentrations to pose an explosive hazard.
Munitions debris (MD): [DESR 6055.09] Remnants of munitions (e.g., fragments, penetrators, projectiles,
shell casings, links, fins) remaining after munitions use, demilitarization, or disposal.
Munitions response: [DESR 6055.09] Response actions, including investigation, removal actions, and
remedial actions, to address the explosives safety, human health, or environmental risks presented by
UXO, DMM, or MC or to support a determination that no removal or remedial action is required.
Munitions response area (MRA): [DESR 6055.09] Any area on a defense site that is known or suspected
to contain UXO, DMM, or MC.
Munitions response site (MRS): [DESR 6055.09] A discrete location within an MRA that is known to
require a munitions response.
No-evidence-of-use (NEU) area: [IDQTF] An area within a MRA where the weight of evidence indicates
that no munitions were used or disposed of. All available and relevant lines of evidence supporting this
delineation (e.g., historical records review (HRR), historical photo interpretation, visual observations,
interviews, and field investigations) must be documented in the CSM and considered. NEU areas
include:
LD areas for which the CSM contains adequate evidence that no munitions were used or
disposed of in the area. This includes areas where historical information provides no evidence of
munitions use or disposal (i.g., no evidence of range fans, targets, maneuver areas, OB/OD,
storage/staging, etc.);
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 16 of 303
LD areas where field investigations and other lines of evidence, as documented in the CSM, have
confirmed historical target locations or other munitions use or disposal areas were never
constructed, or munitions were never used; and
HD areas determined to be unrelated to munitions use or disposal and that are not located
within a larger LUA.
Ordnance: [DESR 6055.09] Explosives, chemicals, pyrotechnics, and similar stores (e.g., bombs, guns and
ammunition, flares, smoke, or napalm).
RMS background noise: [IDQTF] The root-mean-square noise measured in area where there are no
metal objects present.
Range-related debris (RRD): [DESR 6055.9] Debris, other than munitions debris, collected from
operational ranges or from former ranges (e.g., target debris, military munitions packaging, and crating
material).
Record of Decision (ROD): [DoDM 4715.20] The ROD documents the remedial action plan for a site
addressed pursuant to CERCLA authority.
Release: [CERCLA, Section 101(22)] Any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying,
discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment.
Remedial Action Objectives (RAO): [EPA DD Guidance] General descriptions contained in the ROD of
what the cleanup will accomplish.
Remedial Design (RD): [NCP 300.5] The technical analysis and procedures which follow the selection of
remedy for a site and result in a detailed set of plans and specifications for implementation of the
remedial action.
Remediation Goals: [EPA DD Guidance 6.1.2] Cleanup levels the remedy is expected to achieve that are
protective of human health and the environment.
Remedy or Remedial Action (RA): [NCP] Those actions consistent with permanent remedy taken instead
of, or in addition to, removal action in the event of a release or threatened release of hazardous
substances so that they do not migrate to cause substantial danger to present or future public health or
welfare or the environment. According to the NCP, "hazardous substances" includes MEC.
Remedy components: [EPA DD Guidance] Treatment, engineering controls, institutional controls, and
monitoring.
Response: [CERCLA 101(25)] Removal, remedy, or remedial action, including enforcement activities
related thereto.
Seeds: [SERDP-ESTCP & IDQTF] Munitions surrogates, such as Industry Standard Objects (ISO), or inert
munitions used to monitor contractor performance and provide ongoing quality assurance and quality
control for Munitions Response projects. The following types of seeds are used:
Quality control (QC) seeds, which are "blind" (i.e., number, placement and identity of seeds are
unknown) to the field geophysicists and analysts, and placed by the contractor to monitor the
field team's ongoing ability to detect and correctly classify MEC. The use of QC seeds allows
problems to be identified daily, so that corrective action, where necessary, can be implemented
during project implementation. Seeds are placed in accordance with a contractor-developed QC
Seed Plan, which includes a Firewall Plan describing how the contractor maintains the firewall
between management and the field team.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 17 of 303
Quality assurance (QA) seeds, which are blind to the entire contractor team, are placed by, or
under the direction of, the government to monitor the contractor's overall performance on
munitions response projects involving the use of analog technology. Seeds are placed in
accordance with a QA seed plan developed by the government. Through QA seeds, the
government can monitor and evaluate the contractor's performance on both detecting and
removing MEC.
Validation seeds, which are blind to the entire contractor team, are placed by the government
to evaluate the contractor's overall performance on munitions response projects involving the
use of digital technology. The use of validation seeds allows the government to monitor and
evaluate contractor performance at different phases of the project: Detection, classification
(AGC only), and MEC removal. Seeds are placed in accordance with a Verification/Validation
Plan, which is developed by the government and updated following each phase of the project.
Source: [IDQTF] As applied to geophysical investigations, any feature or item that produces a measured
response.
Surface clearance: [USACE/EMCX] Operational range clearance and maintenance operations conducted
as part of explosives safety management. [Note: This term is defined here as clarification only. The term
"surface clearance" is not used in this document, because it is not a term related to CERCLA response
actions.]
Surface removal: [IDQTF] Cleanup of UXO or DMM that are either entirely or partially exposed above the
ground surface conducted as a response action under CERCLA.
Surface sweep: [USACE/EMCX] An action conducted in advance of a response action, to remove MEC
and/or metal debris from the surface prior to geophysical operations. The surface sweep can serve the
following purposes: 1) to make the area accessible for follow-on removal work, and/or 2) to reduce the
anomaly density for follow-on removal work.
Survey unit: [IDQTF] A portion of the site for which geophysical survey data and other field observations
and measurements, including quality control (QC) results and results for blind QC seeds and quality
assurance (QA) seeds, will be collected, verified, validated, and reported as a unit, for evaluation and use
by the project team. Survey units are established by the project team during project planning and
commonly tied to contractual payment milestones. The survey unit is not necessarily a geographically
contiguous unit, and, in rare cases, it may not be required that all coverage metrics are met, as long as
any data gaps are identified and addressed in a future survey unit. For investigations conducted in
phases, survey units for one phase may or may not be the same as those for a different phase.
Target Area Density (above background): [IDQTF Module 1 - A VSP input parameter] The expected
anomaly density of a target area, above background, used in the VSP Transect Spacing planning tool.
When a "Bivariate Normal" distribution of anomalies across a target is assumed, the target area density
can be expressed in one of three ways. The default option is "Target Average", or the average anomaly
density (above background) across the target. Other options are "Outer Edge of Target" and "Center of
Target", which refer to the expected density near the perimeter of the target area and the center of the
target area, respectively. [Note: The examples in Module 1 make use of the "Outer Edge of Target"
option.]
Target (or HUA) boundary: [IDQTF Module 1] For the purpose of this document, the location, moving
away from the target (or HUA) center, where the anomaly density drops to background. [Note: the
background density is assumed to be uniform throughout the site or defined subsets of the site as
explained in the initial CSM.]
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 18 of 303
Targets of Interest (TOI): [IDQ.TF] Sources of anomalies that meet the project-specific target selection
criteria. For AGC, TOI include sources predicted by the AGC analysis to be IOC and seeds, sources
predicted to have physical attributes similar to IOC, and clusters of unknown sources with similar
attributes that are similar to potential munitions or hazardous components. For non-AGC digital
methods, TOI include sources meeting anomaly selection criteria.
Technology-aided surface removal: [DESR 6055.09] A removal of UXO, DMM, or CWM on the surface
(i.e., the top of the soil layer) only, in which the detection process is primarily performed visually, but is
augmented by technology aids (e.g., hand-held magnetometers or metal detectors) because vegetation;
the weathering of UXO, DMM, or CWM; or other factors make visual detection difficult.
Threshold verification: [IDQTF] When using AGC, the process of determining whether the threshold
between TOI and non-TOI in the ranked anomaly list has been correctly identified and, if necessary,
subsequently adjusting the threshold, based on a comparison of physical properties of excavated items
to their predicted properties.
TOI library: [SERDP-ESTCP] A library, maintained and updated by the USACE EMCX, containing
polarizability decay curves for known munitions used by DoD. In a process called library matching, the
polarizability decay curves from a specific site are compared to those contained in the TOI library to help
identify targets of interest. At the beginning of a munitions response project, any item unique to the site
that is not included in the TOI library can be added to a "site-specific" library to be used on that site.
Treatment technology: [NCP 300.5] Any unit operation or series of unit operations that alters the
composition of a hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant through chemical, biological, or
physical means to reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of the contaminated materials being treated.
Unexploded ordnance (UXO): [10 U.S.C. 101(e)(5)] Military munitions that have been primed, fuzed,
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, installations, personnel, or material, and
remain unexploded either by malfunction, design, or any other cause.
Visual Sample Plan (VSP): A software tool developed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory that
supports the development of a defensible sampling plan based on statistical sampling theory and the
statistical analysis of sample results to support confident decision-making.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 19 of 303
Worksheet #1 & 2: Title and Approval Page
(UFP-QAPP Manual Section 2.1)
This worksheet identifies the principal points of contact for all organizations having a stakeholder
interest in the project. Stakeholders are likely the same as those identified during the RI/FS phase of the
project. Signatories usually include the DoD Remedial Project Manager (RPM) and Quality Assurance
(QA) Manager, contractor Project Manager (PM) and QA Manager (however named), and individuals
with oversight authority from regulatory agencies. Signatures indicate that officials have reviewed the
QAPP, have had an opportunity to provide comments, and concur with its implementation as written.
Add signature lines as necessary to reflect additional stakeholders having approval authority (e.g.,
explosives safety organizations.) If separate concurrence letters are issued, the original correspondence
should be maintained with the final, approved QAPP in the project file. It is the lead organization's
responsibility to make sure all signatures are in place before work begins.
1. Project Identifying Information
a. Site name/project name
b. Site location/number
c. Lead organization
d. Contractor
e. Contract number
2. Lead Organization
a. DoD Remedial Project Manager
(name/title/signature/date)
b. DoD QA Manager
(name/title/signature/date)
3. Prime Contractor
a. Prime Contractor PM
(name/title/signature/date)
b. Prime Contractor QA Manager
(name/title/signature/date)
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 20 of 303
4. Subcontractor1
a. Subcontractor PM
(name/title/signature/date)
b. Subcontractor QA Manager
(name/title/signature/date)
5. Federal Regulatory Agency
(name/title/signature/date)
6. State Regulatory Agency
(name/title/signature/date)
7. Other Stakeholders (as needed)
(name/title/signature/date)
8. List plans and reports from previous investigations relevant to this project
a.
b.
c.
d- _
9. The undersigned concur that the use of analog technology is justified in area (to be completed)
[Note: if ROD specifies the use of analog technology, this signature requirement is waived.]
a. Lead Organization, Flag Level
(name/title/signature/date)
b. Lead Regulatory Agency
(name/title/signature/date)
1Project Teams should decide which subcontractors should be listed on, and required to sign, this Project Title and Approval Page.
In general, any subcontractors participating in project planning activities should be listed.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 21 of 303
Worksheet #3 & 5: Project Organization and QAPP Distribution
(UFP-QAPP Manual Section 2.3 and 2.4)
This worksheet identifies key project personnel, as well as lines of authority and lines of communication
among the lead organization, prime contractor, subcontractors, and regulatory organizations. Two
examples follow. Figure 3-1 provides an example of the project organization for munitions response
activities, and Figure 3-2 provides an example of the project organization for explosives safety
operations. Both examples assume the organization performing the geophysical surveys is the prime
contractor. The project organization structure will need to be modified in cases where it is a
subcontractor. [Note: Although this toolkit does not address explosives safety per se, including a copy of
the organizational structure for explosives safety operations is useful for facilitating project
communications.] Project teams may combine Figures 3-1 and 3-2. For the purpose of the draft QAPP, it
is permissible to show "to be determined" (TBD) in cases where roles have not been assigned; however,
the final, approved QAPP must identify all key personnel. If the Explosives Safety Operations
organization is addressed in a separate submittal, that document may be referenced.
For the purpose of document control, this worksheet can also document designated recipients of
controlled copies of the QAPP including updates. (Alternatively, a list of QAPP recipients along with their
contact information may be attached.) Contractors and subcontractors shown on this chart are
responsible for document control within their organizations.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 22 of 303
Lines of Authority Lines of Communication
Figure 3-1: Project Organizational Structure
2 UXO expertise is required to make sure the TOI, which can range from intact munitions to sub-components or
fragments with residual explosive and/or chemical constituents, are defined.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 23 of 303
Lines of Authority Lines of Communication
Figure 3-2: Explosives Safety Operations Organizational Structure
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 24 of 303
[This page intentionally left blank.]
-------
Worksheet #4, 7 & 8: Personnel Qualifications and Sign-off Sheet
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 25 of 303
(UFP-QAPP Manual Section 2.3.2 - 2.3.4)
This worksheet identifies key project personnel for each organization performing tasks defined in this QAPP and summarizes their title or role,
qualifications (e.g., training and experience), and any specialized training, licenses, certifications, or clearances required by the project. With the
appropriate qualifications, personnel may fill more than one role. Examples are provided in blue text. It is outside the scope of this document to
establish minimum qualifications for personnel. Users of this template should add spaces for additional organizations and personnel as needed.
Resumes or documentation of relevant experience and training should be contained in an appendix to the QAPP. Signatures indicate personnel
have read the QAPP and agree to implement it as written.
Table 4-1: DoD Personnel
Name/Contact
Information
Project Title/Role
Education/Experience2
Specialized
Training
Required
Licenses/Certifications/
Authorizations3
Signature/Date
DoD RPM
Environmental Engineer,
years managing munitions
response projects
DoD QA Geophysicist
DoD MMRP geophysicist for
years
Oversight of munitions
response projects
DoD Project Chemist
DoD MMRP risk assessor for
years
Oversight of munitions
response projects
2 Resumes should be included in an appendix.
3 This column should include any State-specific requirements.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 26 of 303
Table 4-1: DoD Personnel (Continued)
Name/Contact
Information
Project Title/Role
Education/Experience
Specialized
Training
Required
Licenses/Certifications/
Authorizations
Signature/Date
DoD Risk Assessor
DoD MMRP risk assessor for
years
On munitions response
projects
DoD OESS
DoD MMRP OESS for _
years
Explosives safety oversight of
munitions response
projects
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 27 of 303
Table 4-2: Prime Contractor and Subcontractor(s)
Name/Contact
Information
Project Title/Role
Education/Experience
Specialized
Training
Required
Licenses/Certifications/
Authorizations
Signature/Date
Project Manager
M.S. Physics
years managing munitions
response projects
Project Manager for
munitions response projects
Contractor QA
Manager
B.S. Civil Engineering
Contractor QA Manager for
years
Oversight of munitions
response projects
Contractor Safety
Manager
M.S. Industrial Engineering
Certified Industrial Hygienist
Project Geophysicist
M.S. Physics
Project Geophysicist on
Geophysical Classification at
MRS
Oasis montaj
Geophysical Data
Processing for UXO
3-day UX-Analyze
instruction by
ESTCP
Quality Control (QC)
Geophysicist
M.S. Physics
Project Geophysicist on
Geophysical Classification at
MRS
Oasis montaj
Geophysical Data
Processing for UXO
3-day UX-Analyze
instruction by
ESTCP
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 28 of 303
Table 4-2: Prime Contractor and Subcontractor(s) (Continued)
Name/Contact
Information
Project Title/Role
Education/Experience
Specialized
Training
Required
Licenses/Certifications/
Authorizations
Signature/Date
Field Team Leader
B.S. Engineering
Field Geophysicist on
Geophysical Classification at
MRS
Oasis montaj
Geophysical Data
Processing for UXO
Working with UX-
Analyze
Data Processor
B.S. Physics
Project Geophysicist on
Geophysical Classification at
MRS
Oasis montaj
Geophysical Data
Processing for UXO
3-day UX-Analyze
instruction by
ESTCP
GIS Manager
M.S. in Geoinformatics and
Geospatial Intelligence
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 29 of 303
Table 4-3: Explosives Safety Operations Organization
Name/Contact
Information
Project title/Role
Education/Experience
Specialized
Training
Required
Licenses/Certifications/
Authorizations
Signature/Date
Project Manager
M.S. Geology
years managing munitions
response projects
PM for advanced
geophysical classification
projects
Project
Management
Professional
Contractor QA
Manager
B.S. Civil Engineering
Contractor QA Manager for
years
Oversight of munitions
response projects
Corporate Safety
Manager
M.S. Industrial Engineering
Certified Industrial Hygienist
SUXOS
Graduate Naval Explosives
Ordnance Disposal (EOD)
School
Hazardous Waste
Operations and
Emergency
Response
(HAZWOPER)
Qualified SUXOS i/a/w
Department of Defense
Explosives Safety Board
(DDESB) TP-18
UXOQCS
B.S. Civil Engineering
HAZWOPER
Qualified UXOQCS i/a/w
DDESB TP-18
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 30 of 303
Table 4-3: Explosives Safety Operations Organization (Continued)
Name/Contact
Information
Project title/Role
Education/Experience
Specialized
Training
Required
Licenses/Certifications/
Authorizations
Signature/Date
QC Geophysicist
M.S. Physics
Project Geophysicist on
Geophysical Classification at
MRS
Oasis montaj
Geophysical Data
Processing for UXO
3-day UX-Analyze
instruction by
ESTCP
UXO Safety Officer
B.S. Civil Engineering
HAZWOPER
Qualified UXOSO i/a/w
DDESB TP-18
UXO Team Leader
HAZWOPER
Qualified UXO III i/a/w
DDESB TP-18
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 31 of 303
Worksheet #6: Communication Pathways and Procedures
(UFP-QAPP Manual Section 2.4.2)
This worksheet documents specific issues (communication drivers) that will trigger the need for formal
(documented) communication with other project personnel or stakeholders. Its purpose is to ensure
there are procedures in place for providing notifications, obtaining approvals, and generating the
appropriate documentation when handling important communications, including those involving
regulatory interfaces, approvals to proceed from one DFW to the next, field changes, emergencies, non-
conformances, and stop-work orders. Communication pathways and procedures should be agreed upon
by the project team during project planning. Examples are provided below; additional communication
drivers and procedures should be added as needed, including any additional contract management and
safety communication pathways and procedures.
Table 6-1: Communication Pathways and Procedures
Communication
Driver
Initiator
(Name, project
title)
Recipient
(Name, project
title)
Procedure
(Timing, pathway, documentation)
General Project Communications
General
communications
between DoD
lead organization
and other project
team members
Name, DoD RPM
Appropriate project
team member(s),
including regulatory
organization
Communicate directly, as needed
(verbally and/or in writing)
Regulatory
oversight
Name, regulatory
organization
Name, DoD RPM
Communicate directly, as needed
(verbally and/or in writing)
Regulatory
agency interface
Name, DoD RPM
Name, regulatory
organization
DoD RPM coordinates
communication with regulators
regarding project updates,
notification of quality failures,
requests for concurrence of QAPP
modifications as documented in
field change requests, review of
project documents, coordination of
site visits and field inspections, and
other information about the
project.
Field Progress Reporting
Daily field
progress reports
Name, Contractor
SUXOS
Name, Contractor
PM
The SUXOS provides daily progress
by phone or email to Contractor
PM.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 32 of 303
Table 6-1: Communication Pathways and Procedures (Continued)
Communication
Driver
Initiator
(Name, project
title)
Recipient
(Name, project
title)
Procedure
(Timing, pathway, documentation)
Field Progress Reporting
Daily QC Reports
Name, Contractor
QC Geophysicist
Name, UXOQCS
Name, Contractor
PM
At end of each day of field work,
Contractor QC Geophysicist
provides daily QC reports to
Contractor PM via email.
Weekly QC
reports
Name, Contractor
PM
Name, DoD RPM,
project team
member(s),
Name, regulatory
organization
Contractor PM provides weekly QC
report, consolidating daily field
progress reports and daily QC
reports, to DoD RPM for
distribution to project team and
regulatory organization.
Workflow Documentation, Reporting and Approval-to-proceed
Surface sweep
activities are
complete
Name, Contractor
SUXOS
Name, Contractor
PM
Name, DoD RPM,
Project team
member(s),
Name, regulatory
organization
Upon completion of surface sweep
activities, the SUXOS informs the
Contractor PM via surface sweep
technical memorandum.
Before proceeding to detection
survey activities, Contractor PM
distributes surface sweep technical
memorandum to DoD RPM, project
team, and regulatory organization
for review for consistency with
approved plans/criteria.
QC seeding and
IVS construction
are complete
Name, Contractor
QC Geophysicist
DoD QA
Geophysicist
Before proceeding to detection
survey activities within a survey
unit, Contractor QC Geophysicist
submits documentation of as-built
seed locations for the IVS and QC
seeds to DoD QA Geophysicist per
QC seed firewall plan.
QA or validation
seed
emplacement
complete
DoD OESS or 3rd
party contractor
DoD QA
Geophysicist
Before proceeding to detection
survey activities within a survey
unit, DoD OESS distributes
documentation of as-built QA or
validation seed locations to DoD
QA Geophysicist
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 33 of 303
Table 6-1: Communication Pathways and Procedures (Continued)
Communication
Driver
Initiator
(Name, project
title)
Recipient
(Name, project
title)
Procedure
(Timing, pathway, documentation)
Initial IVS
completed and
geophysical
system
performance
confirmed
Name, Contractor
QC Geophysicist
Name, Contractor
PM,
Name, DoD RPM,
Name, DoD QA
Geophysicist,
Project team
member(s),
Name, regulatory
organization
Upon completion of initial IVS
testing, contractor QC Geophysicist
documents anomaly selection
criteria and geophysical system
performance meet project
objectives in initial IVS technical
memorandum.
Within 48 hours of initial IVS
testing, contractor PM submits
initial IVS technical memorandum
to DoD RPM, project team, and
regulatory organization for review.
Target selection
technical
memorandum
and draft
detection survey
DUA report
Name, Contractor
QC Geophysicist
Name, Contractor
PM,
Name, DoD RPM,
Name, DoD QA
Geophysicist,
Project team
member(s),
Name, regulatory
organization
Upon completion of detection
survey activities within a delivery
unit, Contractor QC Geophysicist
informs DoD RPM via target
selection technical memorandum
and detection survey DUA report.
Before proceeding to cued data
collection activities within a
delivery unit, the Contractor PM
submits the target selection
technical memorandum and
detection survey DUA report to
DoD RPM, project team, and
regulatory organization for review
and concurrence.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 34 of 303
Table 6-1: Communication Pathways and Procedures (Continued)
Communication
Driver
Initiator
(Name, project
title)
Recipient
(Name, project
title)
Procedure
(Timing, pathway, documentation)
Ranked anomaly
dig list and draft
cued survey DUA
report
Name, Contractor
QC Geophysicist
Name, Contractor
PM
Name, DoD RPM,
Name, DoD QA
Geophysicist,
Project team
member(s),
Name, regulatory
organization
Upon completion of cued survey
activities and anomaly classification
within a delivery unit, the
Contractor QC Geophysicist
informs the DoD RPM via ranked
anomaly dig list and draft cued
survey DUA report.
Before proceeding to intrusive
investigation within a delivery unit,
the Contractor PM submits the
ranked anomaly dig list and draft
cued survey DUA report to DoD
RPM, project team, and regulatory
organization for review and
concurrence.
Classification
validation target
selection
Name, DoD RPM,
Project team
member(s),
regulatory
organization
Name, Contractor
PM
Project team will review draft cued
survey DUA report and select initial
200 classification validation targets
for inclusion in verification/
validation plan
Name, Contractor
Classification
verification and
validation plan
Name, Contractor
QC Geophysicist
PM
Name, DoD RPM,
Name, DoD QA
Geophysicist,
Project team
member(s),
Name, regulatory
organization
Upon receipt of classification
validation targets, the Contractor
QC Geophysicist submits updated
verification and validation plan to
DoD RPM, project team, and
regulatory organization for review
and concurrence.
Intrusive results
technical
memorandum
Name, Contractor
QC Geophysicist
Name, DoD RPM,
Name, DoD QA
Geophysicist
Upon completion of intrusive
investigation within a delivery unit,
the Contractor QC Geophysicist
informs the DoD RPM via intrusive
results technical memorandum and
transmission of intrusive results
database (update).
Draft final DUA
reports
Name, DoD RPM
Name, regulatory
organization
DoD RPM transmits draft final DUA
reports to regulatory organization
for review and concurrence.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 35 of 303
Table 6-1: Communication Pathways and Procedures (Continued)
Communication
Driver
Initiator
(Name, project
title)
Recipient
(Name, project
title)
Procedure
(Timing, pathway, documentation)
Non-co nformances
QA stand-down
(missed
validation seed)
Name, DoD RPM
Name, Contractor
PM,
Name, regulatory
organization
DoD RPM notifies Contractor PM
and the regulatory organization by
email. Contractor stops all activities
under the DoD Advanced
Geophysical Classification
Accreditation Program (DAGCAP)
and initiates root-cause analysis
RCA)/corrective action CA).
QA stand-down:
Root-cause
analysis and
corrective action
report
Name, Contractor
QA Manager
Name, Contractor
QA Manager,
Name, Contractor
PM,
Name, DoD RPM,
Project team,
regulatory
organization
Corporate PM initiates meeting
with full project team to discuss
RCA/CA and document results of
QA stand-down in QA stand-down
memorandum and transmits to
DoD RPM for approval.
Following DoD RPM approval, DoD
RPM forwards memorandum to
regulatory organization for
concurrence.
Resume work
following a QA
stand-down
Name, DoD RPM
Name, Contractor
PM
The DoD RPM will provide the
Contractor PM with written notice
of approval before work may
resume.
Geophysical QC
nonconformance
notification
Name, Contractor
QC Geophysicist
Name, Project
Geophysicist, Name,
Contractor QA
Manager,
Contractor PM
QC Geophysicist generates
corrective action request (CAR)
form and transmits to Project
Geophysicist and Corporate QC
Manager. Project Geophysicist
notifies Contractor PM by email.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 36 of 303
Table 6-1: Communication Pathways and Procedures (Continued)
Communication
Driver
Initiator
(Name, project
title)
Recipient
(Name, project
title)
Procedure
(Timing, pathway, documentation)
Geophysical QC
nonconformance:
RCA/CA
Name, Project
Geophysicist
Name, Contractor
QA Manager,
Name, Contractor
PM,
Name, DoD RPM,
Name, DoD QA
Geophysicist,
Project team,
regulatory
organization
Project Geophysicist conducts RCA,
identifies CA, and generates
RCA/CA form to address CAR.
RCA/CA transmitted to Contractor
QA Manager and DoD RPM for
approval. Following DoD RPM
approval, DoD RPM forwards
RCA/CA to regulatory organization
for review for consistency with
approved plans/criteria.
Field Safety - Project teams may include safety communications here or reference other plans where
safety communications are addressed.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 37 of 303
Table 6-1: Communication Pathways and Procedures (Continued)
Communication
Driver
Initiator
(Name, project
title)
Recipient
(Name, project
title)
Procedure
(Timing, pathway, documentation)
QAPP Modifications
Updates to CSM
during project
execution
Name, Project
Geophysicist,
Name, Contractor
PM
Name, DoD RPM,
Name, Contractor
QA Manager,
Name, regulatory
organization
Name, QC
Geophysicist
Updates and revisions to the CSM
will be documented using field
change request (FCR) forms to
Corporate QA Manager and DoD
RPM for approval.
Minor updates to the CSM will
follow process for minor QAPP
changes and include distribution of
updated QAPP WS #10 pages.
Major updates and revisions to the
CSM will follow the process for
major QAPP changes and include
regulatory organization
concurrence. Project changes due
to revisions to the CSM will not be
implemented until FCR acceptance
occurs.
Minor QAPP
changes during
project
execution4
Name, QC
Geophysicist
Name, UXOQCS
Name, Corporate
QC Manager,
Name, Project
Geophysicist
Minor QAPP changes will be noted
on the Daily QC reports and
forwarded to the Project
Geophysicist and the Corporate QC
Manager at the end of each day.
Minor QAPP changes will be
highlighted in weekly QC reports
for distribution to DoD RPM,
project team and regulatory
organization.
4 Project teams should determine what constitutes minor and major QAPP changes during project planning.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 38 of 303
Table 6-1: Communication Pathways and Procedures (Continued)
Communication
Driver
Initiator
(Name, project
title)
Recipient
(Name, project
title)
Procedure
(Timing, pathway, documentation)
Major QAPP
changes during
project execution
Name, Contractor
PM
Name, DoD RPM,
Name, Contractor
QA Manager,
Name, regulatory
organization
Contractor PM submits FCRform to
Corporate QA Manager and DoD
RPM for approval. Following DoD
RPM approval, DoD RPM forwards
FCR to regulatory organization for
concurrence. FCR not implemented
until acceptance occurs.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 39 of 303
Worksheet #9: Project Planning Session Summary
(UFP-QAPP Manual Section 2.5.1)
The MR-QAPP worksheets will be completed in a series of project planning sessions. This worksheet
provides a concise record of participants, key decisions or agreements reached, and action items. A copy
of this worksheet should be completed for each planning session and included in the final QAPP.
Meeting minutes can be referenced and attached.
Multiple planning sessions typically are conducted to complete the MR-QAPP. Each session should
involve the key technical personnel and decision-makers needed for that specific stage of planning.
Project teams will find it helpful to have a copy of all MR-QAPP worksheets on hand for all planning
sessions, in whatever state of completion they may be.
Figure 9-1 illustrates the recommended project-planning process for the RA phase of the CERCLA
process at Munitions Response Sites. As depicted, planning sessions #1 and #2 involve only the lead
agency and regulators and generate the information typically needed to prepare the scope of work and
solicitation. In this process, the first opportunity for contractor participation is planning session #3, at
which point the entire project team should review DQO steps 1 through 4 and make any changes, if
necessary, before proceeding through DQO steps 5-7. The DQO process is iterative, and as it proceeds,
project teams likely will need to revisit previous steps. The process illustrated in Figure 9-1 is flexible and
should be modified as necessary based on component-specific contracting practices and project-specific
requirements; for example, planning sessions may be consolidated.
Date of planning session:
Location:
Purpose:
Participants:
Table 9-1: Project-Planning Participants
Name
Organization
Title/Role
Email/Phone
Notes/Comments:
Consensus decisions made:
Table 9-2: Action Items
Action
Responsible Party
Due Date
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 40 of 303
Participants Activity Key QAPP Outputs
Figure 9-1: Example Planning Process for RA
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 41 of 303
Worksheet #10: Conceptual Site Model
(UFP-QAPP Manual Section 2.5.2)
This worksheet presents a concise summary of the project's Conceptual Site Model, a working model
that depicts sources, pathways, and receptors for MEC at each Munitions Response Site. In most cases,
the CSM at the conclusion of the RI/FS will serve as the CSM at the start of the RA phase.5
The major elements of the CSM include the facility profile, physical profile, release profile, and land use
and exposure profile. As a tool to assist in the visualization and communication of site conditions and
the development of DQOs, the CSM may include text, maps, graphic images, and tables. The CSM should
describe any data gaps or uncertainty that could affect implementation of the selected remedy (e.g.,
areas inaccessible to the field team) and these must be reflected in the remedial design (RD) described
in Worksheet #17.
Facility Profile:
Site location, size, and ownership
MRS boundaries and acreage
Concise history of the use, storage, and disposal of munitions at the MRS and the installation that
managed or used the MRS
Structures, infrastructure present
Physical Profile:
Topography and vegetation
Geologic and hydrogeologic setting, including depth to bedrock across the site
Background anomaly density
Climate
Endangered species, sensitive habitats, and cultural resources
Areas that are inaccessible to investigation
Release Profile:
Descriptions and locations of each munitions response site (MRS) (e.g., targets, maneuver areas,
storage facilities or open-burning (OB)/open detonation (OD) areas)
Identification of munitions and hazardous substances known or suspected to be present
Current understanding of the location and distribution (horizontal and vertical) of anomaly density,
munitions, and hazardous substances within each MRS. This should include a graphic depiction
of the vertical CSM.
Description of prior land-disturbing activities that may have had the potential to redistribute MEC
5 While the CSM for an actual MRS must also address sources, pathways, and receptors for munitions constituents
(MC), the scope of this document is limited to MEC.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 42 of 303
Land Use and Exposure Profile:
Detailed descriptions of current and reasonably anticipated future site uses (refer to RI/FS or ROD)
Neighboring land uses
Current and reasonably anticipated future receptors, exposure pathways, and interaction zone
depths
Access conditions and frequency of use
The following is an example of a CSM for the fictional Camp Example. The 18,000-acre munitions
response area (MRA) includes five MRSs, which illustrate different objectives, technical approaches, and
decision-making strategies that could come into play during the RA. Specific details, including the land
use and exposure profile, are summarized in Tables 10-1 through 10-5. Please note these tables do not
provide all the details described above; they only provide sufficient information to support the
examples.
Facility Profile: [The following description applies to the entire Camp Example]
The former Camp Example is located in Yuba and Nevada Counties, California, along the foothills of the
Sierra Nevada. In 1940, the Camp Example area consisted of grassland, rolling hills, and the abandoned
mining town of Exampleville. The U.S government purchased 87,000 acres in 1942 for a training post for
the 13th Armored Division. Camp Example also held training facilities for the 81st and 96th Infantry
Division, a 1,000-bed hospital, and a prisoner of war camp. As a complete training environment, Camp
Example had training maneuver areas, mortar and rifle ranges, and bombardier-navigator training. In
1948, Camp Example became Example Air Force Base. In 1959, the installation ceased being used as a
bombing range and the U.S. government declared portions of Example Air Force Base as excess,
eventually transferring 60,805 acres to private individuals and the State of California.
Physical Profile: [The following description applies to the entire Camp Example]
Former Camp Example lies along the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Topography varies from a
valley west of the site to mountains to the east. Site elevation ranges between approximately 120 and
200 feet above mean sea level. Terrain consists of grasslands and rolling hills. The eastern portion of the
site is drained by Dry Creek and Rock Creek. Hilly areas in the northern and western portions of the site
are drained by Reeds Creek and Hutchinson Creek.
The predominant soils are the Sobrante-Auburn soils, formed in material that was weathered from basic
meta-volcanic rocks (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1998). Soils are moderately deep to shallow and
well-drained. Numerous prehistoric and historic sites have been identified including village sites,
campsites, bedrock milling stations, mining and ranching sites, and WWII military training areas. Former
Camp Example experiences cool, wet winters (35-50ฐF) and warm, dry summers (60-98ฐF). The average
annual precipitation is 28 inches.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 43 of 303
Release Profile:
Camp Exampie includes five Munitions Response Sites, which are described below:
Following the RI/FS, the historic Maneuver Area was divided into two MRSs because future use
scenarios and hence selected remedies are unique to each: MRS A1 - Maneuver Area Development
Area, and MRS A2 - Maneuver Area Recreational Area. The Maneuver Area was used near the end of
WWII for troop maneuvering and encampment. No records of live-fire training have been discovered.
During the Rl, the maneuver area was determined using an EM61 transect survey to be a low anomaly
density (LD) area. The estimated anomaly density throughout the site was 75 anomalies/acre. The
estimated total number of anomalies for MRS A1 and A2 is included in Tables 10-1 and 10-2. During the
Rl, the field team observed surface evidence of mortars and grenades as shown in Figure 10-1. MRS A1
and MRS A2 were determined to be low-use areas (LUA) without further investigation. The expected
maximum depth of MEC, if present, is above the depth of detection for EM61 (based on the RI/FS). The
boundaries of MRS A1 and MRS A2 are shown in Figure 10-1. Tables 10-1 and 10-2 provide additional
details.
639,000 640,000 641,000 642,000
n Maneuver Are a
0 MRSA1 (247 acres)
C MRSA2 (734 acres)
~ Surface Finds
639,000
640,000 641,000
Easting (m)
642,000
Figure 10-1: MRS A1 (Maneuver Area Development Area) and MRS A2 (Maneuver Area Recreational
Area)
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 44 of 303
Following the RI/FS, the former Mortar Range was divided into two MRSs based on topography, which
necessitated the selection of two separate remedies: MRS B1 - Mortar Range Flat Terrain Area and
MRS B2 - Mortar Range Steep Terrain Area. The Mortar Range was used during the early 1940s for
firing 60-mm high explosive (HE) mortars. During the Rl, a high-anomaly-density (HD) area
corresponding to the expected location of the impact area was confirmed in MRS B2 using a Schonstedt
handheld gradiometer transect survey. The estimated total number of anomalies for MRS B1 and B2 is
listed in Tables 10-3 and 10-4. False-color plots showing anomaly densities are in shown in WS 17. The
remainder of the mortar range, MRS Bl, was surveyed using a 3-m-wide EM61 array transect survey and
shown to be an LD area corresponding to the location of the mortar range fan. The measured
background density in MRS Bl was 92 anomalies/acre. All MEC and MD recovered at MRS Bl and B2
were consistent with 60-mm mortars. The maximum depth of recovered targets of interest was 25 cm.
Figure 10-2 shows the boundaries of MRS Bl and B2. Tables 10-3 and 10-4 provide additional details.
O647,500 648,000 648,500 649,000 649,500
647,500 648,000 648,500 649,000 649,500
Easting (m)
Figure 10-2: MRS Bl (Mortar Range Flat Terrain Area) and MRS B2 (Mortar Range Steep Terrain Area)
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 45 of 303
MRS C - Bomb Target was used for bombing training, with both practice and HE 100-1 b bombs, near the
end of WWII. During the preliminary characterization step of the Rl, an HD area corresponding to the
suspected target location was identified using a TEMTADS transect survey. The estimated total number
of anomalies is listed in Table 10-5. A false-color plot showing anomaly densities is shown in WS 17.
During the detailed characterization step, additional transects were interleaved across the HD area, and
the locations of all anomalies consistent with intact munitions were dug. In addition, to confirm the CSM
and gather additional information about the types of munitions used and their depth profiles, ten %-acre
grids were surveyed using TEMTADS and all 886 anomalies were analyzed. Anomalies matching TO!,
those exhibiting characteristics of TOI, and a representative sample of unexpected clusters of anomalies
were dug. A total of 24 anomaly locations were dug. The measured background density was 87
anomalies/acre. The boundaries of MRS C are shown in Figure 10-3. Table 10-5 provides additional
details.
641,000 642,000 643,000
o
o
CD
TT
00
o
o
o
o"
Tt
oo
Tf
o
o
0
01
00
00
641,000 642,000 643,000
Easting (m)
Figure 10-3: MRS C (Bomb Target)
Land Use and Exposure Profile
Tables 10-1 through 10-5 summarize land use and exposure assumptions contained in the RI/FS Report
and ROD.
CT>
'jz
tl
o
o
o
o
CO
o
o
o
CD
CO
-sf
o
o
0
01
CO
CO
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 46 of 303
Table 10-1: Conceptual Site Model Summary for MRS A1 - Maneuver Area Development Area
Facility Profile
MRS boundary and acreage
247 acres
See Figure 10-1
Known/suspected past DoD usage
Troop maneuvering and encampment during WWII. No
records of live-fire training.
Structures/infrastructure present
None known
Physical Profile
Background anomaly density
75/acre
Depth to bedrock
3-6 m below ground surface (bgs)
Access restrictions
None known
Release Profile
Munitions potentially present (based on RA results for similar
maneuver areas and all lines of historical evidence from the
site, e.g., surface finds from vegetation reduction, the
Archives Search Report, etc.)
MEC may include: MKII practice hand grenades, signals,
flares, pyrotechnics, practice anti-tank mines, 2.36"
practice anti-tank rockets, and 60-mm smoke and
illumination mortars. Evidence of mortars and grenades
was observed on the surface during the Rl.
Vertical profile
N/A- No digging was conducted during the Rl
HUA anomaly density
No HUA. See Figure 17-1
Estimated number of anomalies from transect analysis using
EM61
18,525
Estimated number of anomalies from grids
N/A
Maximum depth of recovered MEC/MD
N/A - no intrusive investigation performed during Rl
Maximum anticipated depth of contamination6
0.30 m bgs (assumed to result from firing 60-mm smoke
and illumination mortars)
Maximum reliable depth of detection (MRDD)
See Table 11-3
Land Use and Exposure Profile
Current land use
Cattle-grazing
Current receptors
Ranchers, trespassers
Future planned land use
Planned residential community
Maximum depth of anticipated future land disturbance
(depth of exposure)
1.8 m bgs
Future anticipated receptors
Pre-remediation: Site workers, trespassers
Post-remediation: Residents, trespassers
6 Based on prior work at similar sites and professional judgment.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 47 of 303
Table 10-1: Conceptual Site Model Summary for MRS A1 - Maneuver Area Development Area
(Continued)
Land Use and Exposure Profile
Exposure medium
Surface and subsurface soils
Exposure pathways
Pre-remediation: Potentially complete exposure pathway
to surface and/or subsurface MEC
Post-remediation: Incomplete pathway
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 48 of 303
Table 10-2: Conceptual Site Model Summary for MRS A2 - Maneuver Area Recreational Area
Facility Profile
MRS boundaries and acreage
734 acres
See Figure 10-1
Known/suspected past DoD usage
Troop maneuvering and encampment during WWII.
No records of live-fire training.
Structures/infrastructure present
None known
Physical Profile
Background anomaly density
75/acre
Depth to bedrock
3-6 m bgs
Access restrictions
None known
Release Profile
Munitions potentially present (based on RA results for
similar maneuver areas and all lines of historical evidence
from the site e.g., surface finds from vegetation
reduction, the Archives Search Report, etc.)
MEC may include: MKII practice hand grenades,
signals, flares, pyrotechnics, practice anti-tank
mines, 2.36" practice anti-tank rockets, and 60-mm
smoke and illumination mortars. Evidence of
mortars and grenades was observed on the surface
during the Rl.
Vertical profile
N/A- no digging was conducted during the Rl
HUA anomaly density
No HUA. See Figure 17-2
Estimated number of anomalies from transect analysis
using EM61
55,050
Estimated number of anomalies from grids
N/A
Maximum depth of recovered MEC/MD
NA- no intrusive investigation performed during Rl
Maximum anticipated depth of contamination7
0.3 m bgs (assumed to result from firing 60-mm
smoke and illumination mortars)
Maximum reliable depth of detection (EM61)
See Table 11-3
Land Use and Exposure Profile
Current land use
Cattle-grazing
Current receptors
Ranchers, trespassers
Future planned land use
Recreational area as shown on Figure 10-1
Maximum depth of anticipated future land disturbance
(depth of exposure)
Surface only (recreational area)
Future anticipated receptors
Hikers/bikers/campers/horseback riders (within
recreational area)
7 Based on prior work at similar sites and professional judgment.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 49 of 303
Table 10-2: Conceptual Site Model Summary for MRS A2 - Maneuver Area Recreational Area
(Continued)
Land Use and Exposure Profile
Exposure medium
Surface soils
Exposure pathways
Potentially complete exposure pathway to surface
MEC
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 50 of 303
Table 10-3: Conceptual Site Model Summary for MRS B1 - Mortar Range Flat Terrain Area
Facility Profile
MRS boundaries and acreage
175 acres
See Figure 10-2
Known/suspected past DoD usage
Mortar range used during early 1940s for firing 60-
mm HE mortars
Structures/infrastructure present
None
Physical Profile
Background anomaly density
92/acre (where EM61 was used)
Depth to bedrock
> 3 m bgs
Access restrictions
None
Release Profile
Known/suspected munitions present
60-mm M49A2 HE mortars
Vertical profile
See Figure 10-4
HUA anomaly density
See figure 17-3
Estimated number of anomalies within range fan from
transect analysis using EM61
16,100
Estimated number of anomalies within from grids
N/A
Maximum depth of recovered MEC/MD
0.25 m bgs
Maximum anticipated depth of contamination8
0.60 m bgs
Maximum reliable depth of detection (EM61)
See Table 11-3
Land Use and Exposure Profile
Current land use
Recreational/Camping
Current receptors
Hikers/bikers/campers/horseback riders
Future planned land use
Recreational/camping
Maximum depth of anticipated future land disturbance
(depth of exposure)
0.40 m
Future anticipated receptors
Hikers/bikers/campers/horseback riders/site
workers
Exposure medium
Surface and subsurface soils
Exposure pathways
Potentially complete exposure pathway to surface
and/or subsurface MEC
8 Based on prior work at similar sites and professional judgment.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 51 of 303
Table 10-4: Conceptual Site Model Summary for MRS B2 - Mortar Range Steep Terrain Area
Facility Profile
MRS boundaries and acreage
197 acres
See Figure 10-2
Known/suspected past DoD usage
Mortar range used during early 1940s for firing 60-
mm HE mortars
Structures/infrastructure present
None
Physical Profile
Background anomaly density
200/acre (where analog was used)
Depth to bedrock
0-0.30 m bgs
Access restrictions
Steep terrain area is accessible to analog
technology use only.
Release Profile
Known/suspected munitions present
60-mm M49A2 HE mortars
Vertical profile
See Figure 10-4
HUA anomaly density
See Figure 17-4
Estimated number of anomalies within impact area from
transect analysis using Schonstedt
62,400
Estimated number of anomalies within impact area from
grids
N/A
Maximum depth of recovered MEC/MD
0.25 m bgs
Maximum anticipated depth of contamination9
0.30 m (due to bedrock)
Maximum reliable depth of detection
See Table 11-3
Land Use and Exposure Profile
Current land use
Recreational/camping
Current receptors
Hikers/bikers/campers/horseback riders
Future planned land use
Recreational
Maximum depth of anticipated future land disturbance
(depth of exposure)
Surface and subsurface soil. Concern for erosion
Future anticipated receptors
Hikers/bikers/horseback riders/site workers
Exposure medium
Surface and subsurface soils
Exposure pathways
Potentially complete exposure pathway to surface
and subsurface MEC
9 Based on prior work at similar sites and professional judgment.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 52 of 303
I I Seed Depth Range
~ Recov. 60mm Mortar
Max. Reliable Det.
Item
Figure 10-4: Initial Vertical CSM for MRS B1/B2
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 53 of 303
Table 10-5: Conceptual Site Model Summary for MRS C - Bomb Target
Facility Profile
MRS boundaries and acreage
252 acres
See Figure 10-3
Known/suspected past DoD usage (release mechanisms)
Bomb target used throughout WWII for both
practice and HE 100-lb bombs
Structures/infrastructure present
None
Physical Profile
Background anomaly density
87/acre
Depth to bedrock
1.2 m
Access restrictions
None
Release Profile
MRS acreage
252 acres
Vertical profile
See Figure 10-5
Known/suspected munitions present
100-lb M38A2 practice bombs, M1A1 spotting
charges, 100-lb AN-M30A1 HE bombs, nose fuzes
AN-M103 series, tail fuzes AN-M100 series
HUA anomaly density
See Figure 17-5
Estimated number of anomalies from transect analysis using
TEMTADS
386,000
Estimated number of anomalies from grids
250,000
Maximum depth of recovered MEC/MD
Bombs - 0.90 m
Fuzes, spotting charges-0.12 m
Maximum anticipated depth of contamination10
Bombs - 1.2 m bgs (due to bedrock)
Fuzes, spotting charges-0.15 m
Maximum reliable depth of detection
See Table 11-3
Land Use and Exposure Profile
Current land use
Cattle-grazing
Current receptors
Ranchers, trespassers
Future planned land use
Residential
Maximum depth of anticipated future land disturbance
(depth of exposure)
1.2 m bgs
Future anticipated receptors
Residents
Exposure medium
Surface and subsurface soils
111 Based on prior work at similar sites and professional judgment.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 54 of 303
Table 10-5: Conceptual Site Model Summary for MRS C - Bomb Target (Continued)
Land Use and Exposure Profile
Exposure pathways
Pre-remediation: Potentially complete exposure
pathway to surface and subsurface MEC
Post-remediation: Following MEC removal, no
complete pathway remains
I Seed Depth Range
~ Recov. HE Bombs
Max. Reliable Det.
Bedrock Depth
Item
Figure 10-5: Initial Vertical CSM for MRS C
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 55 of 303
Worksheet #11: Data Quality Objectives
(UFP-QAPP Manual Section 2.6.1)
This worksheet documents the systematic planning process, which is used to generate performance and acceptance criteria for collecting
environmental data. The process described below is based on EPA's seven-step DQO process as applied to the Remedial Action phase of the
CERCLA process for munitions and explosives of concern, excluding munitions constituents.11 The performance and acceptance criteria described
in this document apply to field activities that would be described in the project-specific MR-QAPP.
Step 1: State the Problem
The problem statement is developed in the context of information and
assumptions contained in the most recent conceptual site model. For the RA, this
usually will be the CSM generated during the feasibility study and summarized in
the ROD. The general problem statement for the RA phase of the CERCLA process
is to implement the selected remedy described in the MRS-specific ROD. The
problem statement should identify the selected remedy and include a table
summarizing the remedial action objectives, remediation goals and remedy
components for each MRS.
[Example] This project is being undertaken to implement the selected remedies
and document achievement of RAOs described in the Records of Decision for the
five MRSs at Camp Example depicted in Worksheet #10.
Table 11-1 summarizes the selected remedy, RAO, remediation goals, and remedy components for each MRS. Appendix B includes the Records
of Decision.
Remedial action objectives: General descriptions
contained in the ROD of what the cleanup will
accomplish. [EPA DD Guidance]
Remediation goals: Clean-up levels the remedy is
expected to achieve that are protective of human
health and the environment. [EPA DD Guidance]
Remedy components: Treatment, engineering
controls, institutional controls, and monitoring. [EPA
DD Guidance]
11 For detailed guidance on the DQO process, refer to "Guidance on Systematic Planning using the DQO Process," EPA/240/B-06/001, February 2006
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 56 of 303
Table 11-1: Summary of Selected Remedy
MRS/Selected Remedy
Remedial Action Objectives
Selected Remedy Components
MEC Removal
MEC Treatment
Land-Use Controls12
MRS A1 Maneuver Area Development
Area
Alternative #
MEC surface and subsurface removal
using non-AGC DGM detection and cued
AGC with interim land use controls
Remove MEC in the surface and subsurface
Remedial action is designed to achieve UU/UE
MEC Removal Remediation Goal:
Detection and removal of:
60-mm mortar to a minimum depth of 0.45
m bgs
Practice hand grenades, signals, flares,
pyrotechnics, 2.36" practice rockets, and
practice anti-tank mines to a depth of 0.30
m bgs
Any other munitions present on the site
that are detectable at the anomaly selection
criteria
Anomaly detection using
non-AGC DGM
TOI selection using cued
AGC
TOI investigation and
source removal using
manual and backhoe-
assisted excavation
All recovered MEC to
be detonated in place
or otherwise destroyed
on-site
Add interim LUCs if
specified in applicable
decision document
(DD)
Upon successful
remediation, LUCs will
be removed
12 Major LUC components of the remedy should be identified in the project-specific MR-QAPP to provide a complete summary of the selected remedies; however, implementation
of long-term LUCs is captured in other project documents.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 57 of 303
Table 11-1: Summary of Selected Remedy (Continued)
MRS/Selected Remedy
Remedial Action Objectives
Selected Remedy Components
MEC Removal
MEC Treatment
Land-Use Controls
MRS A2 Maneuver Area Recreational
Area
Alternative #
MEC surface removal using
instrument-aided visual identification
with land use controls
Remove MEC from the surface and minimize the
likelihood of exposure to MEC in the subsurface
Remedial action is not designed to achieve UU/UE
MEC Removal Remediation Goal:
Detection and removal of munitions items on the
surface
Subsurface MEC exposure to be managed using
LUCs
Surface removal using
instrument-aided visual
identification
All recovered MEC to
be detonated in
place or otherwise
destroyed on site
[Add LUCs as specified
in applicable decision
document.]
MRS B1
Mortar Range Flat Terrain Area
Alternative #
MEC surface and subsurface removal
using non-AGC DGM with land use
controls
Remove MEC from the surface and subsurface
Remedial action is not designed to achieve UU/UE
MEC Removal Remediation Goal:
Detection and removal of:
60-mm mortar to a minimum depth of 0.45 m
bgs
Any other munitions present on the site that
are detectable at the anomaly selection
criteria
Post-removal potential exposure to MEC to be
managed using LUC
Anomaly detection using
non-AGC DGM
TOI investigation and
source removal using
manual and backhoe-
assisted excavation
All recovered MEC to
be detonated in
place or otherwise
destroyed on site
[Add LUCs as specified
in applicable decision
document.]
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 58 of 303
Table 11-1: Summary of Selected Remedy (Continued)
MRS/Selected Remedy
Remedial Action Objectives
Selected Remedy Components
MEC Removal
MEC Treatment
Land-Use Controls
MRS B2
Mortar Range Steep Terrain Area
Alternative #
MEC surface and subsurface removal
using analog detection and manual
excavation, with land use controls
Remove MEC from the surface and subsurface
Remedial action is not designed to achieve UU/UE
MEC Removal Remediation Goal:
Detection and removal of:
60-mm mortar to a minimum depth of 0.45 m
bgs
Any other munitions present on the site that
are detectable
Post-removal potential exposure to MEC to be
managed using LUC
Anomaly detection using
analog technology
Anomaly investigation and
source removal using
manual excavation
All recovered MEC to
be detonated in
place or otherwise
destroyed on site
[Add LUCs as specified
in applicable decision
document]
MRS C
Bomb Target
Alternative #
MEC surface and subsurface removal
using dynamic AGC followed by cued
AGC with interim LUC
Remove MEC from the surface and subsurface
Remedial action is designed to achieve UU/UE
MEC removal remediation goal:
100-lb HE and practice bombs to bedrock
Fuzes and spotting charges to a minimum
depth of 0.30 m bgs
Any other munitions present on the site that
are detectable at the anomaly selection
criteria
Surface sweep using
instrument-aided visual
identification
Anomaly detection using
AGC
TOI selection using cued
AGC
TOI investigation and
source removal using
manual and backhoe-
assisted excavation
All recovered MEC to
be detonated in
place or otherwise
destroyed on site
[Add interim LUCs if
specified in applicable
decision document.]
Upon successful
remediation, any LUCs
will be removed.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 59 of 303
Step 2: Identify the data collection goals
State how data will be used in meeting objectives and solving the problem. Identify principal study questions. Considering the CSM and future
land use assumptions, if Unlimited Use/Unrestricted Exposure is both a desirable and feasible end state for a given MRS, assembling the lines of
evidence necessary to support a determination of UU/UE should be a stated data collection goal.
Step 3: Identify information inputs
Identify types and sources of information needed to answer the study questions identified in Step 2. State in terms specific to each MRS.
Table 11-2 [Example] addresses DQO Steps 2 and 3 by summarizing data collection goals, principal study questions, and inputs for data collection
activities at each MRS.
Table 11-2: Data Collection Goals and Information Inputs (DQO Steps 2 and 3)
Activity
DQO Step 2
DQO Step 3
Data Collection Goals
Principal Study Questions
Inputs
Data Uses
MRS Al: MEC surface and subsurface removal using non-AGC DGM detection and cued AGC
Anomaly detection
using non-AGC DGM
Detect IOC within the
surface and subsurface
as geophysical
anomalies
Confirm underlying
assumptions in CSM
Have all anomaly locations been
identified and recorded in a
manner that supports cued AGC
collection?
Are field observations (site
conditions) consistent with CSM?
Field observations
Validated EM61 data
Geolocation data
Detection survey DUA
report
Process data to identify locations of geophysical
anomalies that exceed selection criteria for
cued AGC data collection
Verify site conditions support achieving
remediation goal (see Table 11-1)
Document successful implementation of EM61
detection survey
Update CSM
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 60 of 303
Table 11-2: Data Collection Goals and Information Inputs (DQO Steps 2 and 3) (Continued)
Activity
DQO Step 2
DQO Step 3
Data Collection Goals
Principal Study Questions
Inputs
Data Uses
MRS Al: MEC surface and subsurface removal using non-AGC DGM detection and cued AGC
TOI selection using
cued AGC
Classify subsurface
anomalies and select
TOI for intrusive
investigation
Justify non-TOI
decisions
Have sources from all cued
locations been classified as TOI,
non-TOI, or inconclusive?
Have all TOI been placed on the
dig list?
Have locations of inconclusive
analyses been resolved or placed
on the dig list?
Validated AGC cued data
Geolocation data
Software (specify)
TOI library
Dig list
Cued survey DUA report
Process data to obtain polarizabilities and
perform classification to identify TOI
Determine location and depth of sources
Verify site conditions support achieving
remediation goals (see Table 11-1)
Document successful implementation of cued
AGC
Update CSM
TOI investigation
and source removal
Create a record of all
locations excavated
and items removed
from the site
Have all IOC been recovered?
Have sources at all locations on
the dig list been resolved?
Have all recovered objects been
correctly classified?
Description, depth, mass,
photograph, and location
of recovered objects
Disposal records
Final DUA report
Verify recovered objects are consistent with
AGC analyses
Identify MPPEH for inspection and destruction
Document achievement of remediation goal
Update CSM
UU/UE
recommendation
Compile lines of
evidence supporting
UU/UE
Do all available lines of evidence
support UU/UE?
All inputs listed above
Administrative record
Prepare documentation supporting or rejecting
UU/UE for consideration by final decision-
makers
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 61 of 303
Table 11-2: Data Collection Goals and Information Inputs (DQO Steps 2 and 3) (Continued)
Activity
DQO Step 2
DQO Step 3
Data Collection Goals
Principal Study Questions
Inputs
Data Uses
MRS A2: MEC surface removal using instrument-aided visual identification
Surface removal
using instrument-
aided visual
identification
Detect IOC on the
surface for removal
Confirm underlying
assumptions in CSM
Document
achievement of
remediation goal
Have all IOC on the surface been
detected and removed?
Has visible evidence of munitions
training been documented?
Are field observations (site
conditions) consistent with CSM?
Field observations
Description, mass,
photograph, and lane # of
recovered items
Final DUA
Locate and remove IOC
Verify site conditions support achieving
remediation goal (see Table 11-1)
Identify material potentially posing an explosive
hazard (MPPEH) for inspection and destruction
Document achievement of remediation goal
Update CSM
Provide information to support implementation
of LUC
MRS Bl: MEC surface and subsurface removal using non-AGC DGM
Anomaly detection
using non-AGC DGM
Detect IOC within the
surface and subsurface
as geophysical
anomalies
Record selected
anomaly locations as
TOI to support intrusive
investigation
Confirm underlying
assumptions in CSM
Have all TOI locations been
identified in such a manner as to
be placed on the dig list?
Are field observations consistent
with CSM?
Field observations
Validated EM61 data
Detection survey DUA
Verify site conditions support achieving
remediation goal
Document successful implementation of
detection survey
Update CSM
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 62 of 303
Table 11-2: Data Collection Goals and Information Inputs (DQO Steps 2 and 3) (Continued)
Activity
DQO Step 2
DQO Step 3
Data Collection Goals
Principal Study Questions
Inputs
Data Uses
MRS Bl: MEC surface and subsurface removal using non-AGC DGM
TOI investigation
and source removal
Create a record of all
locations excavated
and items removed
from the site
Have sources at all locations on
the dig list been resolved?
Description, mass, depth,
photograph, and location
of all recovered items
Disposal records
Final DUA
Identify MPPEH for inspection and destruction
Document achievement of remediation goal
Update CSM
Provide information to support implementation
of LUC
MRS B2: MEC surface and subsurface removal using analog detection.
Anomaly detection
using analog
technology and
source removal
using manual
excavation
Detect IOC within the
surface and subsurface
as geophysical
anomalies
Confirm underlying
assumptions in CSM
Create a record of all
locations excavated
and items removed
from the site
Document
achievement of
remediation goal
Are field observations consistent
with CSM?
Have all IOC been detected?
Have sources at all anomaly
locations been resolved?
Have all IOC been removed?
Field observations
Description, mass, depth,
photograph, and location
of all recovered items
Final DUA report
Verify site conditions support achieving
remediation goal
Update CSM
Identify MPPEH for inspection and destruction
Update CSM
Provide information to support implementation
of LUC
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 63 of 303
Table 11-2: Data Collection Goals and Information Inputs (DQO Steps 2 and 3) (Continued)
Activity
DQO Step 2
DQO Step 3
Data Collection Goals
Principal Study Questions
Inputs
Data Uses
MRS C: MEC Surface and subsurface removal using dynamic AGC followed by cued AGC
Anomaly detection
Detect IOC within the
Have all anomaly locations been
Field observations
Process data to identify locations of geophysical
using dynamic AGC
surface and subsurface
as geophysical
identified and recorded in a
manner that supports cued AGC
Validated dynamic AGC
survey data
anomalies that exceed selection criteria for
cued AGC data collection
anomalies
collection?
Geolocation data
Verify site conditions support achieving
Confirm underlying
Are field observations consistent
Detection survey DUA
remediation goal
assumptions in CSM
with CSM?
report
Document the successful implementation of
AGC detection survey
Update CSM
TOI selection using
Classify subsurface
Have sources from all selected
Validated AGC cued data
Process data to obtain polarizabilities and
cued AGC
anomalies and select
anomaly locations been classified
Geolocation data
perform classification to identify TOI
TOI for intrusive
as TOI, non-TOI or inconclusive?
Cued survey DUA report
Verify site conditions support achieving
investigation
Have all TOI been placed on the
remediation goal
Record TOI locations
dig list?
Determine location and depth of sources
and characteristics to
Have inconclusive analyses been
Document successful implementation of AGC
support intrusive
resolved or placed on the dig list?
cued survey
investigation
Update CSM
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 64 of 303
Table 11-2: Data Collection Goals and Information Inputs (DQO Steps 2 and 3) (Continued)
Activity
DQO Step 2
DQO Step 3
Data Collection Goals
Principal Study Questions
Inputs
Data Uses
MRS C: MEC surface and subsurface removal using dynamic AGC followed by cued AGC
TOI investigation
and source removal
Create a record of all
locations excavated
and items removed
from the site
Have all IOC been recovered?
Have sources at all locations on
the dig list been resolved?
Have all recovered objects been
correctly classified?
Description, depth, mass,
photograph, and location
of recovered objects
Disposal records
Final DUA report
Verify recovered objects are consistent with
AGC analyses
Identify MPPEH for inspection and destruction
Document achievement of remediation goal
Update CSM
UU/UE
recommendation
Compile lines of
evidence supporting
UU/UE
Do all available lines of evidence
support UU/UE?
All inputs listed above for
Administrative record
Prepare documentation supporting or rejecting
UU/UE for consideration by final decision-
makers
Step 4: Define the project boundaries
Specify the target population and characteristics of interest. Define spatial and temporal boundaries. Spatial boundaries are established in the
Record of Decision for each MRS and described in the CSM. Spatial boundaries address both the horizontal area and vertical depth of the study.
Spatial boundaries should identify any areas that will be inaccessible to RA activities (e.g., presence of power lines, structures, ponds, sensitive
habitats, historic sites, and forested areas). They should also identify potential saturated response areas resulting from known surface features
and infrastructure or from high target-area anomaly density. Vertical boundaries for each MRS are determined by the remediation goals outlined
in the ROD, which considers the maximum expected depth that IOC are buried, the maximum predicted depth of future excavations and
disturbances based on anticipated future land use, and detector limitations, i.e., the maximum depth at which sensors can collect useable data
for specific munitions. Temporal boundaries consider seasonal conditions that could limit site access (e.g., periods of high rainfall, nesting
seasons, etc.)
Table 11-3 describes the target population for MEC removal at each MRS. [Note: The project-specific MR-QAPP must also address the remaining
project boundaries described above.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 65 of 303
Table 11-3: Target Population [Example]
Known or suspected munitions
used (including nomenclature,
if known)
MRS
MECType
(UXO, DMM, or
both)
Maximum
Reliable
Detection Depth
(MRDD) (bgs)13
ROD-
required
clearance
depth
Approx.
Diameter
Approx. Length
MKII practice hand grenades
A1/A2
Both
0.30 m (EM61)
0.30 m
58 mm
110 mm
Mkl mod OTrip Flares
A1/A2
UXO
0.30 m EM61)
0.30 m
64 mm
140 mm
Mk 1 target flares
A1/A2
UXO
0.30 m (EM61)
0.30 m
83 mm
203 mm
60-mm smoke and illumination
mortars
A1/A2
UXO
0.50 m (EM61)
0.45 m
60 mm
363 mm
Practice anti-tank mines
M1/M1A1
A1/A2
UXO
0.20 m (EM61)
0.30 m
203 mm
102 mm
2.36" practice anti-tank rockets
M6A1
A1/A2
UXO
0.66 (EM61)
0.30 m
60 mm
493 mm
60-mm M49A2 HE mortars
B1/B2
UXO
0.60 m (EM61)
Unknown
(Schonstedt)
0.45 m
60 mm
244 mm
100-lb M38A2 practice bombs
C
UXO
0.75 m (TEMTADS)
1.2 m
(Bedrock)
208 mm
1180 mm
100-1 b M30A1 HE bombs
C
UXO
1.75 m (TEMTADS)
1.2 m
(Bedrock)
208 mm
660 mm
AN-M103 series nose fuzes
C
UXO
0.30 m (TEMTADS)
0.30 m
41 mm
164 mm
13 The MRDD were determined using data in the NRL EM61 Response Memo Report and the site noise measured during the Rl. For items not in the NRL report,
MRDD were developed by scaling similar library items as described in SOP X.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 66 of 303
Table 11-3: Target Population [Example] (Continued)
Known or suspected munitions
used (including nomenclature,
if known)
MRS
MEC Type
(UXO, DMM, or
both)
Maximum
Reliable
Detection Depth
(bgs)14
ROD-
required
clearance
depth
Approx.
Diameter
Approx. Length
AN-M100 series tail fuzes
C
UXO
0.30 m (TEMTADS)
0.30 m
41 mm
102 mm excluding
arming vane and
vane arm
M1A1 spotting charges for 100-lb
practice bombs
c
UXO
0.40 m (TEMTADS)
0.30 m
87 mm
284 mm
Step 5: Develop the Project Data Collection and Analysis Approach
Define the parameters of interest, specify the type of inference, and develop the logic (decision rules) for drawing conclusions from the data.
[Example] The data collection and analysis approaches at Camp Example are driven by the selected remedies described in the ROD and
presented in Table 11-1. Decision rules for each MRS are presented below.
MRS A1 - Maneuver Area Development Area
Selected Remedy: MEC surface and subsurface removal using non-AGC DGM detection and cued AGC
Activity: Anomaly detection using EM61
14 The MRDD were determined using data in the NRL EM61 Response Memo Report and the site noise measured during the Rl. For items not in the NRL report,
MRDD were developed by scaling similar library items as described in SOP X.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 67 of 303
1. If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the remediation under the current assumptions. If field
observations are inconsistent with the CSM, the project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and remedial
design.
2. If signals meet the anomaly selection criteria (to be established in Step 6), they will be selected for cued data collection using AGC.
3. If areas of the site are deemed unsuitable for the cued AGC survey that is to follow (criteria to be established in Step 6), the project team will
document those areas and revise the remedial design, as necessary.
Activity: TOI selection using cued AGC
1. If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the remediation under the current assumptions. If field
observations are inconsistent with the CSM, the project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and remedial
design.
2. If AGC analyses meet any of the following criteria, they will be selected as TOI and placed on an ordered dig list: a) the polarizability decay
curve matches that of an item in the project-specific TOI library, or b) estimates of the size, shape, symmetry, and wall thickness indicate the
item is long, cylindrical or spherical, and thick-walled, or c) there is a group (cluster) of unknown anomalies having similar polarizability decay
curves that, after investigation, are discovered to be IOC. The procedures for designating a cluster are described in SOP .
3. If AGC analyses yield inconclusive results, they will be added to the dig list or otherwise resolved.
Activity: TOI investigation and source removal
1. If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the remediation under the current assumptions. If field
observations are inconsistent with the CSM, the project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and remedial
design.
2. If the threshold verification digs do not uncover any IOC, then the threshold is verified. If any IOC are recovered, then the project team will
conduct an RCA/CAthat results in an adjustment of the threshold and determination of the impacts on project objectives.
3. The geophysical classification results will be valid if:
a. validation digs do not uncover any IOC, and
b. the properties of all recovered objects are consistent with predicted properties
4. If the validation digs uncover any IOC, the project team will conduct a QA stand-down and evaluate the impacts on measurement
performance criteria (MPCs) and DQOs.
5. If the properties of recovered objects are inconsistent with predicted properties, the project team will conduct an RCA/CA and determine
the impacts on the achievement of MPCs and DQOs.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 68 of 303
6. If all lines of evidence (i.e., DQO step 3 inputs) are complete and support UU/UE, the project team will develop the Remedial Action
Completion Report (RACR) supporting UU/UE. If lines of evidence are incomplete or any line of evidence does not support UU/UE, the
project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs, remedial design, and the ROD.
MRS A2 - Maneuver Area Recreational Area
Selected Remedy: Surface removal using instrument-aided visual identification
Activity: Surface removal using instrument-aided visual identification
1. If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the remediation under the current assumptions. If field
observations are inconsistent with the CSM, the project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and remedial
design.
2. If MPCs have been achieved, the project will have implemented the removal component of the remedy. The LUCs specified in the ROD will
be used to manage residual risk. If not, the team will recommend that the appropriate representatives of the responsible offices revisit and
reconsider the ROD.
MRS B1 - Mortar Range Flat Terrain Area
Selected Remedy: MEC surface and subsurface removal using non-AGC DGM
Activity: Anomaly detection using EM61
1. If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the remediation under the current assumptions. If field
observations are inconsistent with the CSM, the project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and remedial
design.
2. If signals meet the anomaly selection criteria (to be established in Step 6), they will be selected for intrusive investigation.
3. If areas of the site are deemed unsuitable for individual target selection at the established target selection threshold, (criteria to be
established in Step 6), the project team will document those areas and revise the remedial design, as necessary.
Activity: TOI investigation and source removal
1. If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the remediation under the current assumptions. If field
observations are inconsistent with the CSM, the project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and remedial
design.
2. If reanalysis does not reveal any new anomalies that meet anomaly selection criteria that cannot be resolved, the project has achieved
DQOs. If reanalysis identifies new anomalies that cannot be resolved, the project team will conduct an RCA/CA and determine the impacts
on project objectives.
MRS B2 - Mortar Range Steep Terrain Area
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 69 of 303
Selected Remedy: MEC surface and subsurface removal using analog detection and manual excavation.
Activity: Anomaly detection using analog technology
1. If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the remediation under the current assumptions. If field
observations are inconsistent with the CSM, the project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and remedial
design.
Activity: Source investigation and removal
1. If MPCs have been achieved, the project will have implemented the removal component of the remedy. The LUCs specified in the ROD will
be used to manage residual risk. If not, the team will recommend that the appropriate representatives of the responsible offices revisit and
reconsider the ROD.
MRS C - Bomb Target
Selected Remedy: MEC subsurface removal using dynamic AGC detection and cued AGC
Activity: Anomaly detection using dynamic AGC
1. If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the remediation under the current assumptions. If field
observations are inconsistent with the CSM, the project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and remedial
design.
2. If signals meet the anomaly selection criteria for Informed Source Selection (ISS) provided on Worksheet # 22, they will be selected for cued
data collection using AGC.
3. If areas of the site are deemed unsuitable for AGC use (to be established in Step 6) the project team will document the areas and revise the
remedial design, as necessary.
Activity: TOI selection using cued AGC
1. If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the remediation under the current assumptions. If field
observations are inconsistent with the CSM, the project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and remedial
design.
2. If AGC analyses meet any of the following criteria, they will be selected as TOI and placed on an ordered dig list:
a. The polarizability decay curve matches that of an item in the project-specific TOI library, or
b. Estimates of the size, shape, symmetry, and wall thickness indicate the item is long, cylindrical or spherical, and thick-walled, or
c. There is a group (cluster) of unknown anomalies having similar polarizability decay curves that, after investigation, are discovered to
be IOC. The procedure for designating a cluster are described in SOP . The presence and description of any clusters will be added
to the CSM.
3. If AGC analyses yield inconclusive results, they will be added to the dig list or otherwise resolved.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 70 of 303
Activity: TOI investigation and source removal
1. If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the remediation under the current assumptions. If field
observations are inconsistent with the CSM, the project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and remedial
design.
2. If the threshold verification digs do not uncover any IOC, the threshold is verified. If any IOC are recovered, the project team will conduct
RCA/CA that results in adjustment of the threshold and determination of the impacts on the project objectives.
3. The geophysical classification results will be valid if:
a. Validation digs do not uncover any IOC and
b. The properties of all recovered objects are consistent with predicted properties.
4. If the validation digs uncover any IOC, the project team will conduct a QA stand-down and evaluate the impacts on MPCs and DQOs.
5. If the properties of recovered objects are inconsistent with predicted properties, the project team will conduct RCA/CA and determine the
impacts on MPCs and DQOs.
Activity: UU/UE recommendation
1. If all lines of evidence (i.e., DQO Step 3 inputs) are complete and support UU/UE, the project team will develop the Remedial Action
Completion Report supporting UU/UE. If lines of evidence are incomplete or any line of evidence does not support UU/UE, the project team
will update the CSM and determine the impacts on DQOs, remedial design and the ROD.
Step 6: Specify Project-specific Measurement Performance Criteria (MPC)
Discuss the considerations for developing the project-specific MPCs that collected data must meet to minimize the possibility of failing to meet
the requirements of the ROD (e.g., failing to detect or remove required objects to required depths). MPCs are the qualitative and quantitative
specifications for accuracy, sensitivity, representativeness, completeness, and comparability that collected data must meet to satisfy the DQOs
described in Steps 1 through 5 above. Some of the quality considerations may result in multiple MPCs and others may not be directly
measurable, in which case surrogates will be required to provide a quality standard. For example, detecting all seeds may be a surrogate for the
underlying consideration of detecting all IOC. MPCs will be articulated in WS #12. MPCs guide the development of the sampling design (which is
developed during Step 7 and presented in Worksheet #17), and they are the criteria against which data usability will be evaluated at the end of
the study.
[Example] The MPCs must demonstrate that the geophysics data are sufficient to meet the DQOs, such that the data will identify and support
the removal of all IOC required by the ROD. For each technology to be used in the distinct phases of the remedial action, the project team has
considered the factors that are important to make this determination, which are discussed below. To avoid repetition, the discussions of key
aspects are presented in the category where they are most applicable. Many of the considerations will derive multiple MPCs that may be
applicable to multiple categories. The MPCs derived from these considerations are documented in Worksheet #12
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 71 of 303
Non-AGC DGM Survey and Analysis
Completeness:
The MPCs will identify and document those areas deemed unsuitable for individual target selection, as well as how they will be handled.
The MPCs must ensure that the entire site was surveyed at the required data density. MPCs will include review of the geolocation
records of the survey and seeding by both the contractor and the government.
The MPCs must demonstrate that the instrument was operating per specifications throughout the data collection.
The MPCs must demonstrate that all the anomalies meeting selection criteria are included in the detection survey database. MPCs will
include review of the anomaly lists and random reanalysis of the detection data to ensure the target selection process successfully
identified all anomalies.
If AGC is to follow, MPCs will identify and document those areas deemed unsuitable for AGC use, as well as how they will be handled.
Sensitivity:
The MPCs must demonstrate that all the required IOC can be detected to the required depth using the specified anomaly selection
criteria. Sensitivity MPCs will rely on detection and location of items in the IVS and seeds. MPCs will document and evaluate:
o Instrument response to IOC
o Sample rate appropriate to detecting IOC
o Site noise
o Correct operation of the instrument
o Correct operation of the navigation system
Accuracy:
The MPCs must demonstrate that signals for IOC are as expected. The expected signals of all IOC are known. MPCs will use an IVS, seeds,
and recovered sources to assess signals.
The MPCs must demonstrate that the location accuracy will support the next phase of the RA, i.e., cued data collection or reacquisition
and excavation. MPCs will use the IVS, seeds, and reacquisition of known control points for comparison.
Comparability:
N/A
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 72 of 303
Representativeness:
Seeds will be a critical component of the MPCs. MPCs must ensure that the seeds are appropriate to represent the IOC in type and depth
range.
AGC Cued Data Collection and Analysis
Completeness:
The MPCs must ensure that data were collected at all cued locations.
The MPCs must demonstrate that the instrument was operating per specifications throughout the data collection.
MPCs must demonstrate that analyses of data from all cued locations result in determination of TOI, non-TOI, or inconclusive. This will
require review of the anomaly database and comparison to the final intrusive database.
MPCs must demonstrate that background data are collected at appropriate locations and per manufacturer specification.
All suspected IOC must be in the AGC library.
Sensitivity:
The MPCs must demonstrate that the AGC system was capable of correctly classifying all IOC. Sensitivity MPCs will rely on detection and
location of seeds and items in the IVS. MPCs will document and evaluate:
o Instrument response to IOC
o Site noise
o Correct operation of the instrument
Accuracy:
To demonstrate that all TOI are identified, the MPCs must demonstrate that AGC analyses for IOC are as expected. The responses of all
IOC are known and documented in the AGC library. MPCs will use the IVS, seeds, and recovered sources, including additional digs for
validation, to assess analyses for consistency.
The MPCs must demonstrate that the correct dig/no-dig threshold was established. MPCs will rely on additional threshold verification
digs.
To assess whether non-TOI are correctly classified, the MPCs must excavate and evaluate a sampling of non-TOI.
Comparability:
The MPCs must ensure the use of background samples from appropriate locations to support AGC analyses across the site.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 73 of 303
Representativeness:
Seeds will be a critical component of the MPCs. MPCs must ensure that the seeds represent the IOC in both type and depth range.
Excavation following DGM
Accuracy/Completeness:
The MPCs must demonstrate that all dig list locations were dug, holes were cleared, recovered items were documented, and all
recovered items were consistent with DGM signals and analyses.
Sensitivity: N/A
Comparability: N/A
Representativeness: N/A
Analog Detection and Removal
Completeness:
The MPCs must demonstrate that the entire site was surveyed at the required coverage. MPCs will include review of the geolocation
records of the survey, seeding by both the contractor and the government.
The MPCs must demonstrate that the instrument was operating per specifications throughout the data collection.
The MPCs must provide evidence indicating all required objects were removed from the area searched.
Sensitivity:
The MPCs must demonstrate that all the required IOC can be detected to the required depth. Sensitivity MPCs will rely on detection and
location of items in the ITS and seeds. MPCs will document and evaluate:
o Detection capability of the instrument
o Correct operation of the instrument
o Correct operation of the navigation system
Accuracy: N/A
Comparability: N/A
Representativeness:
Seeds will be a critical component of the MPCs. MPCs must ensure that the types and depths of seeds represent the expected types and
depths of the IOC.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 74 of 303
Step 7: Develop Sampling Design (Survey Design and Project Workflow)
Develop a resource-effective design for collecting data that will meet the project-specific MPCs developed during Step 6. This step usually refers
to Worksheet #17.
[Example] The MPCs developed in Step 6, above, were used to develop the sampling design, which is described in detail Worksheet #17. The
sampling design is broken down into a series of specific processes and data collection steps, termed definable features of work (DFW). Figures
17-1 - 17-5 summarize the sampling design for each MRS in decision diagrams.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 75 of 303
Worksheet #12: Measurement Performance Criteria
(UFP-QAPP Manual Section 2.6.2)
This worksheet documents the project-specific measurement performance criteria in terms of data quality indicators (i.e., accuracy, sensitivity,
representativeness, completeness, and comparability) for remedial actions at munitions response sites (MRS). MPCs are the minimum
performance specifications that the remedial action must meet to ensure collected data will satisfy the DQOs documented in Steps 1-5 on
Worksheet #11. They are the criteria against which the intermediate and final data usability assessments will be conducted as documented on
Worksheet #37. The DUA must evaluate and document the data quality and decision-making impacts of any failures to meet these criteria (See
Worksheet #37). Minimum recommended MPCs applicable to the RA phase are presented in black text. Project teams may revise these MPCs or
establish additional MPCs if necessary to achieve project-specific DQOs; however, the project-specific QAPP must explain and justify any changes
to black text. An appendix may be used for this purpose.
Table 12-1: MPC for MRS Al, Maneuver Area Development Area - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using non-AGC DGM Detection and
Cued AGC
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity Used to Assess
Performance
DFW 1 - Site Preparation and CSM
1. Accessibility
Completeness
All areas inaccessible to remediation or inaccessible to use
of proposed geophysical systems are identified and mapped
in a GIS.
Visual Inspection QA Report and/or GIS
Database
2. Surface Sweep
Coverage
Representativeness/
Completeness
Surface sweep completed across the entire site. Identified
Saturated Response Areas (SRAs) have been documented.
Surface Sweep Technical Memorandum
and updated CSM
3. IOC Completeness
Representativeness/
Completeness
(recoverability)
All recoveries (IOC and MD) were reviewed and CSM
confirmed or updated. All recovered munitions, as well as
munitions related to recovered MD, were included in the
site-specific TOI library.
Surface Sweep Technical Memorandum
and Updated CSM
4. Survey Control
Completeness
All survey control points placed by Professional Licensed
Surveyor (PLS) and survey control report submitted.
Surveyor and/or QC Report
DFW 2 & 3 - IVS
5. IVS Construction
Accuracy/Completeness
Seeds placed so that each sensor passes at least one seed
item during IVS surveys. Seed type, depth, and location
accuracy recorded during placement.
IVS Memorandum
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 76 of 303
Table 12-1: MPC for MRS Al, Maneuver Area Development Area - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using non-AGC DGM Detection and
Cued AGC (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity Used to Assess
Performance
6. IVS Testing
Sensitivity/
Completeness
Detection equipment assembled correctly and functioning
as designed. Detection threshold confirmed or the effects of
site-specific conditions on detection capabilities are
documented.
IVS Memorandum
DFW 2 - QC and Validation Seeding
7. QC Seeding
1) Representativeness
2) Completeness
3) Sensitivity
4) Accuracy
5) Comparability
Blind QC seeds will be placed at the site by the contractor
(1). Blind QC seeds must be detectable as defined by the
DQOs and located throughout the horizontal and vertical
survey boundaries defined in the DQOs (2,3). [The blind
seed plan describes the number and types of blind QC seeds
(2,4)]
Production Area QC Seeding Report
8. Validation Seeding
1) Representativeness
2) Completeness
3) Sensitivity
4) Accuracy
5) Comparability
Blind Validation seeds will be placed throughout the MRS
footprint by the Government (or its third-party contractor)
(1). Validation seeds must be detectable as defined by the
DQOs and located at depths that result in signals equivalent
to 2-5 times the detection threshold (2,3). [The Validation
Seed Plan describes the number and types of validation
seeds (2,4)]
Validation Seeding Report
DFW 4 & 5 - Data Acquisition Detection Survey
9. Detection threshold
(DGM)
Sensitivity
This worksheet must describe the project-specific detection
threshold that will achieve the required depth of the
selected remedy.
The detection threshold used to detect a 60-mm mortar
lying horizontally at a depth of 0.45 m is 11.7 mV on channel
2.
1) Review of sampling design
2) Initial and ongoing IVS surveys
3) Blind QC and validation seed
detection
4) RMS background maps show all
areas are less than or equal to 20%
of the threshold
10. Detection Survey
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of QC seeds must be detected.
1) QC Seed Database
2) RCA/CA review and acceptance
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 77 of 303
Table 12-1: MPC for MRS Al, Maneuver Area Development Area - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using non-AGC DGM Detection and
Cued AGC (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity Used to Assess
Performance
11. Detection Survey
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of validation seeds must be detected.
1) Validation Seed Database
2) RCA/CA review and acceptance
12. Detection Survey
Coverage
Representativeness/
Completeness
100% of the site is sampled at required lane spacing and
point-to-point sampling specifications.
1) Coverage Maps
2) Detection Survey Database
13. Anomaly Selection
Completeness
Complete project-specific databases and anomaly lists
delivered. All QC and validation seeds listed in Detection
Survey Database.
Detection Survey Database
14. Background
Representativeness/
Sensitivity
Background areas where detection threshold does not
exceed five times the root mean square (RMS) background
are identified.
1) GIS Database
2) Detection Survey Database
15. AGC Cued Survey
Background
Locations
Representativeness/
Comparability
Representative areas determined to be background are
selected and bounded in the detection survey.
1) GIS Database
2) Cued Background Database
16. Variability for Cued
Background
locations
Representativeness/
Sensitivity
Representative backgrounds are selected in all noise
regimes. Background areas where detection threshold is
less than 5 times background are identified. All anomaly
cued locations appropriate for each expected background
are identified.
Background measurements used to level cued
measurements must be in the same noise regime as the
cued measurements.
1) GIS Database
2) Cued Background Database
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 78 of 303
Table 12-1: MPC for MRS Al, Maneuver Area Development Area - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using non-AGC DGM Detection and
Cued AGC (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity Used to Assess
Performance
DFW 4 & 5 - Data Acquisition Detection Survey
17. Saturated Response
Areas
Completeness
No SRAs in final detection survey data. All SRAs digitally
remapped to confirm anomaly densities reduced to below
DQO thresholds. [Example] The analog anomaly reduction
survey reduces the anomaly density to below 3500
anomalies/acre.
1) Detection Survey Database
2) GIS database
DFW 7 & 8 - Data Acquisition - Cued Survey
18. Background data
collection (AGC)
Representativeness/
Accuracy
Each cued analysis is performed with a representative
background and verified during quality control.
1) Background Validation Database
2) Cued Survey Database
3) QC Verification
19. Background
Frequency
Completeness
Background data are collected at a minimum of the interval
specified by the manufacturer.
Background Validation Database
20. Anomaly
classification (AGC)
Completeness/
Comparability
Site-specific library must include representative signatures
for all items considered by the project team to be IOC as
listed in the CSM.
Site-specific TOI Library
21. Anomaly
classification (AGC)
Completeness
Cued data collected at all anomalies meeting the target
selection criteria and all cued data classified as:
1) TOI
2) Non-TOI
3) Inconclusive
1) Source Database
2) Final Intrusive Database
22. Anomaly
classification (QC
Seeds)
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of QC seeds are correctly classified as TOI for
excavation. QC seeds classified as inconclusive are discussed
in DUA.
1) QC Seed Database
2) RCA/CA Review and Acceptance
23. Anomaly
classification
(Validation Seeds)
Accuracy/
Completeness
100% of validation seeds are correctly classified as TOI for
excavation.
1) Validation Seed Database
2) RCA/CA Review and Acceptance
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 79 of 303
Table 12-1: MPC for MRS Al, Maneuver Area Development Area - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using non-AGC DGM Detection and
Cued AGC (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity Used to Assess
Performance
DFW 9,10, & 11 - Anomaly Resolution and Excavation
24. Anomaly resolution
(QC Seeds)
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of QC seeds are recovered.
1) Intrusive Results Database
2) RCA/CA Review and Acceptance
25. Anomaly resolution
(Validation Seeds)
Accuracy/
Completeness
100% of validation seeds are recovered.
1) Intrusive Results Database
2) RCA/CA Review and Acceptance
26. Anomaly resolution
Accuracy/
Completeness
100% of predicted non-TOI that are intrusively investigated
are confirmed to be non-TOI. This includes final threshold
verification digs and validation digs.
1) Intrusive Results Database
2) RCA/CA Review and Acceptance
27. Intrusive
Investigation
Accuracy
Inversion results correctly predict one or more physical
properties (e.g., size, symmetry, or wall thickness) of all
recovered items (specific tests and test objectives
established during project planning).
Intrusive Results Database
28. Intrusive
Investigation
Completeness/
Comparability
A complete project-specific database including records
reconciling inversion results to the physical properties of the
recovered items. 100% of anomalies on the dig list are
intrusively investigated.
Intrusive Results Database
29. Intrusive
Investigation
Accuracy/Completeness
AGC results indicate original polarizabilities resulting in TOI
are no longer present and no additional TOI sources present
above the project-specific stop-dig threshold.
Post-mapping database
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 80 of 303
Table 12-2: MPC for MRS A2, Maneuver Area Recreational Area - MEC Surface Removal using Instrument-Aided Visual Identification
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity Used to Assess
Performance
DFW 1 - Site Preparation and CSM
1. Accessibility
Completeness
All areas inaccessible to remediation or inaccessible to use
of proposed geophysical systems are identified and mapped
in a GIS.
Visual Inspection QA Report and/or GIS
Database
2. IOC Completeness
Representativeness/
Completeness
(recoverability)
All recoveries (IOC and MD) were reviewed and CSM
confirmed or updated.
Updated CSM
3. Survey Control
Completeness
All survey control points placed by PLS and survey control
report submitted.
Surveyor and/or QC Report
DFW 2 & 3 - ITS
4. Instrument Test
Strip (ITS)
Construction
Accuracy/Completeness
Seeds placed so that each sensor passes at least one seed
item during ITS. Seed type, depth, and location accuracy
recorded during placement.
ITS Memorandum
5. ITS Testing
Sensitivity/
Completeness
Analog equipment assembled correctly and functioning as
designed. Detection threshold confirmed and tested daily
with ITS seeds at depth of detection.
1) ITS Memorandum
2) ITS Database
DFW 2 - QC and QA Seeding
6. QC Seeding
1) Representativeness
2) Completeness
3) Sensitivity
4) Accuracy
5) Comparability
Blind QC seeds will be placed at the site by the contractor
(1). Blind QC seeds must be located throughout the
horizontal boundaries defined in the DQOs (2,3). [The blind
seed plan must describe the number and types of blind QC
seeds. (2,4)]
Production Area QC Seeding Report
7. QA Seeding
1) Representativeness
2) Completeness
3) Sensitivity
4) Accuracy
5) Comparability
Blind QA seeds will be placed on the surface throughout the
MRS footprint by the Government (or its third-party
contractor) (1,2,3). [The QA Seed Plan describes the number
and types of QA seeds. (2,4)]
QA Seeding Report
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 81 of 303
Table 12-2: MPC for MRS A2, Maneuver Area Recreational Area - MEC Surface Removal using Instrument-Aided Visual Identification
(Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity Used to Assess
Performance
DFW 4 - Surface Removal
8. Planned Survey
Coverage
Completeness
Survey lanes are designed and located not to exceed 3-foot
spacing and cover the entire MRS footprint.
1) Global positioning system (GPS) or
photographic documentation
2) Grid/lane GIS database
9. Detection threshold
(analog)
Sensitivity
This worksheet must describe the instrument and project-
specific threshold to be used for instrument-aided surface
removal. [Example] The analog instrument must be leveled
to manufacturer settings and set to a sensitivity of 5 for the
duration of the survey.
1) Initial and ongoing ITS surveys
2) Blind QC and QA seed detection
3) Periodic Verification by QC
Geophysicist (or designee)
10. Detection Survey
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of QC seeds detected.
1) QC Seed Database
2) RCA/CA review and acceptance
11. Detection Survey
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of QA seeds must be detected.
1) QA Seed Database
2) RCA/CA review and acceptance
12. Detection Survey
Coverage
Representativeness/
Completeness
100% of the site is sampled.
1) Seed Recovery
2) Operator GPS Records
13. Surface Item
Removal
Completeness
All QC and QA seeds and pieces of metal exceeding l"x2" in
dimension recovered. All surface finds documented in the
project-specific database.
1) GIS Database
2) QC Database
3) QA Database
4) Project Database
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 82 of 303
Table 12-3: MPC for MRS Bl, Mortar Range - Flat Terrain Area - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using non-AGC DGM
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity Used to Assess
Performance
DFW 1 - Site Preparation and CSM
1. Accessibility
Completeness
All areas inaccessible to remediation or inaccessible to use
of proposed geophysical systems are identified and mapped
in a GIS.
Visual Inspection QA Report and/or GIS
Database
2. IOC Completeness
Representativeness/
Completeness
(recoverability)
All recoveries (IOC and MD) were reviewed and CSM
confirmed or updated.
Surface Sweep Technical Memorandum
and Updated CSM
3. Surface Sweep
Coverage
Representativeness/
Completeness
Surface sweep completed across the entire site. Identified
SRAs have been documented.
Surface Sweep Technical Memorandum
and Updated CSM
4. Survey Control
Completeness
All survey control points placed by PLS and survey control
report submitted.
Surveyor and/or QC Report
DFW 2 & 3 - IVS
5. IVS Construction
Accuracy/Completeness
Seeds placed so that each sensor passes at least one seed
item during IVS surveys. Seed type, depth, and location
accuracy recorded during placement.
IVS Memorandum
6. IVS Testing
Sensitivity/
Completeness
Detection equipment assembled correctly and functioning
as designed. Detection threshold confirmed or the effects of
site-specific conditions on detection capabilities are
documented.
IVS Memorandum
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 83 of 303
Table 12-3: MPC for MRS Bl, Mortar Range - Flat Terrain Area - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using non-AGC DGM (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity Used to Assess
Performance
DFW 2 - QC and Validation Seeding
7. QC Seeding
1) Representativeness
2) Completeness
3) Sensitivity
4) Accuracy
5) Comparability
Blind QC seeds will be placed at the site by the contractor
(1). Blind QC seeds must be detectable as defined by the
DQOs and located throughout the horizontal and vertical
survey boundaries defined in the DQOs (2,3). [The blind
seed plan describes the number and types of blind QC
seeds. (2,4)]
Production Area QC Seeding Report
8. Validation Seeding
1) Representativeness
2) Completeness
3) Sensitivity
4) Accuracy
5) Comparability
Blind Validation seeds will be placed throughout the MRS
footprint by the Government (or its third-party contractor)
(1). Validation seeds must be detectable as defined by the
DQOs and located at depths that result in signals equivalent
to 2-5 times the detection threshold (2,3). [The Validation
Seed Plan describes the number and types of validation
seeds. (2,4)]
Validation Seeding Report
DFW 4 & 5 - Data Acquisition Detection Survey
9. Detection threshold
(DGM)
Sensitivity
This worksheet must describe the project-specific detection
threshold that will achieve the required depth of the
selected remedy.
The detection threshold used to detect a 60-mm mortar
lying horizontally at a depth of 0.45 m is 11.7 mV on channel
2.
1) Review of sampling design
2) Initial and ongoing IVS surveys
3) Blind QC and validation seed
detection
4) RMS background maps show all
areas are less than or equal to 20%
of the threshold
10. Detection Survey
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of QC seeds detected.
1) QC Seed Database
2) RCA/CA review and acceptance
11. Detection Survey
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of validation seeds must be detected.
1) Validation Seed Database
2) RCA/CA review and acceptance
12. Detection Survey
Coverage
Representativeness/
Completeness
100% of the site is sampled at required lane spacing and
point-to-point sampling specifications.
1) Coverage Maps
2) Detection Survey Database
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 84 of 303
Table 12-3: MPC for MRS Bl, Mortar Range - Flat Terrain Area - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using DGM (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity Used to Assess
Performance
13. Anomaly Selection
Completeness
Complete project-specific databases and anomaly lists
delivered. All QC and validation seeds listed in Detection
Survey Database.
Detection Survey Database
14. Background
Representativeness/
Sensitivity
Background areas where detection threshold does not
exceed five times background are identified.
1) GIS Database
2) Detection Survey Database
15. SRAs
Completeness
No SRAs in final detection survey data. All designated SRAs
anomaly densities reduced to below DQO thresholds and
digitally remapped. SRA boundaries documented in GIS
deliverable. [Example] The analog anomaly reduction survey
reduces the anomaly density to below 1500 anomalies/acre
equivalent.
1) GIS Database
2) Detection Survey Database
DFW 6 - Verification of Non-AGC DGM Dig List
16. Anomaly list (QC
Seeds)
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of QC seeds are identified as TOI for excavation.
1) QC Seed Database
2) RCA/CA Review and Acceptance
17. Anomaly list
(Validation Seeds)
Accuracy/
Completeness
100% of validation seeds are identified as TOI for
excavation.
1) Validation Seed Database
2) RCA/CA Review and Acceptance
DFW 7 & 8 - Anomaly Resolution and Excavation
18. Anomaly resolution
(QC Seeds)
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of QC seeds are recovered.
1) Intrusive Results Database
2) RCA/CA Review and Acceptance
19. Anomaly resolution
(Validation Seeds)
Accuracy/
Completeness
100% of validation seeds are recovered.
1) Intrusive Results Database
2) RCA/CA Review and Acceptance
20. Intrusive
Investigation
Accuracy/Completeness
Digital post-mapping verification of selected excavated
locations result in a geophysical response less than the
detection threshold or documented as fully resolved
Post-mapping database
21. Intrusive
Investigation
Completeness/
Comparability
A complete project-specific database including records
reconciling detection results to the physical properties of
the recovered items. 100% of anomalies identified for
investigation (i.e., TOI dig list) intrusively investigated.
Intrusive Results Database
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 85 of 303
Table 12-4: MPC for MRS B2, Mortar Range - Steep Terrain Area - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using Analog Detection
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity Used to Assess
Performance
DFW 1 - Site Preparation and CSM
1. Accessibility
Completeness
All areas inaccessible to remediation or inaccessible to use
of proposed geophysical systems are identified and mapped
in a GIS.
Visual Inspection QA Report and/or GIS
Database
2. IOC Completeness
Representativeness/
Completeness
(recoverability)
All recoveries (IOC and MD) were reviewed and CSM
confirmed or updated.
Updated CSM
3. Survey Control
Completeness
All survey control points placed by PLS and survey control
report submitted.
Surveyor and/or QC Report
DFW 2 & 3 - ITS, QC Seeding, and QA Seeding
4. ITS Construction
Accuracy/Completeness
Seeds placed so that each sensor passes at least one seed
item during ITS. Seed type, depth, and location accuracy
recorded during placement.
ITS Memorandum
5. ITS Testing
Sensitivity/
Completeness
Analog equipment assembled correctly and functioning as
designed. Detection threshold confirmed and tested daily
with ITS seeds at depth of detection.
1) ITS Memorandum
2) ITS Database
6. QC Seeding
1) Representativeness
2) Completeness
3) Sensitivity
4) Accuracy
5) Comparability
Blind QC seeds will be placed at the site by the contractor
(1). Blind QC seeds must be located throughout the
horizontal boundaries defined in the DQOs (2,3). [The blind
seed plan must describe the number and types of blind QC
seeds. (2,4)]
Production Area QC Seeding Report
7. QA Seeding
1) Representativeness
2) Completeness
3) Sensitivity
4) Accuracy
5) Comparability
Blind QA seeds (medium ISOs) will be placed throughout the
MRS footprint by the Government (or its third-party
contractor) (1, 2, 3). QA Seeds must be placed at the
required depth of detection (0.45 m) (2, 3). [The QASeed
Plan describes the number and types of QA seeds. (2,4)]
QA Seeding Report
DFW 4 - Conduct Analog Surface and Subsurface Removal
8. Planned Survey
Coverage
Completeness
Survey lanes are designed and located not to exceed 3-foot
spacing and cover the entire MRS footprint.
1) GPS or Photographic
Documentation
2) Grid/Lane GIS database
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 86 of 303
12-4: MPC for MRS B2, Mortar Range - Steep Terrain Area - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using Analog Detection (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity Used to Assess
Performance
9. Detection threshold
(analog)
Sensitivity
This worksheet must describe the instrument and project-
specific threshold to be used for sub-surface removal.
[Example] The analog instrument must be leveled to
manufacturer settings and set to a sensitivity of 5 for the
duration of the survey. Detection of a 60-mm mortar and
medium ISO at 0.45 m must be demonstrated in the ITS.
1) Initial and ongoing instrument test
strip (ITS) surveys
2) Blind QC and QA seed detection
3) Periodic Verification by QC
Geophysicist (or designee)
10. Detection Survey
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of QC seeds detected.
1) QC Seed Database
2) RCA/CA review and acceptance
11. Detection Survey
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of QA seeds must be detected.
1) QA Seed Database
2) RCA/CA review and acceptance
12. Detection Survey
Coverage
Representativeness/
Completeness
100% of the site is sampled.
1) Seed Recovery
2) Operator GPS Records
DFW 5 - Anomaly Resolution and Excavation
13. Anomaly Resolution
(QC Seeds)
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of QC seeds are excavated.
QC Seed Database
14. Anomaly Resolution
(QA Seeds)
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of QA seeds must be excavated.
QA Seed Database
15. Intrusive
Investigation
Accuracy
QC or 3rd party re-check of 10% of the excavated locations
result in zero additional intrusive investigations
QC Database
16. Intrusive
Investigation
Completeness
Complete project-specific database with all intrusive
records.
Project Database
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 87 of 303
Table 12-5: MPC for MRS C, Bombing Target - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using Dynamic AGC followed by Cued AGC
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity Used to Assess
Performance
DFW 1 & 2 - Site Preparation, CSM, and Anomaly Reduction
1. Accessibility
Completeness
All areas inaccessible to remediation or inaccessible to use
of proposed geophysical systems are identified and
mapped in a GIS.
Visual Inspection QA Report and/or GIS
Database
2. IOC Completeness
Representativeness/
Completeness
(recoverability)
All recoveries (IOC and MD) were reviewed and CSM
confirmed or updated. All recovered munitions, as well as
munitions related to recovered MD, were included in the
site specific AGC library.
Surface Sweep Technical Memorandum
and Updated CSM
3. Surface Sweep
Coverage
Representativeness/
Completeness
Surface sweep completed across the entire site. Identified
SRAs have been documented.
Surface Sweep Technical Memorandum
and Updated CSM
4. Survey Control
Completeness
All survey control points placed by PLS and survey control
report submitted.
Surveyor and/or QC Report
DFW 3 & 4 - QC Seeding, Validation Seeding, and IVS
5. IVS Construction
Accuracy/Completeness
Seeds placed so that each sensor passes at least one seed
item during IVS surveys. Seed type, depth, and location
accuracy recorded during placement.
IVS Memorandum
6. IVS Testing
Sensitivity/
Completeness
Detection equipment assembled correctly and functioning
as designed. Detection threshold confirmed or adjusted as
appropriate.
IVS Memorandum
7. QC Seeding
1) Representativeness
2) Completeness
3) Sensitivity
4) Accuracy
5) Comparability
Blind QC seeds will be placed at the site by the contractor
(1). Blind QC seeds must be detectable as defined by the
DQOs and located throughout the horizontal and vertical
survey boundaries defined in the DQOs (2,3). [The blind
seed plan describes the number and types of blind QC
seeds. (2,4)]
Production Area QC Seeding Report
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 88 of 303
Table 12-5: MPC for MRS C, Bombing Target - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using Dynamic AGC followed by Cued AGC (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity Used to Assess
Performance
8. Validation Seeding
1) Representativeness
2) Completeness
3) Sensitivity
4) Accuracy
5) Comparability
Blind Validation seeds will be placed throughout the MRS
footprint by the Government (or its third-party
contractor) (1). Validation seeds must be detectable as
defined by the DQOs and located at depths that result in
signals equivalent to 2-5 times the detection threshold
(2,3). [The Validation Seed Plan describes the number and
types of validation seeds (2,4).]
Validation Seeding Report
DFW 5 - Detection Survey, Data Processing, and Detection Survey DUA
9. ISS Thresholds
Sensitivity
This worksheet must describe the project-specific
informed-source-selection threshold that will achieve the
required depth of the selected remedy.
[Example] A detection threshold of > 0.87 mV/A on
Channel 14, modeled sized > 0.3, and polarizability fit >
0.9 are required to detect a [100-lb bomb] lying
horizontally at a depth of [1.5 m].
1) Review of sampling design
2) Initial and ongoing instrument
verification strip (IVS) surveys
3) Blind QC and validation seed
detection
4) RMS background maps show all
areas are less than or equal to 20%
of the threshold
10. Detection Survey
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of QC seeds detected.
1) QC Seed Database
2) RCA/CA review and acceptance
11. Detection Survey
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of validation seeds must be detected.
1) Validation Seed Database
2) RCA/CA review and acceptance
12. Detection Survey
Coverage
Representativeness/
Completeness
100% of the site is sampled at required lane spacing and
point-to-point sampling specifications.
1) Coverage Maps
2) Detection Survey Database
13. Anomaly Selection
Completeness
Complete project-specific databases and anomaly lists
delivered. All QC and QA seeds listed in Detection Survey
Database. All other detected metallic objects screened out
by ISS are documented in Detection Survey Database.
Detection Survey Database
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 89 of 303
Table 12-5: MPC for MRS C, Bombing Target - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using Dynamic AGC followed by Cued AGC (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity Used to Assess
Performance
14. Background
Representatives /
Sensitivity
Background areas where detection threshold does not
exceed five times background are identified.
1) GIS Database
2) Detection Survey Database
15. AGC Cued Survey
Background
Locations
Representativeness/comp
arability
Representative areas determined to be background are
selected and bounded in the detection survey.
1) GIS Database
2) Cued Background Database
16. Variability for Cued
Background
locations
Representativeness/sensiti
vity
Representative backgrounds are selected in all noise
regimes. All anomaly cued locations appropriate for each
expected background are identified.
1) GIS Database
2) Cued Background Database
17. Saturated Response
Areas (SRAs)
Completeness
No SRAs in final detection survey data. Anomaly density
in all SRAs is reduced to below DQO thresholds and areas
have been digitally remapped. SRA boundaries
documented in GIS deliverable. [Example] The analog
anomaly reduction survey reduces the anomaly density to
below 3500 anomalies/acre equivalent.
1) Detection Survey Database
2) GIS Database
DFW 7, 8, & 9 - Data Processing and Cued Survey DUA
18. Background data
collection (AGC)
Representativeness/
Accuracy
Each cued analysis is performed with a representative
background and verified during quality control.
1) Background Validation Database
2) Cued Survey Database
3) QC Verification
19. Background
frequency
Accuracy
Background data are collected at the interval specified by
the manufacturer.
Background Validation Database
20. Anomaly
classification (AGC)
Completeness/
Comparability
Site-specific library must include representative signatures
for all items considered by the project team to be IOC as
listed in the CSM.
Site-Specific TOI Library
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 90 of 303
Table 12-5: MPC for MRS C, Bombing Target - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using Dynamic AGC followed by Cued AGC (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity Used to Assess
Performance
21. Anomaly
classification (AGC)
Completeness
Cued data collected at all anomalies meeting the target
selection criteria and all cued data classified as:
classified as:
1) TOI
2) Non-TOI
3) Inconclusive
1) Source Database
2) Final Intrusive Database
22. Anomaly
classification (QC
seeds)
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of QC seeds are correctly classified as TOI for
excavation. QC Seeds classified as inconclusive are
discussed in DUA.
1) QC Seed Database
2) RCA/CA review and acceptance
23. Anomaly
classification
(validation seeds)
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of validation seeds are correctly classified as TOI for
excavation.
1) Validation Seed Database
2) RCA/CA review and acceptance
DFW 10,11, and 12-Anomaly Resolution, Excavation, and Final DUA
24. Anomaly resolution
(QC seeds)
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of QC seeds are recovered.
1) Intrusive Results Database
2) RCA/CA review and acceptance
25. Anomaly resolution
(Validation seeds)
Accuracy/
Completeness
100% of validation seeds are recovered.
1) Intrusive Results Database
2) RCA/CA review and acceptance
26. Anomaly resolution
Accuracy
100% of predicted non-TOI that are intrusively
investigated are confirmed to be non-IOC. This includes
threshold verification digs and validation digs.
Intrusive Results Database
27. Intrusive
Investigation
Accuracy
Inversion results correctly predict one or more physical
properties (e.g., size, symmetry, or wall thickness) of the
recovered items (specific tests and test objectives
established during project planning).
Intrusive Results Database
28. Intrusive
Investigation
Completeness/
Comparability
A complete project-specific database including records
reconciling inversion results to the physical properties of
the recovered items.
Intrusive Results Database
29. Intrusive
Investigation
Accuracy/Completeness
AGC results indicate original polarizabilities resulting in
TOI are no longer present and no additional TOI sources
are present above the project-specific stop-dig threshold.
Post-mapping database
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 91 of 303
Worksheet #14 & 16: Project Tasks and Schedule
(UFP-QAPP Manual Section 2.8.2)
The QAPP should include a project schedule. The following template may be used, or a Gantt chart can be attached and referenced. Examples of
activities that should be listed are shown below; however, this is not a comprehensive list, and any critical deliverables and related DFWs should
be added. Critical steps and dates should be highlighted.
Table 14-1: Project Tasks and Schedule [The following examples are based on MRS Al]
DFW
Activity
Responsible party
Planned start
date
Planned
completion
date
Deliverables
Deliverable due
date
1
Site preparation
Contractor name and
title
Surface sweep
technical
memorandum
Database of control
points and survey units
2
QC seeding & IVS
construction
Contractor name and
title
Seed placement
reports/spreadsheets
2
Validation seeding
Lead organization
name and title
Seed placement
reports/spreadsheets
3
Assemble & test EM61
Contractor name and
title
Completed instrument
assembly checklist
Detection survey IVS
memorandum
4
Detection survey
Contractor name and
title
Field notes
Daily IVS summaries
Daily QC reports
Weekly QC reports
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 92 of 303
Table 14-1: Project Tasks and Schedule [The following examples are based on MRS Al] (Continued)
DFW
Activity
Responsible party
Planned start
date
Planned
completion
date
Deliverables
Deliverable due
date
5
Data processing and
anomaly selection
Contractor name and
title
Target selection
technical
memorandum
Maps
Weekly QC reports
5
Detection survey DUA
Contractor, lead
organization,
regulator, names and
titles
Detection survey DUA
report
Updated CSM
6
Assemble & test
advanced sensor
Contractor name and
title
Instrument assembly
checklist
Cued survey IVS
memorandum
7
Collect cued data
Contractor name and
title
Daily IVS summaries
Daily and weekly QC
reports
8
Data processing and
anomaly classification
Contractor name and
title
Database
Classification
spreadsheet
Classification decision
plots
Ranked anomaly list
Dig list
Weekly QC reports
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 93 of 303
Table 14-1: Project Tasks and Schedule [The following examples are based on MRS Al] (Continued)
DFW
Activity
Responsible party
Planned start
date
Planned
completion
date
Deliverables
Deliverable due
date
8
Cued survey DUA
Contractor, lead
organization,
regulator, names and
titles
Cued survey DUA
report
9
Excavate items on dig list
Contractor name and
title
Database
Photographs
Weekly QC reports
10
Verify dig/no-dig
threshold
Contractor name and
title
Comparison results
Final verification/
validation plan
11
Excavate and evaluate
classification validation
targets
Contractor name and
title
Comparison results
12
Conduct MPPEH handling
& disposal
Contractor name and
title
Disposal records
13
Conduct final DUA
Contractor, lead
organization,
regulator, names and
titles
Final CSM
Final DUA report
Final RA report
UU/UE memorandum
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 94 of 303
[This page intentionally left blank.]
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 95 of 303
Worksheet #17: Survey Design and Project Workflow
(UFP-QAPP Manual Section 3.1.1)
This worksheet describes and justifies the design for remedies to be implemented. It documents Step 7
of the DQO process. If a munitions response site consists of multiple areas to be surveyed, then a
separate survey design section or worksheet should be completed for each area. Factors that will
influence the survey design include the size of the site, types and expected distribution of munitions and
other debris present, the terrain, and other site conditions that could limit the ability of field teams or
equipment to access portions of the site.
The survey design and project workflow must include the following:
1. A map showing physical boundaries for the area(s) under study. (See Figures 17-1 - 17-5 for
examples)
2. The basis for dividing the site into survey units and how they will be managed at each phase of
the process.
3. Decision-logic diagrams (See Figures 17-6 - 17-10 for examples)
4. Concise descriptions for each DFW. (SOPs containing detailed procedures must be included in an
appendix to the project-specific QAPP.)
5. Contingencies in the event field conditions are different than expected and could have an effect
on the survey design (e.g., a portion of the site is inaccessible at the time the site work is
planned to occur or anomaly density is higher than expected.)
6. Points in the process at which lead organization, regulatory, and stakeholder interface will
occur, as agreed upon during project planning.
Project Workflow
This section provides concise descriptions for each DFW and highlights government (lead organization
and/or regulatory) inspection/oversight activities, key deliverables, and decision points, as they have
been agreed upon during project planning. Worksheet #17 should reference other worksheets or SOPs
containing detailed procedures. Project teams may modify this workflow description to consolidate DFW
or provide further break-down of DFW, as necessary to accommodate project specifications. At the
conclusion of each DFW, the QC geophysicist or other appropriate personnel must verify the relevant
MQOs and MPCs have been achieved.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 96 of 303
MRS A1 Maneuver Area Development Area
Selected Remedy: MEC surface and subsurface removal using non-AGC DGM detection and cued AGC
CD
C
1c
t
o
o
o
CD
LO
CO
CO
o
o
cd
CO
CO
639,000
640,000
641,000
T
T
I") Maneuver Are a
0 MRSA1 - DGM survey/AGC cued (247 acres)
~ Surface Finds
Anomaly Density (per acre)
1250
n
x
_L
639,000
640,000
641,000
Easting (m)
642,000
3 1 r-
L
MRS A
642,000
o
o
CD
LO
CO
CO
o
o
o
CO
Figure 17-1: MRS A1
DFW 1: Conduct site preparation (contractor and lead organization)
Describe activities that must be completed prior to collecting geophysics data. This should include
vegetation reduction, surface sweep, construction of silt fences or other barriers, if needed (for
example, to prevent access by or exposure to potential receptors during site activities), and activities to
preserve cultural resources or sensitive habitats, if needed. Describe procedures used to establish and
document survey boundaries and grid corners, including the use of control points for data positioning,
and the establishment of survey units. Indicate observations and information that the site preparation
team will be recording to enhance the initial CSM.
Contractor: The contractor will conduct site preparation activities in the survey area, as well as any areas
needed for equipment ingress/egress. [Specifications: MFCs , SOPs , MQOs ]
No vegetation removal is needed on this site.
A professional licensed surveyor will establish survey control points, survey boundaries, survey
grid corners and survey units of 50 acres.
A surface sweep team comprising qualified UXO technicians will conduct a surface sweep to
remove all exposed or partially exposed potential MEC items. The team will also remove
sufficient metallic objects that are equal to or greater than l"x2" to permit a successful EM61
detection survey and cued AGC.
The team will document the type (mark/mod), location, quantity, and estimated mass of objects
removed, and will note any observations from the visual inspection that contribute to
identifying the locations of specific munitions-related activity. The team will note any indication
of conditions that will interfere with the geophysics or are inconsistent with the CSM.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 97 of 303
Following the lead organization's inspection of the surface sweep, the contractor will [describe
remaining site preparation activities]. Detailed procedures are contained in SOP(s) [list
relevant SOPs],
Documentation: Surface sweep technical memorandum, including field observations; database of
control points and survey units
Lead organization: Following the surface sweep, the lead organization (or designee) will review and
accept the surface sweep technical memorandum.
Decision rule: If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the
remedial action under the current assumptions. If field observations are inconsistent with the CSM, the
project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and remedial design. [This
applies at any point in the process where such observations occur.]
DFW 2: Conduct validation seeding, QC seeding, and construct IVS (contractor and lead organization)
Contractor: Describe the contractor's placement of blind QC seeds and construction of the IVS. Provide
the rationale for the types, number, and placement of QC seeds. Describe procedures for assuring the
QC seeds remain blind to the data collection and data analysis teams. Describe procedures for
constructing the IVS, including the number, descriptions, depths, and orientation of seed items. The
details of the seed planning are included here for completeness. These details could be documented in
the seeding plans instead.
Lead organization: Describe the placement of validation seeds by or on behalf of the lead organization.
Contractor: The contractor will construct an IVS and place QC seeds in the area to be surveyed.
[Specifications: QC seeding plan; QC firewall plan; IVS plan; draft verification/validation plan; MPCs ;
SOPs ; MQOs ]
The lead or project geophysicist supported by a qualified UXO escort will select a location free of
existing anomalies that is 10 m wide and 25 m long. The geophysicist and UXO technician will
emplace ten small ISO80 in two groups of five separated by 0.5 m in the cross-tack direction so
that each sensor will pass directly over one ISO80. The groups will be placed at a minimum
separation distance of 5 m in the down-track direction. The site team selected small objects for
the IVS because potential munitions to be encountered are small. The field geophysicist using
real-time kinematic (RTK) GPS will survey the location of each object in the IVS and record the
as-buried positions.
The UXO QCS and seeding team will emplace QC seeds to support the MQOs described in
Worksheet #22 at a density to support one encounter per team per day. The towed-array EM61
survey will require an estimated 35 survey-days to complete and therefore 35 seeds will be
required. The acquisition of cued AGC data, estimating a production rate of 180 cued locations
per team-day, will require 94 survey team-days and 94 seeds. The digging will require
approximately ten days to complete; therefore, the seed numbers are determined by the cued
data acquisition. To ensure against any lags in production rate, the contractor will emplace 112
seeds throughout MRS Al. All QC seeds will be small ISO80s buried throughout the depth range
up to 30 cm in a horizontal orientation, with burial depth biased to deeper depths.
The seeding team will survey and record the location of each QC seed.
The contractor will establish and document an internal firewall between the QC activities and
the field and data analysis activities following procedures outlined in SOP .
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 98 of 303
Lead Organization: The government team will emplace validation seeds to support the MQOs described
in Worksheet #22. The government team will survey and record the location of each validation seed.
Documentation: Report or spreadsheet documenting the as-built seed locations for the IVS, validation
seeds and QC seeds
DFW 3: Assemble and verify correct operation of geophysical sensor to be used for the detection
survey (contractor)
Describe procedures to be used to assemble and verify correct operation of the detection system (initial
function test). Describe procedures for testing sensor operation at the IVS. Refer to SOPs.
Contractor: The field geophysicist will assemble the sensor and verify correct operation by:
[Specifications: Instrument assembly checklist, MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ].
Conducting an initial function test
Testing the system at the IVS
Confirming the detection threshold or adjusting as appropriate
Documentation: Completed instrument assembly checklist; Detection Survey IVS memorandum
DFW 4: Conduct detection survey (contractor)
Describe the equipment and procedures that will be used to conduct the detection survey, including
ongoing field QC activities (e.g., ongoing function tests). Describe requirements for detection and
positioning. Describe and provide the rationale for coverage specifications (based on sensor geometry
and sizes of targets). Describe how the site will be partitioned to conduct field work. Describe how lanes
will be established and marked, if necessary.
Contractor: The field team will use a 3-m wide 5-sensor staggered EM61 array to collect data in MRS Al.
[Specifications: MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ]
The system will be equipped with cm-level global positioning system (GPS) and an electronic
navigation system for following the data collection plan and geolocating the sensor readings.
The data will be collected in 50-acre survey units, as designated in DFW 1.
Lanes will be spaced 2 m apart to minimize the likelihood of data gaps.
The operator will maintain a down-track speed that does not exceed 1.5 m/s. Although a speed
of 2.5 m/s is required to maintain the data rate specified in Worksheet #22, the slower speed is
selected to reduce noise from the motion and bouncing of the array, reducing smearing of the
signals caused by lag in the data recording, and allow for some cushion on the Worksheet #22
requirement.
The field geophysicist will review data twice daily at the conclusion of morning and afternoon
data collection sessions.
The QC geophysicist will perform QC activities as indicated in Worksheet #22, including specified
visits to the IVS and daily assessments of data completeness.
The team will document field observations of site conditions that may aid in interpreting the
geophysical data and supporting the CSM, including the location and nature of indications of
munitions or non-munitions related activity encountered.
Detailed procedures are contained in SOP(s) .
Documentation: Field notes, daily IVS summaries, daily QC reports, weekly QC reports.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 99 of 303
DFW 5: Conduct data processing, select anomalies for cued data collection, and conduct detection
survey DUA (contractor, lead organization, and regulator)
Contractor: Describe the procedures that will be used to process the detection data, validate the
detection data (Worksheet #35 may be referenced), document locations to be used for background data
collection during cued data collection, and select anomalies for cued data collection. Describe the
process to identify any unanticipated SRAs in the data and how such areas will be investigated or
documented. Describe the review and acceptance process by the lead agency.
Lead Organization: Describe the process for review and acceptance of target selection memoranda. For
large sites where work may proceed to subsequent DFWs in survey units, describe the sequence and
timeline of this process. Reference the communication flow as described in WS 6 and 9.
Contractor: The contractor will conduct data processing as follows: [Specifications: MPCs , SOPs ,
MQOs ]
All data will be delivered to the government in survey units of 50 acres. All data processing
validation checks will be performed per survey unit. The formal detection survey DUA will be
conducted when all survey units are completed. The project geophysicist or designee will
validate processed data and verify that all information is complete for each day of field activities
and any changes or exceptions are documented and have been reported in accordance with
requirements.
The project geophysicist or designee will preprocess the data as described in SOP .
The project geophysicist or designee will document the boundaries of any inaccessible areas and
describe the approach to resolving them.
The project geophysicist or designee will select anomalies for cued data collection and record
the location of all anomalies that exceed a threshold 11.7 mV on Channel 2, which is the
amplitude necessary to detect a 60-mm mortar lying horizontally at a depth of 0.45 m.
From segments of the data where no anomalies are present, the project geophysicist or
designee will measure the RMS background noise. This will be done in more than one location
and the contractor will note any areas where the signal to noise ratio (SNR) > 5 cannot be
achieved for a 60-mm mortar at a depth of 0.45 m.
The QC geophysicist will confirm that all QC seeds have been selected.
The project geophysicist or designee will recommend locations where AGC background
measurements should be collected.
The project geophysicist or designee will determine if any parts of the site have anomaly
densities that exceed 3500 anomalies/acre and are unsuitable for the use of cued AGC. The
contractor will conduct anomaly reduction processes and remap areas, as necessary. Detailed
procedures are contained in SOP(s) .
Lead organization:
The lead organization will determine whether all validation seeds have been selected and inform
the contractor of any missed seeds.
The government will review and accept target selection memoranda on survey units of the site
as they are completed.
Lead organization, contractor, and regulator: Conduct the detection survey DUA and update the CSM.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 100 of 303
Documentation: Target selection technical memorandum (data analysis, anomaly density, list of selected
anomalies, recommended background locations) for each survey unit, maps (depicting data and
coverage, anomaly density, and selected anomalies), weekly QC reports, detection survey DUA report,
and updated CSM.
Decision rules:
If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the
remedial action under the current assumptions. If field observations are inconsistent with the
CSM, the project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and
remedial design. [This applies at any point in the process where such observations occur.]
If signals meet the anomaly selection criteria (anomalies exceeding 11.7 mV on channel 2 and
SNR > 5), they will be selected for cued data collection using AGC.
If areas of the site are deemed unsuitable for AGC use (areas where anomaly density >
3500/acre), the project team will document the areas, and revise the remedial design, as
necessary.
DFW 6: Assemble advanced geophysical sensor and test sensor at IVS (contractor)
Describe procedures to be used to assemble the advanced geophysical sensor and verify its correct
operation (initial function test and initial cued survey IVS). Reassess the appropriateness of the IVS.
Contractor: The field geophysicist will assemble the sensor and verify correct operation by:
[Specifications: Instrument assembly checklist, MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ].
Conducting an initial function test
Testing the system at the IVS
Documentation: Completed instrument assembly checklist; cued survey IVS memorandum
DFW 7: Collect cued data (contractor)
Describe procedures for locating each anomaly identified for cued data collection, positioning the
sensor, collecting the cued data, and conducting field inversions (i.e., quick checks by field personnel to
confirm the acquired signal is representative of the target anomaly). Describe the procedures and
frequency for conducting ongoing function tests and collecting cued background data. Describe
procedures and frequency for verifying ongoing operations at the IVS and conducting field QC.
The field geophysicist or designee will use TEMTADS in its standard cart configuration to collect data
over the selected cued locations. Detailed procedures are contained in SOP(s) . [Specifications: MPCs
, SOPs , MQOs ]. Specifically,
The cued AGC data will be collected in 50-acre survey units, as designated in DFW 1.
The field geophysicist or designee will conduct function tests at the beginning, middle, and end
of each survey day.
The field geophysicist or designee will test the system at the IVS at the beginning and end of
each survey day.
The field geophysicist or designee will reacquire anomalies, collect cued data, and record field
observations.
The field geophysicist will collect background validation and ongoing background data.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 101 of 303
The field geophysicist or designee will conduct an immediate real-time screening of cued data to
determine whether metrics for position offset were achieved. Failures identified in the field
evaluation will be immediately recollected.
The field geophysicist will conduct field inversions and ongoing QC. The QC geophysicist will
validate cued data (evaluate conformance to SOPs and field MQOs).
Documentation: Daily IVS summaries, daily & weekly QC reports
DFW 8: Conduct data processing, classify anomalies, construct ranked anomaly list, and conduct cued
survey DUA (contractor, lead organization, and regulator)
Contractor: Describe the procedure for processing the data. Describe procedures for removing the
effects of background signals on the advanced sensor data to isolate the signature from the buried
metal object. Describe the software and procedures generating the response curves that will be the
basis for classification. Describe procedures for classifying anomalies. Specify relevant aspects of the
classification process, i.e., how well the signature matches the library data (Worksheet #22 contains
specifications for library fit coherence). Specify analysis procedures to be used in cases where the
signature does not match a library signature but either 1) is a member of a cluster of numerous similar
signatures that should be investigated as potential TOI or 2) exhibits properties consistent with those of
a munition not contained in the library. Describe the methods and reasoning for setting the initial
dig/no-dig threshold.
Contractor: The contractor will process the data using UX-Analyze as described in SOP . [Specifications:
MPCs SOPs , MQOs ]
All data will be delivered to the government in survey units of 50 acres. All data processing
validation checks will be performed per survey unit. The formal cued survey DUA will be
conducted when all survey units are completed.
The project geophysicist or designee will use UX-Analyze as described in SOP to process the
data daily to produce target response curves and perform library matches to identify TOI.
TOI will include 1) all anomalies that match to a library member, 2) clusters of items not in the
library that have similar response curves and require investigation, and 3) anomalies with
response curves that suggest the properties of a munition (i.e., long, narrow, and axisymmetric
or spherical).
All data and the TOI list will be passed to the QC geophysicist who will determine whether all QC
seeds were correctly classified and to verify that all QC metrics in Worksheet #22 were achieved.
Any missed QC seeds will be reported to the government accompanied by an RCA/CA.
The project geophysicist or designee will create a ranked anomaly list, arranged in order from
highest likelihood the object is a TOI to highest likelihood the object is a non-TOI. The project
geophysicist or designee will identify the threshold that will separate TOI and non-TOI to create
a dig list as described in SOP .
The project geophysicist or designee will identify additional potential "threshold verification"
targets such that 200 targets beyond the initial threshold will be identified. These targets will be
the next targets below the TOI/non-TOI threshold in order.
The project geophysicist or designee will assemble a dig list to include all TOI, any signals that
could not be analyzed, and the threshold verification targets.
Lead organization: The government QA geophysicist will review any missed QC seed RCA/CA and
approve or make recommendations to the contractor for modifications. The QA geophysicist will review
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 102 of 303
all TOI lists to determine whether all validation seeds were correctly classified and inform the contractor
of any failures (all information about the missed seed). The QA geophysicist will review data submissions
for conformance with metrics in Worksheet #22. The lead organization will review and accept the
classification results.
Documentation: Database (library match results), TOI/non-TOI classification spreadsheet, figures &
maps (classification decision plots), ranked anomaly list, dig list, weekly QC reports, cued survey DUA
report)
Project team: The project team will conduct the cued survey DUA, review the draft
verification/validation plan, and make changes, as necessary.
Decision rules:
If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the
remedial action under the current assumptions. If field observations are inconsistent with the
CSM, the project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and
remedial design. [This applies at any point in the process where such observations occur.]
If AGC analyses meet any of the following criteria, they will be selected as TOI and placed on an
ordered dig list:
o The polarizability decay curve matches that of an item in the project-specific TOI library, or
o Estimates of the size, shape, symmetry, and wall thickness indicate the item is long,
cylindrical or spherical, and thick-walled, or
o There is a group (cluster) of unknown anomalies having similar polarizability decay curves
that, after investigation, are discovered to be TOI. The procedures for designating a cluster,
including criteria for similarity and number of items are described in SOP .
If AGC analyses yield inconclusive response curves, they will be added to the dig list or otherwise
resolved.
DFW 9: Excavate buried objects (contractor)
Describe procedures to reacquire and flag anomalies selected for intrusive investigation and investigate
anomalies. This includes investigation of the initial TOI/non-TOI threshold verification targets.
Contractor: [Specifications: Dig list, MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ]
All excavation will take place in survey units of 50 acres. All validation checks will be performed
per survey unit. The formal final DUA will be conducted when all survey units are completed.
The field geophysicist or designee with a UXO technician escort will use a RTK cm-level GPS to
relocate anomaly locations and emplace plastic pin flags.
The intrusive team comprising qualified UXO technicians will navigate to each pin flag and
conduct intrusive operations. All digging will be conducted according to the detailed procedures
described in SOP .
For each anomaly location, the intrusive team will record the approximate size, depth, and
specific information that can be obtained about the identity of the source.
The intrusive team lead or designee will photograph each recovered item for later comparison
with AGC analysis.
If any clusters are identified, the CSM will be revised to include their locations and sources. If
they are munitions, their signatures will be added to the library and anomaly classification
reprocessed.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 103 of 303
If excavation of any anomalies that were deemed munitions-like are found to be munitions,
their signatures will be added to the library and anomaly classification reprocessed.
Documentation: Database of excavation results (locations and descriptions), photographs, weekly QC
reports
Decision rules:
If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the
remedial action under the current assumptions.
If field observations are inconsistent with the CSM, the project team will update the CSM and
determine the impacts on the DQOs and remedial design. [This applies at any point in the
process where such observations occur.]
If any clusters are identified, the CSM will be revised to include their locations and sources. If
they are munitions, their signatures will be added to the library and anomaly classification
reprocessed.
If excavation of any anomalies that were deemed munitions-like are found to be munitions,
their signatures will be added to the library and anomaly classification reprocessed.
DFW 10: Verify dig/no-dig threshold, update verification/validation plan, and conduct cued survey
DUA (contractor, lead organization, and regulator)
Describe procedures for evaluating verification digs. If necessary, adjust the TOI/non-TOI threshold and
identify additional threshold verification targets for investigation such that there are 200 non-TOI
targets on the ranked anomaly list below the final threshold. Once the final threshold has been verified,
identify classification validation targets for investigation.
Contractor: The QC geophysicist will determine whether any IOC are in the 200 verification digs.
[Specifications: MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ]
The intrusive team will excavate items from the threshold verification list such that 200 items
beyond the last IOC recovered are investigated.
If an IOC is found in the threshold verification list, the contractor will conduct an RCA/CA and
the team will reevaluate the threshold selection.
After determination of a new threshold, the threshold verification will be repeated by selecting
another 200 targets past the last recovered IOC in the list at the new threshold. For example, if
the last IOC recovered from the ranked list is 100 places before the threshold, an additional 100
of the threshold verification digs will be conducted. If the last target on the dig list is an IOC, an
additional 200 targets will be dug. If no additional IOC are recovered, the threshold will be
considered verified.
Project team: Once a final threshold has been established, the project team will select 200 classification
validation targets, review the draft verification and validation plan and make changes as appropriate,
and conduct the cued survey DUA. For each validation target, the team will document the characteristics
that resulted in the non-TOI designation. [Note: The classification validation targets will be selected to
address any questions or uncertainties in the data, if present. Randomly selected targets will make up
the remainder of the 200.]
Documentation: Comparison results, final verification/validation plan
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 104 of 303
Decision rule: If the threshold verification digs do not uncover any IOC as described above, then the
threshold is verified. If any IOC are recovered, then the project team will conduct RCA/CA that results in
adjustment of the threshold and determination of the impacts on the project objectives.
DFW 11: Excavate and evaluate classification validation targets and conduct post-dig verification
(contractor)
Describe procedures to reacquire and flag classification validation targets. Describe procedures for
evaluating validation digs.
Contractor: Specifications: Final verification/validation plan, MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ]
The field geophysicist or designee with a UXO technician escort will use a RTK cm-level GPS to
relocate classification validation targets and emplace plastic pin flags.
The intrusive team comprising qualified UXO technicians will navigate to each pin flag and
conduct intrusive operations. All digging will be conducted according to the detailed procedures
described in SOP .
For each anomaly location, the intrusive team will record the approximate size, depth, and
specific information that can be obtained about the identity of the source.
The intrusive team lead or designee will photograph each recovered item for later comparison
with AGC analysis. [Specifications: Dig list, MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ]
The QC geophysicist will determine whether any IOC are in the 200 validation digs. If an IOC is
found in the validation digs, the contractor will conduct a QA stand-down and recommendation
for CA, and the site team will determine the next steps.
For each recovered object, the QC geophysicist will compare the characteristics of the object to
the AGC results. If any properties are inconsistent, the project team will conduct an RCA/CA and
determine the impacts on project objectives.
For all locations where digging was conducted, the contractor will re-interrogate the location
with the AGC sensor to verify the original polarizability no longer exists for TOI and that
inconclusive analyses have been resolved.
Documentation: Comparison results
Decision rules:
The geophysical classification results will be valid if:
o validation digs do not uncover any IOC, and
o the properties of all recovered objects are consistent with predicted properties
If the validation digs uncover any IOC as described above the project team will conduct a QA
stand-down and evaluate the impacts on MPCs and DQOs. [edited to be consistent with MRS C.]
If the properties of recovered objects are inconsistent with predicted properties, the project
team will conduct an RCA/CA and determine the impacts on the achievement of MPCs and
DQOs.
DFW 12: Conduct MPPEH handling and disposal (contractor)
Briefly describe the procedures for handling and disposal of MPPEH.
Contractor: MPPEH will be handled and disposed of as described in SOP [Specifications: Explosives
Safety Plan, MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ]
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 105 of 303
Documentation: Disposal records
DFW 13: Conduct final DUA (contractor, lead organization, and regulator)
Briefly describe procedures to conduct the final DUA. (Refer to Worksheet #37 for detailed procedures.
Lead Organization, contractor, and regulator:
Conduct final DUA
Evaluate UU/UE lines of evidence
Documentation: Final DUA, final report, updated CSM, UU/UE memorandum
Decision rule: If all lines of evidence are complete and support UU/UE, the project team will develop
documentation supporting UU/UE for consideration by final decision-makers. If lines of evidence are
incomplete, or any line of evidence does not support UU/UE, the project team will develop
documentation rejecting UU/UE for consideration by final decision-makers.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 106 of 303
MRS A2 - Maneuver Area Recreational Area
Selected Remedy: Surface removal using instrument-aided visual identification
639,000 640,000 641,000 642,000
a>
c
jz
t
o
o
o
o
in'
CO
co
ฆt"
o
o
CD
CO
CO
n Maneuver Area
MRSA2 - Surface Removal (734 acres)
~ Surface Finds
Anomaly Density (per acre)
ฆ 1250
_L
i !
. J
- \ \ -
639,000
640,000
641,000
Easting (m)
'
MRSA
o
o
cd
LO'
CO
CO
o
o
o_
CO
CO
642,000
Figure 17-2: MRS A2
DFW 1: Conduct site preparation (contractor and lead organization)
Describe activities that must be completed prior to conducting surface removal. This should include
vegetation reduction, surface sweep, construction of silt fences or other barriers, if needed (for
example, to prevent access by or exposure to potential receptors during site activities), and activities to
preserve cultural resources or sensitive habitats, if needed. Describe procedures used to establish and
document survey boundaries and grid corners, including the use of control points for data positioning,
and the establishment of survey units. Indicate observations and information that the site preparation
team will be recording to enhance the initial CSM.
Contractor: The contractor will conduct site preparation activities in the survey area as well as any areas
needed for equipment ingress/egress. [Specifications: MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ]
No vegetation removal is needed on this site.
A professional licensed surveyor will establish survey control points, survey boundaries and grid
corners, and survey units of 50 acres.
The team will note any observations from the visual inspection that contribute to identifying the
locations of specific munitions-related activity. The team will note any indication of conditions
that are inconsistent with the CSM.
Documentation: Site preparation technical memorandum, including field observations; database of
control points and survey units
Lead organization: Following the site preparation, the lead organization (or designee) will review and
accept the Site preparation technical memorandum.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 107 of 303
Decision rule: If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the
remedial action under the current assumptions. If field observations are inconsistent with the CSM, the
project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and remedial design. [This
applies at any point in the process where such observations occur.]
DFW 2: Conduct QA seeding, QC seeding, and construct ITS (contractor and lead organization)
Contractor: Describe the contractor's placement of blind QC seeds and construction of the ITS. Provide
the rationale for the types, number, and placement of QC seeds. Describe procedures for assuring the
QC seeds remain blind to the data collection and data analysis teams. Describe procedures for
constructing the ITS, including the number, descriptions, depths, and orientation of targets. The details
of the seed planning are included here for completeness. These details could be documented in the
seeding plans instead.
Lead organization: Describe the placement of QA seeds by or on behalf of the lead organization.
Contractor: The contractor will construct an ITS and place QC seeds in the area to be surveyed.
[Specifications: QC seeding plan; QC firewall plan, ITS plan; draft verification/validation plan; MPCs ,
SOPs , MQOs ]
The lead or project geophysicist supported by a qualified UXO escort will select a location free of
existing anomalies that is 2 m wide and 25 m long. The geophysicist and UXO technician will
emplace two small ISO80 at a minimum separation distance of 5 m. The site team selected small
objects for the ITS because potential munitions to be encountered are small. The field
geophysicist using RTK GPS will survey the location of each object in the ITS and record the
emplaced positions.
The UXOQCS and seeding team will emplace QC seeds to support the MQOs described in
Worksheet #22 at a density to support five encounters per operator per day. Seeds were
selected based on the size range of items expected on this site and include smaller stressing
hardware (nail, washer), larger hardware (1/2-inch X 3-inch bolt) and small ISOs, in proportions
of approximately one third of each category. We estimate the surface removal will require 625
operator-days to complete and therefore require 3125 seeds. Seeds will be placed on the
surface. Based on site conditions described in the CSM, it is estimated that approximately 10%
of the site will have access challenges, so 10% of the seeds will be placed in areas that are
challenging to access (obscured from view, behind rocks, partially buried).
The team will survey and record the location of each QC seed.
The contractor will establish and document an internal firewall between the QC activities and
the field and data analysis activities following procedures outlined in SOP .
Lead Organization: The government team will emplace QA seeds to support the MQOs described in
Worksheet #22. The government team will survey and record the location of each QA seed.
Documentation: Report or spreadsheet documenting the as-built seed locations for the ITS, QC seeds
and QC seeds
DFW 3: Assemble and verify correct operation of geophysical sensor to be used for the detection
survey (contractor)
Describe procedures to be used to assemble and verify correct operation of the detection instrument
(initial function test). Describe procedures for testing sensor operation at the ITS. Refer to SOPs.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 108 of 303
Contractor: The field geophysicist will assemble the Schonstedt GA-52Cx sensor and verify correct
operation by: [Specifications: Instrument assembly checklist, MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ]
Conducting an initial function test
Testing the system at the ITS
Documentation: Completed instrument assembly checklist, ITS memorandum
DFW 4: Conduct surface removal (contractor)
Describe the procedures to be used to conduct an instrument-aided surface removal. Specify the
instrument to be used and indicate the lane width, operator spacing, and down-track speed. Describe
navigation procedures. Describe the process for collecting and disposing of recovered material, including
the procedures for handling and disposing of MPPEH and MEC. Describe the process for reporting and
evaluating recovered seeds. Describe information to be recorded documenting any evidence of types of
munitions found to be present. Reference SOPs as appropriate.
The contractor will deploy teams of six qualified UXO Technicians and a UXO Technician III team leader
to perform an instrument-aided surface removal using a Schondstedt GA-52Cx magnetometer on the
site as detailed in SOP .
Surface removal will be conducted in 50-acre survey units as indicated in DFW 1. Quality checks
will be performed upon completion of each survey unit. The formal DUA will be completed at
the conclusion of the project.
The technicians will mark lanes using polypropylene rope to be spaced three feet apart. The
technicians will walk at no more than 0.5 m/sec. When a signal is observed by the technicians,
the technicians will stop and immediately retrieve any objects that are larger than l"x2".
The recovered objects will be collected in a bucket for each lane.
The supervisor will photograph representative examples of recovered objects.
The supervisor will make a record of any munitions recovered and any munitions debris that are
indicative of the types of munitions that may be present.
The locations of recovered seeds will be recorded with a handheld GPS.
The QC geophysicist will determine if any QC seeds were missed, report it to the lead agency,
and provide RCA/CA. The contractor will submit results for each survey unit only after all QC
seeds have been recovered.
The QA geophysicist will determine if any QA seeds were missed.
Documentation: Field notes including photographs, daily QC reports, weekly QC reports (including
RCA/CA)
DFW 5: Verify surface removal (contractor)
Describe the procedures for verifying the surface removal.
Contractor: The QC geophysicist or their designee will resurvey one lane from each operator in each
survey unit; lanes will be randomly located. [Specifications: Instrument assembly checklist, MPCs ,
SOPs , MQOs ]
Documentation: Surface removal verification memorandum or weekly QC report
Any recovered metallic object that exceeds the dimension specification will be a failure.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 109 of 303
DFW 6: Conduct MPPEH handling and disposal (contractor)
Briefly describe the procedures for handling and disposal of MPPEH
Contractor: MPPEH will be handled and disposed of as described in SOP [Specifications: Explosives
Safety Plan, MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ]
Documentation: Disposal records
DFW 7: Conduct final DUA and update the CSM (contractor, lead organization, and regulator)
Briefly describe procedures to conduct the final DUA. (Refer to Worksheet #37 for detailed procedures.
Contractor, lead organization, and regulator: Conduct final DUA
Documentation: Final DUA, final surface removal report
Decision rule: If MPCs have been achieved, the project team will have implemented the removal
component of the remedy. The LUC specified in the ROD will be used to manage residual risk. If not, the
team will recommend that the appropriate representatives of the responsible offices revisit and
reconsider the ROD.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 110 of 303
MRS B1 - Mortar Range Flat Terrain Area
Selected Remedy: Surface and subsurface removal using non-AGC DGM
O647,500 648,000 648,500 649,000 649,500
647,500 648,000 648,500 649,000 649,500
Easting (m)
Figure 17-3: MRS B1
DFW 1: Conduct site preparation (contractor and lead organization)
Describe activities that must be completed prior to collecting geophysics data. This should include
vegetation reduction, surface sweep, construction of silt fences or other barriers, if needed (for
example, to prevent access by or exposure to potential receptors during site activities), and activities to
preserve cultural resources or sensitive habitats, if needed. Describe procedures used to establish and
document survey boundaries, including the use of control points for data positioning, and the
establishment of survey units. Indicate observations and information that the site preparation team will
be recording to enhance the initial CSM.
Contractor: The contractor will conduct site preparation activities in the survey area as well as any areas
needed for equipment ingress/egress. [Specifications: MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ]
No vegetation removal is needed on this site.
A professional licensed surveyor will establish survey control points, survey boundaries, and
survey units of 50 acres.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 111 of 303
A surface sweep team comprising qualified UXO technicians will conduct a surface sweep to
remove all exposed or partially exposed potential MEC items. The team will also remove
sufficient metallic objects that are equal to or greater than l"x2" to permit a successful EM61
survey.
The team will document the type, quantity, and estimated mass of objects removed, and will
note any observations from the visual inspection that contribute to identifying the locations of
specific munitions-related activity. The team will note any indication of conditions that will
interfere with the geophysics or are inconsistent with the CSM.
Following the lead organization's inspection of the surface sweep, the contractor will [describe
remaining site preparation activities]. Detailed procedures are contained in SOP(s) [list
relevant SOPs],
Lead organization: Following the surface sweep, the lead organization (or designee) will review and
accept the surface sweep technical memorandum.
Documentation: Surface sweep technical memorandum, including field observations; database of
control points and survey units
Decision rule: If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the
remedial action under the current assumptions. If field observations are inconsistent with the CSM, the
project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and remedial design. [This
applies at any point in the process where such observations occur.]
DFW 2: Conduct validation seeding, QC seeding, and construct IVS (contractor and lead organization)
Contractor: Describe the contractor's placement of blind QC seeds and construction of the IVS. Provide
the rationale for the types, number, and placement of QC seeds. Describe procedures for assuring the
QC seeds remain blind to the data collection and data analysis teams. Describe procedures for
constructing the IVS, including the number, descriptions, depths, and orientation of seed items. The
details of the seed planning are included here for completeness. These details could be documented in
the seeding plans instead.
Lead organization: Describe the placement of validation seeds by or on behalf of the lead organization.
Contractor: The contractor will construct an IVS and place QC seeds in the area to be surveyed.
[Specifications: QC seeding plan; QC firewall plan, IVS plan; verification/validation plan, MPCs , SOPs
_, MQOs ]
The lead or project geophysicist supported by a qualified UXO escort will select a location free of
existing anomalies that is 10 m wide and 25 m long. The geophysicist and UXO technician will
emplace ten small ISO80 in two groups of five separated by 0.5 m in the cross-tack direction so
that each sensor will pass directly over one ISO80. The groups will be placed at a minimum
separation distance of 5 m in the down-track direction. The site team selected small objects for
the IVS because potential munitions to be encountered are small. The field geophysicist using
RTK GPS will survey the location of each object in the IVS and record the as-buried positions.
The UXO QCS and seeding team will emplace QC seeds to support the MQOs described in
Worksheet #22 at a density to support one encounter per team per day. It is estimated the
towed-array EM61 survey will require 54 survey days to complete and the digging with require
224 team days; therefore 224 seeds will be required. To ensure against any lags in production
rate, the contractor will emplace 250 seeds throughout MRS Bl. All seeds will be medium ISOs
buried at a depth of 30-45 cm in a horizontal orientation, corresponding to 67-100% of the
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 112 of 303
objective detection depth. The team will establish and document an internal firewall between
the QC activities and the field and data analysis activities following procedures outlined in
SOP_.
The team will survey and record the location of each QC seed.
The contractor will establish and document an internal firewall between the QC activities and
the field and data analysis activities following procedures outlined in the QC firewall plan.
Lead Organization: The government team will emplace validation seeds to support the MQOs described
in Worksheet #22. The government team will survey and record the location of each validation seed.
Documentation: report or spreadsheet documenting the as-built seed locations for the IVS, QC seeds
and validation seeds
DFW 3: Assemble and verify correct operation of geophysical sensor to be used for the detection
survey (contractor)
Describe procedures to be used to assemble and verify correct operation of the detection instrument
(initial function test). Describe procedures for testing sensor operation at the IVS. Refer to SOPs.
Contractor: The field geophysicist will assemble the sensor and verify correct operation by:
[Specifications: Instrument assembly checklist, MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ].
Conducting an initial function test
Testing the system at the IVS
Documentation: Completed instrument assembly checklist, IVS Memorandum
DFW 4: Conduct detection survey (contractor)
Describe the equipment and procedures that will be used to conduct the detection survey, including
ongoing field QC activities (e.g., ongoing function tests). Describe requirements for detection and
positioning. Describe and provide the rationale for coverage specifications (based on sensor geometry
and sizes of targets). Describe how the site will be partitioned to conduct field work. Describe how lanes
will be established and marked, if necessary.
Contractor: The field team will use a 3-m wide, 5-sensor staggered EM61 array to collect data in MRS Bl.
[Specifications: MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ].
The data will be collected in 50-acre survey units, as designated in DFW 1.
The system will be equipped with cm-level GPS and an electronic navigation system for locating
and following the data collection plan and for geolocating the sensor data.
Lanes will be spaced 2 m apart to minimize the likelihood of data gaps.
The operator will maintain a down-track speed that does not exceed 1.5 m/s. Although a speed
of 2.5 m/s is required to maintain the data rate specified in Worksheet #22, the slower speed is
selected to reduce noise from the motion and bouncing of the array, reduce smearing of the
signals caused by lag in the data recording, and allow for some cushion on the Worksheet #22
requirement.
The field geophysicist will review data twice daily at the conclusion of morning and afternoon
data collection sessions.
The QC geophysicist will perform QC activities as indicated in Worksheet #22, including specified
visits to the IVS and daily assessments of data completeness.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 113 of 303
The team will document field observations of site conditions that may aid in interpreting the
geophysical data and supporting the CSM, including the location and nature of indications of
munitions or non-munitions related activity encountered.
Detailed procedures are contained in SOP(s) .
Documentation: Field notes, daily IVS summaries, daily QC reports, weekly QC reports (including
RCA/CA)
DFW 5: Conduct data processing, select TOI, and conduct detection survey DUA (contractor, lead
organization, and regulator)
Contractor: Describe the procedures that will be used to process the detection data, validate the
detection data (Worksheet #35 may be referenced), and select TOI. Describe the process to identify any
unanticipated SRAs in the data and how such areas will be investigated or documented. Describe the
review and acceptance process by the lead agency.
Lead Organization: Describe the process for review and acceptance of target selection memoranda. For
large sites where work may proceed to subsequent DFWs in survey units, describe the sequence and
timeline of this process. Reference the communication flow as described in Worksheets #6 and #9.
Contractor: The contractor will conduct data processing [Specifications: MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ]
All data will be delivered to the government in survey units of 50 acres. All data processing
validation checks will be performed per survey unit. The formal detection survey DUA will be
conducted when all survey units are completed. The project geophysicist or designee will verify
that all information is complete for each day of field activities and any changes or exceptions are
documented and have been reported in accordance with requirements.
The project geophysicist or designee will preprocess the data as described in SOP .
The project geophysicist or designee will document the boundaries of any inaccessible areas and
describe the approach to resolving them.
The project geophysicist or designee will record the location of all anomalies that exceed a
threshold of 11.7 mV on Channel 2, which is the amplitude necessary to detect a 60-mm mortar
lying horizontally at a depth of 0.45 m.
From segments of the data where no anomalies are present, the project geophysicist or
designee will measure the RMS background noise. This will be done in more than one location
and the contractor will note any areas where SNR > 5 cannot be achieved.
The QC geophysicist will confirm that all QC seeds have been selected.
Lead organization:
The lead organization will determine whether validation seeds have been selected and inform
the contractor of any missed seeds.
The government will review and accept target selection memoranda on survey units of the site
as they are completed.
Lead organization, contractor, and regulator: Conduct detection survey DUA and update the CSM.
Documentation: Target selection technical memorandum (data analysis, anomaly density, list of selected
anomalies), maps (depicting data and coverage, anomaly density, and selected anomalies), weekly QC
reports, detection survey DUA report
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 114 of 303
Decision rules:
If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the
remedial action under the current assumptions. If field observations are inconsistent with the
CSM, the project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and
remedial design. [This applies at any point in the process where such observations occur.]
If signals meet the anomaly selection criteria (anomalies exceeding 11.7 mV on channel 2 and
SNR > 5) they will be selected for intrusive investigation.
DFW 6: Excavate buried objects (contractor)
Describe procedures to reacquire and flag anomalies selected for intrusive investigation and investigate
anomalies
Contractor: [Specifications: MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ]
All excavation will take place in survey units of 50 acres. All validation checks will be performed
per survey unit. The formal final DUA will be conducted when all survey units are completed.
The field geophysicist or designee with a UXO technician escort will use a RTK cm-level GPS to
relocate anomaly locations and emplace plastic pin flags.
The intrusive team comprising qualified UXO technicians will navigate to each pin flag and
conduct intrusive operations. All digging will be conducted according to the detailed procedures
described in SOP .
For each anomaly location, the intrusive team will record the approximate size, depth, and
specific information that can be obtained about the identity of the source.
The intrusive team lead or designee will photograph each recovered item using a ruled
whiteboard for scale.
The field geophysicist or designee will re-interrogate each anomaly locations with the EM61 in
analog mode to verify that the peak response is below the detection threshold. Any locations
where the peak response remains above the detection threshold will be subject to further
intrusive investigation.
Documentation: Database of excavation results (locations and descriptions), photographs, weekly QC
reports
Decision rule: If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the
remedial action under the current assumptions. If field observations are inconsistent with the CSM, the
project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and remedial design. [This
applies at any point in the process where such observations occur.]
DFW 7: Conduct excavation verification (contractor)
Describe procedures for verifying that the correct locations were excavated and that all required objects
were removed.
Contractor: [Specifications: MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ]
Upon completion of excavation, the QC geophysicist will recollect digital EM61 data at the
locations of 200 of the intrusive investigation anomaly locations to verify that the signal is
reduced in amplitude at target selection criteria, as described in SOP X and in Worksheet #22.
The QC geophysicist will verify that the correct locations were re-interrogated and that the
recovered items are consistent with the original EM61 signal.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 115 of 303
Documentation: Weekly QC report
DFW 8: Conduct MPPEH handling and disposal (contractor)
Briefly describe the procedures for handling and disposal of MPPEH.
Contractor: MPPEH will be handled and disposed of as described in SOP [Specifications: Explosives
Safety Plan, MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ]
Documentation: Disposal records
DFW 9: Conduct final DUA and update the CSM (contractor, lead organization, and regulator)
Briefly describe procedures to conduct the final DUA. (Refer to Worksheet #37 for detailed procedures.
Contractor, lead organization, and regulator: Conduct final DUA
Documentation: Final DUA, final report
Decision rule: If MPCs have been achieved, the project team will have implemented the removal
component of the remedy.
Documentation: Updated CSM, Final DUA, Final Report
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 116 of 303
MRS B2 - Mortar Range Steep Terrain Area
Selected Remedy: Surface and subsurface removal using analog detection
O647,500 648,000 648,500 649,000 649,500
647,500 648,000 648,500 649,000 649,500
Easting (m)
Figure 17-4: MRS B2
DFW 1: Conduct site preparation (contractor and lead organization)
Describe activities that must be completed prior to collecting geophysics data. This should include
vegetation reduction, surface sweep, construction of silt fences or other barriers, if needed (for
example, to prevent access by or exposure to potential receptors during site activities), and activities to
preserve cultural resources or sensitive habitats, if needed. Describe procedures used to establish and
document survey boundaries, including the use of control points for data positioning, and the
establishment of survey units. Indicate observations and information that the site preparation team will
be recording to enhance the initial CSM.
Contractor: The contractor will conduct site preparation activities in the survey area as well as any areas
needed for equipment ingress/egress. [Specifications: MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ]
The vegetation removal team will remove vegetation to a height of 6 inches.
A professional licensed surveyor will establish survey control points, survey boundaries, and
survey units of 50 acres.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 117 of 303
The team will note any observations from the visual inspection that contribute to identifying the
locations of specific munitions-related activity. The team will note any indication of conditions
that are inconsistent with the CSM.
Documentation: Site preparation technical memorandum, including field observations; database of
control points and survey units.
Lead organization: Following the site preparation, the lead organization (or designee) will review and
accept the site preparation technical memorandum.
Decision rule: If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the
remedial action under the current assumptions. If field observations are inconsistent with the CSM, the
project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and remedial design. [This
applies at any point in the process where such observations occur.]
DFW 2: Conduct QA seeding, QC seeding, and construct ITS (contractor and lead organization)
Contractor: Describe the contractor's placement of blind QC seeds and construction of the ITS. Provide
the rationale for the types, number, and placement of QC seeds. Describe procedures for assuring the
QC seeds remain blind to the data collection and data analysis teams. Describe procedures for
constructing the ITS, including the number, descriptions, depths, and orientation of targets. . The details
of the seed planning are included here for completeness. These details could be documented in the
seeding plans instead.
Lead organization: Describe the placement of QA seeds by or on behalf of the lead organization.
Contractor: The contractor will construct an ITS and place QC seeds in the area to be surveyed.
[Specifications: QC Seeding Plan; QC Firewall Plan; ITS Plan; QA seeding plan; MPCs , SOPs ,
MQOs ]
The lead or project geophysicist supported by a qualified UXO escort will select a location free of
existing anomalies that is 2 m wide and 25 m long. The geophysicist and UXO technician will
emplace two medium ISO at a depth of 30 cm, separated by at least 5 m. Medium ISOs were
selected because they are of comparable size to the mortars expected on this site. The
geophysicist will survey the location of each object in the ITS using cm-level GPS and record the
as-buried positions.
The UXOQCS and seeding team will emplace QC seeds to support the MQOs described in
Worksheet #22 at a density to support five encounters per operator per day. All seeds will be
medium ISOs buried to a depth of 40-45 cm in the horizontal orientation. We estimate the
surface/subsurface removal will require 67 operator-days to complete and therefore require
335 seeds. The team will survey and record the location of each QC seed. The team will establish
and document an internal firewall between the QC activities and the field activities following
procedures outlines in SOP .
The team will survey and record the location of each QC seed.
Lead Organization: The government team will emplace QA seeds to support the MQOs described in
Worksheet #22. The government team will survey and record the location of each QA seed.
Documentation: Report or spreadsheet documenting the as-built seed locations for the ITS, QA seeds
and QC seeds.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 118 of 303
DFW 3: Assemble and verify correct operation of geophysical sensor to be used for the detection
survey (contractor)
Specify the sensor and describe procedures to assemble and verify correct operation of the sensor
(initial function test). Describe procedures for testing sensor operation at the ITS. Refer to SOPs.
Contractor: The field geophysicist will assemble the Schonstedt gradiometer and verify correct operation
by: [Specifications: Instrument assembly checklist, MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ].
Conducting an initial function test
Testing the system at the ITS
Documentation: Completed instrument assembly checklist, ITS memorandum
DFW 4: Conduct analog surface and subsurface removal (contractor and lead organization)
Describe the procedures to conduct the analog surface and sub-surface removal. Indicate the lane
width, operator spacing, and down-track speed. Describe navigation procedures. Describe the process of
collecting recovered material. Describe the process for reporting and evaluating recovered seeds.
Describe information to be recorded documenting any evidence of types of munitions found to be
present. Reference SOPs as appropriate.
Contractor: The contractor will deploy teams of six qualified UXO Technicians and a UXO Technician III
team leader to perform an analog sub-surface removal on the site using Schonstedt gradiometer
systems. [Specifications: MPC , SOPs , MQOs ]
The subsurface removal will take place in survey units of 50 acres. All validation checks will be
performed per survey unit. The formal DUA will be conducted when all survey units are
completed.
The technicians will mark lanes using polypropylene rope to be spaced three feet apart. The
technicians will walk at no more than 0.5 m/sec
The technicians will be spaced in lanes three feet apart walking at no more than 0.5 m/sec.
When a signal is observed by the technicians, the technicians will stop and immediately
excavate to retrieve the source object.
After an object has been recovered, the operator will reinterrogate the hole with the instrument
to determine if other objects remain and continue until no residual signal is detected.
The recovered objects will be collected in a bucket for each lane.
The supervisor will photograph representative examples of recovered objects.
The supervisor will make a record of any munitions recovered and any munitions parts that are
indicative of the types of munitions that may be present. Any fragments indicating the presence
of munitions other than mortars will be reported.
The locations of recovered seeds will be recorded with a handheld GPS.
The QC geophysicist will determine if any QC seeds were missed, report it to the lead agency,
and provide RCA/CA. The contractor will resurvey as needed and submit results for each survey
unit only after all QC seeds have been recovered.
Lead organization: The QA geophysicist will determine if any QA seeds were missed. The analog
survey will be repeated until all QA seeds are recovered.
Documentation: Database of excavation results (descriptions and locations), photographs of recovered
objects, daily QC reports (including re-interrogation results), weekly QC reports.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 119 of 303
DFW 5: Verify subsurface removal (contractor)
Describe the procedures for verifying the subsurface removal.
Contractor: The QC geophysicist or their designee will resurvey one lane from each operator in each
survey unit; lanes will be randomly located. [Specifications: Instrument assembly checklist, MPCs ,
SOPs , MQOs ]
Documentation: Subsurface removal verification memorandum or weekly QC report
Any recovered metallic object that exceeds the dimension specification will be a failure.
DFW 6: Conduct MPPEH handling and disposal (contractor)
Briefly describe the procedures for handling and disposal of MPPEH.
Contractor: MPPEH will be handled and disposed of as described in SOP [Specifications: Explosives
Safety Plan, MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ]
Documentation: Disposal records
DFW 7: Conduct final DUA and update the CSM (contractor, lead organization, and regulator)
Briefly describe procedures to conduct the final DUA. (Refer to Worksheet #37 for detailed procedures.]
Contractor, lead organization, and regulator: Conduct final DUA
Documentation: Final DUA, final report
Decision rule: If MPCs have been achieved, the project team will have implemented the removal
component of the remedy. If not, the team will recommend that the appropriate representatives of the
responsible offices revisit and reconsider the ROD. The LUC specified in the ROD will be used to manage
residual risk.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 120 of 303
MRS C - Bomb Target
Selected Remedy: MEC subsurface removal using dynamic AGC detection and cued AGC
On this example site, the team decided to use a two-
step AGC dynamic survey followed by cued AGC
classification. The work could also have been done
using a single-pass AGC system. Appendix A shows
example MQOs for the single-pass approach.
641,000
642,000
643,000
o
o
o
CO
CD ง
c o
<3
CO
-e
o
o
o
o
oT
CO
CO
jQ MRS C AGC SurveyAGCCued {252 acres)
~ Planned Development
MEC Finos torn Rl
Ano matyDe nsity (pe r acre)
6000
641,000 642,000
Easting (m)
o
o
o
CO
o
o
o
o
CO
o
o
o
aT
CO
643,000
Figure 17-5: MRS C
DFW 1: Conduct site preparation (contractor and lead organization)
Describe activities that must be completed prior to collecting geophysics data. This should include
vegetation reduction, surface sweep, construction of silt fences or other barriers, if needed (for
example, to prevent access by or exposure to potential receptors during site activities), and activities to
preserve cultural resources or sensitive habitats, if needed. Describe procedures used to establish and
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 121 of 303
document survey boundaries, including the use of control points for data positioning, and the
establishment of survey units. Indicate observations and information that the site preparation team will
be recording to enhance the initial CSM.
Contractor: The contractor will conduct site preparation activities in the survey area, as well as any areas
needed for equipment ingress/egress. [Specifications: MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ]
No vegetation removal is needed on this site.
A professional licensed surveyor will establish survey control points, survey boundaries, and
survey units of 50 acres.
A surface sweep team comprising qualified UXO technicians will conduct a surface sweep to
remove all exposed or partially exposed potential MEC items. The team will also remove
sufficient metallic objects that are equal to or greater than l"x2" to permit successful dynamic
and cued AGC data collection and analysis.
The team will document the type (mark/mod), location, quantity, and estimated mass of objects
removed, and will note any observations from the visual inspection that contribute to
identifying the locations of specific munitions-related activity. The team will note any indication
of conditions that will interfere with the geophysics or are inconsistent with the CSM. If
evidence of any unexpected munitions is encountered, the munitions will be added to the
classification library.
Following the lead organization's inspection of the surface sweep, the contractor will [describe
remaining site preparation activities]. Detailed procedures are contained in SOP(s) [list
relevant SOPs],
Documentation: Surface sweep technical memorandum, including field observations; database of
control points and survey units
Lead organization: Following the surface sweep, the lead organization (or designee) will review and
accept the surface sweep technical memorandum.
Decision rule: If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the
remedial action under the current assumptions. If field observations are inconsistent with the CSM, the
project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and remedial design. [This
applies at any point in the process where such observations occur.]
DFW 2: Conduct anomaly density reduction activities in high density areas (contractor and lead
organization)
Contractor: In the area where the anomaly density estimated from the Rl is too high to permit the use
AGC mapping (this value is to be determined on a project-specific basis) describe procedures for
removing sufficient anomaly sources to achieve an acceptable anomaly density for dynamic AGC
mapping and cued classification. Describe the method for verifying that the final anomaly density meets
criteria.
Contractor: The estimated anomaly density from the transects and the grid data collected during the Rl
indicate the presence of a 6-acre area where the anomaly density exceeds 3500/acre. [Specifications:
MPCs , SOPs _, MQOs ]
A team comprising qualified UXO technicians will conduct an analog Mag-and-Dig sub-surface
sweep to remove sufficient metallic items so that the anomaly density in this area conforms to
the project-specific MPC of < 3500/acre.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 122 of 303
The team lead will document the type, quantity, and estimated mass of objects removed in each
lane, and will note any observations that are inconsistent with the CSM.
Lead Organization: The lead organization or designee will inspect the area and verify the remaining
anomaly density by surveying three randomly selected %-acre grids with the AGC system.
Documentation: GIS, anomaly density reduction memorandum
DFW 3: Conduct QC seeding, validation seeding, and construct IVS (contractor and lead organization)
Contractor: Describe the contractor's placement of blind QC seeds and construction of the IVS. Provide
the rationale for the types, number, and placement of QC seeds. Describe procedures for assuring the
QC seeds remain blind to the data collection and data analysis teams. Describe procedures for
constructing the IVS, including the number, descriptions, depths, and orientation of seed items.
Lead organization: Describe the placement of validation seeds by or on behalf of the lead organization.
The details of the seed planning are included here for completeness. These details could be
documented in the Seed Plan instead.
Contractor: The contractor will construct an IVS and place QC seeds in the area to be surveyed.
[Specifications: QC Seeding Plan, QC firewall plan, IVS Plan, QA seeding plan, MPCs , SOPs ,
MQOs , draft verification/validation plan]
The lead or project geophysicist supported by a qualified UXO escort will select a location free of
existing anomalies that is 2 m wide and 25 m long. The geophysicist and UXO technician will
emplace two small ISO80 at a minimum separation distance of 5 m. The site team selected small
objects for the IVS because potential hazardous munitions components that may be
encountered are small. The field geophysicist using RTK GPS will survey the location of each
object in the IVS and record the as-buried positions.
The UXO QCS and seeding team will emplace QC seeds to support the MQOs described in
Worksheet #22 at a frequency to support one encounter per team per day. The dynamic AGC
survey will require approximately 325 survey days to complete and therefore 325 seeds would
be required. Estimating a production rate of 180 cued locations per team-day, the acquisition of
cued AGC data will require 834 survey team-days and 834 seeds. The digging will require
approximately fifty team-days to complete; therefore, the seed numbers are determined by the
cued data acquisition. To ensure against any lags in production rate, the contractor will emplace
900 seeds throughout MRS C. All seeds will be small ISO80s buried throughout the range to a
depth of 30 cm in a horizontal orientation, with the depths biased to deeper depths.
The team will survey and record the location of each QC seed.
The contractor will establish and document an internal firewall between the QC activities and
the field and data analysis activities following procedures outlined in SOP .
Lead Organization: The government team will emplace validation seeds to support the MQOs described
in Worksheet #22. The government team will survey and record the location of each QA seed.
Documentation: Report or spreadsheet documenting the as-built seed locations for the IVS, validation
seeds, and QC seeds
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 123 of 303
DFW 4: Assemble and verify correct operation of AGC sensor to be used for the detection survey
(contractor)
Describe procedures to be used to assemble and verify correct operation of the detection system (initial
function test). Describe procedures for testing sensor operation at the IVS. Refer to SOPs.
Contractor: The field geophysicist will assemble the TEMTADS and verify correct operation by:
[Specifications: Instrument assembly checklist, MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ].
Conducting an initial function test
Testing the system at the IVS
Documentation: Completed instrument assembly checklist; IVS memorandum
DFW 5: Conduct detection survey (contractor)
Describe the equipment and procedures that will be used to conduct the detection survey, including
ongoing field QC activities (e.g., ongoing function tests). Describe requirements for detection and
positioning. Describe and provide the rationale for coverage specifications (based on sensor geometry
and sizes of targets). Describe how the site will be partitioned to conduct field work. Describe how lanes
will be established and marked, if necessary.
Contractor: The field team will use a cart-pushed 1-m wide TEMTADS to collect data in MRS C.
[Specifications: MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ]
The detection survey will take place in 50-acre survey units, as designated in DFW 1.
The system will be equipped with cm-level GPS and an electronic navigation system for
following the data collection plan and geolocating the sensor readings.
Lanes will be spaced 80 cm apart to minimize the likelihood of data gaps.
The operator will maintain a down-track speed that does not exceed 1 m/s.
The field geophysicist will review data twice daily at the conclusion of morning and afternoon
data collection sessions.
The QC geophysicist will perform QC activities as indicated in Worksheet #22, including specified
visits to the IVS and daily assessments of data completeness.
The team will document field observations of site conditions that may aid in interpreting the
geophysical data and supporting the CSM, including the location and nature of indications of
munitions or non-munitions related activity encountered.
Detailed procedures are contained in SOP(s) .
Documentation: Field notes, daily IVS summaries, daily QC reports, weekly QC reports.
DFW 6: Conduct data processing, select anomalies for cued data collection, and conduct detection
survey DUA (contractor and lead organization)
Contractor: Describe the procedures that will be used to process the detection data, validate the
detection data (Worksheet #35 may be referenced), document locations to be used for background data
collection during cued data collection, and select anomalies for cued data collection. Describe the
process to identify any unanticipated SRAs in the data and how such areas will be investigated or
documented. Describe the review and acceptance process by the lead agency.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 124 of 303
Lead Organization: Describe the process for review and acceptance of target selection memoranda. For
large sites where work may proceed to subsequent DFWs in work units, describe the sequence and
timeline of this process. Reference the communication flow as described in WS 6 and 9.
Contractor: The contractor will conduct data processing, [Specifications: MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ]
All data will be delivered to the government in survey units of 50 acres. All data processing
validation checks will be performed per survey unit. The formal detection survey DUA will be
conducted when all survey units are completed.
The project geophysicist or designee will verify that all information is complete for each day of
field activities and any changes or exceptions are documented and have been reported in
accordance with requirements.
The project geophysicist or designee will preprocess the data as described in SOP .
The project geophysicist or designee will document the boundaries of any inaccessible areas or
unanticipated SRAs and describe the approach to resolving them.
The project geophysicist or designee will perform informed source selection (ISS) as described in
SOP to select and record the location of all anomalies that meet the criteria necessary to
reliably detect a 100-lb bomb lying horizontally at a depth of 1.2 m (bedrock). These criteria will
also detect the other munitions components IOC to their required depths.
The project geophysicist or designee will identify the next 200 anomalies beyond the ISS
threshold for verification.
From segments of the data where no anomalies are present, the project geophysicist or
designee will measure the RMS background noise. This will be done in more than one location
and the contractor will note any areas where SNR > 5 cannot be achieved for 100-lb bomb at a
depth of 1.2 m.
The QC geophysicist will confirm that all QC seeds have been selected
The project geophysicist or designee will recommend locations where AGC background
measurements should be collected.
The project geophysicist or designee will determine if any parts of the site have remaining
anomaly densities that are unsuitable for AGC. The contractor will repeat DFW 2 if necessary to
conduct additional anomaly-reduction processes and remap areas, as necessary. Detailed
procedures are contained in SOP(s) .
Lead organization:
The lead organization will determine whether all validation seeds have been selected and inform
the contractor of any missed seeds.
The lead organization will review and accept target selection memoranda on survey units of the
site as they are completed.
Lead organization, contractor, and regulator: Conduct the detection survey DUA and update the CSM.
Documentation: Target selection technical memorandum (data analysis, anomaly density, list of selected
anomalies, recommended background locations), maps (depicting data and coverage, anomaly density,
and selected anomalies), weekly QC reports, detection survey DUA report, updated CSM.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 125 of 303
Decision rules:
If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the
remedial action under the current assumptions. If field observations are inconsistent with the
CSM, the project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and
remedial design. [This applies at any point in the process where such observations occur.]
If signals meet the anomaly selection criteria for ISS, they will be selected for cued data
collection using AGC.
DFW 7: Assemble advanced geophysical sensor and test sensor at IVS (contractor)
Describe procedures to be used to assemble any additional advanced geophysical sensors that will be
used to collect cued data and verify their correct operation (initial function test and initial cued survey
IVS). Reassess the appropriateness of the IVS.
Contractor: The field geophysicist will assemble the TEMTADS and verify correct operation by:
[Specifications: Instrument assembly checklist, MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ].
Conducting an initial function test
Testing the system at the IVS
The IVS from the detection survey is suitable for the classification survey.
Documentation: Completed instrument assembly checklist; IVS memorandum
DFW 8: Collect cued data (contractor)
Describe procedures for locating each anomaly identified for cued data collection, positioning the
sensor, collecting the cued data, and conducting field inversions (i.e., quick checks by field personnel to
confirm the acquired signal is representative of the target anomaly). Describe the procedures and
frequency for conducting ongoing function tests and collecting cued background data. Describe
procedures and frequency for verifying ongoing operations at the IVS and conducting field QC.
The field geophysicist or designee will use TEMTADS in its standard cart configuration to collect data
over the selected cued locations. Detailed procedures are contained in SOP(s) . [Specifications: MPCs
, SOPs , MQOs ]. Specifically,
The field geophysicist or designee will conduct function tests at the beginning, middle and end
of each survey day.
The field geophysicist or designee will test the system at the IVS at the beginning and end of
each survey day.
The field geophysicist or designee will reacquire anomalies, collect cued data, and record field
observations.
The field geophysicist will collect background validation and ongoing background data.
The field geophysicist or designee will conduct an immediate real-time screening of cued data to
determine whether metrics for position offset were achieved. Failures identified in the field
evaluation will be immediately recollected.
The field geophysicist will collect cued data over the 200 verification anomalies identified.
The field geophysicist will conduct field inversions and ongoing QC.
The QC geophysicist will validate cued data (evaluate conformance to SOPs and field MQOs).
Documentation: Daily IVS summaries, daily & weekly QC reports
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 126 of 303
DFW 9: Conduct data processing, classify anomalies, construct ranked anomaly list, and conduct cued
survey DUA (contractor, lead organization, and regulator)
Contractor: Describe the procedure for processing the data. Describe procedures for removing the
effects of background signals on the advanced sensor data to isolate the signature from the buried
metal object. Describe the software and procedures for generating the polarizability curves that will be
the basis for classification. Describe procedures for classifying anomalies. Specify relevant aspects of the
classification process, i.e., how well the signature matches the library data (Worksheet #22 contains
specifications for library fit coherence). Specify analysis procedures to be used in cases where the
signature does not match a library signature but either 1) is a member of a cluster of numerous similar
signatures that should be investigated as potential TOI or 2) exhibits properties consistent with those of
a munition not contained in the library. Describe the methods and reasoning for setting the dig/no-dig
threshold.
Contractor: The contractor will process the data using UX-Analyze as described in SOP . [Specifications:
MPCs _, SOPs , MQOs ]
All data will be delivered to the government in survey units of 50 acres. All data processing
validation checks will be performed per survey unit. The formal cued survey DUA will be
conducted when all survey units are completed.
The project geophysicist or designee will use UX-Analyze as described in SOP to process the
data daily to produce target polarizability curves and perform library matches to identify TOI.
TOI will include 1) all anomalies that match to a library member, 2) clusters of items not in the
library that have similar polarizability curves and require investigation, and 3) anomalies with
polarizability curves that suggest the properties of a munition (i.e., long, narrow, and
axisymmetric or spherical).
All data and the TOI list will be passed to the QC geophysicist who will determine whether all
seeds were correctly classified and verify that all QC metrics in Worksheet #22 were achieved.
Any missed QC seeds will be reported to the government accompanied by an RCA/CA.
The project geophysicist or designee will create a ranked anomaly list, arranged in order from
highest likelihood the object is a TOI to highest likelihood the object is a non-TOI. The project
geophysicist or designee will identify the threshold that will separate TOI and non-TOI to create
a dig list as described in SOP .
The project geophysicist or designee will identify additional potential "threshold verification"
targets such that 200 targets beyond the initial threshold will be identified. These targets will be
the next targets below the TOI/non-TOI threshold in order. For example, if the last IOC
recovered from the ranked list is 100 places before the threshold, an additional 100 of the
threshold verification digs will be conducted. If the last target on the dig list is an IOC, an
additional 200 targets will need to be dug. If no additional IOC are recovered, the threshold will
be considered verified.
The project geophysicist or designee will assemble a dig list to include all TOI, any signals that
could not be analyzed, and the threshold verification targets.
The project geophysicist will determine if any IOCI are in the 200 verification targets.
Lead organization: The QA geophysicist will review any missed QC seed RCA/CA and approve or make
recommendations to the contractor for modifications. The QA geophysicist will review all TOI lists to
determine whether all validation seeds were correctly classified and inform the contractor of any
failures (all information about the missed seed). The QA geophysicist will review data submissions for
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 127 of 303
conformance with metrics in Worksheet #22. The lead organization will review and accept the
classification results. The lead agency will review interim spread sheets and inform the contractor if any
validation seeds are not on the preliminary dig lists.
Documentation: Database (library match results), TOI/non-TOI classification spreadsheet, figures &
maps (classification decision plots), ranked anomaly list, dig list, weekly QC reports, cued survey DUA
report)
Decision rules:
If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the
remedial action under the current assumptions. If field observations are inconsistent with the
CSM, the project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and
remedial design. [This applies at any point in the process where such observations occur.]
If AGC analyses meet any of the following criteria, they will be selected as TOI and placed on an
ordered dig list:
o The polarizability decay curve matches that of an item in the project-specific TOI library, or
o Estimates of the size, shape, symmetry, and wall thickness indicate the item is long,
cylindrical or spherical, and thick-walled, or
o There is a group (cluster) of unknown anomalies having similar polarizability decay curves
that, after investigation, are discovered to be IOC. The procedure for designating a cluster,
including criteria for similarity and number of items are described in SOP .
If AGC analyses yield inconclusive results curves, they will be added to the dig list or otherwise
resolved.
DFW 10: Excavate buried objects (contractor)
Describe procedures to reacquire and flag anomalies selected for intrusive investigation and investigate
anomalies. This includes selecting the threshold verification targets.
Contractor: [Specifications: Dig list, MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ]
The excavation will take place in survey units of 50 acres. All validation checks will be performed
per survey unit. The formal final DUA will be conducted when all survey units are completed.
The field geophysicist or designee with a UXO technician escort will use a RTK cm-level GPS to
relocate anomaly locations and emplace plastic pin flags.
The intrusive team comprising qualified UXO technicians will navigate to each pin flag and
conduct intrusive operations. All digging will be conducted according to the detailed procedures
described in SOP .
For each anomaly location, the intrusive team will record the approximate size, depth, and
specific information that can be obtained about the identity of the source.
If any clusters are identified, the CSM will be revised to include their locations and sources. If
they are munitions, their signatures will be added to the library.
If excavation of any anomalies that were deemed munitions-like are found to be munitions,
their signatures will be added to the library.
The intrusive team lead or designee will photograph each recovered item for later comparison
with AGC analysis.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 128 of 303
Documentation: Database of excavation results (locations and descriptions), photographs, weekly QC
reports
Decision rules:
If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the
remedial action under the current assumptions.
If field observations are inconsistent with the CSM, the project team will update the CSM and
determine the impacts on the DQOs and remedial design. [This applies at any point in the
process where such observations occur.]
If any clusters are identified, the CSM will be revised to include their locations and sources. If
they are munitions, their signatures will be added to the library.
If excavation of any anomalies that were deemed munitions-like are found to be munitions,
their signatures will be added to the library.
DFW 11: Verify dig/no-dig threshold, update verification/validation plan, and conduct cued survey
DUA (contractor, lead organization, and regulator)
Describe procedures for evaluating verification digs. If necessary, adjust the TOI/non-TOI threshold and
identify additional threshold verification targets such that there are 200 non-TOI targets on the ranked
anomaly list below the final threshold. Once the final threshold has been verified, identify final
classification validation targets.
Contractor: The QC geophysicist will determine whether any IOC are in the 200 verification digs.
[Specifications: MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ]
The intrusive team will excavate items from the threshold verification list such that 200 items
beyond the last IOC recovered are investigated.
If an IOC is found in the threshold verification list, the contractor will conduct an RCA/CA and
the team will reevaluate the threshold selection.
After determination of a new threshold, the threshold verification will be repeated by selecting
another 200 targets past the last IOC in the list at the new threshold. For example, if the last IOC
recovered from the ranked list is 100 places before the threshold, an additional 100 of the
threshold verification digs will be conducted. If the last target on the dig list is an IOC, an
additional 200 targets will need to be dug. If no additional IOC are recovered, the threshold will
be considered verified.
Contractor, lead organization, and regulator: Once a final threshold has been established, the project
team will conduct the cued survey DUA, select 200 classification validation targets, review the draft
verification/ validation plan, and make changes, as necessary. For each validation target, the team will
document the characteristics that resulted in the non-TOI designation. [Note: The classification
validation targets will be selected to address any questions or uncertainties in the data if present.
Randomly selected targets will make up the remainder of the 200.]
Documentation: Comparison results, final verification/validation plan
Decision rule: If the threshold verification digs do not uncover any IOC as described above, then the
threshold is verified. If any IOC are recovered, then the project team will conduct RCA/CA that results in
adjustment of the threshold and determination of the impacts on the project objectives.
DFW 12: Excavate and evaluate classification validation targets and conduct post-dig verification
(contractor)
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 129 of 303
Describe procedures to reacquire and flag anomalies selected for intrusive investigation and investigate
anomalies. Describe procedures for evaluating validation digs.
Contractor: Specifications: Final verification/validation plan, MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ]
The field geophysicist or designee with a UXO technician escort will use a RTK cm-level GPS to
relocate anomaly locations and emplace plastic pin flags.
The intrusive team comprising qualified UXO technicians will navigate to each pin flag and
conduct intrusive operations. All digging will be conducted according to the detailed procedures
described in SOP .
For each anomaly location, the intrusive team will record the approximate size, depth, and
specific information that can be obtained about the identity of the source.
The intrusive team lead or designee will photograph each recovered item for later comparison
with AGC analysis. [Specifications: Dig list, MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ]
The QC geophysicist will determine whether any IOC are in the 200 validation digs. If an IOC is
found in the validation digs, the contractor will conduct a QA stand-down and recommendation
for CA, and the site team will determine the next steps.
For each recovered classification/validation object, the QC geophysicist will compare the
characteristics of the object to the AGC results. If any properties are inconsistent, the project
team will conduct an RCA/CA and determine the impacts on project objectives.
For all locations where digging was conducted, the contractor will re-interrogate the location
with the AGC sensor to verify the original polarizability no longer exists for TOI and that
inconclusive analyses have been resolved.
Documentation: Comparison results
Decision rules:
The geophysical classification results will be valid if:
o validation digs do not uncover any IOC and
o the properties of all recovered objects are consistent with predicted properties
If the validation digs uncover any IOC as described above, the project team will conduct a QA
stand-down and evaluate the impacts on MPCs and DQOs.
If the properties of recovered objects are inconsistent with predicted properties, the project
team will conduct an RCA/CA and determine the impacts on the achievement of MPCs and
DQOs.
DFW 13: Conduct MPPEH handling and disposal (contractor)
Briefly describe the procedures for handling and disposal of MPPEH.
Contractor: MPPEH will be handled and disposed of as described in SOP [Specifications: Explosives
Safety Plan, MPCs , SOPs , MQOs ]
Documentation: Disposal records
DFW 14: Conduct final DUA (contractor, lead organization, and regulator)
Briefly describe procedures to conduct the final DUA. (Refer to Worksheet #37 for detailed procedures.
Contractor, lead organization, and regulator:
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 130 of 303
Conduct final DUA
Evaluate UU/UE lines of evidence
Documentation: Final DUA, final report, updated CSM, UU/UE memorandum
Decision rule: If all lines of evidence are complete and support UU/UE, the project team will develop
documentation supporting UU/UE for consideration by final decision-makers. If lines of evidence are
incomplete, or any line of evidence does not support UU/UE, the project team will develop
documentation rejecting UU/UE for consideration by final decision-makers.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 131 of 303
DFW 1
Site Preparation
Surface Sweep Technical Memorandum
Database of Control Points & Survey Units
T
Update CSM
Determine impacts on
DGOs & remedial
design
Field
observations consistent
with CSM?
^Yee
Signals
meeting anomaly selection
criteria selected for cued data
collection
Document unsuitable
areas,
Revise the remedial
design as necessary
1
All areas
of site suitable
for AGC?
vL
y
Proceed with Cued Survey
i=i
ii
i=i
Definable Feature of
Wort
Decision! Rule
CSM Revision/
U scale
Documentation
Figure 17-6: MRS A1 Decision Diagram
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 132 of 303
Yea
I
TOI and
inconclusive analyses
added to dig fist
Proceed with
Infrusive Investigation
Figure 17-6: MRS A1 Decision Diagram (Continued)
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 133 of 303
.Yes
Figure 17-6: MRS A1 Decision Diagram (Continued)
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 134 of 303
Figure 17-7: MRS A2 Decision Diagram
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 135 of 303
^Yes
TO I Selected for
Intrusive
Investigation
Proceed with
Intrusive Investigation
Figure 17-8: MRS B1 Decision Diagram
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 136 of 303
Figure 17-8: MRS B1 Decision Diagram (Continued)
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 137 of 303
Figure 17-9: MRS B2 Decision Diagram
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 138 of 303
|Y9S
Signals
meeting ISS criteria selected for
cued data collection
Figure 17-10: MRS C Decision Diagram
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 139 of 303
rss
*
TO! and
inconclusive analyses
added to dig list
1
Proceed with
Intrusive Investigation
Figure 17-10: MRS C Decision Diagram (Continued)
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 140 of 303
Figure 17-10; MRS C Decision Diagram (Continued)
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 141 of 303
[This page intentionally left blank.]
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 142 of 303
Worksheet #22: Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Quality Control
(UFP-QAPP Manual Section 3.1.2.4)
This worksheet documents procedures for performing testing, inspections, and quality control for all field data collection activities.
Failure response must include a root cause analysis (RCA) to determine the appropriate corrective action (CA). Examples are
provided in blue text. Minimum recommended specifications are provided in black text. The project-specific QAPP must explain and
justify any changes to black text, which are subject to regulatory approval. An appendix may be used for this purpose. The following
tables include MQOs that apply to each of the examples. The MQO# should be assigned on a project-specific basis and included in
WS #17. To assist users in preparing site-specific MR-QAPPs, Appendix C provides MQOs organized according to technology.
Table 22-1: MRS A1 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using non-AGC DGM Detection and Cued AGC
Site Preparation [MRS Al]
Measurement Quality
Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Survey control (loop
closure)
At beginning of
project
Project Geophysicist or
Surveyor/
Survey Control Report/
QC Geophysicist
All loop closures within 0.05 m (if
established from existing
monument(s))
Estimated accuracy from static GPS
occupation calculations (e.g., OPUS)
less than or equal to 0.05 m.
RCA/CA: reset survey
monuments
Construct IVS:
Verify as-built IVS against
design plan
(DGM)
Once following IVS
construction
Project Geophysicist/
IVS Technical
Memorandum/
Lead Organization
Small ISO seed items buried at 0.15 m;
All seeds buried horizontally in the
cross-track orientation
RCA/CA: Make necessary
changes to seeded items and
re-verify
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 143 of 303
Table 22-1: MRS A1 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using non-AGC DGM Detection and Cued AGC (Continued)
Site Preparation [MRS Al]
Measurement Quality
Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Construct Instrument Test
Strip (ITS):
Verify as-built ITS against
design plan
(Analog sensors)
Once following ITS
construction
suxos/
ITS Technical
Memorandum/
UXOQCS
Small ISO seed items for
analog methods buried at
0.30 m; All seeds buried
horizontally in the cross-
track orientation
RCA/CA: Make necessary
changes to seeded items and
re-verify
Verify correct assembly
(All sensors)
Once following
assembly
Field Team Leader/
Instrument Assembly
Checklist/
Project Geophysicist
As specified in Assembly
Checklist
RCA/CA: Make necessary
adjustments and re-verify
Initial instrument function
test: Five measurements over
a small ISO80 target, one in
each quadrant of the sensor
and one directly under the
center of the array; Derived
polarizabilities for each
measurement are compared
to the library
(AGC)
Once following
assembly
Field Team Leader/
Instrument Assembly
Checklist/
Project Geophysicist
Library match metric > 0.95
for each of the five sets of
inverted polarizabilities
RCA/CA: Make necessary
adjustments, and re-verify
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 144 of 303
Table 22-1: MRS A1 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using non-AGC DGM Detection and Cued AGC (Continued)
Site Preparation [MRS Al]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Initial Instrument
Function Test
(Non-AGC DGM)
Once following
assembly
Field Geophysicist/
Initial IVS Memorandum/
Project Geophysicist
Response (mean static
spike minus mean static
background) within 20% of
predicted response
RCA/CA: Make necessary
adjustments, and re-verify
Initial Instrument
Function Test
(Analog)
Once upon arrival at
project site
Field Geophysicist or
UXO Team Lead/
Initial IVS Memorandum/
Project Geophysicist or
designee
Audible response
consistent with expected
change in tone in presence
of standard object
RCA/CA: Make necessary
adjustments, and re-verify
Initial detection survey
positioning accuracy
(IVS)
(DGM)
Once prior to start of
data acquisition
Project Geophysicist/
IVS Memorandum/
QC Geophysicist
Derived positions of IVS
target(s) are within 0.25 m
of the ground truth
locations
RCA/CA: Make necessary
adjustments, and re-verify
Initial detection survey
Check for interference
surrounding seed
response (IVS)
(All sensors)
Once prior to start of
data acquisition
Project Geophysicist/
IVS Memorandum/
QC Geophysicist
All seeds placed in
locations that are free of
detected anomalies within
a radius of > 1.5 m
RCA/CA; and re-verify MQO
Initial derived
polarizabilities accuracy
(IVS)
(AGC)
Once during initial
system IVS test
Project Geophysicist/
IVS memorandum/
QC Geophysicist
Library Match metric > 0.9
for each set of inverted
polarizabilities
RCA/CA
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 145 of 303
Table 22-1: MRS A1 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using non-AGC DGM Detection and Cued AGC (Continued)
Detection Survey [MRS Al]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Geodetic Equipment
Function Test
Daily (RTKGPS)
Each time equipment is
moved (robotic total
station RTS))
Field Team Leader/
GIS data recorded/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
Measured position of
control point within 0.10 m
of ground truth
RCA/CA; document
questionable information in
database
Ongoing instrument
function test
(Non-AGC DGM)
Beginning and end of
each day and each
time instrument is
turned on
Field Team Leader/
Running QC Summary/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
Response (mean static
spike minus mean static
background within 20% of
predicted response
RCA/CA: Make necessary
repairs and reverify
Ongoing instrument
function test
(Analog- Surface
sweep)
Beginning and end of
each day and each
time instrument is
turned on
Field Team Leader/
Running QC Summary/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
Audible response
consistent with expected
change in tone in presence
of object with documented
response
RCA/CA
Ongoing instrument
settings check
(Analog)
Hourly
Field Team Leader/
Running QC Summary/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
All instrument settings
adjusted to [insert
instrument-specific
specification]
RCA/CA
Ongoing detection
survey positioning
precision (IVS)
(Non-AGC DGM)
Beginning and end of
each day
Project Geophysicist/
Running QC Summary/
QC Geophysicist
Derived positions of IVS
target(s) within 0.25 m of
the average locations
RCA/CA
Ongoing detection
survey seed
interpretations (IVS)
(Non-AGC DGM)
Beginning and end of
each day
Project Geophysicist/
Running QC Summary/
QC Geophysicist
Peak response > 75% of
minimum predicted
response
RCA/CA
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 146 of 303
Table 22-1: MRS A1 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using non-AGC DGM Detection and Cued AGC (Continued)
Detection Survey [MRS Al]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
In-line measurement
spacing
(Non-AGC DGM)
Verified for each
transect using
[describe tool to be
used] based upon
monostatic Z coil data
positions
Project Geophysicist/
Running QC Summary/
QC Geophysicist
99% < 0.25 m between
successive measurements;
100% < 0.40 m. Coverage
gaps are filled or
adequately explained (e.g.,
unsafe terrain)
RCA/CA
Coverage (Non-AGC
DGM)
Verified for each
survey unit using
(describe tool to be
used)
Project Geophysicist/
Running QC Summary/
QC Geophysicist
100% < instrument-specific
cross-track measurement
spacing (excluding site
specific access limitations,
e.g., obstacles, unsafe
terrain)
EM61-MK2: 100% <0.50 m
cross-track measurement
spacing (excluding site-
specific access limitations,
e.g., obstacles, unsafe
terrain)
RCA/CA
Battery voltage
(Non-AGC DGM)
Verify battery voltage
is within operating
specifications of sensor
Field Team Leader/
Running QC Summary/
Project Geophysicist
Voltage must be > [Enter
minimum instrument-
specific requirement]
RCA/CA: out of spec data
rejected
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 147 of 303
Table 22-1: MRS A1 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using non-AGC DGM Detection and Cued AGC (Continued)
Detection Survey [MRS Al]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Dynamic noise
assessment
(Non-AGC DGM)
Verified for each
selected background
window
Project Geophysicist /
Project database/
QC Geophysicist
All receiver channels
exceeding pre-defined
dynamic noise threshold
for (Define time gate: e.g.,
EM61-MK2 = 2 mV channel
2) time gate are flagged for
review
RCA/CA; (SOP must address
process for flagging and
recollecting data as
necessary)
Detection survey
repeatability
(Non-AGC DGM)
Blind QC seeds will be
distributed such that
each field team
encounters an average
of at least one seed per
day. Seeds to be placed
throughout expected
detection depth range.
[QC seeding design will
vary between 1-3
seeds per day to
account for production
variability]
QC Geophysicist/
Running QC Summary/
Lead Organization QA
Geophysicist
All blind QC seeds must
have a response > 75% of
minimum expected
response and be detected
and positioned within a
0.40 m radius of ground
truth. [Positioning metric
must be tighter than cued
instrument requirements.]
RCA/CA: Verify instrument
is functioning correctly; if so,
reduce threshold, or
determine if item is buried
too deep. If instrument is
not functioning correctly,
recollect data. If seeding
density not met, the density
will be increased in
subsequent survey units.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 148 of 303
Table 22-1: MRS A1 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using non-AGC DGM Detection and Cued AGC (Continued)
Detection Survey [MRS Al]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Detection survey
repeatability (non-AGC
DGM)
Blind validation seeds
will be distributed such
that each field team
encounters an average
of at least one seed per
day [Validation seeding
design will vary
between 1-3 seeds per
day to account for
production variability]
QA Geophysicist or 3rd
party seeding contractor/
Validation Seed Log
All blind validation seeds
must have a response >
75% of minimum expected
response and be detected
and positioned within a
0.75 m radius of ground
truth. [Positioning metric
must be tighter than cued
instrument requirements.]
RCA/CA: Verify instrument
is functioning correctly; if so,
reduce threshold, or
determine if item is buried
too deep. If instrument is
not functioning correctly,
recollect data. If seeding
density not met, the density
will be increased in
subsequent survey units.
Verification of target
selection (non-AGC
DGM)
Evaluated for each
survey unit (post SRA)
Project Geophysicist/
QC Summary/
QC Geophysicist
All leveled data with an
amplitude greater than or
equal to the selection
threshold are accounted
for within 0.40 m of the
cued footprint, [cued
measurements cover the
entire anomaly footprint].
RCA/CA
Verification of leveling
(non-AGC DGM)
Evaluated for each
survey unit
Project Geophysicist/
QC Summary/
QC Geophysicist
Leveled data with a
background amplitude
below zero are identified
and reviewed to ensure no
additional targets are
present.
RCA/CA
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 149 of 303
Table 22-1: MRS A1 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using non-AGC DGM Detection and Cued AGC (Continued)
Detection Survey [MRS Al]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Verification of leveling
(amplitude
suppression) (non-AGC
DGM)
Evaluated for 200 of
the lowest amplitude
anomalies selected as
targets, per survey unit
Project Geophysicist/
QC Summary/
QC Geophysicist
Raw anomaly peak
amplitude minus local
background amplitude is
within 3x RMS noise of
leveled anomaly peak
amplitude minus leveled
local background
amplitude.
RCA/CA
Geodetic Accuracy
(Confirm Valid Position)
Evaluated for each
measurement
Field Team Leader/
GIS data recorded/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
GPS status flag indicates
Real Time Kinematic (RTK)
fix (RTK GPS)
Robotic Total Station (RTS)
passes Geodetic Function
Test (RTS)
RCA/CA; document
questionable information in
database
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 150 of 303
Table 22-1: MRS A1 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using non-AGC DGM Detection and Cued AGC (Continued)
Cued Survey [MRS Al]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Geodetic Equipment
Function Test
Daily (RTKGPS)
Each time equipment is
moved (RTS)
Field Team Leader/
GIS data recorded/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
Measured position of
control point within 10 cm
of ground truth
RCA/CA; document
questionable information in
database
Geodetic Accuracy
(Confirm Valid
Position)
Evaluated for each
measurement
Field Team Leader/
GIS data recorded/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
GPS status flag indicates
RTKfix (RTKGPS)
RTS passes Geodetic
Function Test (RTS)
RCA/CA; document
questionable information in
database
Valid Orientation Data
Evaluated for each
sensor measurement
Field Team Leader/
QC Database/
Project/QC Geophysicist
Orientation data reviewed
and appear reasonable
within bounds appropriate
to site (e.g., roll and pitch <
15 degrees absolute value)
RCA/CA
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 151 of 303
Table 22-1: MRS A1 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using non-AGC DGM Detection and Cued AGC (Continued)
Cued Survey [MRS Al]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Ongoing production
area background
measurements
Background data
collected a minimum of
every two hours during
production (or more
frequently, per
instrument-specific
requirements
Field Team Leader/
Field Log and Running QC
Summary/
Project Geophysicist
Background data from a
verified location collected
within [Insert instrument-
specific requirements, not
to exceed two hours] of all
cued data points
RCA/CA: Document
environmental changes;
Project Geophysicist must
approve before proceeding.
Ongoing derived target
position precision (IVS)
Beginning and end of
each day as part of IVS
testing
Project Geophysicist/
Running QC Summary/
QC Geophysicist
All IVS items fit locations
within 0.25 m of average of
derived fit locations
RCA/CA
Ongoing derived
polarizabilities
precision (IVS)
Beginning and end of
each day as part of IVS
testing
Project Geophysicist/
Running QC Summary/
QC Geophysicist
Library Match to initial
polarizabilities metric > 0.9
for each set of three
inverted polarizabilities
RCA/CA
Ongoing Instrument
Function Test
(Instrument response
amplitudes)
Beginning and end of
each day and each time
instrument is turned on
Field Team Leader/
Running QC Summary
(Excel/Geosoft)/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
Response (mean static spike
minus mean static
background) within 20% of
predicted response for all
Tx/Rx combinations
RCA/CA: Make necessary
repairs and re-verify
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 152 of 303
Table 22-1: MRS A1 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using non-AGC DGM Detection and Cued AGC (Continued)
Cued Survey [MRS Al]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Transmit current levels
Evaluated for each
sensor measurement
Field Team Leader/
Running QC Summary/
Project Geophysicist
Current must be > [Insert
instrument-specific
requirements]
RCA/CA: stop data
acquisition activities until
condition corrected
Confirm adequate
spacing between units
Evaluated at start of
each day (or grid)
Field Team Leader/
Field Logbook/
Project Geophysicist
Separation must be >
[Insert instrument-specific
requirements]
RCA/CA: Recollect data
Cued interrogation
Evaluated for all non-
TOI on cued list
Project Geophysicist/
UX-A Source Geosoft
database/
QC Geophysicist
Offset between center of
the sensor and the flag, or
target, location must be <
0.40 m
RCA/CA: Recollect data
Confirm inversion
model supports
classification
(1 of 3)
Evaluated for models
derived from a
measurement and used
to make TOI/non-TOI
decision (i.e., single
item and/or multi-item
models)
Project Geophysicist/
UX-A Source Geosoft
database/
QC Geophysicist
Derived model response
must fit the observed data
with a fit coherence > 0.8
Follow procedure in SOP or
RCA/CA
Confirm inversion
model supports
classification
(2 of 3)
Evaluated for derived
target
Project Geophysicist/
UX-A Source Geosoft
database/
QC Geophysicist
Fit location estimate of item
< 0.40 m from center of
sensor
Follow procedure in SOP or
RCA/CA; if designated asTOI,
no additional recollection
necessary
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 153 of 303
Table 22-1: MRS A1 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using non-AGC DGM Detection and Cued AGC (Continued)
Cued Survey [MRS Al]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Confirm inversion
model supports
classification
(3 of 3)
Evaluated for all seeds
QC Geophysicist/
Seed Tracking Log/
Lead Organization QA
Geophysicist
100% of predicted seed (QC
and Validation) positions <
0.25 m radially from known
position (x, y). Z < 0 .15 m.
RCA/CA
Classification
performance
Evaluated for all seeds
QC Geophysicist/
Seed Tracking Log/
Lead Organization QA
Geophysicist
100% of QC/Validation
Seeds classified as TOI and
the correct size is predicted
RCA/CA
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 154 of 303
Table 22-1: MRS A1 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using non-AGC DGM Detection and Cued AGC (Continued)
Intrusive Investigation [MRS Al]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Geodetic Equipment
Function Test
Daily (RTKGPS)
Each time equipment is
moved (RTS)
Field Team Leader/
GIS data recorded/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
Measured position of
control point within 10 cm
of ground truth
RCA/CA; document
questionable information in
database
Geodetic Accuracy
(Confirm Valid
Position)
Evaluated for each
measurement
Field Team Leader/
GIS data recorded/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
GPS status flag indicates
RTKfix (RTKGPS)
RTS passes Geodetic
Function Test (RTS)
RCA/CA; document
questionable information in
database
Documenting
recovered sources
Daily
UXOQC/
GIS data recorded/
QC Geophysicist
All metallic debris collected
is documented for the
following attributes:
Designation as MEC, MD,
Seed, RRD or non-
munitions-related debris
(NMRD); MEC and MD
described by type; weight;
depth; and asTOI or non-
TOI. Photos displaying all
MD recovered at each
target location (individual
MD photos not necessary),
and photos showing all
surfaces of each MEC are
recorded.
RCA/CA; document
questionable information in
database
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 155 of 303
Table 22-1: MRS A1 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using non-AGC DGM Detection and Cued AGC (Continued)
Intrusive Investigation [MRS Al]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Confirm derived
features match ground
truth (lof 2)
Evaluated for all
recovered items
including seeds (applies
only to single, compact
objects [e.g., does not
apply to a bed of nails
or long wires])
Project Geophysicist/
Running QC Summary or
Intrusive Database/
QC Geophysicist
100% of recovered item
positions (excluding
inconclusive category) <
0.25 m from predicted
position (x, y); Recovered
item depths are recorded
within 15 cm of predicted
RCA/CA
Confirm derived
features match ground
truth (2 of 2)
Evaluated for all
recovered items
including seeds
Project Geophysicist/
Dig List and Intrusive
Database/
Project or QC
Geophysicist
Cued data analysis shows
100% of seeds & recovered
items have polarizability
parameters that are
consistent with their actual
size, shape/symmetry, and
wall thickness
RCA/CA
Verification of
TOI/non-TOI threshold
Dig 200 anomalies
beyond the last
recovered IOC on the
Dig List per delivery
unit
Verification of any
other threshold is also
required.
Project Geophysicist/
Verification and
Validation Report/
QC Geophysicist
100% of predicted non-TOI
intrusively investigated are
non-IOC
RCA/CA; Adjust threshold.
Classification
Validation
Selection of 200 non-
TOI per delivery unit
QC Geophysicist/
Verification and
Validation/
Lead Organization QA
Geophysicist
100% of predicted non-TOI
qualitatively matches
predicted size/shape and
are non-IOC
RCA/CA
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 156 of 303
Table 22-1: MRS A1 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using non-AGC DGM Detection and Cued AGC (Continued)
Intrusive Investigation [MRS Al]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Post-dig Verification
[In cases where UU/UE
is a goal.]
Evaluated for each dig
location
Project Geophysicist/
Post-dig digital
remapping (dynamic or
cued)/
QC Geophysicist
AGC results indicate original
polarizabilities resulting in
TOI are no longer present
and no additional TOI
sources present above the
project stop-dig threshold.
Inconclusive dig locations
verify signal is resolved.
RCA/CA
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 157 of 303
Table 22-2: MRS A2 - MEC Surface Removal using Instrument-Aided Visual Identification
Site Preparation [MRS A2]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Survey control (loop
closure)
At beginning of project
Project Geophysicist or
Surveyor/
Survey Control Report/
QC Geophysicist
All loop closures within
0.50 m (if established from
existing monument(s))
Estimated accuracy from
static GPS occupation
calculations (e.g., OPUS)
less than or equal to
0.50 m.
RCA/CA: reset survey
monuments
Construct Instrument
Test Strip (ITS):
Verify as-built ITS
against design plan
(Analog sensors)
Once following ITS
construction
Project Geophysicist/
ITS Technical
Memorandum/
Lead Organization
Small ISO seed items for
analog methods buried at
0.30 m; All seeds buried
horizontally in the cross-
track orientation
RCA/CA: Make necessary
changes to seeded items and
re-verify
Verify correct assembly
(All sensors)
Once following
assembly
Field Team Leader/
Instrument Assembly
Checklist/
Project Geophysicist
As specified in Assembly
Checklist
RCA/CA: Make necessary
adjustments and re-verify
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 158 of 303
Table 22-2: MRS A2 - MEC Surface Removal using Instrument-Aided Visual Identification (Continued)
Site Preparation [MRS A2]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Initial Instrument
Function Test
(Analog)
Once upon arrival at
project site
Field Geophysicist or
UXO Team Lead/
Initial ITS Memorandum/
Project Geophysicist or
designee
Audible response
consistent with expected
change in tone in presence
of standard object
RCA/CA: Make necessary
adjustments, and re-verify
Placement of QC seeds
Prior to survey unit
production. QC seeds
placed at variable
densities throughout
survey units such that
each operator
encounters at least 5
seeds per day[QC
seeding design will
vary between 5-8
seeds per day to
account for production
variability]. Seeds are
obscured to the
maximum extent
practicable
UXOQCS/
QC Seed log/
QC Geophysicist
All seeds recovered
RCA/CA; If seeding density
not met, the density will be
increased in subsequent
survey units.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 159 of 303
Table 22-2: MRS A2 - MEC Surface Removal using Instrument-Aided Visual Identification (Continued)
Site Preparation [MRS A2]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Placement of QA seeds
Prior to survey unit
production. QA seeds
placed at variable
densities throughout
survey units such that
each operator
encounters at least 5
seeds per day [QA
seeding design will
vary between 5-8
seeds per day to
account for production
variability]. Seeds are
obscured to the
maximum extent
practicable
OESS or 3rd party
contractor/
QA Seed Log/
QA Geophysicist
All seeds recovered
RCA/CA; If seeding density
not met, the density will be
increased in subsequent
survey units.
Survey lane spacing
Each grid
UXOQCS/
QC Summary/
QC Geophysicist
Survey lanes are placed 3
feet apart
RCA/CA; replace survey
lanes
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 160 of 303
Table 22-2: MRS A2 - MEC Surface Removal using Instrument-Aided Visual Identification (Continued)
Instrument Aided Surface Clearance [MRS A2]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Ongoing instrument
function test
(Analog- Surface
sweep)
Beginning and end of
each day and each
time instrument is
turned on
Field Team Leader/
Running QC Summary/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
Audible response
consistent with expected
change in tone in presence
of object with documented
response
RCA/CA
Ongoing instrument
settings check
(Analog)
Hourly
Field Team Leader/
Running QC Summary/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
All instrument settings
adjusted to [insert
instrument-specific
specification]
RCA/CA
Geodetic Function Test
Daily (RTK GPS)
Each time equipment is
moved (RTS)
Field Team Leader/
GIS Data Recorded/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
Measured position of
control point within 10cm
of ground truth
RCA/CA; document
questionable information in
database
Geodetic Accuracy
(Confirm Valid Position)
Evaluated for each
measurement
Field Team Leader/
GIS data recorded/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
GPS status flag indicates
RTK fix (RTK GPS)
RCA/CA; document
questionable information in
database
Survey Speed
Evaluated for each
survey lane
UXOQCS/
QC Summary/
QC Geophysicist
98% <0.45 m/s; 100% <
0.50 m/s
RCA/CA; recollect data
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 161 of 303
Table 22-2: MRS A2 - MEC Surface Removal using Instrument-Aided Visual Identification (Continued)
Instrument Aided Surface Clearance [MRS A2]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Documenting
recovered material
Daily
UXOQC/
GIS data recorded/
QC Geophysicist
All metallic debris collected
is documented for the
following attributes:
Designation as MEC, MD,
Seed, RRD or NMRD; MEC
and MD described by type;
weight; and as TOI or non-
TOI. Photos displaying all
MD recovered (individual
MD photos not necessary),
and photos showing all
surfaces of each MEC are
recorded.
RCA/CA; document
questionable information in
database
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 162 of 303
Table 22-2: MRS A2 - MEC Surface Removal using Instrument-Aided Visual Identification (Continued)
Instrument Aided Surface Clearance [MRS A2]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Report Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Verification of
Surface Clearance
Survey Unit
UXOQCS/
QC Summary/
QC Geophysicist
Per each survey unit,
minimum one lane from
each operator is inspected,
or
Per each survey unit,
minimum [insert number of
operators per team] are
inspected; lanes are
randomly located and must
be oriented perpendicular
to the survey team's lanes
No pieces of metal larger
than 1" x 2"
RCA/CA; Redo survey unit
Seed Recovery
Survey Unit
QC Geophysicist/
QC Summary/
QA Geophysicist
100% of the QC and QA
seeds recorded in the
project database
RCA/CA; Redo survey unit
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 163 of 303
Table 22-3: MRS B1 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using non-AGC DGM
Site Preparation [MRS Bl]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Report Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Survey control (loop
closure)
At beginning of project
Project Geophysicist or
Surveyor/
Survey Control Report/
QC Geophysicist
All loop closures within
0.50 m (if established from
existing monument(s))
Estimated accuracy from
static GPS occupation
calculations (e.g., OPUS)
less than or equal to
0.50 m.
RCA/CA: reset survey
monuments
Construct IVS:
Verify as-built IVS
against design plan
(Non-AGC DGM)
Once following IVS
construction
Project Geophysicist/
IVS Technical
Memorandum/
Lead Organization
Small ISO seed items buried
at 0.15 m; All seeds buried
horizontally in the cross-
track orientation
RCA/CA: Make necessary
changes to seeded items
and re-verify
Construct Instrument
Test Strip (ITS):
Verify as-built ITS
against design plan
(Analog sensors)
Once following ITS
construction
Project Geophysicist/
ITS Technical
Memorandum/
Lead Organization
Small ISO seed items for
analog methods buried at
0.30 m; All seeds buried
horizontally in the cross-
track orientation
RCA/CA: Make necessary
changes to seeded items
and re-verify
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 164 of 303
Table 22-3: MRS B1 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using non-AGC DGM (Continued)
Site Preparation [MRS Bl]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Report Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Verify correct assembly
Once following
Field Team Leader/
As specified in Assembly
RCA/CA: Make necessary
(All sensors)
assembly
Instrument Assembly
Checklist/
Project Geophysicist
Checklist
adjustments and re-verify
Initial Instrument
Once following
Field Geophysicist/
Response (mean static
RCA/CA: Make necessary
Function Test
assembly
Initial IVS Memorandum/
spike minus mean static
adjustments, and re-verify
(Non-AGC DGM)
Project Geophysicist
background) within 20% of
predicted response
Initial Instrument
Once upon arrival at
Field Geophysicist or
Audible response
RCA/CA: Make necessary
Function Test
project site
UXO Team Lead/
consistent with expected
adjustments, and re-verify
(Analog)
Initial IVS Memorandum/
Project Geophysicist or
designee
change in tone in presence
of standard object
Initial detection survey
Once prior to start of
Project Geophysicist/
Derived positions of IVS
RCA/CA: Make necessary
positioning accuracy
data acquisition
IVS Memorandum/
target(s) are within 0.25 m
adjustments, and re-verify
(IVS)
QC Geophysicist
of the ground truth
(Non-AGC DGM)
locations
Initial detection survey
Once prior to start of
Project Geophysicist/
All seeds placed in
RCA/CA; and re-verify MQO
Check for interference
data acquisition
IVS Memorandum/
locations that are free of
surrounding seed
QC Geophysicist
detected anomalies within
response (IVS)
a radius of > 1.5 m
(Non-AGC DGM)
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 165 of 303
Table 22-3: MRS B1 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using DGM (Continued)
Detection Survey [MRS Bl]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Report Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Geodetic Equipment
Function Test
Daily (RTKGPS)
Each time equipment is
moved (RTS)
Field Team Leader/
GIS data recorded/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
Measured position of
control point within 0.10 m
of ground truth
RCA/CA; document
questionable information in
database
Ongoing instrument
function test
(Non-AGC DGM)
Beginning and end of
each day and each
time instrument is
turned on
Field Team Leader/
Running QC Summary/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
Response (mean static
spike minus mean static
background within 20% of
predicted response
RCA/CA: Make necessary
repairs and reverify
Ongoing instrument
function test
(Analog- Surface
sweep)
Beginning and end of
each day and each
time instrument is
turned on
Field Team Leader/
Running QC Summary/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
Audible response
consistent with expected
change in tone in presence
of object with documented
response
RCA/CA
Ongoing instrument
settings check
(Analog)
Hourly
Field Team Leader/
Running QC Summary/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
All instrument settings
adjusted to [insert
instrument-specific
specification]
RCA/CA
Ongoing detection
survey positioning
precision (IVS)
(Non-AGC DGM)
Beginning and end of
each day
Project Geophysicist/
Running QC Summary/
QC Geophysicist
Derived positions of IVS
target(s) within 0.25 m of
the average locations
RCA/CA
Ongoing detection
survey seed
interpretations (IVS)
(Non-AGC DGM)
Beginning and end of
each day
Project Geophysicist/
Running QC Summary/
QC Geophysicist
Peak response > 75% of
minimum predicted
response
RCA/CA
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 166 of 303
Table 22-3: MRS B1 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using DGM (Continued)
Detection Survey [MRS Bl]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Report Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
In-line measurement
spacing
(Non-AGC DGM)
Verified for each
transect using
[describe tool to be
used] based upon
monostatic Z coil data
positions
Project Geophysicist/
Running QC Summary/
QC Geophysicist
99% < 0.25 m between
successive measurements;
100% < 0.40 m. Coverage
gaps are filled or
adequately explained (e.g.,
unsafe terrain)
RCA/CA
Coverage (Non-AGC
DGM)
Verified for each unit
using (describe tool to
be used)
Project Geophysicist/
Running QC Summary/
QC Geophysicist
100% < Instrument Specific
cross-track measurement
spacing (excluding site
specific access limitations,
e.g., obstacles, unsafe,
terrain)
EM61-MK2: 100% < 0.60 m
cross-track measurement
spacing for IOC the size of
40 mm in diameter and
smaller, otherwise, 0.80 m
(excluding site-specific
access limitations, e.g.,
obstacles, unsafe terrain)
RCA/CA
Battery voltage
(Non-AGC DGM)
Verify battery voltage
is within operating
specifications of sensor
Field Team Leader/
Running QC Summary/
Project Geophysicist
Voltage must be > [Enter
minimum instrument-
specific requirement]
RCA/CA: out of spec data
rejected
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 167 of 303
Table 22-3: MRS B1 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using DGM (Continued)
Detection Survey [MRS Bl]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Report Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Dynamic noise
assessment
(Non-AGC DGM)
Verified for each
selected background
window
Project Geophysicist /
Project database/
QC Geophysicist
All receiver channels
exceeding pre-defined
dynamic noise threshold
for (Define time gate: e.g.,
EM61-MK2 = channel 2)
time gate are flagged for
review
RCA/CA; (SOP must address
process for flagging and
recollecting data as
necessary)
Detection survey
performance
(Non-AGC DGM)
Blind QC seeds will be
distributed such that
each field team
encounters an average
of at least one seed per
day. Seeds to be placed
throughout expected
detection depth range.
[QC seeding design will
vary between 1-3
seeds per day to
account for production
variability]
QC Geophysicist/
Running QC Summary/
Lead Organization QA
Geophysicist
All blind seeds must have a
response > 75% of
minimum expected
response and be detected
and positioned within a
0.75 m radius of ground
truth. [Positioning metric
must be tighter than dig
radius; recommended
metric is 0.25 m plus %
sensor width]
RCA/CA: Adjust picking
routine. If seeding density
not met, the density will be
increased in subsequent
survey units.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 168 of 303
Table 22-3: MRS B1 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using DGM (Continued)
Detection Survey [MRS Bl]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Detection survey
repeatability
(Non-AGC DGM)
Blind validation seeds
will be distributed such
that each field team
encounters an average
of at least one seed per
day [Validation seeding
design will vary
between 1-3 seeds per
day to account for
production variability]
QA Geophysicist or 3rd
party seeding contractor/
Validation Seed Log
All blind validation seeds
must have a response >
75% of minimum expected
response and be detected
and positioned within a
0.75 m radius of ground
truth [Positioning metric
must be tighter than dig
radius, recommended
0.25 m plus % sensor
width].
RCA/CA: Verify instrument
is functioning correctly; if so,
reduce threshold, or
determine if item is buried
too deep. If instrument is
not functioning correctly,
recollect data. If seeding
density not met, the density
will be increased in
subsequent survey units.
Geodetic Accuracy
(Confirm Valid Position)
Evaluated for each
measurement
Field Team Leader/
GIS data recorded/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
GPS status flag indicates
RTK fix (RTKGPS)
RTS passes Geodetic
Function Test (RTS)
RCA/CA; document
questionable information in
database
Verification of target
selection (non-AGC
DGM)
Evaluated for each
survey unit (post SRA)
Project Geophysicist/
QC Summary/
QC Geophysicist
All leveled data with an
amplitude greater than or
equal to the selection
threshold are accounted
for within the associated
dig radius [0.50 m].
RCA/CA
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 169 of 303
Table 22-3: MRS B1 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using DGM (Continued)
Detection Survey [MRS Bl]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Verification of leveling
(non-AGC DGM)
Evaluated for each
survey unit
Project Geophysicist/
QC Summary/
QC Geophysicist
Leveled data with a
background amplitude
below zero are identified
and reviewed to ensure no
additional targets are
present.
RCA/CA
Verification of leveling
(amplitude
suppression) (non-AGC
DGM)
Evaluated for 200 of
the lowest amplitude
anomalies selected as
targets, per survey unit
Project Geophysicist/
QC Summary/
QC Geophysicist
Raw anomaly peak
amplitude minus local
background amplitude is
within 3x RMS noise of
leveled anomaly peak
amplitude minus leveled
local background
amplitude.
RCA/CA
Geodetic Equipment
Function Test
Daily (RTKGPS)
Each time equipment is
moved (RTS)
Field Team Leader/
GIS data recorded/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
Measured position of
control point within 0.10 m
of ground truth
RCA/CA; document
questionable information in
database
Geodetic Accuracy
(Confirm Valid Position)
Evaluated for each
measurement
Field Team Leader/
GIS data recorded/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
GPS status flag indicates
RTKfix (RTKGPS)
RTS passes Geodetic
Function Test (RTS)
RCA/CA; document
questionable information in
database
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 170 of 303
Table 22-3: MRS B1 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using DGM (Continued)
Detection Survey [MRS Bl]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Documenting
recovered sources
Daily
UXOQCS/
GIS data recorded/
QC Geophysicist
All metallic debris collected
is documented for the
following attributes:
Designation as MEC, MD,
Seed, RRD or non-
munitions-related debris;
MEC and MD described by
type; weight; depth; and as
TOI or non-TOI. Photos
displaying all MD recovered
at each target location
(individual MD photos not
necessary), and photos
showing all surfaces of
each MEC are recorded.
RCA/CA; document
questionable information in
database
Confirm derived
features match ground
truth
(1 of 2)
Evaluated for all
recovered items
Project Geophysicist/
Running QC Summary or
Intrusive Database/
QC Geophysicist
100% of recovered item
positions < 0.75 m from
predicted position (x, y);
RCA/CA
Confirm derived
features match ground
truth (2 of 2)
Evaluated for all
recovered items
including seeds
Project Geophysicist/
Dig List and Intrusive
Database/
Project or QC
Geophysicist
Recovered items match
expected size, shape, and
depth of instrument
response
RCA/CA
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 171 of 303
Table 22-3: MRS B1 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using DGM (Continued)
Detection Survey [MRS Bl]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Seed Recovery
Survey Unit
QC Geophysicist/
QC Summary/
QA Geophysicist
100% of the QC and QA
seeds recorded in the
intrusive database
RCA/CA; Redo survey unit
Post-dig verification
(non-AGC DGM)
100% of intrusive
investigations
Field Geophysicist/
QC Summary/
QC Geophysicist
Response from properly
nulled EM61 is lower than
the selection threshold for
the entire anomaly
footprint.
RCA/CA
Post-dig verification
(non-AGC DGM)
200 dig locations per
survey unit (or all dig
locations if there are
less than 200)
Project Geophysicist/
Post-dig digital
remapping/
QC Geophysicist
All targets with post-
excavation responses
above threshold and within
the intrusive radius are
reinvestigated and no
recovered metallic object is
larger than the smallest
IOC.
RCA/CA
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 172 of 303
Table 22-4: MRS B2 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using Analog Detection
Site Preparation [MRS B2]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Survey control (loop
closure)
At beginning of project
Project Geophysicist or
Surveyor/
Survey Control Report/
QC Geophysicist
All loop closures within
0.50 m (if established from
existing monument(s))
Estimated accuracy from
static GPS occupation
calculations (e.g., OPUS)
less than or equal to 5cm.
RCA/CA: reset survey
monuments
Construct Instrument
Test Strip (ITS):
Verify as-built ITS
against design plan
(Analog sensors)
Once following ITS
construction
Project Geophysicist/
ITS Technical
Memorandum/
Lead Organization
Small ISO seed items for
analog methods buried at
0.30 m; All seeds buried
horizontally in the cross-
track orientation
RCA/CA: Make necessary
changes to seeded items and
re-verify
Verify correct assembly
(All sensors)
Once following
assembly
Field Team Leader/
Instrument Assembly
Checklist/
Project Geophysicist
As specified in Assembly
Checklist
RCA/CA: Make necessary
adjustments and re-verify
Initial Instrument
Function Test
(Analog)
Once upon arrival at
project site
Field Geophysicist or
UXO Team Lead/
Initial ITS Memorandum/
Project Geophysicist or
designee
Audible response
consistent with expected
change in tone in presence
of standard object
RCA/CA: Make necessary
adjustments, and re-verify
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 173 of 303
Table 22-4: MRS B2 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using Analog Detection (Continued)
Site Preparation [MRS B2]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Placement of QC seeds
Prior to survey unit
production. Seeds
placed at variable
densities throughout
survey units at 95-
100% of reliable
detection such that
each operator
encounters at least 5
seeds per day [QC
seeding design will
vary between 5-8
seeds per day to
account for production
variability].
UXOQCS/
QC Seed Log/
QC Geophysicist
All seeds recovered
RCA/CA; If seeding density
not met, the density will be
increased in subsequent
survey units.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 174 of 303
Table 22-4: MRS B2 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using Analog Detection (Continued)
Site Preparation [MRS B2]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Placement of QA seeds
Prior to survey unit
production. QA seeds
placed at variable
densities throughout
survey units at 95-
100% of reliable
detection such that
each operator
encounters at least 5
seeds per day[QC
seeding design will
vary between 5-8
seeds per day to
account for production
variability].
OESS or 3rd party
contractor/
QA seed log/
QA Geophysicist
All seeds recovered
RCA/CA; If seeding density
not met, the density will be
increased in subsequent
survey units.
Survey lane spacing
Each grid
UXOQCS/
QC Summary/
QC Geophysicist
Survey lanes are placed 3
feet apart
RCA/CA; replace survey
lanes
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 175 of 303
Table 22-4: MRS B2 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using Analog Detection (Continued)
Subsurface Clearance [MRS B2]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Ongoing instrument
function test
(Analog)
Beginning and end of
each day and each
time instrument is
turned on
Field Team Leader/
Running QC Summary/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
Audible response
consistent with expected
change in tone in presence
of object with documented
response
RCA/CA
Ongoing instrument
settings check
(Analog)
Hourly
Field Team Leader/
Running QC Summary/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
All instrument settings
adjusted to [insert
instrument-specific
specification]
RCA/CA
Geodetic Function Test
Daily (RTK GPS)
Each time equipment is
moved (RTS)
Field Team Leader/
GIS Data Recorded/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
Measured position of
control point within 0.10 m
of ground truth
RCA/CA; document
questionable information in
database
Geodetic Accuracy
(Confirm Valid Position)
Evaluated for each
measurement
Field Team Leader/
GIS data recorded/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
GPS status flag indicates
RTK fix (RTK GPS)
RCA/CA; document
questionable information in
database
Survey Speed
Evaluated for each
survey lane
UXOQCS/
QC Summary/
QC Geophysicist
98% <0.45 m/s; 100% <
0.50 m/s
RCA/CA; recollect data
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 176 of 303
Table 22-4: MRS B2 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using Analog Detection (Continued)
Intrusive Investigation [MRS B2]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Geodetic Equipment
Function Test
Daily (RTKGPS)
Each time equipment is
moved (RTS)
Field Team Leader/
GIS data recorded/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
Measured position of
control point within 0.10 m
of ground truth
RCA/CA; document
questionable information in
database
Documenting
recovered material
Daily
UXOQC/
GIS data recorded/
QC Geophysicist
All metallic debris collected
is documented for the
following attributes:
Designation as MEC, MD,
Seed, RRD or NMRD; MEC
and MD described by type;
weight; depth; and as TOI
or non-TOI. Photos
displaying all MD recovered
(individual MD photos not
necessary), and photos
showing all surfaces of
each MEC are recorded.
RCA/CA; document
questionable information in
database
Verification of
Subsurface Clearance
Survey Unit
UXOQCS/
QC Summary/
QC Geophysicist
Per each survey unit,
minimum one lane from
each operator is inspected,
or
Per each survey unit,
minimum [insert number of
operators per team] are
inspected; lanes are
randomly located.
RCA/CA; Redo survey unit
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 177 of 303
Table 22-4: MRS B2 - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using Analog Detection (Continued)
Intrusive Investigation [MRS B2]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Seed Recovery
Survey Unit
QC Geophysicist/
QC Summary/
QA Geophysicist
100% of the QC and QA
seeds recorded in the
intrusive database
RCA/CA; Redo survey unit
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 178 of 303
Table 22-5: MRS C - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using Dynamic AGC followed by Cued AGC
Site Preparation [MRS C]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Survey control (loop
closure)
At beginning of project
Project Geophysicist or
Surveyor/
Survey Control Report/
QC Geophysicist
All loop closures within
0.50 m (if established from
existing monument(s))
Estimated accuracy from
static GPS occupation
calculations (e.g., OPUS)
less than or equal to 5cm.
RCA/CA: reset survey
monuments
Construct IVS:
Verify as-built IVS
against design plan
(DGM)
Once following IVS
construction
Project Geophysicist/
IVS Technical
Memorandum/
Lead Organization
Small ISO seed items buried
at 0.15 m; All seeds buried
horizontally in the cross-
track orientation
RCA/CA: Make necessary
changes to seeded items and
re-verify
Construct Instrument
Test Strip (ITS):
Verify as-built ITS
against design plan
(Analog sensors)
Once following ITS
construction
Project Geophysicist/
ITS Technical
Memorandum/
Lead Organization
Small ISO seed items for
analog methods buried at
0.30 m; All seeds buried
horizontally in the cross-
track orientation
RCA/CA: Make necessary
changes to seeded items and
re-verify
Verify correct assembly
(All sensors)
Once following
assembly
Field Team Leader/
Instrument Assembly
Checklist/
Project Geophysicist
As specified in Assembly
Checklist
RCA/CA: Make necessary
adjustments and re-verify
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 179 of 303
Table 22-5: MRS C - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using Dynamic AGC followed by Cued AGC (Continued)
Site Preparation [MRS C]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Initial instrument
function test: Five
measurements over a
small ISO80 target, one
in each quadrant of the
sensor and one directly
under the center of the
array; Derived
polarizabilities for each
measurement are
compared to the library
(AGC)
Once following
assembly
Field Team Leader/
Instrument Assembly
Checklist/
Project Geophysicist
Library match metric > 0.95
for each of the five sets of
inverted polarizabilities
RCA/CA: Make necessary
adjustments, and re-verify
Initial Instrument
Function Test
(Analog)
Once upon arrival at
project site
Field Geophysicist or
UXO Team Lead/
Initial IVS Memorandum/
Project Geophysicist or
designee
Audible response
consistent with expected
change in tone in presence
of standard object
RCA/CA: Make necessary
adjustments, and re-verify
Geodetic Equipment
Function Test
Daily (RTKGPS)
Each time equipment is
moved (RTS)
Field Team Leader/
GIS data recorded/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
Measured position of
control point within 0.10 m
of ground truth
RCA/CA; document
questionable information in
database
Initial detection survey
positioning accuracy
(IVS)
(DGM)
Once prior to start of
data acquisition
Project Geophysicist/
IVS Memorandum/
QC Geophysicist
Derived positions of IVS
target(s) are within 0.25 m
of the ground truth
locations
RCA/CA: Make necessary
adjustments, and re-verify
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 180 of 303
Table 22-5: MRS C - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using Dynamic AGC followed by Cued AGC (Continued)
Site Preparation [MRS C]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Initial detection survey
Check for interference
surrounding seed
response (IVS)
(All sensors)
Once prior to start of
data acquisition
Project Geophysicist/
IVS Memorandum/
QC Geophysicist
All seeds placed in
locations that are free of
detected anomalies within
a radius of > 1.5 m
RCA/CA; and re-verify MQO
Initial derived
polarizabilities accuracy
(IVS)
(AGC)
Once during initial
system IVS test
Project Geophysicist/
IVS memorandum/
QC Geophysicist
Library Match metric > 0.9
for each set of inverted
polarizabilities
RCA/CA
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 181 of 303
Table 22-5: MRS C - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using Dynamic AGC followed by Cued AGC (Continued)
Detection Survey [MRS C]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Ongoing instrument
function test
(DGM)
Beginning and end of
each day and each
time instrument is
turned on
Field Team Leader/
Running QC Summary/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
Response (mean static
spike minus mean static
background within 20% of
predicted response
RCA/CA: Make necessary
repairs and reverify
Ongoing instrument
function test
(Analog- Surface
sweep)
Beginning and end of
each day and each
time instrument is
turned on
Field Team Leader/
Running QC Summary/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
Audible response
consistent with expected
change in tone in presence
of object with documented
response
RCA/CA
Ongoing instrument
settings check
(Analog)
Hourly
Field Team Leader/
Running QC Summary/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
All instrument settings
adjusted to [insert
instrument-specific
specification]
RCA/CA
Ongoing detection
survey positioning
precision (IVS)
(DGM)
Beginning and end of
each day
Project Geophysicist/
Running QC Summary/
QC Geophysicist
Derived positions of IVS
target(s) within 0.25 m of
the average locations
RCA/CA
In-line measurement
spacing
(DGM)
Verified for each
transect using
[describe tool to be
used]based upon
monostatic Z coil data
positions
Project Geophysicist/
Running QC Summary/
QC Geophysicist
100% < 0.20 m between
successive measurements
with mean < 0.10 m.
Coverage gaps are filled or
adequately explained (e.g.,
unsafe terrain)
RCA/CA
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 182 of 303
Table 22-5: MRS C - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using Dynamic AGC followed by Cued AGC (Continued)
Detection Survey [MRS C]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Coverage (DGM)
Verified for each
survey unit using
(describe tool to be
used)
Project Geophysicist/
Running QC Summary/
QC Geophysicist
100% < Instrument Specific
cross-track (0.70 m)
measurement spacing
(excluding site specific
access limitations, e.g.,
obstacles, unsafe, terrain)
RCA/CA
Battery voltage
(DGM)
Verify battery voltage
is within operating
specifications of sensor
Field Team Leader/
Running QC Summary/
Project Geophysicist
Voltage must be > [Enter
minimum instrument-
specific requirement]
RCA/CA: out of spec data
rejected
Valid orientation data
(DGM)
Evaluated for each
sensor measurement
Field Team Leader/
QC Database/
Project/QC Geophysicist
Orientation data reviewed
and appear reasonable
within bounds appropriate
to site (e.g., roll and pitch <
15 degrees absolute value)
RCA/CA
Dynamic noise
assessment (DGM)
Verified for each
selected background
window
Project Geophysicist /
Project database/
QC Geophysicist
All receiver channels
exceeding pre-defined
dynamic noise threshold
for time gate (Define time
gate: e.g., TEMSENSE = 0.3
mV/A channel 15) are
flagged for review
RCA/CA; (SOP must address
process for flagging and
recollecting data as
necessary)
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 183 of 303
Table 22-5: MRS C - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using Dynamic AGC followed by Cued AGC (Continued)
Detection Survey [MRS C]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Detection survey
performance
(DGM)
Blind QC seeds will be
distributed such that
each field team
encounters an average
of at least one seed per
day. Seeds to be placed
throughout expected
detection depth range.
[QC seeding design will
vary between 1-3
seeds per day to
account for production
variability]
QC Geophysicist/
Running QC Summary/
Lead Organization QA
Geophysicist
All blind QC seeds must be
detected and positioned
within a 0.40 m radius of
ground truth.
RCA/CA: Adjust picking
routine. If seeding density
not met, the density will be
increased in subsequent
survey units.
Detection Survey
Performance (DGM)
Blind validation seeds
will be distributed such
that each field team
encounters an average
of at least one seed per
day [Validation seeding
design will vary
between 1-3 seeds per
day to account for
production variability]
QA Geophysicist or 3rd
party contractor/
Validation Seed Log/
All blind validation seeds
must be detected and
positioned within a 0.40 m
radius of ground truth
RCA/CA: Verify instrument
is functioning correctly; if so,
reduce threshold, or
determine if item is buried
too deep. If instrument is
not functioning correctly,
recollect data. If seeding
density not met, the density
will be increased in
subsequent survey units.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 184 of 303
Table 22-5: MRS C - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using Dynamic AGC followed by Cued AGC (Continued)
Detection Survey [MRS C]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Reporting Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Geodetic Accuracy
(Confirm Valid Position)
Evaluated for each
measurement
Field Team Leader/
GIS data recorded/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
GPS status flag indicates
RTKfix (RTKGPS)
RTS passes Geodetic
Function Test (RTS)
RCA/CA; document
questionable information in
database
Cued Survey [MRS C]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Report Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Geodetic Equipment
Function Test
Daily (RTKGPS)
Each time equipment is
moved (RTS)
Field Team Leader/
GIS data recorded/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
Measured position of
control point within 0.10 m
of ground truth
RCA/CA; document
questionable information in
database
Geodetic Accuracy
(Confirm Valid
Position)
Evaluated for each
measurement
Field Team Leader/
GIS data recorded/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
GPS status flag indicates
RTK fix (RTKGPS)
RTS passes Geodetic
Function Test (RTS)
RCA/CA; document
questionable information in
database
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 185 of 303
Table 22-5: MRS C - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using Dynamic AGC followed by Cued AGC (Continued)
Cued Survey [MRS C]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Report Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Orientation data reviewed
Evaluated for each
sensor measurement
Field Team Leader/
and appear reasonable
Valid orientation data
QC Database/
within bounds appropriate
Project/QC Geophysicist
to site (e.g., roll and pitch <
15 degrees absolute value)
Ongoing production
Background data
Field Team Leader/
Background data from a
RCA/CA: Document
area background
collected a minimum of
Field Log and Running QC
verified location collected
environmental changes;
measurements
every two hours during
Summary/
within [Insert instrument-
Project Geophysicist must
production (or more
Project Geophysicist
specific requirements, not
approve before proceeding.
frequently, per
to exceed two hours] of all
instrument-specific
cued data points.
requirements
Ongoing derived target
Beginning and end of
Project Geophysicist/
All IVS items fit locations
RCA/CA
position precision (IVS)
each day as part of IVS
testing
Running QC Summary/
QC Geophysicist
within 0.25 m of average of
derived fit locations
Ongoing derived
Beginning and end of
Project Geophysicist/
Library Match to initial
RCA/CA
polarizabilities
each day as part of IVS
Running QC Summary/
polarizabilities metric > 0.9
precision (IVS)
testing
QC Geophysicist
for each set of three
inverted polarizabilities
Ongoing Instrument
Beginning and end of
Field Team Leader/
Response (mean static spike
RCA/CA: Make necessary
Function Test
each day and each time
Running QC Summary
minus mean static
repairs and re-verify
(Instrument response
instrument is turned on
(Excel/Geosoft)/
background) within 20% of
amplitudes)
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
predicted response for all
Tx/Rx combinations
Transmit current levels
Evaluated for each
Field Team Leader/
Current must be > [Insert
RCA/CA: stop data
sensor measurement
Running QC Summary/
Project Geophysicist
instrument-specific
requirements]
acquisition activities until
condition corrected
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 186 of 303
Table 22-5: MRS C - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using Dynamic AGC followed by Cued AGC (Continued)
Cued Survey [MRS C]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Report Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Confirm adequate
spacing between units
Evaluated at start of
each day (or grid)
Field Team Leader/
Field Logbook/
Project Geophysicist
Separation must be >
[Insert instrument-specific
requirements]
RCA/CA: Recollect data
Cued interrogation
Evaluated for all targets
on cued list
Project Geophysicist/
UX-A Source Geosoft
database/
QC Geophysicist
Offset between center of
the sensor and the flag, or
target, location must be <
0.40 m
RCA/CA: Recollect data
Confirm inversion
model supports
classification
(1 of 3)
Evaluated for models
derived from a
measurement and used
to make TOI/non-TOI
decision (i.e., single
item and/or multi-item
models)
Project Geophysicist/
UX-A Source Geosoft
database/
QC Geophysicist
Derived model response
must fit the observed data
with a fit coherence > 0.8
Follow procedure in SOP or
RCA/CA
Confirm inversion
model supports
classification
(2 of 3)
Evaluated for derived
target
Project Geophysicist/
UX-A Source Geosoft
database/
QC Geophysicist
Fit location estimate of item
< 0.40 m from center of
sensor
Follow procedure in SOP or
RCA/CA; if designated asTOI,
no additional recollection
necessary
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 187 of 303
Table 22-5: MRS C - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using Dynamic AGC followed by Cued AGC (Continued)
Cued Survey [MRS C]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Report Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Confirm inversion
model supports
classification
(3 of 3)
Evaluated for all seeds
QC Geophysicist/
Seed Tracking Log/
Lead Organization QA
Geophysicist
100% of predicted seed (QC
and Validation) positions <
0.25 m radially from known
position (x, y). Z < 0 .15 m.
RCA/CA
Classification
performance
Evaluated for all seeds
QC Geophysicist/
Seed Tracking Log/
Lead Organization QA
Geophysicist
100% of QC/Validation
Seeds classified as TOI and
the correct size is predicted
RCA/CA
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 188 of 303
Table 22-5: MRS C - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using Dynamic AGC followed by Cued AGC (Continued)
Intrusive Investigation [MRS C]
Measurement
Quality Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Report Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Geodetic Equipment
Function Test
Daily (RTKGPS)
Each time equipment is
moved (RTS)
Field Team Leader/
GIS data recorded/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
Measured position of
control point within 0.10 m
of ground truth
RCA/CA; document
questionable information in
database
Geodetic Accuracy
(Confirm Valid
Position)
Evaluated for each
measurement
Field Team Leader/
GIS data recorded/
Project/QC Geophysicist
or designee
GPS status flag indicates
RTKfix (RTKGPS)
RTS passes Geodetic
Function Test (RTS)
RCA/CA; document
questionable information in
database
Documenting
recovered sources
Daily
UXOQCS/
GIS data recorded/
QC Geophysicist
All metallic debris collected
is documented for the
following attributes:
Designation as MEC, MD,
Seed, RRD or non-
munitions-related debris;
MEC and MD described by
type; weight; depth; and as
TOI or non-TOI. Photos
displaying all MD recovered
at each target location
(individual MD photos not
necessary), and photos
showing all surfaces of each
MEC are recorded.
RCA/CA; document
questionable information in
database
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 189 of 303
Table 22-5: MRS C - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using Dynamic AGC followed by Cued AGC (Continued)
Intrusive Investigation [MRS C]
Measurement Quality
Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Report Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Confirm derived
features match ground
truth (lof 2)
Evaluated for all
recovered items
including seeds (applies
only to single, compact
objects [e.g., does not
apply to a bed of nails
or long wires])
Project Geophysicist/
Running QC Summary or
Intrusive Database/
QC Geophysicist
100% of recovered item
positions (excluding
inconclusive category) <
0.25 m from predicted
position (x, y); Recovered
item depths are recorded
within 15 cm of predicted
depth
RCA/CA
Confirm derived
features match ground
truth (2 or 2)
Evaluated for all
recovered items
including seeds
Project Geophysicist/
Dig List and Intrusive
Database/
Project or QC
Geophysicist
Cued data analysis shows
100% of seeds & recovered
items have polarizability
parameters that are
consistent with their actual
size, shape/symmetry, and
wall thickness
RCA/CA
Verification of
TOI/non-TOI threshold
Dig 200 anomalies
beyond the last
recovered IOC on the
Dig List per delivery
unit
Project Geophysicist/
Verification and
Validation Report/
QC Geophysicist
100% of predicted non-TOI
intrusively investigated
qualitatively matches
predicted size/shape and
are non-IOC
RCA/CA; Adjust threshold.
Classification
Validation
Selection of 200 non-
TOI per delivery unit
QC Geophysicist/
Verification and
Validation/
Lead Organization QA
Geophysicist
100% of predicted non-TOI
intrusively investigated
qualitatively matches
predicted size/shape and
they are not IOC
RCA/CA
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 190 of 303
Table 22-5: MRS C - MEC Surface and Subsurface Removal using Dynamic AGC followed by Cued AGC (Continued)
Intrusive Investigation [MRS C]
Measurement Quality
Objective
MQO#
Frequency
Responsible Person/
Report Method/
Verified by:
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Post-dig Verification
[In cases where UU/UE
is a goal]
Evaluated for each dig
location
Project Geophysicist/
Post-dig digital
remapping (dynamic or
cued)/
QC Geophysicist
AGC results indicate original
polarizabilities resulting in
TOI are no longer present
and no additional TOI
sources present above the
project stop-dig threshold.
Inconclusive dig locations
verify signal is resolved.
RCA/CA
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 191 of 303
[This page intentionally left blank]
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 192 of 303
Worksheet #29: Data Management, Project Documents, and Records
(UFP-QAPP Manual Section 3.5.1)
Part 1 of this worksheet provides minimum specifications for all data management tasks and deliverables. Where applicable, specific versions or
dates of software used should be documented. Part 2 describes procedures for controlling project documents, records, and databases. Its
purpose is to ensure data completeness, data integrity, traceability, and ease of retrieval. A separate table should be prepared for each MRS
addressed in the project-specific MR-QAPP. The documents listed on this worksheet should include all planning documents as well as those
listed on worksheet #17.
Part 1: Data Management Specifications
Computer Files and Digital Data: All final document files, including reports, figures, and tables, will be submitted in electronic format as specified
by the DoD client. [List specifications] Data management and backup must be performed in accordance with the contractor's documented
quality system. [Describe or reference applicable requirements]
TOI Library: This worksheet must document the version (date) of the DoD target of interest (TOI) library used and describe or reference
procedures to be used to develop the site-specific TOI library. [Describe here] The site-specific TOI library used must be updated as noted below
and included in data deliverables.
Part 2: Control of Documents, Records, and Databases
Table 29-1: Minimum Required Documents and Records [Examples are based on MRS Al]
Document/Record
Completion/
Update Frequency
Format/
Storage Location/
Archive Requirements
Conceptual site model
Final project-specific MR-QAPP
Standard operating procedures
Site-specific TOI library
QC seeding plan and firewall plan
Surveyor reports
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 193 of 303
Table 29-1: Minimum Required Documents and Records [Examples are based on MRS Al] (Continued)
Document/Record
Completion/
Update Frequency
Format/
Storage Location/
Archive Requirements
Surface sweep technical memoranda
Database of control points and survey units
QC seed placement reports
Validation seed placement reports
Completed instrument-assembly checklist
IVS memoranda
Daily IVS summaries
Daily QC reports
Weekly QC reports
Target selection technical memorandum
Anomaly lists & maps
Database (library match results)
TOI/non-TOI classification spreadsheet
Classification decision plots
Ranked anomaly list
Database of excavation results
Source database
Photographs
Comparison results (excavated objects)
Intrusive results database
Final verification/validation plan
Disposal records
Data validation reports
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 194 of 303
Table 29-1: Minimum Required Documents and Records [Examples are based on MRS Al] (Continued)
Document/Record
Completion/
Update Frequency
Format/
Storage Location/
Archive Requirements
DUA reports
Final RA report
UU/UE memorandum
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 195 of 303
[This page intentionally left blank.]
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 196 of 303
Worksheet #31, 32 & 33: Assessments and Corrective Action
(UFP-QAPP Manual Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2)
This worksheet is used to document responsibilities and procedures for conducting project assessments,
documenting assessments, responding to assessment findings, and implementing corrective action.
Appropriately scheduled assessments during each group of related project activities allow management
to identify problems while the activities are being implemented, thereby allowing processes to be
corrected before they have a negative impact on the achievement of DQOs and measurement
performance criteria (MPCs). This worksheet should reference assessment checklists and include them in
an appendix to the QAPP.
For this project, related activities are grouped as follows:
1. Site preparation
2. Detection survey
3. Cued survey (where applicable)
4. Intrusive investigation and removal
Table 31-1: Assessment Schedule
Assessment
Type
Schedule/
Frequency
Responsible
Party
Assessment
Deliverable
Deliverable
Due Date
Responsible
for
Responding
to
Assessment
Findings
Assessment
Response
Documentation
and Timeframe
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 197 of 303
[This page intentionally left blank.]
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 198 of 303
Worksheet #35: Data Verification and Validation Procedures
(UFP-QAPP Manual Sections 5.2.2)
This worksheet documents procedures that will be used to verify and validate project data. Data verification is a completeness check to confirm
that all required activities were conducted, all specified records are present, and the contents of the records are complete. Data validation is the
evaluation of conformance to stated requirements. [Some examples are provided in blue text; however, this is not a comprehensive list.]
Table 35-1: Data Verification and Validation Procedures
Activity and
Records Reviewed
Requirements/
Specifications
Process Description/Frequency
Responsible Person
Documentation
Field
Logbook/Running QC
Summary
QAPP, SOPs
All information is complete for each day of field
activities. Any changes/exceptions are documented and
have been reported in accordance with requirements.
Required signatures are present.
Project Geophysicist
Daily QC Report
Instrument Assembly
Checklist
SOP X, WS #22
Instrument Assembly has completed according to
SOP . MQOs have been achieved, with any exceptions
noted. If appropriate, corrective actions have been
completed. Signatures and dates are present.
Project Geophysicist
SOP Checklist
Daily QC Report
IVS Technical
Memorandum
SOPY, WS #22
Initial IVS Survey has been conducted according to SOP
. Checklist has been completed. All specifications
have been achieved, or exceptions noted. If
appropriate, corrective actions have been completed.
Signatures and dates are present.
Project Geophysicist
SOP Checklist
Daily QC Report
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 199 of 303
[This page intentionally left blank.]
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 200 of 303
Worksheet #37: Data Usability Assessment
The DUA involves a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of environmental data to determine if the
project data are of the right type, quality, and quantity to support the MPCs and DQOs specific to each
phase of the project. It involves a retrospective review of the systematic planning process to evaluate
whether underlying assumptions are supported, sources of uncertainty have been managed
appropriately, data are representative of the population of interest, and the results can be used as
intended with an acceptable level of confidence.
This worksheet documents procedures that will be used to perform the DUA. The DUA is performed by
key members of the project team (defined during the SPP) at the conclusion of each phase of
investigation before proceeding to the next phase, as shown on Figure 17-1. [Note: one or more survey
units may be grouped into a delivery unit for the purpose of conducting the DUA. Final verification and
validation digs are tied to the delivery unit. Delivery units will encompass one or more contiguous
geographic areas for which 100% of relevant coverage metrics have been achieved. Delivery units are
established by the project team during project planning. Smaller sites may have only one delivery unit
per MRS while larger sites may have more.
The DUA will identify personnel (organization and position/title) responsible for participating in the data
usability assessment: [Note: the same personnel should participate in all phases of the DUA.] It will
identify documents used as input to each phase of the data usability assessment and describe how the
phases of the DUA will be documented. Reference Worksheet #29 for required documents and
Worksheet #17 for the timing of the document submission in the workflow of the project.
1. Identify personnel (organization and position/title) responsible for participating in the data
usability assessment, [Note: the same personnel should participate in all phases of the DUA],
For the Government
The DoD Remedial Project Manager
The DoD Technical Manager
The Project Geophysicist
The Project Quality Assurance Manager
The Ordnance and Explosives Safety Specialist
For the Contractor
The Project Manager
The Project Geophysicist
The Quality Control Geophysicist
The Field Geophysicist (Lead)
The UXOQCS
The Regulator
2. Identify documents used as input to each phase of the DUA.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Contract Specifications
Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 201 of 303
Weekly QC Reports
Assessment Reports
Corrective Action Reports
Production Area Seed Report
IVS Memoranda
Data Validation Reports
3. Describe how the DUA will be documented:
[Example] The detection and cued survey DUAs will be documented in a detection survey DUA
report and cued survey DUA report, respectively. The final data usability assessment report will
be included as an appendix to the Final Report.
4. Describe the DUA process to be used:
The DUA will be conducted by evaluating data products and project findings to answer the
questions in the four-step process below.
Appendix D contains DUAs for the example sites.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 202 of 303
Table 37-1: Data Usability Assessment
Step
Process
Step 1
Review the project's objectives and sampling design
Are underlying assumptions in the initial CSM valid? Review the data quality objectives. Were the project boundaries appropriate? Review the
sampling design as implemented for consistency with stated objectives. Were sources of uncertainty accounted for and appropriately managed?
Summarize any deviations from the planned sampling design and describe their impacts on the data quality objectives.
Step 2
Review the data verification/validation outputs and evaluate conformance to MPCs documented on Worksheet #12
Review available QA/QC reports, including weekly QC reports, assessment reports, corrective action reports, and the data verification/validation
reports. Evaluate the implications of unacceptable QC results. For any non-conformances, was the RCA/CA effective? Evaluate conformance to
MPCs documented on Worksheet #12. Summarize the impacts of non-conformances on data usability.
Evaluate data completeness. Identify data gaps (i.e., data inputs that have not been satisfied) and summarize their impact on the DQOs.
Step 3
Document data usability, update the CSM, and draw conclusions
Determine if the data can be used as intended, considering implications of deviations and corrective actions. Assess the performance of the
sampling design and identify any limitations on data use. Determine whether the data are suitable for proceeding to next phase of the project.
Update the CSM, apply decision rules, and draw conclusions.
Step 4
Document lessons learned and make recommendations
Summarize lessons learned and make recommendations for changes to DQOs or the sampling design for future delivery units at the site, or future
investigations. Prepare the data usability summary report.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 203 of 303
[This page intentionally left blank.]
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 204 of 303
Appendix A: Measurement Quality Objectives for Geophysical Systems not Illustrated in this Document
Table A-l: Dynamic One-Pass AGC Surveys
Measurement Quality
Objective
Frequency
Responsible Person/Report
Method/Verified by
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Verify correct
assembly
Once following
assembly
Field Team Leader/
instrument assembly
checklist/ Project
Geophysicist
As specified in SOP, Assembly
checklist
RCA/CA
Geodetic equipment
functionality
Daily for RTKGPS
Operator/QC Database/QC
Geophysicist
Confirm base station alignment
with control point +/-10 cm
RCA/CA
Initial sensor function
test
Once following
assembly
Field Team Leader/
instrument assembly
checklist/ Project
Geophysicist
For all channels tested, the
response (mean static spike
minus mean static background) is
within 20% of reference
response.
RCA/CA
Initial derived
polarizabilities
accuracy (IVS)
Once during initial
system IVS test
Project Geophysicist/ IVS
Technical Memorandum/QC
Geophysicist
Library match metric 0.9 or
higher for each set of inverted
polarizabilities
RCA/CA
Initial derived target
position accuracy (IVS)
Once during initial
system IVS test
Project Geophysicist/IVS
Technical Memorandum/QC
Geophysicist
All IVS item fit locations within
9.8 inches (0.25 meters) of
ground truth locations
RCA/CA
Ongoing derived
polarizabilities
accuracy (IVS)
Beginning and end
of each day as
part of IVS testing
Project Geophysicist/ QC
Database/QC Geophysicist
Library match metric of 0.9 or
higher for each set of inverted
polarizabilities
RCA/CA
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 205 of 303
Table A-l: Dynamic One-Pass AGC Surveys (Continued)
Measurement Quality
Objective
Frequency
Responsible Person/Report
Method/Verified by
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Ongoing derived target
position accuracy (IVS)
Beginning and end
of each day as
part of IVS testing
Project Geophysicist/ QC
Database/ QC Geophysicist
All IVS items fit locations within
9.8 inches (0.25 meters) of
ground truth locations
RCA/CA
Ongoing instrument
function test
Beginning and end
of each day as
part of IVS testing
Field Team Leader/ QC
Database/ Project
Geophysicist
For all channels tested, the
response (mean static spike
minus mean static background) is
within 20% of reference
response.
RCA/CA
Battery Voltage/
Transmit current levels
Evaluated for each
file
Field Team Leader/Field Logs/
Project Geophysicist
APEX: Battery voltage maintained
above 12.5V
UltraTEM Screener: Current >15A
UltraTEM Classifier: Current >15A
RCA/CA
Valid orientation data
Evaluated for each
sensor
measurement
Field Team Leader/ QC
Database/ Project
Geophysicist
Orientation data reviewed and
appear reasonable within bounds
appropriate to site (e.g., roll and
pitch <15 degrees absolute value)
RCA/CA
Dynamic Noise
Assessment
Verified for each
selected
background
window
GDA/QC Database/Project or
QC Geophysicist
All receiver channels exceeding
pre-defined dynamic noise
threshold for (Define time gate:
e.g., APEX = 3.43 ms) time gate
are flagged for review
RCA/CA; (SOP must address process
for flagging and recollecting data as
necessary)
Valid position data
Per measurement
GDA/QC Database/QC
Geophysicist
GPS status flag indicates RTKfix
quality 4
RCA/CA
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 206 of 303
Table A-l: Dynamic One-Pass AGC Surveys (Continued)
Measurement Quality
Objective
Frequency
Responsible Person/Report
Method/Verified by
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
In-Line Measurement
Spacing
Verified for each
transect, based
upon sensor head
center positions.
Geophysical Data Analyst
(GDA)/QC Database/QC
Geophysicist
100% < 0.2m between successive
measurements (excluding
background areas of the
transect) with mean < 0.1m
RCA/CA
Dynamic One-Pass
Coverage
All transects
GDA/QC report/QC
Geophysicist
100% at < Instrument Specific
cross-track measurement spacing
(excluding site specific access
limitations, e.g., obstacles,
unsafe terrain, etc.)
APEX: 0.8m
Screener: 100% at < 1.75 m (1-Tx
man-portable) 2.05 (2-Tx towed)
line spacing.
Classifier: 100% at < 2.25 m line
spacing
Transects:
100% of planned transect paths
within receiver swath.
RCA/CA
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 207 of 303
Table A-l: Dynamic One-Pass AGC Surveys (Continued)
Measurement Quality
Objective
Frequency
Responsible Person/Report
Method/Verified by
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Size and decay rate
threshold verification
(when ISS is used)
Collect cued data
or intrusively
investigate an
additional 200
anomalies
excluded on the
basis of ISS
Project Geophysicist/QC
report/QC Geophysicist
Cued data analysis or intrusive
results confirm all 200 anomalies
are non-TOI
RCA/CA
In-Line Measurement
Spacing (Dynamic-
Cued APEX)
Verified for each
transect, based
upon sensor head
center positions.
Geophysical Data Analyst
(GDA)/QC Database/QC
Geophysicist
100% < 0.2m between successive
measurements (excluding
background areas of the
transect) with mean < 0.1m
CA
Dynamic-cued survey
coverage (Dynamic-
Cued APEX)
All cued transects
GDA/QC report/QC
Geophysicist
All flag locations are >lm from
transect ends and <0.4m from
center of sensor at closest point
of approach
Recollect transects
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 208 of 303
Table A-2: Simultaneous Location and Mapping MQOs
Measurement Quality
Objective
Frequency
Responsible Person/Report
Method/Verified by
Acceptance Criteria
Failure Response
Geodetic Accuracy
Evaluated for each
base map
Project Geophysicist/ QC
Database/ QC Geophysicist
Maximum error reported in the
UXO_QC.csv file less than or
equal to 8cm.
RCA/CA
Geodetic Accuracy
Evaluated for each
measurement
Project Geophysicist/ QC
Database/ QC Geophysicist
Recorded SLAM localization
confidence quality greater than 5
(National Marine Electronics
Association (NMEA) output;
50,000 for SLAM output).
RCA/CA
Geodetic Equipment
Function Test
Each time
localization is
initiated
Field Team Leader/field
forms/ Project Geophysicist
Measured position of control
point within 10 cm of ground
truth.
RCA/CA
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 209 of 303
QAPP Appendix B: Site-specific Records of Decision [Reserved]
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 210 of 303
QAPP Appendix C: Standard Operating Procedures [Reserved]
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 211 of 303
[This page intentionally left blank.]
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 212 of 303
Appendix D: Example Data Usability Assessment Reports
The format used in the following examples, based on Worksheet #37, is suitable to document the result of the DUA(s) as the project proceeds,
and that is the format the project team has chosen to use.
Example #1: MRS A1 Maneuver Area Development Area - Surface and Subsurface Removal using non-AGC DGM/AGC
DUAs for MRS A1 were performed at (1) the conclusion of the detection survey and analysis, (2) the conclusion of the AGC data collection and
analysis, and (3) the conclusion of the project.
MRS A1 - Detection Survey DUA
Identify personnel (organization and position/title) who participated in the data usability assessment: [Note: The same personnel should
participate in all phases of the DUA.] For the Government
The DoD Remedial Project Manager
The DoD Technical Manager
The Project Geophysicist
The Project Quality Assurance Manager
The Ordnance and Explosives Safety Specialist (OESS)
For the Contractor
The Project Manager
The Project Geophysicist
The Quality Control Geophysicist
The Field Geophysicist (Lead)
The UXOQCS
The Regulator
Identify documents used as input to the detection survey data usability assessment:
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Contract Specifications
Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan
Weekly QC Reports
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 213 of 303
Assessment Reports Corrective Action Reports
Production Area Seed Report
IVS Memoranda
Detection Survey Data Validation Report
Step 1. Review the project's objectives and sampling design
Step la. Are underlying assumptions in the initial CSM still valid? Were the project boundaries appropriate? Review the sampling design as
implemented for consistency with stated objectives. Were sources of uncertainty accounted for and appropriately managed? Summarize any
deviations from the planned sampling design.
The primary objective of the removal action in MRS A1 was to remove:
All 60-mm mortars to a depth of 0.45 m bgs.
Practice hand grenades, signals, flares, pyrotechnics, practice 2.36" rockets, and practice anti-tank mines to a depth of 0.30 m bgs.
Any other munitions present on the site to their maximum reliable detection depth at the anomaly selection criteria set for the 60-mm
mortars.
The munitions-related objects recovered in the surface sweep include:
MD from 60-mm smoke and illumination mortars.
MD associated with practice hand grenades.
Debris from small arms.
No evidence of other munitions was found. The underlying assumptions are consistent with all observations to date.
The primary uncertainty related to the design of the detection step was lack of knowledge of the expected munitions in a maneuver area. The
initial CSM provided evidence from historical records of use, but they are often incomplete and a wide variety of activities involving a variety of
possible munitions could have taken place. MRS A1 was determined to be a low-use area during the Rl, so no detailed characterization work was
done. The anomaly selection criteria were set to detect a mortar to the required depth of 0.45 m, which will also detect the other items
potentially present to 0.30 m.
Other uncertainties include whether site noise would allow for consistent detection of TOI to the required depth across the entire site and
whether any portions of the site would have anomaly densities too high to apply AGC (such as trenches or burial pits). Data were reviewed and
no areas were found where the noise or the density of anomalies was too high.
Step lb. Summarize any deviations from the planned sampling design and describe their impacts on the data quality objectives.
The sampling design was implemented as planned.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 214 of 303
Step 2. Review the data verification/validation outputs and evaluate conformance to MPCs documented on Worksheet #12
Step 2a. Review available QA/QC reports, including weekly QC reports, assessment reports, corrective action reports, and the data
verification/validation reports. Evaluate the implications of unacceptable QC results. For any non-conformances, was the RCA/CA effective?
Summarize the impacts of non-conformances on data usability.
The data validation report contains a summary of all data, QC results, as well as non-conformances and RCA/CA. All data were collected as
planned. CA were effective. Upon implementation of the CA, no non-conformances were repeated. At the conclusion of the survey, all data
complied with all MPCs and MQOs.
Table D-l: Summary of non-conformances, root causes, and corrective action
Non-conforming MQO
Root cause
Corrective action
implemented?
Missed seed (small ISO80) in
EM61 detection survey
Buried deeper than specified
N/A - Not a valid seed.
Removed from
consideration
EM61 swapped out battery
and did not do a function test
Operators failed to follow SOP
Recollected data
Retrained staff
Added to daily brief
Data gaps in EM61 survey
Gullies
Infilled with handheld
EM61 data collection
that met detection
requirements
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 215 of 303
Step 2b. Evaluate conformance to MPCs documented on Worksheet #12.
Table D-2: MPC Evaluation for MRS A1 - Detection Survey
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity
Used to Assess
Performance
Status
DFW 1 - Site Preparation and CSM
1. Accessibility
Completeness
All areas inaccessible to remediation or
inaccessible to use of proposed
geophysical systems are identified and
mapped in a GIS.
Visual Inspection QA
Report and/or GIS
Database
Complete. Inaccessible areas
documented in GIS.
2. IOC Completeness
Representativeness/
Completeness
(recoverability)
All recoveries (IOC and MD) were
reviewed and CSM confirmed or
updated. All recovered munitions, as
well as munitions related to recovered
MD, were included in the site-specific
TOI library.
Surface Sweep Technical
Memorandum and
Updated CSM
Complete. Recovered IOC and MD
documented in surface sweep
technical memorandum. CSM
updated to reflect all recoveries
were consistent with initial CSM.
All recovered IOC verified in the
AGC library.
3. Surface Sweep Coverage
Representativeness/
Completeness
Surface sweep completed across the
entire site. Identified SRAs have been
documented.
Surface Sweep Technical
Memorandum and
Updated CSM
Complete. Surface sweep
memorandum and GIS indicate all
parts of the site were covered.
DFW 1 - Site Preparation and CSM
4. Survey Control
Completeness
All survey control points placed by PLS,
and survey control report submitted.
Surveyor and/or QC
Report
Complete
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 216 of 303
Table D-2: MPC Evaluation for MRS A1 - Detection Survey (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity
Used to Assess
Performance
Status
DFW 2 & 3 - IVS
5. IVS Construction
Accuracy/Completeness
Seeds placed so that each sensor
passes at least one seed item during
IVS surveys. Seed type, depth, and
location accuracy recorded during
placement.
IVS Memorandum
Complete
6. IVS Testing
Sensitivity/
Completeness
Detection equipment assembled
correctly and functioning as designed.
Detection threshold confirmed or site-
specific conditions on detection
capabilities are documented.
IVS Memorandum
Complete. Signals consistent with
REFERENCE REPORT. Measured
noise supports detection at the
chosen threshold.
DFW 2 - QC and Validation Seeding
7. QC Seeding
1) Representativeness
2) Completeness
3) Sensitivity
4) Accuracy
5) Comparability
Blind QC seeds will be placed at the
site by the contractor (1). Blind QC
seeds must be detectable as defined
by the DQOs and located throughout
the horizontal and vertical survey
boundaries defined in the DQOs (2,3).
Production Area QC
Seeding Report
Complete. QC seeding report
contains verified, as-buried
locations of seeds. All seeds were
buried at depths in the detectable
range of the sensor.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 217 of 303
Table D-2: MPC Evaluation for MRS A1 - Detection Survey (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/ Activity
Used to Assess
Performance
Status
8. Validation Seeding
1) Representativeness
2) Completeness
3) Sensitivity
4) Accuracy
5) Comparability
Blind Validation seeds will be placed
throughout the MRS footprint by the
Government (or its third-party
contractor) (1). Validation seeds must
be detectable as defined by the DQOs
and located at depths that result in
signals equivalent to 2-5 times the
detection threshold (2,3).
Validation Seeding
Report
Complete. Validation seed report
contains verified, as-buried locations
of seeds. All seeds were buried at
depths in the detectable range of
the sensor.
DFW 4 & 5 - Data Acquisition Detection Survey
9. Detection threshold
(non-AGC DGM)
Sensitivity
The detection threshold used to detect
a 60-mm mortar lying horizontally at a
depth of 0.45 m is 11.7 mV on channel
2.
1) Review of sampling
design
2) Initial and ongoing
instrument
verification strip
(IVS) surveys
3) Blind QC and
validation seed
detection
4) RMS background
maps show all areas
are less than or
equal to 20% of the
threshold
Complete. IVS results support
threshold met project objectives.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 218 of 303
Table D-2: MPC Evaluation for MRS A1 - Detection Survey (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/ Activity
Used to Assess
Performance
Status
DFW 4 & 5 - Data Acquisition Detection Survey
10. Detection Survey
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of QC seeds detected
1) QC Seed Database
2) RCA/CA review and
acceptance
Complete. All QC seeds except one,
detected at correct location with signal
consistent with predictions.
Seed 232 was not detected at the
anomaly selection criteria. Upon
investigation it was determined that this
seed had been buried deeper than the
specification in the seed plan and
deeper than the MRDD. It was
determined to be invalid and removed
from the seed list. No CA necessary
w/r/t survey data collection and
analysis.
11. Detection Survey
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of validation seeds must be
detected.
Validation Seed
Database
Complete. All validation seeds detected
at the correct locations and with signal
consistent with the buried item.
12. Detection Survey
Coverage
Representativeness/
Completeness
100% of the site is sampled at required
lane spacing and point-to-point
sampling specifications.
1) Coverage Maps
2) Detection Survey
Database
Complete. Coverage met specifications.
IVS locations within specification.
Survey control point reacquisition
within specification. Seed locations
within specification.
13. Anomaly Selection
Completeness
Complete project-specific databases
and anomaly lists delivered. All QC and
QA seeds listed in Detection Survey
Database.
Detection Survey
Database
Complete. Reanalysis of 10% of the data
did not result in any additional
anomalies selected.
14. Background
Representativeness/
Sensitivity
Background areas where detection
threshold does not exceed five times
background are identified.
1) GIS Database
2) Detection Survey
Database
Complete.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 219 of 303
Table D-2: MPC Evaluation for MRS A1 - Detection Survey (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity
Used to Assess
Performance
Status
DFW 4 & 5 - Data Acquisition Detection Survey
15. AGC Cued Survey
Background Locations
Representativeness/
Comparability
Representative areas determined to be
background are selected and bounded
in the detection survey.
1) GIS Database
2) Cued Background
Database
Complete. Representative locations
were identified throughout the site.
16. Variability for Cued
Background locations
Representativeness/
Sensitivity
Representative backgrounds are
selected in all noise regimes.
Background areas where detection
threshold is less than 5 times
background are identified. All anomaly
cued locations appropriate for each
expected background are identified.
1) GIS Database
2) Cued Background
Database
Complete. Three areas of elevated
background noise were identified and
associated representative background
locations identified for each.
17. Saturated Response Areas
Completeness
No SRAs in final detection survey data.
All SRAs remapped to confirm anomaly
densities reduced to below DQO
thresholds. [Example] The analog
anomaly reduction survey reduces the
anomaly density to below 3500
anomalies/acre equivalent.
1) Detection Survey
Database
2) GIS Database
Complete. No such areas were found.
Step 2c: Evaluate data completeness. Identify data gaps (i.e., data inputs that have not been satisfied) and summarize their impact on the DQOs.
EM61 data are complete in all accessible areas and are deemed to be useable to locate the munitions specified in the project goals. Following
infill of a gully with handheld EM61 data collection, the only remaining data gaps are rocky outcroppings, where munitions cannot penetrate to
the subsurface. These data gaps do not impact achievement of the DQOs.
Step 3: Document data usability, update the CSM, and draw conclusions
Step 3a: Determine if the data can be used as intended, considering implications of deviations and corrective actions. Assess the performance of
the sampling design and identify any limitations on data use. Determine whether the data are suitable for proceeding to the cued AGC data
collection phase.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 220 of 303
The sampling design for the subsurface removal performed as expected. The MPCs/MQOs demonstrate the data meet remediation goal
articulated in Step 1.
Step 3b: Apply decision rules and draw conclusions.
1. If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the remediation under the current assumptions. If
field observations are inconsistent with the CSM, the project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and
remedial design.
Field observations are consistent with the CSM. Remediation will continue under current assumptions.
2. If signals meet the anomaly selection criteria, they will be selected for cued data collection using AGC.
Signals meeting the anomaly selection criteria were selected for AGC data collection. All seeds were detected. Random reanalysis of
10% of site revealed no additional anomalies that could not be resolved.
3. If areas of the site are deemed unsuitable (criteria to be established in Step 6) for AGC, the project team will document those areas and
revise the remedial design, as necessary.
No areas of the site were deemed unsuitable for AGC.
Overall Conclusion: All MPCs were achieved and the data support moving on to the Cued Data Collection and Analysis Phase.
Step 3c: Update the CSM
The CSM was updated to reflect the location of the gully that impeded the towed-array survey, as well as observations from the site preparation
activities.
Step 4. Document lessons learned and make recommendations
Summarize lessons learned and make recommendations for changes to DQOs or the sampling design for future delivery units at the site, or
future investigations. Prepare the data usability summary report.
Recommendations: The EM61 data are sufficient to support the AGC cued data collection
MRS A1 Cued Survey DUA
Identify personnel (organization and position/title) who participated in the data usability assessment: [Note: the same personnel should
participate in all phases of the DUA.]
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 221 of 303
For the Government:
The DoD Remedial Project Manager
The DoD Technical Manager
The Project Geophysicist
The Project Quality Assurance Manager
The OESS
For the Contractor:
The Project Manager
The Project Geophysicist
The Quality Control (QC) Geophysicist
The Field Geophysicist (Lead)
The UXOQCS
The Regulator
Identify documents used as input to the cued-survey data usability assessment:
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Contract Specifications
Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan
Final Verification and Validation Plan
Weekly QC Reports
Assessment Reports Corrective Action Reports
Production Area Seed Report
IVS Memoranda
Site-Specific Library
Cued Survey Data Validation Report
Prioritized Target "Dig" List
Target Classification Report
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 222 of 303
Classification Validation Report
Step 1. Review the project's objectives and sampling design
Step la. Are underlying assumptions in the initial CSM valid? Review the data quality objectives. Were the project boundaries appropriate?
Review the sampling design as implemented for consistency with stated objectives. Consider sources of uncertainty. Was uncertainty
appropriately managed?
The primary objective of the removal action in MRS A1 was to remove:
All 60-mm mortars to a depth of 0.45 m bgs.
Practice hand grenades, signals, flares, pyrotechnics, 2.36" rockets, and anti-tank mines to a depth of 0.30 m bgs.
Any other munitions present on the site to their maximum reliable detection depth at the anomaly selection criteria set for the 60-mm
mortars.
The library and TOI selection criteria for the AGC step were both specified with the assumption that these munitions would make up the TOI.
The munitions-related objects recovered in the surface sweep include:
MD from 60-mm mortar smoke and illumination mortars.
MD associated with practice hand grenades.
Debris from small arms.
No evidence of other munitions was found. The underlying assumptions are consistent with all observations to date.
Step lb. Were sources of uncertainty accounted for and appropriately managed?
The primary uncertainty related to the design of the classification step was lack of knowledge of the expected munitions in a maneuver area. The
CSM provided evidence from historical records of use, but they are often incomplete and a wide variety of activities involving a variety of
possible munitions could have taken place. MRS A1 was determined to be a low-use area during the Rl, so no detailed characterization work was
done. The library contained all possible munitions from the historical records and the other TOI selection criteria were set to identify other items
typically found on maneuver areas.
Other uncertainties included whether site noise would allow for consistent classification of TOI to the required depth across the entire site and
the extent to which background variation would affect the analysis. Data were reviewed and no areas were found where the noise was too high.
Background data were acquired multiple times per day and variability was as expected.
Step lc. Summarize any deviations from the planned sampling design and describe their impacts on the data quality objectives.
The sampling design was implemented as planned. Cued AGC data were collected at the locations of all anomalies selected in the detection step.
All cued data were analyzed and classified. Additional required verification and validation digs were identified.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 223 of 303
Step 2. Review the data verification/validation outputs and evaluate conformance to MPCs documented on Worksheet #12
Step 2a. Review available QA/QC reports, including weekly QC reports, assessment reports, corrective action reports, and the data
verification/validation reports. Evaluate the implications of unacceptable QC results. For any non-conformances, was the RCA/CA effective?
Summarize the impacts of non-conformances on data usability.
The data validation report contains a summary of all data, QC results, as well as non-conformances and RCA/CA. CA were effective. Upon
implementation of the CA, no non-conformances were repeated. All data were collected as planned. At the conclusion of the project, all data
complied with all MPCs and MQOs.
Summary of non-conformances, root causes, and corrective action (from data validation report)
Table D-3: Summary of non-conformances, root causes, and corrective action
Non-conforming MQO
Root cause
Corrective action
implemented?
AGC Failed IVS at end of day
A receive cube failed sometime
between passing the IVS in the
morning and failing it at the
end of the day. Wire not
secured properly.
Reviewed SOP
Recollected the day's
data
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 224 of 303
Step 2b. Evaluate conformance to MPCs documented on Worksheet #12
Table D-4: MPC Evaluation for MRS A1 - Cued Survey
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity
Used to Assess
Performance
Status
DFW 7 & 8 - Data Acquisition - Cued Survey
18. Background data
collection (AGC)
Representativeness/
Accuracy
Each cued analysis is performed with a
representative background and
verified during quality control.
1) Background
Validation Database
2) Cued Survey
Database
3) QC Verification
Complete. Background
data were collected at
locations identified on
the site. Data review
confirmed appropriate
background
measurements were used
in the analysis.
19. Background
frequency
Completeness
Background data are collected at a
minimum of the interval specified by
the manufacturer.
Background Validation
Database
Complete. All background
measurements were
repeated X times per day,
per the manufacturer
specifications, and drift
was documented.
20. Anomaly
classification (AGC)
Completeness/
Comparability
Site-specific library must include
signatures for all items considered by
the project team to be IOC as listed in
theCSM.
Site-specific TOI Library
Complete. The library
included signatures from
all items confirmed or
suspected to be present.
21. Anomaly
classification (AGC)
Completeness
All detected anomalies classified as:
1) TOI
2) Non-TOI
3) Inconclusive
1) Source Database
2) Final Intrusive
Database
Complete. All anomalies
were assigned to one of
TOI, non-TOI, or
inconclusive.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 225 of 303
Table D-4: MPC Evaluation for MRS A1 - Cued Survey (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity
Used to Assess
Performance
Status
DFW 7 & 8 - Data Acquisition - Cued Survey
22. Anomaly
classification (QC
Seeds)
Accu ra cy/Co m p 1 ete n ess
100% of QC seeds are correctly
classified as TOI for excavation. QC
Seeds classified as inconclusive are
discussed in DUA.
1) QC Seed Database
2) RCA/CA Review and
Acceptance
Complete. All QC seeds
correctly classified.
23. Anomaly
classification
(Validation Seeds)
Accuracy/
Completeness
100% of validation seeds are correctly
classified as TOI for excavation.
Validation Seed Database
Complete. All validation
seeds correctly classified.
Step 2c. Evaluate data completeness. Identify data gaps (i.e., data inputs that have not been satisfied.) and summarize their impact on the DQOs.
AGC data were collected at all EM61 anomaly locations, analyzed, and a TOI/non-TOI decision was made for each location.
Step 3. Document data usability, update the CSM, apply decision rules, and draw conclusions
Step 3a. Determine if the data can be used as intended, considering implications of deviations and corrective actions. Assess the performance of
the sampling design and identify any limitations on data use. Determine whether the data are suitable for proceeding to the cued AGC data
collection phase.
The sampling design for the AGC cued data collection performed as expected. The MPCs/MQOs demonstrate the data meet remediation goal
articulated in Step 1.
Step 3b. Apply decision rules and draw conclusions
1. If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the remediation under the current assumptions. If
field observations are inconsistent with the CSM, the project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and
remedial design.
Field observations are consistent with the CSM. Remediation will continue under current assumptions.
2. If AGC analyses meet any of the following criteria, they will be selected as TOI and placed on an ordered dig list: a) the polarizability
decay curve matches that of an item in the project-specific TOI library, or b) estimates of the size, shape, symmetry, and wall thickness
indicate the item is long, cylindrical or spherical, and thick-walled, or c) there is a group (cluster) of unknown anomalies having similar
polarizability decay curves that, after investigation, are discovered to be IOC.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 226 of 303
All anomalies from the EM61 survey were assigned to one of TOI, non-TOI, or inconclusive. AGC analyses meeting the criteria were
placed on the dig list. All seeds were correctly identified as TOI.
3. If AGC analyses yield inconclusive polarizability decay curves they will be added to the dig list or otherwise resolved.
All inconclusive analyses were added to the dig list or otherwise resolved.
Step 3c. Update the CSM.
No updates to the CSM were required. The data are suitable to support intrusive investigation.
Step 4. Document lessons learned and make recommendations
Summarize lessons learned and make recommendations for changes to DQOs or the sampling design for future delivery units at the site, or future
investigations. Prepare the data usability summary report.
Recommendations: The intrusive investigation should begin.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 227 of 303
MRS A1 - Project-Conclusion DUA
Identify personnel (organization and position/title) who participated in the data usability assessment: [Note: the same personnel should
participate in all phases of the DUA.
For the Government:
The DoD Remedial Project Manager
The DoD Technical Manager
The Project Geophysicist
The Project Quality Assurance Manager
The OESS
For the Contractor:
The Project Manager
The Project Geophysicist
The Quality Control Geophysicist
The Field Geophysicist (Lead)
The UXOQCS
The Regulator
Identify documents used as input to the project-conclusion data usability assessment:
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Contract Specifications
Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan
Final Verification and Validation Plan
Weekly QC Reports
Assessment Reports Corrective Action Reports
Production Area Seed Report
IVS Memoranda
Detection Survey Data Validation Report
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 228 of 303
Site-Specific Library
Cued Survey Data Validation Report
Prioritized Target "Dig" List
Target Classification Report
Classification Validation Report
Step 1. Review the project's objectives and sampling design
Step la. Are underlying assumptions in the initial CSM valid? Review the data quality objectives. Review the data collection plan as implemented
for consistency with stated objectives.
The primary objective of the removal action in MRS A1 was to remove:
All 60-mm mortars to a depth of 0.45 m bgs.
Practice hand grenades, signals, flares, pyrotechnics, practice 2.36" rockets, and practice anti-tank mines to a depth of 0.30 m bgs.
Any other munitions present on the site to their maximum reliable detection depth at the anomaly selection criteria set for the 60-mm
mortars.
The library and TOI selection criteria for the AGC step were both specified with the assumption that these munitions would make up the TOI.
The recovered objects include:
60-mm mortar smoke and illumination mortars that had been fired, to a depth of 0.30 m.
Practice hand grenades to a depth of 0.20 m.
Associated MD.
Debris from small arms.
The vertical CSM in Figure D-l shows the recovered MEC, seeds, and maximum reliable detection depths.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 229 of 303
E
o
20
ฉ 40
Q
60
112 Seeds,
Each Type
_L
_L
_L
_L
~
~
_L
oฐ
I Seed Depth Range
~ Recov. MKII PGs
A Recov. Smoke 60mmM
^ Recov. Ilium. 60mmM
Max. Reliable Det.
<ฃ>
Item
Figure D-l. Vertical CSM for MRS A1 at the conclusion of the RA
All information from the removal action is consistent with the initial CSM, confirming planning assumptions and the validity of the sample plan.
The only munitions found on the site were fired mortars and practice hand grenades.
EM61 target selection criteria were based on detecting a 60-mm mortar to 0.45 m bgs. Nine mortars were found in the subsurface at
depths between 0.05 and 0.30 m.
The target selection criteria correspond to a reliable detection depth of hand grenades to 0.3 m. Seventy-five practice hand grenades
were recovered at depths ranging from 0.05 to 0.20 m.
Mortars, hand grenades, and all other potential munitions identified in the CSM were included in the AGC TOI library.
Seeded items and depths were appropriate to represent the munitions recovered.
All field specifications, including line spacing, sample rate, and sensor standoff planned based on initial assumptions, were valid.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 230 of 303
Conclusion: There are no inconsistencies of a nature that would call into question whether the data collection and analysis methodology can
meet the project objectives.
Step lb. Consider sources of uncertainty. Was uncertainty appropriately managed?
The primary uncertainty related to the design of the classification step was lack of knowledge of the expected munitions in a maneuver area. The
CSM provided evidence from historical records of use, but they are often incomplete and a wide variety of activities involving a variety of
possible munitions could have taken place. The library contained all possible munitions from the historical records and the other TOI selection
criteria were set to identify other items typically found on maneuver areas.
Other uncertainties included whether site noise would allow for consistent classification of TOI to the required depth across the entire site and
the extent to which background variation would affect the analysis. Data were reviewed and no areas were found where the noise was too high.
Background data were acquired multiple times per day and variability was as expected.
Step lc. Summarize any deviations from the planned sampling design and describe their impacts on the data quality objectives.
The sampling design was implemented as planned.
Step 2. Review the data verification/validation outputs and evaluate conformance to MPCs documented on Worksheet #12
Step 2a. Review available QA/QC reports, including weekly QC reports, assessment reports, corrective action reports, and the data
verification/validation reports. Evaluate the implications of unacceptable QC results. For any non-conformances, was the RCA/CA effective?
Summarize the impacts of non-conformances on data usability.
The data validation report contains a summary of all data, QC results, as well as non-conformances and RCA/CA. All data were collected as
planned. There were no unacceptable QC results. CA were effective. Upon implementation of the CA, no non-conformances were repeated. At
the conclusion of the project, all data complied with all MPCs and MQOs.
Table D-5: Summary of non-conformances, root causes, and corrective action
Non-conforming MQO
Root cause
Corrective action
implemented?
The source of anomaly 136 on
the dig list was not recovered on
the first intrusive investigation
The dig team had dug in the
area around the flag but did not
dig in the center where the
object was located upon a
revisit to the anomaly location
Reviewed SOP
Reviewed all recovery data
Step 2b. Evaluate conformance to MPCs documented on Worksheet #12.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 231 of 303
Table D-6: MPC Evaluation for MRS A1 - Project Conclusion
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity
Used to Assess
Performance
Status
DFW 9,10, & 11 - Anomaly Resolution and Excavation
24. Anomaly resolution
QC seeds)
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of QC seeds are recovered.
Intrusive Results
Database
Complete. All QC seeds
recovered.
25. Anomaly resolution
(validation seeds)
Accu ra cy/Co m p 1 ete n ess
100% of validation seeds are
recovered.
Intrusive Results
Database
Complete. All validation
seeds recovered.
26. Anomaly resolution
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of predicted non-TOI that are
intrusively investigated are confirmed
to be non-TOI. This includes threshold
verification digs and validation digs.
Intrusive Results
Database
Complete. All predicted
non-TOI that were
investigated were non-
TOI.
27. Intrusive
Investigation
Accuracy
Inversion results correctly predict one
or more physical properties (e.g., size,
symmetry, or wall thickness) of the
recovered items (specific tests and test
objectives established during project
planning).
Intrusive Results
Database
Complete. All recovered
items were consistent
with predicted physical
properties.
28. Intrusive
Investigation
Completeness/
Comparability
A complete project-specific database
including records reconciling inversion
results to the physical properties of the
recovered items.
Intrusive Results
Database
Complete. All records are
documented in the
database. All anomaly
locations were
investigated and
resolved.
29. Intrusive
Investigation
Accuracy/Completeness
AGC results indicate original
polarizabilities resulting in TOI are no
longer present and no additional TOI
sources present above the project-
specific stop-dig threshold.
Post-mapping database
Complete.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 232 of 303
Step 2c. Evaluate data completeness. Identify data gaps (i.e., data inputs that have not been satisfied.) and summarize their impact on the DQOs.
AGC data were collected at all EM61 anomaly locations, analyzed, and a TOI/non-TOI decision was made for each location. All MPCs were
achieved. Together the MPCs provide evidence to support the design was successfully implemented.
Full coverage of the site with the EM61 survey was achieved. All accessible data gaps were resurveyed. Any areas inaccessible to the
array were surveyed with a handheld DGM system or otherwise resolved.
The IVS confirmed the EM61 system was operating properly at the beginning and end of each data collection day.
All seeds were detected and located in the EM61 detection step, correctly identified, and recovered.
All recovered munitions were consistent with the AGC analysis predictions.
All verification digs were non-IOC. All validation digs were consistent with AGC analysis.
Step 3. Document data usability, update the CSM, apply decision rules, and draw conclusions
Step 3a. Determine if the data can be used as intended, considering implications of deviations and corrective actions. Assess the performance of
the sampling design and identify any limitations on data use. Bgs
The sampling design for the subsurface removal performed as expected. The MPCs/MQOs demonstrate the data meet remediation goal
articulated in Step 1.
Step 3b. Considering the implications of any deviations and data gaps, can the data be used as intended? Are the data sufficient to answer the
study questions?
The sampling design for the subsurface removal performed as expected. The data were successfully used to excavate and remove all surface and
subsurface munitions for which there was evidence on the site. The MPCs/MQOs demonstrate the data meet remediation goal of no mortars to
0.45 m and no other IOC to 0.30 m bgs.
The data are suitable for supporting a weight-of-evidence decision regarding UU/UE; specifically:
The EM61 survey was completed as planned and all MPCs were met.
The AGC data collection and analysis was completed as planned and all MPCs were met.
All results were consistent with the CSM and underlying planning assumptions were valid.
No munitions were recovered that are more hazardous than anticipated.
No unexpected munitions were recovered and no evidence suggesting their presence was observed.
No munitions were recovered below their reliable detection and classification depth.
All verification digs recovered non-IOC.
All validation digs resulted in the recovery of an item consistent with the AGC analysis.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 233 of 303
Step 3c. Apply decision rules and draw conclusions
1. If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the remediation under the current assumptions. If
field observations are inconsistent with the CSM, the project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and
remedial design.
Field observations are consistent with the CSM. Remediation was completed under current assumptions.
2. If the threshold verification digs do not uncover any IOC as described above, then the threshold is verified. If any IOC are recovered, then
the project team will conduct an RCA/CA that results in an adjustment of the threshold and determination of the impacts on project
objectives.
Threshold verification digs did not uncover any IOC. The threshold is verified.
3. The geophysical classification results will be valid if:
Validation digs do not uncover any IOC, and
The properties of all recovered objects are consistent with predicted properties.
No IOC were recovered and no objects were inconsistent with the predicated properties. Results are valid.
4. If validation digs uncover any IOC as described above, the project team will conduct a QA stand-down and evaluate the impacts on MPCs
and DQOs.
Validation digs did not recover any IOC. Analysis results are valid.
5. If the properties of any recovered object are inconsistent with predicted properties, then the project team will conduct an RCA/CA and
determine the impacts on achievement of MPCs and DQOs.
The properties of all recovered objects were consistent with the predicted properties.
6. If all lines of evidence are complete and support UU/UE, the project team will develop documentation supporting UU/UE for
consideration by final decision makers. If lines of evidence are incomplete or any line of evidence does not support UU/UE, the project
team will develop documentation rejecting UU/UE for consideration by final decision makers.
All lines of evidence are complete and support UU/UE. The project team has developed documentation for decision-makers.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 234 of 303
Step 3d. Update the CSM.
The CSM was updated to reflect the locations, depths, and types of all munitions recovered on the site. The post-removal CSM supports the site
team making a decision regarding UU/UE. The following conclusions were reached:
Four areas of munitions use were identified:
GT1 - Grenade training area 1 acre in size containing 40 practice grenades
GT2 - Grenade training area 1 acre in size containing 35 practice grenades
MR1 - Mortar training area 15 acres in size containing 2 smoke and 1 illumination mortars and scattered fragments, parachutes, and
pyrotechnics
MR2 - Mortar training area 53 acres in size containing 3 smoke and 3 illumination mortars and scattered fragments, parachutes, and
pyrotechnics
No evidence was uncovered during the surface sweep, or the subsurface removal, of any other munitions identified in the original CSM
as potentially present.
No evidence of unexpected munitions was found. The AGC criteria for TOI looked for cylindrical or spherical items and looked at
"clusters" of similar unknown items.
No findings suggest a hazard that exceeds what is expected from the original CSM.
No evidence suggests that IOC exist below their maximum reliable detection depth. All recovered IOC were considerably shallower. The
findings regarding the use of smoke and illumination mortars are consistent with the CSM.
Other than the four areas identified above, no evidence of munitions use was found.
-------
639,000 640,000 641,000
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 235 of 303
642,000
CD
c
'sz
c.
o
o
o
o
LO
co
CO
o
o
CO
co_
n Maneuver Area
Q MRSA1 (247 acres)
H Hand-Held Acquistion Area (2.4 acres)
n Parachutes/MortarMD
' Illumination Rounds Recovered
Smoke Rounds Recovered
|~) Grenade Debris
ฆ Grenade Debris Recovered
~ Surface Finds
O
O
o
irT
CO
CO
o
o
cd
CO
co
639,000
640,000
641,000
642,000
Easting (m)
Figure D-2: Final MRS A1CSM: Maneuver Area Aerial View
Step 4. Document lessons learned and make recommendations
Summarize lessons learned and make recommendations for changes to DQOs or the sampling design for the next phase of investigation or
future investigations. If this is the final DUA, prepare the final DUA report to be included in the RA report.
Recommendations: The RA has been performed as planned and all the DQOs have been achieved. The sitework is complete and MEC has been
detected and removed to the required depths. The project team should prepare documentation supporting UU/UE for consideration by
decision-makers.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 236 of 303
Example #2: MRS A2 Maneuver Area Recreational Area - Surface Removal using Instrument-Aided Visual Identification
Because anomaly detection and source removal were conducted concurrently, the DUA was conducted at the conclusion of the project.
MRS A2 - Project Conclusion DUA:
Identify personnel (organization and position/title) who participated in the data usability assessment:
For the Government:
The DoD Remedial Project Manager
The DoD Technical Manager
The Project Geophysicist
The Project Quality Assurance Manager
The OESS
For the Contractor:
The Project Manager
The Project Geophysicist
The Quality Control Geophysicist
The Field Geophysicist (Lead)
The UXOQCS
The Regulator
Identify documents used as input to the data usability assessment:
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Contract Specifications
Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan
Weekly QC Reports
Assessment Reports Corrective Action Reports
Production Area Seed Report
ITS Memoranda
Surface Removal Final Report
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 237 of 303
Step 1. Review the project's objectives and sampling design
Step la. Are underlying assumptions in the initial CSM valid? Review the data quality objectives. Review the project plan as implemented for
consistency with objectives. Consider sources of uncertainty.
The primary objective in MRS A2 was to remove munitions present on the site surface. The underlying assumption is that combination of visual
inspection and analog magnetometer can detect all surface munitions for removal. The removal yielded MEC, MD, and cultural artifacts. All
seeds were recovered, although some required multiple passes. The underlying assumptions are valid.
With no geophysics data record, the primary uncertainty related to the design of the instrument-aided surface removal was the unknown and
unmeasurable reliability of the instrument and operator. The project design included the extensive use of both QC seeds, to assess completeness
for the contactor, and QA seeds, to document overall performance.
Step lb. Summarize any deviations from the planned sampling design and describe their impacts on the data quality objectives.
The sampling design was implemented as planned.
Step 2. Review the data verification/validation outputs and evaluate conformance to MPCs documented on Worksheet #12
Step 2a. Review the Data Verification/Validation Reports and supporting data, if necessary (e.g., daily/weekly QC reports, assessment reports
and corrective action reports.
The data validation report contains a summary of all field activities, QC results, non-conformances, and RCA/CA. In 60% of the survey units on
the site, seeds were missed on the first pass. These survey units were resurveyed until all seeds were recovered. In each resurvey, additional
seeds and additional native items were recovered. Upon retraining, seed recovery increased to 85% for the remaining survey units.
Step 2b. For any non-conformances, was the RCA/CA effective? Evaluate the implications of unacceptable QC results.
Table D-7: Summary of non-conformances, root causes, and corrective action
Non-conforming MQO
Root cause
Corrective action
implemented?
Missed seeds in first survey unit
Inherent limitations of the
technology
Retrained operators
Resurveyed all grids where
seeds were missed
Slowed pace of work
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 238 of 303
Step 2c. Evaluate conformance to MPCs
Table D-8: MPC Evaluation for MRS A2 - Project Completion
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity
Used to Assess
Performance
Status
DFW 1 - Site Preparation and CSM
1. Accessibility
Completeness
All areas inaccessible to remediation or
inaccessible to use of proposed
geophysical systems are identified and
mapped in a GIS.
Visual Inspection QA
Report and/or GIS
Database
Complete. All inaccessible
areas documented in the GIS.
2. IOC Completeness
Representativeness/
Completeness
(recoverability)
All recoveries (IOC and MD) were
reviewed and CSM confirmed or
updated.
Updated CSM
Complete.
3. Survey Control
Completeness
All survey control points placed by PLS,
and survey control report submitted.
Surveyor and/or QC
Report
Complete. Survey report
accepted.
DFW 2 & 3 - ITS
4. ITS Construction
Accu ra cy/Co m p 1 ete n ess
Seeds placed so that each sensor
passes at least one seed item during
ITS. Seed type, depth, and location
accuracy recorded during placement.
ITS Memorandum
Complete. ITS memorandum
accepted.
5. ITS Testing
Sensitivity/
Completeness
Analog equipment assembled correctly
and functioning as designed. Detection
threshold confirmed and tested daily
with ITS seeds at depth of detection.
1) ITS Memorandum
2) ITS Database
Complete. Sensor detected
ITS items daily.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 239 of 303
Table D-8: MPC Evaluation for MRS A2 - Project Completion (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity
Used to Assess
Performance
Status
DFW 2 - QC and QA Seeding
6. QC Seeding
1) Representativeness
2) Completeness
3) Sensitivity
4) Accuracy
5) Comparability
Blind QC seeds will be placed at the
site by the contractor (1). Blind QC
seeds must be located throughout the
horizontal boundaries defined in the
DQOs (2,3).
Production Area QC
Seeding Report
Complete. QC seeding report
contains verified, emplaced
locations. The correct number
of seeds was emplaced.
7. QA Seeding
1) Representativeness
2) Completeness
3) Sensitivity
4) Accuracy
5) Comparability
Blind QA seeds will be placed on the
surface throughout the MRS footprint
by the Government (or its third-party
contractor) (1, 2, 3).
QA Seeding Report
Complete. Verification
seeding report contains
verified, emplaced locations.
The correct number of seeds
was emplaced.
DFW 4 - Surface Removal
8. Planned Survey
Coverage
Completeness
Survey lanes are designed and located
not to exceed 3-foot spacing and cover
the entire MRS footprint.
1) GPS or Photographic
Documentation
2) Grid/Lane GIS
database
Complete. Planned survey
lanes conformed to
specification.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 240 of 303
Table D-8: MPC Evaluation for MRS A2 - Project Completion (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity
Used to Assess
Performance
Status
DFW 4 - Surface Removal
9. Detection threshold
(analog)
Sensitivity
[Example] The analog instrument must
be leveled to manufacturer settings
and set to a sensitivity of 5 for the
duration of the survey.
1) Initial and ongoing
instrument test strip
(ITS) surveys
2) Blind QC and QA
seed detection
3) Periodic Verification
by QC Geophysicist
(or designee)
Complete.
1) Sensor detected ITS
items daily
2) See 10 and 11 regarding
seeds
3) Periodic checks by QC
geophysicist
documented
10. Detection Survey
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of QC seeds detected
1) QC Seed Database
2) RCA/CA review and
acceptance
Complete. In the first survey
unit, one or more seeds
were missed on the first pass
in 60% of the grids. These
grids were resurveyed as
necessary until all seeds
were recovered. In each
resurvey, additional seeds
and additional native items
were recovered. Upon
retraining, seed recovery
improved and 85% of grids
had no missed seeds for the
remaining survey units.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 241 of 303
Table D-8: MPC Evaluation for MRS A2 - Project Completion (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity
Used to Assess
Performance
Status
DFW 4 - Surface Removal
11. Detection Survey
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of QA seeds must be detected.
QA Seed Database
Complete. The contractor
submitted QA seed recovery
to the government only after
all QC seeds were recovered
in each survey unit. One or
more of the QA seeds were
missed in 33% of the grids.
Misses were randomly
distributed across the site,
indicating there were no
systemic causes. The grids
were then resurveyed until
all QA seeds were recovered.
12. Detection Survey
Coverage
Representativeness/
Completeness
100% of the site is sampled.
1) Seed Recovery
2) Operator GPS
Records
Complete. GIS records show
all lands surveyed.
Photographs and GPS logs
accepted.
13. Surface Item
Removal
Completeness
All QC and QA seeds and pieces of
metal exceeding l"x2" in dimension
recovered. All surface finds
documented in the project-specific
database.
1) GIS Database
2) QC Database
3) QA Database
4) Project Database
Complete. All databases
have been accepted by the
government.
Step 2c. Evaluate data completeness. Identify data gaps (i.e., data inputs that have not been satisfied.) and summarize their impact on the DQOs.
The surface removal, which was completed in all accessible areas, located some of the munitions specified in the project goals. These included
MEC and MD associated with smoke and illumination mortars and practice grenades.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 242 of 303
Step 3. Document data usability, update the CSM, apply decision rules, and draw conclusions
Step 3a. Assess the performance of the sampling design and identify any limitations on data use. Considering the implications of any deviations
and data gaps, can the data be used as intended? Are the data sufficient to answer the study questions?
The surface removal performed as expected. A number of the expected munitions were removed from the site, along with a considerable
amount of debris. However, QA and QC seeds were missed on the first pass even after the improvement from retraining, requiring multiple
passes on many grids (see Seed Report for details) before all seeds were recovered. This is consistent with the known limitations of the
technology and, even once all seeds are recovered, there is insufficient evidence to support a determination that all surface munitions were
removed.
Step 3b. Apply Decision Rules
1. If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the remediation under the current assumptions. If
field observations are inconsistent with the CSM, the project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and
remedial design.
Field observations were consistent with the CSM. Remediation was completed under current assumptions.
2. If MPCs have been achieved, the project will have implemented the removal component of the remedy. If not, the team will recommend
that the appropriate representatives of the responsible offices revisit and reconsider the ROD. The LUCs specified in the ROD will be
used to manage residual risk.
MPCs have been achieved. Removal component meets the specifications of the ROD.
Step 3c. Update the CSM and draw conclusions.
The CSM was updated to reflect the locations and types of all munitions recovered on the site; specifically:
60,000 items were removed from the site
87 practice hand grenades were removed.
Small arms brass was also recovered
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 243 of 303
639,000 640,000 641,000 642,000
O)
c
JZ
-c
o
o
o
CD
Iff
CO
CO
O
O
o
CO
CO
~
~ Maneuver Area
~ MRSA2 (734 acres)
("I Small Arms Brass
O Grenade Debris
~ Practice Grenades
~ Surface Finds
J.
_L
MRS A
o
o
CD
LO"
CO
CO
^r
o
o
o
"J
co
CO
639,000
640,000
641,000
642,000
Easting (m)
Figure D-3: Final MRS A2 CSM: Maneuver Area Aerial View
Step 4. Document lessons learned and make recommendations
Summarize lessons learned and make recommendations for changes to DQOs or the sampling design for future delivery units at the site, or
future investigations. Prepare the data usability summary report.
Recommendations: The work was completed to the capability of the technology and all MPCs were achieved, indicating the removal component
had met the requirements of the ROD; however, there is insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that all MEC have been removed. The
LUCs in the ROD will be used to manage the residual risk. Findings from the removal that will inform risk management include:
The remedial action was implemented as planned.
Missed QA and QC seeds were randomly distributed across the site, indicating failures resulted from technology limitations rather than
systemic issues related to site conditions or personnel.
All QA seeds were detected, some requiring multiple passes.
The final CSM provides confidence that the UXO that were detected have been removed.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 244 of 303
Example #3: MRS B1 Mortar Range, Flat-terrain Area - Surface and Subsurface Removal using non-AGC DGM
DUAs for MRS B1 were performed (1) at the conclusion of the detection survey and analysis and (2) at the conclusion of the project.
MRS B1 - Detection-Survey DUA
Identify personnel (organization and position/title) who participated in the data usability assessment: [Note: the same personnel should
participate in all phases of the DUA.]
For the Government:
Project Manager
The DoD Technical Manager
The Project Geophysicist
The Project Quality Assurance Manager
The OESS
For the Contractor:
The Project Manager
The Project Geophysicist
The Quality Control Geophysicist
The Field Geophysicist (Lead)
The UXOQCS
The Regulator
Identify documents used as input to the detection-survey data usability assessment:
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Contract Specifications
Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan
Weekly QC Reports
Assessment Reports Corrective Action Reports
Production Area Seed Report
IVS Memoranda
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 245 of 303
Detection Survey Data Validation Report
Step 1. Review the project's objectives and sampling design
Step la. Are underlying assumptions in the initial CSM valid? Review the data quality objectives. Were the project boundaries appropriate?
Review the sampling design as implemented for consistency with stated objectives. Summarize any deviations from the planned sample design.
The primary objective of the removal action in MRS B1 was to remove:
All 60-mm mortars to a depth of 0.45 m bgs.
Any other munitions present on the site to their maximum reliable detection depth at the anomaly selection criteria set for the 60-mm
mortars.
The objects recovered in the surface sweep include:
60-mm HE mortars.
Associated MD.
There was little uncertainty related to expected munitions in the design of the detection step. The CSM provided evidence from historical
records of use and the Rl data supported the use of MRS B as a mortar range, with an HUA down-range and no observed HD area in the safety
fan, which was designated as an LUA. All MD and MEC recovered in the Rl digging was associated with mortars. The anomaly selection criteria
were set to detect a mortar to the required depth of 0.45 m.
The underlying assumptions are valid.
Step lb. Were sources of uncertainty accounted for and appropriately managed?
Other uncertainties include whether site noise would allow for consistent detection of IOC to the required depth across the entire site. Data
were reviewed and no areas were found where the noise was too high to support detection.
Step lc. Summarize any deviations from the planned sampling design and describe their impacts on the data quality objectives.
The sampling design was implemented as planned.
Step 2. Review the data verification/validation outputs and evaluate conformance to MPCs documented on Worksheet #12
Step 2a. Review available QA/QC reports, including weekly QC reports, assessment reports, corrective action reports, and the data
verification/validation reports. Evaluate the implications of unacceptable QC results. For any non-conformances, was the RCA/CA effective?
Summarize the impacts of non-conformances on data usability.
The data validation report contains a summary of all data, QC results, non-conformances, and RCA/CA. Corrective actions were effective. Upon
implementation of the CA, no non-conformances were repeated. At the conclusion of the survey, all data complied with all MPCs and MQOs.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 246 of 303
Table D-9: Summary of non-conformances, root causes, and corrective action
Non-conforming MQO
Root cause
Corrective action
implemented?
Detection threshold test 4
Area with SNR < 5
Local geology
The 3-acre area was
documented in the GIS
Missed seed (small ISO80) in
EM61 detection survey
Buried deeper than specified
N/A - Not a valid seed
Removed from
consideration
EM61 swapped out battery
and did not do a function test
Operators failed to follow SOP.
Data recollected
Retrained staff
Added to daily brief
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 247 of 303
Step 2b. Evaluate conformance to MPCs documented on Worksheet #12.
Table D-10: MPC Evaluation for MRS B1 - Detection Survey
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/ Activity
Used to Assess
Performance
Status
DFW 1 - Site Preparation and CSM
1. Accessibility
Completeness
All areas inaccessible to remediation or
inaccessible to use of proposed
geophysical systems are identified and
mapped in a GIS.
Visual Inspection QA
Report and/or GIS
Database
Complete. Inaccessible areas
documented in GIS.
2. IOC Completeness
Representativeness/
Completeness
(recoverability)
All recoveries (IOC and MD) were
reviewed and CSM confirmed or
updated.
Surface Sweep Technical
Memorandum and
Updated CSM
Complete. Recovered IOC and
MD documented in surface
sweep memorandum. CSM
updated to reflect all recoveries
are consistent with initial CSM.
3. Surface Sweep
Coverage
Representativeness/
Completeness
Surface sweep completed across the
entire site. Identified SRAs have been
documented.
Surface Sweep Technical
Memorandum and
Updated CSM
Complete. Surface sweep
memorandum and GIS indicate
all parts of the site were
covered.
4. Survey Control
Completeness
All survey control points placed by PLS,
and survey control report submitted.
Surveyor and/or QC
Report
Complete
5. IVS Construction
Accuracy/Completeness
Seeds placed so that each sensor
passes at least one seed item during
IVS surveys. Seed type, depth, and
location accuracy recorded during
placement.
IVS Memorandum
Complete
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 248 of 303
Table D-10: MPC Evaluation for MRS B1 - Detection Survey (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality
Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity Used
to Assess Performance
Status
DFW 1 - Site Preparation and CSM
6. IVS Testing
Sensitivity/
Completeness
Detection equipment assembled
correctly and functioning as designed.
Detection threshold confirmed or
site-specific conditions on detection
capabilities are documented.
IVS Memorandum
Complete. Signals consistent
with REFERNCE REPORT.
Measured noise supports
detection at the chosen
threshold.
DFW 2 - QC and Validation Seeding
7. QC Seeding
1) Representativeness
2) Completeness
3) Sensitivity
4) Accuracy
5) Comparability
Blind QC seeds will be placed at the
site by the contractor (1). Blind QC
seeds must be detectable as defined
by the DQOs and located throughout
the horizontal and vertical survey
boundaries defined in the DQOs (2,3).
Production Area QC Seeding
Report
Complete. QC seeding report
contains verified, as-buried
locations of seeds. All seeds
were buried at depths in the
detectable range of the sensor.
8. Validation Seeding
1) Representativeness
2) Completeness
3) Sensitivity
4) Accuracy
5) Comparability
Blind Validation seeds will be placed
throughout the MRS footprint by the
Government (or its third-party
contractor) (1). Validation seeds must
be detectable as defined by the DQOs
and located at depths that result in
signals equivalent to 2-5 times the
detection threshold (2,3).
Validation Seeding Report
Complete. Validation seed
report contains verified, as-
buried locations of seeds. All
seeds were buried at depths in
the detectable range of the
sensor.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 249 of 303
Table D-10: MPC Evaluation for MRS B1 - Detection Survey (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity Used
to Assess Performance
Status
DFW 4 & 5 - Data Acquisition Detection Survey
9. Detection threshold
(EM61)
Sensitivity
The detection threshold used to
detect a 60-mm mortar lying
horizontally at a depth of 0.45 m is
11.7 mV on channel 2.
1) Review of sampling
design
2) Initial and ongoing
instrument verification
strip (IVS) surveys
3) Blind QC and validation
seed detection
4) RMS background maps
show all areas are less
than or equal to 20% of
the threshold, i.e., the
threshold is 5 times the
RMS noise
Complete. IVS results support
threshold met project objectives,
with the exception of one 3-acre
area where the RMS background
noise was elevated that does not
meet criteria 4. In this area the
detection threshold was 3 times
the RMS noise. This area was
documented in the GIS. The
analyst noted that the anomaly
density is this area was 25%
higher compared to the rest of
the site.
10. Detection Survey
Accu ra cy/Co m p 1 ete n ess
100% of QC seeds detected.
1) QC Seed Database
2) RCA/CA reviewand
acceptance
Complete. All QC seeds detected
at the correct locations and with
signal consistent with the buried
item.
11. Detection Survey
Accu ra cy/Co m p 1 ete n ess
100% of validation seeds must be
detected.
Validation Seed Database
Complete. All validation seeds
detected at the correct locations
and with signal consistent with
the buried item.
12. Detection Survey
Coverage
Representativeness/
Completeness
100% of the site is sampled at
required lane spacing and point-to-
point sampling specifications.
1) Coverage Maps
2) Detection Survey
Database
Complete. All survey data is
within specification for coverage
both in-line and cross-line.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 250 of 303
Table D-10: MPC Evaluation for MRS B1 - Detection Survey (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity Used
to Assess Performance
Status
DFW 4 & 5 - Data Acquisition Detection Survey
13. Anomaly Selection
Completeness
Complete project-specific
databases and anomaly lists
delivered. All QC and validation
seeds listed in Detection Survey
Database.
Detection Survey Database
Complete. Reanalysis of 10% of
the data did not result in any
additional anomalies selected.
14. Background
Representativeness/
Sensitivity
Background areas where detection
threshold does not exceed 5 x
background are identified.
1) GIS Database
2) Detection Survey
Database
Complete. The area identified in
9 was documented in the GIS.
15. SRAs
Completeness
No SRAs in final detection survey
data. All designated SRAs anomaly
densities reduced to below DQO
thresholds and digitally remapped.
SRA boundaries documented in GIS
deliverable. [Example] The analog
anomaly reduction survey reduces
the anomaly density to below 1500
anomalies/acre equivalent.
1) GIS Database
2) Detection Survey
Database
Complete
DFW 6 - Verification of EM61 Dig List
15. Anomaly list (QC Seeds)
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of QC seeds are identified as
TOI for excavation
1) QC Seed Database
2) RCA/CA review and
acceptance
Complete. All QC seeds are
identified.
16. Anomaly list (Validation
Seeds)
Accuracy/
Completeness
100% of validation seeds are
identified as TOI for excavation.
Validation Seed Database
Complete. All validation seeds
are identified.
Step 2c. Evaluate data completeness. Identify data gaps (i.e., data inputs that have not been satisfied.) and summarize their impact on the DQOs.
EM61 data are complete in all accessible areas and are deemed to be useable to locate the munitions specified in the project goals.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 251 of 303
Step 3: Document data usability, update the CSM, and draw conclusions
Step 3a. Determine if the data can be used as intended, considering implications of deviations and corrective actions. Assess the performance of
the sampling design and identify any limitations on data use. Determine whether the data are suitable for proceeding to the cued AGC data
collection phase.
The sampling design for the EM61 detection survey performed as expected. The MPCs/MQOs demonstrate the detection-survey data are
complete.
Step 3b. Apply decision rules and draw conclusions.
1. If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the remediation under the current assumptions. If
field observations are inconsistent with the CSM, the project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and
remedial design.
Field observations are consistent with the CSM. The project will continue under current assumptions.
2. If signals meet the anomaly selection criteria, they will be selected for intrusive investigation.
Signals meeting the anomaly selection criteria were selected for intrusive investigation. All seeds were detected, including in the 3-
acre area with SNR < 5. Reanalysis of 10% of the site, which included the entire low SNR area, revealed no additional anomalies that
could not be resolved.
Step 3c. Assess the performance of the sampling design and identify any limitations on data use. Considering the implications of any deviations
and data gaps, can the data be used as intended? Are the data sufficient to answer the study questions?
The sampling design for the EM61 detection survey performed as expected. The MPCs/MQOs demonstrate the data meet the detection survey
specifications.
Step 3d. Update the CSM decision rules and draw conclusions.
The CSM was updated to reflect the observations from the site preparation and data collection activities.
Step 4. Document lessons learned and make recommendations
Summarize lessons learned and make recommendations for changes to DQOs or the sampling design for future delivery units at the site, or future
investigations. Prepare the data usability summary report.
Recommendations: The EM61 data are sufficient to support the intrusive investigation.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 252 of 303
MRS B1 - Project Conclusion DUA
Identify personnel (organization and position/title) who participated in the data usability assessment: [Note: the same personnel should
participate in all phases of the DUA.
For the Government:
The DoD Remedial Project Manager
The DoD Technical Manager
The Project Geophysicist
The Project Quality Assurance Manager
The OESS
For the Contractor:
The Project Manager
The Project Geophysicist
The Quality Control Geophysicist
The Field Geophysicist (Lead)
The UXOQCS
The Regulator
Identify documents used as input to the project-completion data usability assessment:
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Contract Specifications
Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan
Final Verification and Validation Plan
Weekly QC Reports
Assessment Reports Corrective Action Reports
Production Area Seed Report
IVS Memoranda
Detection Survey Data Validation Report
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 253 of 303
Step 1. Review the project's objectives and sampling design
Step la. Are underlying assumptions in the initial CSM valid? Review the data quality objectives. Review the data collection plan as implemented
for consistency with stated objectives.
The primary objective of the removal action in MRS B1 was to remove:
All 60-mm mortars to a depth of 0.45 m bgs.
Any other munitions present on the site to their maximum reliable detection depth at the anomaly selection criteria set for the 60-mm
mortars.
The recovered objects include:
60-mm HE mortars.
Associated MD.
The vertical CSM in Figure D-2, below shows the recovered MEC, seeds, and maximum reliable detection depths.
0
i
i
~
I Seed Depth Range
~ Recov. 60mm Mortar
Max. Reliable Det.
20
E
o
~
Q
60
Seeds
250 med
ISO
Item
Figure D-4. Vertical CSM for MRS B1 at the conclusion of the RA
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 254 of 303
No unexpected munitions were recovered, and no munitions were recovered below their maximum reliable detection depth. Seeded items and
depths reflected the recovery findings. The underlying assumptions are valid.
All information from the removal action is consistent with the initial CSM, confirming planning assumptions and the validity of the sampling plan;
specifically:
The only munitions found on the site were fired HE mortars.
EM61 target selection criteria were based on detecting a 60-mm mortar to 0.45 m bgs. Nine mortars were found in the subsurface at
depths between 0.05 and 0.30 m.
Seeded items and depths were appropriate to represent the munitions recovered.
All field specifications, including line spacing, sampling rate, and sensor standoff planned based on initial assumptions, were valid.
Conclusion: There are no inconsistencies of a nature that would call into question whether the data collection and analysis methodology can
meet the project objectives.
Step lb. Consider sources of uncertainty. Was uncertainty appropriately managed?
Uncertainties include whether site noise would allow for consistent detection of TOI to the required depth across the entire site. Data were
reviewed and no areas were found where the noise was too high.
Step lc. Summarize any deviations from the planned sampling design and describe their impacts on the data quality objectives.
The sampling design was implemented as planned.
Step 2. Review the data verification/validation outputs and evaluate conformance to MPCs documented on Worksheet #12
Step 2a. Review available QA/QC reports, including weekly QC reports, assessment reports, corrective action reports, and the data
verification/validation reports. Evaluate the implications of unacceptable QC results. For any non-conformances, was the RCA/CA effective?
Summarize the impacts of non-conformances on data usability.
The data validation report contains a summary of all data, QC results, as well as non-conformances and RCA/CA. The excavation report contains
a summary of all recovered objects as well as non-conformances and RCA/CA. All data were collected as planned. CA were effective. Upon
implementation of the CA, no non-conformances were repeated. At the conclusion of the project, all data complied with all MPCs and MQOs.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 255 of 303
Table D-ll: Summary of non-conformances, root causes, and corrective action
Non-conforming MQO
Root cause
Corrective action
implemented?
Complete table from data
validation report
Step 2b. Evaluate conformance to MPCs documented on Worksheet #12.
Table D-12: MPC Evaluation for MRS B1 - Project Conclusion
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity
Used to Assess
Performance
Status
DFW 7 & 8 - Anomaly Resolution and Excavation
18. Anomaly resolution
(QC Seeds)
Accu ra cy/Co m p 1 ete n ess
100% of QC seeds were recovered.
1) QC Seed Database
2) RCA/CA Review and
Acceptance
Complete. All QC seeds were
recovered.
19. Anomaly resolution
(Validation Seeds)
Accuracy/
Completeness
100% of validation seeds were
recovered.
Validation Seed Database
Complete. All validation seeds
were recovered.
20. Intrusive
Investigation
Accuracy
Digital post-mapping verification of
selected excavated locations result in a
geophysical response less than the
detection threshold or documented as
fully resolved
Post-mapping database
Complete. All locations had a final
response less than the detection
threshold.
21. Intrusive
Investigation
Completeness/
Comparability
A complete project-specific database
including records reconciling detection
results to the physical properties of the
recovered items. 100% of anomalies
identified for investigation (i.e., TOI dig
list) intrusively investigated.
Intrusive Results
Database
Complete. All records are
documented in the database. All
anomaly locations were
investigated and resolved.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 256 of 303
Step 2c. Evaluate data completeness. Identify data gaps (i.e., data inputs that have not been satisfied.) and summarize their impact on the DQOs.
Together the MPCs provide evidence to support the design was successfully implemented:
Full coverage of the site with the EM61 survey was achieved. All accessible data gaps were resurveyed. Any areas inaccessible to the
array were surveyed with a handheld EM61 system or otherwise resolved.
The IVS confirmed the EM61 system was operating properly at the beginning and end of each data collection day.
All seeds were detected in the EM61 detection step and recovered.
Objects were recovered at all dig locations.
Step 3. Document data usability, update the CSM, apply decision rules, and draw conclusions
Step 3a. Determine if the data can be used as intended, considering implications of deviations and corrective actions. Assess the performance of
the sampling design and identify any limitations on data use.
The surface and subsurface removal performed as expected. The data were successfully used to excavate and remove all surface and subsurface
munitions for which there was evidence on the site. The MPCs/MQO demonstrate the data meet the remediation goal. There was no evidence
of munitions other than mortars.
The data are suitable for supporting a decision that the project is complete; specifically:
The EM61 survey was completed as planned and all MPCs were met.
All results were consistent with the CSM, and underlying planning assumptions were valid.
No munitions were recovered that are more hazardous than anticipated.
No unexpected munitions were recovered and no evidence suggesting their presence was observed.
No munitions were recovered below their reliable detection depths.
The firing point was located and excavated.
Step 3b. Apply decision rules and draw conclusions.
1. If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the remediation under the current assumptions. If
field observations are inconsistent with the CSM, the project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and
remedial design.
Field observations are consistent with the CSM. Remediation was completed under current assumptions.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 257 of 303
2. If a reanalysis of the survey data does not reveal any new anomalies that meet anomaly selection criteria that cannot be resolved, the
project has achieved DQOs. If new anomalies that cannot be resolved are identified, the team will conduct an RCA/CA to determine the
impacts on project objectives.
No additional anomalies were selected that could not be resolved. DQOs were achieved.
Step 3c. Document data usability and update the CSM.
O647,500 648,000 648,500 649,000 649,500
647,500 648,000 648,500 649,000 649,500
Easting (m)
Figure D-5: Final MRS B1 CSM: Mortar Target Aerial View
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 258 of 303
The CSM was updated to reflect the locations, depths, and types of all munitions recovered on the site:
Nine mortars were recovered in the far end of the firing fan near the impact area.
The firing point was identified.
No findings suggest a hazard that exceeds what is expected from the original CSM.
No evidence suggests that items exist below their maximum reliable detection depth. All recovered items were shallow. The findings
regarding the use of HE mortars are consistent with the CSM.
Step 4. Document lessons learned and make recommendations
Summarize lessons learned and make recommendations for changes to DQOs or the sampling design for the next phase of investigation or
future investigations. If this is the final DUA, prepare the final DUA report to be included in the RI/FS report.
Recommendations: The RA has been performed as planned and all the DQOs have been achieved. The sitework is complete and MEC has been
detected and removed to the required depths. The removal is complete.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 259 of 303
Example #4: MRS B2, Steep Terrain Area - Analog Surface and Subsurface Removal
Because detection and removal were conducted concurrently, the DUA was conducted at the conclusion of the project.
MRS B2- Project-conclusion DUA
Identify personnel (organization and position/title) who participated in the data usability assessment: [Note: the same personnel should
participate in all phases of the DUA.]
For the Government:
The DoD Remedial Project Manager
The DoD Technical Manager
The Project Geophysicist
The Project Quality Assurance Manager
The OESS
For the Contractor:
The Project Manager
The Project Geophysicist
The Quality Control Geophysicist
The Field Geophysicist (Lead)
The UXOQCS
The State Regulator
Identify documents used as input to the data usability assessment:
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Contract Specifications
Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan
Weekly QC Reports
Assessment Reports Corrective Action Reports
Production Area Seed Report
ITS Memoranda
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 260 of 303
Subsurface Removal Report
Describe how the usability assessment will be documented:
The data usability assessment report will be included as an appendix to the Final Report,
step l. Review the project's objectives and sampling design
Step la. Are underlying assumptions in the initial CSM valid? Review the data quality objectives. Review the project plan as implemented for
consistency with objectives.
The primary objective of the removal action in MRS B2 was to remove:
All 60-mm mortars to a depth of 0.45 m bgs.
Any other munitions present on the site to their maximum reliable detection depth at the anomaly selection criteria set for the 60-mm
mortars.
The recovered MEC-related objects include:
60-mm HE mortars to a depth of 35 cm.
Associated MD.
The vertical CSM in Figure D-3 shows the recovered MEC, seeds, and maximum reliable detection depths.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 261 of 303
I I Seed Depth Range
~ Recov. 60mm Mortar
Item
Figure D-6. Vertical CSM for MRS B2 at the conclusion of the RA
The assumptions regarding the target munitions were valid.
During the removal, one intact mortar was recovered 3 m from the MRS boundary at the farthest extent of the downrange direction of the firing
fan, within the area designated as buffer zone in the Rl. All the other recovered mortars were in the center of the impact area. This raised a
concern that additional munitions could be outside the designated MRS boundary. The site team extended the MRS boundary in the downrange
direction by an additional 45 m, doubling the length of the initial buffer zone, which was based on the distance between the transects in the Rl.
No additional intact munitions were found in the expanded buffer zone.
Step lb. Were sources of uncertainty appropriately managed?
The underlying assumption is that an analog EMI metal detector can detect surface and subsurface munitions for removal. With no data record,
the primary uncertainty related to the remedial design is the unknown and unmeasurable reliability of the instrument and operator. The project
design included the extensive use of both QC and QA seeds to document performance. The removal yielded MEC, MD, and cultural artifacts. All
seeds were recovered, although some required multiple passes. The underlying assumptions are valid.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 262 of 303
Step lc. Summarize any deviations from the planned sampling design and describe their impacts on the data quality objectives.
The sampling design was implemented as planned, with additional buffer zone added in the downrange direction around the impact area.
Step 2. Review the data verification/validation outputs and evaluate conformance to MPCs documented on Worksheet #12
Step 2a. Review the data verification/validation reports and supporting data, if necessary (e.g., daily/weekly QC reports, assessment reports and
corrective action reports. For any non-conformances, was the RCA/CA effective? Evaluate the implications of unacceptable QC results.
The data validation report contains a summary of all field activities, QC results, non-conformances, and RCA/CA. In 65% of the survey units on
the site, QC seeds were missed on the first pass. These survey units were resurveyed as necessary until all seeds were recovered. In each
resurvey, additional seeds and additional native items were recovered. Upon retraining, seed recovery increased to 90-95% for the remaining
survey units.
Table D-13: Summary of non-conformances, root causes, and corrective action
Non-conforming MQO
Root cause
Corrective action
implemented?
Missed seeds
Inherent limitations of the
technology - operator
inconsistency
Retrained operators
Reworked areas with missed
seeds
Step 2b. Evaluate Conformance to MPCS documented on Worksheet #12.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 263 of 303
Table D-14: MPC Evaluation for MRS B2 - Project Conclusion
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/ Activity
Used to Assess
Performance
Status
DFW 1 - Site Preparation and CSM
1. Accessibility
Completeness
All areas inaccessible to remediation or
inaccessible to use of proposed
geophysical systems are identified and
mapped in a geographic information
system (GIS).
Visual Inspection QA
Report and/or GIS
Database
Complete. All inaccessible areas
documented in the GIS.
2. IOC Completeness
Representativeness/
Completeness
(recoverability)
All recoveries (IOC and MD) were
reviewed and CSM confirmed or updated.
Updated CSM
Complete
3. Survey Control
Completeness
All survey control points placed by PLS,
and survey control report submitted.
Surveyor and/or QC
Report
Complete. Survey report
accepted.
DFW 2 & 3 - ITS, QC Seeding, and QA Seeding
4. ITS Construction
Accu ra cy/Co m p 1 ete n ess
Seeds placed so that each sensor passes
at least one seed item during ITS. Seed
type, depth, and location accuracy
recorded during placement.
ITS Memorandum
Complete. ITS Memorandum
accepted.
5. ITS Testing
Sensitivity/
Completeness
Analog equipment assembled correctly
and functioning as designed. Detection
threshold confirmed and tested daily with
ITS seeds at depth of detection.
1) ITS Memorandum
2) ITS Database
Complete. Sensor detected ITS
items daily.
6. QC Seeding
1) Representativeness
2) Completeness
3) Sensitivity
4) Accuracy
5) Comparability
Blind QC seeds will be placed at the site
by the contractor (1). Blind QC seeds must
be located throughout the horizontal
boundaries defined in the DQOs (2,3).
Production Area QC
Seeding Report
Complete. QC seeding report
contains verified, as-buried
locations.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 264 of 303
Table D-14: MPC Evaluation for MRS B2 - Project Conclusion (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/ Activity
Used to Assess
Performance
Status
DFW 2 - ITS, QC, and QA Seeding
7. QA Seeding
1) Representativeness
2) Completeness
3) Sensitivity
4) Accuracy
5) Comparability
Blind QA seeds (medium ISOs) will be
placed throughout the MRS footprint by
the Government (or its third-party
contractor) (1, 2, 3). QA Seeds must be
placed at the required depth of detection
(0.45 m) (2, 3).
QA Seeding Report
Complete. Verification seeding
report contains verified, as-buried
locations.
DFW 4 - Conduct Analo
g Surface and Subsurface Removal
8. Planned Survey
Coverage
Completeness
Survey lanes are designed and located not
to exceed 3-foot spacing and cover the
entire MRS footprint.
1) GPS or
Photographic
Documentation
2) Grid/Lane GIS
database
Complete. Planned survey lanes
conform to specification.
9. Detection threshold
(analog)
Sensitivity
[Example] The analog instrument must be
leveled to manufacturer settings and set
to a sensitivity of 5 for the duration of the
survey. Detection of a 60-mm mortar and
medium ISO at 0.45 m must be
demonstrated in the ITS.
1) Initial and ongoing
instrument test
strip (ITS) surveys
2) Blind QC and QA
seed detection
3) Periodic
Verification by QC
Geophysicist (or
designee)
Complete.
1) Sensor detected ITS items
daily.
2) Periodic checks by QC
geophysicist documented.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 265 of 303
Table D-14: MPC Evaluation for MRS B2 - Project Conclusion (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality
Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity
Used to Assess
Performance
Status
DFW 4 - Conduct Analo
g Surface and Subsurface Removal
10. Detection Survey
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of QC seeds detected.
1) QC Seed Database
2) RCA/CA reviewand
acceptance
Complete. In the first survey unit, one
or more seeds were missed on the
first pass in 65% of the grids. These
grids were resurveyed as necessary
until all seeds were recovered. In
each resurvey, additional seeds and
additional native items were
recovered. Upon retraining, seed
recovery improved and 90-95% of
grids had no missed seeds for the
remaining survey units.
11. Detection Survey
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of QA seeds must be detected.
QASeed Database
Complete. The contractor submitted
QA seed recovery to the government
only after all QC seeds were
recovered in each delivery unit. One
or more of the QA seeds were missed
in 33% of the grids. Misses were
randomly distributed across the site,
indicating there were no systematic
caused. The grids were then
resurveyed until all QA seeds were
recovered.
12. Detection Survey
Coverage
Representativeness/
Completeness
100% of the site is sampled.
1) Seed Recovery
2) Operator GPS
Records
Complete. GIS records show all lands
surveyed. Photographs and GPS logs
accepted.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 266 of 303
Table D-14: MPC Evaluation for MRS B2 - Project Conclusion (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/ Activity
Used to Assess
Performance
Status
DFW 5 - Anomaly Resolution and Excavation
13. Anomaly Resolution
(QC Seeds)
Accu ra cy/Co m p 1 ete n ess
100% of QC seeds are excavated
QC Seed Database
Complete
14. Anomaly Resolution
(QA Seeds)
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of QA seeds must be excavated.
QA Seed Database
Complete
15. Intrusive
Investigation
Accuracy
QC or 3rd party re-check of 10% of the
excavated locations result in zero
additional intrusive investigations
QC Database
Complete
16. Intrusive
Investigation
Completeness
Complete project-specific database with
all intrusive records.
Project Database
Complete
Step 2c. Evaluate data completeness. Identify data gaps (i.e., data inputs that have not been satisfied) and summarize their impact on the DQOs.
The removal was complete in all accessible areas and located mortars and MD associated with mortars. Based on seed recovery results, it is
possible but not certain that all subsurface munitions were removed from the site.
Step 3. Document data usability, update the CSM, apply decision rules, and draw conclusions
Step 3a. Assess the performance of the sampling design and identify any limitations on data use. Considering the implications of any deviations
and data gaps, can the data be used as intended? Are the data sufficient to answer the study questions?
The subsurface removal performed as expected:
A total of 107 of the expected 60-mm mortars were removed from the site, along with associated MD.
Missed seeds confirm that analog technology does not reliably detect all targets of interest.
Multiple passes on parcels where misses occurred increase confidence, but do not address the underlying likelihood that native items
could be missed even in parcels where all seeds were recovered.
There is insufficient evidence to support a determination that all required subsurface munitions were removed.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 267 of 303
Step 3b. Apply Decision Rules
1. If fieid observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the remediation under the current assumptions. If
field observations are inconsistent with the CSM, the project team wili update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and
remedial design.
Field observations were consistent with the CSM. The project was completed under current planning assumptions.
2. If MPCs have been achieved, the project will have implemented the removal component of the remedy. The LUCs specified in the ROD
will be used to manage residual risk. If not, the team will recommend that the appropriate representatives of the responsible offices
revisit and reconsider the ROD.
All MPCs were achieved. The removal component of the remedy is complete.
Step 3c. Update the CSM and draw conclusions.
647,500 648,000 648,500 649,000 649,500
Easting (m)
Figure D-7: Final MRS B2 CSM: Mortar Target Aerial View
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 268 of 303
The CSM was updated to reflect the locations and types of all munitions recovered on the site:
60,000 items were removed from the site
107 HE mortars
Step 4. Document lessons learned and make recommendations
Summarize lessons learned and make recommendations for changes to DQOs or the sampling design for future delivery units at the site, or future
investigations. Prepare the data usability summary report.
Recommendations: The work was completed to the capability of the technology and all MPCs were achieved, indicating the removal component
had met the requirements of the ROD to reduce risk. However, there is no evidence to support the claim that all munitions have been removed.
The LUCs in the ROD will be used to manage the residual risk. Findings from the removal that will inform risk management include:
The removal was implemented as intended.
Additional buffer zone was added in the down-range direction as a consequence of finding an intact mortar within 3 m of the initial MRS
boundary.
Missed seeds were randomly distributed across the site, indicating technology limitations rather than systematic failures tied to site
conditions or personnel.
The QA seeds were detected, some requiring multiple passes.
The updated CSM provides confidence that the UXO that were detected have been removed.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 269 of 303
Example #5: MRS C Bomb Target - Surface and Subsurface Removal using Dynamic AGC followed by Cued AGC
DUAs for MRS C were performed at (1) the conclusion of the dynamic AGC detection survey and analysis, (2) the conclusion of the cued AGC data
collection and analysis, and (3) the conclusion of the project.
MRS C - AGC Dynamic Detection Survey DUA
Identify personnel (organization and position/title) who participated in the data usability assessment: [Note: the same personnel should
participate in all phases of the DUA.]
For the Government:
The DoD Remedial Project Manager
The DoD Technical Manager
The Project Geophysicist
The Project Quality Assurance Manager
The OESS
For the Contractor:
The Project Manager
The Project Geophysicist
The Quality Control Geophysicist
The Field Geophysicist (Lead)
The UXOQCS
The Regulator
Identify documents used as input to the detection survey data usability assessment:
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Contract Specifications
Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan
Weekly QC Reports
Assessment Reports Corrective Action Reports
Production Area Seed Report
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 270 of 303
IVS Memoranda
Detection Survey Data Validation Report
Step 1. Review the project's objectives and sampling design
Step la. Are underlying assumptions in the initial CSM valid? Review the data quality objectives. Were the project boundaries appropriate?
Review the sampling design as implemented for consistency with stated objectives. Were sources of uncertainty accounted for and
appropriately managed? Summarize any deviations from the planned sample design.
The primary objective of the removal action in MRS C was to remove:
All 100-pound HE bombs to the depth of bedrock.
Nose and tail fuzes to a depth of 0.30 m and spotting charges to a depth of 0.40 m.
Any other munitions present on the site that are detectable at the anomaly selection criteria.
The munitions-related objects recovered in the surface sweep include:
Fragments and debris from HE bombs.
Munitions components in including fuzes and spotting charges.
Debris from practice bombs.
No evidence of other munitions was found. The underlying assumptions are consistent with all observations to date.
The anomaly selection criteria were set to detect a 100-pound HE bomb to the maximum reliable detection depth of 1.75 m, which will also
detect fuzes and spotting charges to 0.30 m and 0.40 m respectively, as required. As documented in the CSM, depth to bedrock is 1.2 m. The
detection survey is appropriate to remove all required objects to bedrock.
From the Rl report, it was expected that a 6-acre area in the target center would have anomaly density that exceeds the MPC of 3500/acre. This
area was subject to mag-and-dig anomaly density reduction, and, upon completion of the detection survey, no portions remained where
anomaly densities were too high to apply AGC.
Other uncertainties include whether background noise would allow for consistent detection of TOI to the required depth across the entire site.
Data were reviewed and no areas were found where the background noise was too high to meet detection objectives.
Step lb. Summarize any deviations from the planned sampling design and describe their impacts on the data quality objectives.
The sampling design was implemented as planned.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 271 of 303
Step 2. Review the data verification/validation outputs and evaluate conformance to MPCs documented on Worksheet #12
Step 2a. Review available QA/QC reports, including weekly QC reports, assessment reports, corrective action reports, and the data
verification/validation reports. Evaluate the implications of unacceptable QC results. For any non-conformances, was the RCA/CA effective?
Summarize the impacts of non-conformances on data usability.
The data validation report contains a summary of all data, QC results, non-conformances, and RCA/CA. All data were collected as planned. CA
were effective. Upon implementation of the CA, no non-conformances were repeated. At the conclusion of the survey, all data complied with all
MPCs and MQOs.
Table D-15: Summary of non-conformances, root causes, and corrective action
Non-conforming MQO
Root cause
Corrective action
implemented?
Complete this table from data
validation report
Step 2b. Evaluate conformance to MPCs documented on Worksheet #12.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 272 of 303
Table D-16: MPC Evaluation for MRS C- Detection Survey
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/ Activity
Used to Assess
Performance
Status
DFW 1 - Site Preparation, CSM, and Anomaly Reduction
1. Accessibility
Completeness
All areas inaccessible to remediation or
inaccessible to use of proposed
geophysical systems are identified and
mapped in a geographic information
system (GIS).
Visual Inspection QA
Report and/or GIS
Database
Complete. Inaccessible
areas documented in GIS.
2. IOC Completeness
Representativeness/
Completeness
(recoverability)
All recoveries (IOC and MD) were
reviewed and CSM confirmed or
updated. All recovered munitions, as
well as munitions related to recovered
MD, were included in the site specific
AGC library.
Surface Sweep Technical
Memorandum and
Updated CSM
Complete. Recovered IOC
and MD documented in
sweep technical
memorandum. CSM
updated to reflect all
recoveries were consistent
with initial CSM. All IOC
verified in the AGC library
3. Surface Sweep
Coverage
Representativeness/
Completeness
Surface sweep completed across the
entire site. Identified SRAs have been
documented.
Surface Sweep Technical
Memorandum and
Updated CSM
Complete. Surface sweep
memorandum and GIS
indicate all parts of the
site were covered.
4. Survey Control
Completeness
All survey control points placed by PLS,
and survey control report submitted.
Surveyor and/or QC
Report
Complete
DFW 3 & 4 - QC Seeding
ป, Validation Seeding, and IVS
5. IVS Construction
Accuracy/Completeness
Seeds placed so that each sensor passes
at least one seed item during IVS
surveys. Seed type, depth, and location
accuracy recorded during placement.
IVS Memorandum
Complete
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 273 of 303
Table D-16: MPC Evaluation for MRS C - Detection Survey (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/ Activity
Used to Assess
Performance
Status
6. IVS Testing
Sensitivity/
Completeness
Detection equipment assembled
correctly and functioning as designed.
Detection threshold confirmed or
adjusted as appropriate.
IVS Memorandum
Complete. Signals
consistent with
REFERENCE REPORT.
Measured noise supports
detection at the chosen
threshold.
7. QC Seeding
1) Representativeness
2) Completeness
3) Sensitivity
4) Accuracy
5) Comparability
Blind QC seeds will be placed at the site
by the contractor (1). Blind QC seeds
must be detectable as defined by the
DQOs and located throughout the
horizontal and vertical survey
boundaries defined in the DQOs (2,3).
Production Area QC
Seeding Report
Complete. QC seeding
report contains verified,
as-buried locations of
seeds. All seeds are buried
at depths in the
detectable range of the
sensor.
DFW 3 & 4 - QC Seeding
Validation Seeding, and IVS
8. Validation Seeding
1) Representativeness
2) Completeness
3) Sensitivity
4) Accuracy
5) Comparability
Blind Validation seeds will be placed
throughout the MRS footprint by the
Government (or its third-party
contractor) (1). Validation seeds must
be detectable as defined by the DQOs
and located at depths that result in
signals equivalent to 2-5 times the
detection threshold (2,3).
Validation Seeding
Report
Complete. Validation seed
report contains verified,
as-buried locations of
seeds. All seeds are buried
at depths in the
detectable range of the
sensor.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 274 of 303
Table D-16: MPC Evaluation for MRS C - Detection Survey (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity
Used to Assess
Performance
Status
DFW 5 - Detection Survey, Data Processing, and Detection Survey DUA
9. ISS Threshold
Sensitivity
A detection threshold of > 0.87 mV/A
on Channel 14, modeled sized > 0.3,
and polarizability fit > 0.9, are required
to detect a 100-lb bomb lying
horizontally at a depth of [1.5 m].
1) Review of sampling
design
2) Initial and ongoing
instrument
verification strip
(IVS) surveys
3) Blind QC and
validation seed
detection
4) RMS background
maps show all areas
are less than or
equal to 20% of the
threshold
Complete.
1) Sampling design
parameters were
appropriate for known and
expected munitions
2) IVS surveys verified
selection of required TOI
3) Blind QC and validation
seed detection verified
selection of required TOI
4) RMS background maps
show all areas were less
than or equal to 20% of the
threshold
10. Detection Survey
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of QC seeds detected
1) QC Seed Database
2) RCA/CA reviewand
acceptance
Complete. All QC seeds
detected at correct location
with signal consistent with
predictions.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 275 of 303
Table D-16: MPC Evaluation for MRS C - Detection Survey (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity
Used to Assess
Performance
Status
DFW 5 - Detection Survey, Data Processing, and Detection Survey DUA
11. Detection Survey
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of validation seeds must be
detected.
Validation Seed Database
Complete. All validation seeds
detected at the correct
locations and with signals
consistent with the buried
item.
12. Detection Survey
Coverage
Representativeness/
Completeness
100% of the site is sampled at
required lane spacing and point-to-
point sampling specifications.
1) Coverage Maps
2) Detection Survey
Database
Complete. Coverage within
specification. IVS locations
within specification. Survey
control point reacquisition
within specification. Seed
locations within specification.
13. Anomaly Selection
Completeness
Complete project-specific databases
and anomaly lists delivered. All QC
and QA seeds listed in detection
survey database. All other detected
metallic objects screened out by ISS
are documented in Detection Survey
Database.
Anomaly Selection
Database
Complete. Verification of 10%
of the data did not result in any
additional anomalies selected.
14. AGC Cued Survey
Background
Locations
Representativeness/
Sensitivity
Background areas where detection
threshold does not exceed five times
background are identified.
1) GIS Database
2) Cued Background
Database
Complete. Representative
locations were identified
throughout the site.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 276 of 303
Table D-16: MPC Evaluation for MRS C - Detection Survey (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/ Activity
Used to Assess
Performance
Status
DFW 5 - Detection Survey, Data Processing, and Detection Survey DUA
15. AGC Cued Survey
Background
Locations
Representativeness/
Comparability
Representative areas determined to
be background are selected and
bounded in the detection survey.
1) GIS Database
2) Cued Background
Database
Complete
16. Variability for Cued
Background locations
Representativeness/
Sensitivity
Representative backgrounds are
selected in all noise regimes.
Background areas where detection
threshold is less than 5 times
background are identified. All
anomaly cued locations appropriate
for each expected background are
identified.
1) GIS Database
2) Cued Background
Database
Complete. No areas of elevated
background noise were
identified.
17. Saturated Response
Areas (SRAs)
Completeness
No SRAs in final detection survey
data. Anomaly density in all
designated SRAs reduced to below
DQO thresholds and remapped. SRA
boundaries documented in GIS
deliverable. [Example] The analog
anomaly reduction survey reduces the
anomaly density to below 3500
anomalies/acre.
1) Detection Survey
database
2) GIS database
Complete. No such areas were
present in the detection survey
data.
Step 2c: Evaluate data completeness. Identify data gaps (i.e., data inputs that have not been satisfied) and summarize their impact on the DQOs.
Dynamic AGC data are complete in all accessible areas and are deemed to be useable to locate the munitions specified in the project goals. The
only remaining data gaps are rocky outcroppings, where munitions cannot penetrate to the subsurface. These data gaps do not have an impact
on achievement of the DQOs. No other data gaps remain.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 277 of 303
Step 3: Document data usability, update the CSM, and draw conclusions
Step 3a: Determine if the data can be used as intended, considering implications of deviations and corrective actions. Assess the performance of
the sampling design and identify any limitations on data use. Determine whether the data are suitable for proceeding to the cued AGC data
collection phase.
The sampling design for the subsurface removal performed as expected. The MPCs/MQOs demonstrate the data meet the remediation goal
articulated in Step 1.
Step 3b: Apply decision rules and draw conclusions. If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the
remediation under the current assumptions.
1. If field observations are inconsistent with the CSM, the project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and
remedial design.
Field observations are consistent with the CSM. Remediation will continue under current assumptions.
2. If signals meet the ISS anomaly selection criteria, they will be selected for cued data collection using AGC.
Signals meeting the ISS anomaly selection criteria were selected for AGC data collection. All seeds were detected.
3. If areas of the site are deemed unsuitable for AGC (criteria established in WS #12), the project team will document those areas and
revise the remedial design, as necessary.
No areas of the site were deemed unsuitable for AGC.
The project team concluded all MPCs were achieved and the data support moving on to the cued data collection and analysis phase.
Step 3c: Update the CSM.
The CSM was updated to reflect the observations from the site preparation activities and document the area where anomaly reduction activities
were performed.
Step 4. Document lessons learned and make recommendations
Summarize lessons learned and make recommendations for changes to DQOs or the sampling design for future delivery units at the site, or
future investigations. Prepare the data usability summary report.
Recommendations: The dynamic AGC data are sufficient to support the AGC cued data collection.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 278 of 303
MRS C Cued Survey DUA
Identify personnel (organization and position/title) who participated in the data usability assessment: [Note: the same personnel should
participate in all phases of the DUA.]
For the Government:
The DoD Remedial Project Manager
The DoD Technical Manager
The Project Geophysicist
The Project Quality Assurance Manager
The OESS
For the Contractor:
The Project Manager
The Project Geophysicist
The Quality Control Geophysicist
The Field Geophysicist (Lead)
The UXOQCS
The Regulator
Identify documents used as input to the cued-survey data usability assessment:
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Contract Specifications
Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan
Final Verification and Validation Plan
Weekly QC Reports
Assessment Reports Corrective Action Reports
Production Area Seed Report
IVS Memoranda
Site-Specific Library
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 279 of 303
Cued Survey Data Validation Report
Prioritized Target "Dig" List
Target Classification Report
Classification Validation Report
Step 1. Review the project's objectives and sampling design
Step la. Are underlying assumptions in the initial CSM valid? Review the data quality objectives. Were the project boundaries appropriate?
Review the sampling design as implemented for consistency with stated objectives. Consider sources of uncertainty. Was uncertainty
appropriately managed?
The primary objective of the removal action in MRS C was to remove:
All 100-pound HE bombs and practice bombs to the depth of bedrock.
Nose and tail fuzes to a depth of 0.30 m and spotting charges to a depth of 0.40 m.
Any other munitions present on the site that are detectable at the anomaly selection criteria.
The library and TOI selection criteria for the AGC step were both specified with the assumption that these munitions would make up the TOI.
The munitions-related objects recovered in the surface sweep include:
Fragments and debris from HE bombs.
Munitions components in including fuzes and spotting charges.
Debris from practice bombs.
No evidence of other munitions was found. The underlying assumptions are consistent with all observations to date.
Step lb. Were sources of uncertainty accounted for and appropriately managed?
There is little uncertainty in the expected munitions in MRS C that affected the design of the classification step. The CSM provided evidence from
historical records of use and the detailed characterization in the Rl that MRS C was used as a bombing target. The library contained bombs and
bomb-related munitions debris from the historical records and the TOI selection criteria were set to identify the required items.
Other uncertainties included whether site noise would allow for consistent classification of TOI to the required depth across the entire site and
the extent to which background variation would affect the analysis. Data were reviewed and no areas were found where the noise was too high.
Background data were acquired multiple times per day and variability was as expected.
Step lc. Summarize any deviations from the planned sampling design and describe their impacts on the data quality objectives.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 280 of 303
The sampling design was implemented as planned. Cued AGC data were collected at the locations of all anomalies selected in the detection step.
All cued data were analyzed and classified. Additional required verification and validation digs were identified.
Step 2. Review the data verification/validation outputs and evaluate conformance to MPCs documented on Worksheet #12
Step 2a. Review available QA/QC reports, including weekly QC reports, assessment reports, corrective action reports, and the data
verification/validation reports. Evaluate the implications of unacceptable QC results. For any non-conformances, was the RCA/CA effective?
Summarize the impacts of non-conformances on data usability.
The data validation report contains a summary of all data, QC results, non-conformances and RCA/CA. CA were effective. Upon implementation
of the CA, no non-conformances were repeated. All data were collected as planned. At the conclusion of the project, all data complied with all
MPCs and MQOs.
Table D-17: Summary of non-conformances, root cause analysis, and corrective action
Non-conforming MQO
Root cause
Corrective action
implemented?
Complete table from data
validation report
Step 2b. Evaluate conformance to MPCs documented on Worksheet #12
Table D-18: MPC Evaluation for MRS C - Cued Survey
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity
Used to Assess
Performance
Status
DFW 7, 8, and 9 - Data Processing and Cued Survey DUA
18. Background data
collection (AGC)
Representativeness/
Accuracy
Each cued analysis is performed with a
representative background and
verified during quality control.
1) Background Validation
Database
2) Cued Survey Database
3) QC Verification
Complete. Background data
were collected at locations
identified on the site. Data
review confirmed appropriate
background measurements
were used in the analysis.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 281 of 303
Table D-18: MPC Evaluation for MRS C - Cued Survey (Continued)
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity
Used to Assess
Performance
Status
DFW 7, 8, and 9 - Data Processing and Cued Survey DUA
19. Background
frequency
Accuracy
Background data are collected at a
minimum of the interval specified by
the manufacturer.
Background Validation
Database
Complete. All background
measurement were repeated X
times per day, per the
manufacturer specifications,
and drift was documented.
20. Anomaly
classification (AGC)
Completeness/
Comparability
Site-specific library must include
signatures for all items considered by
the project team to be IOC as listed in
theCSM.
Site-Specific TOI Library
Complete. The library included
signatures from all items
confirmed or suspected to be
present
21. Anomaly
classification (AGC)
Completeness
Cued data collected at all anomaly
locations. All detected anomalies
classified as:
1) TOI
2) Non-TOI
3) Inconclusive
1) Source Database
2) Final Intrusive
Database
Complete. All anomalies were
assigned to one of TOI, non-
TOI, or inconclusive.
22. Anomaly
classification (QC
seeds)
Accu ra cy/Co m p 1 ete n ess
100% of QC seeds are correctly
classified as TOI. QC seeds classified as
inconclusive are discussed in DUA.
1) QC seed database
2) RCA/CA reviewand
acceptance
Complete. All QC seeds
correctly classified.
23. Anomaly
classification
(validation seeds)
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of validation seeds are correctly
classified as TOI.
Validation seed database
Complete. All validation seeds
correctly classified.
Step 2c. Evaluate data completeness. Identify data gaps (i.e., data inputs that have not been satisfied.) and summarize their impact on the DQOs.
AGC data were collected at all cued anomaly locations, analyzed, and a TOI/non-TOI decision was made for each location.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 282 of 303
Step 3. Document data usability, update the CSM, apply decision rules, and draw conclusions
Step 3a. Determine if the data can be used as intended, considering implications of deviations and corrective actions. Assess the performance of
the sampling design and identify any limitations on data use. Determine whether the data are suitable for proceeding to the cued AGC data
collection phase.
The sampling design for the AGC cued data collection performed as expected. The MPCs/MQOs demonstrate the data meet the remediation
goal articulated in Step 1.
Step 3b. Apply decision rules and draw conclusions
1. If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the remediation under the current assumptions. If
field observations are inconsistent with the CSM, the project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and
remedial design.
Field observations are consistent with the CSM. Remediation will continue under current assumptions.
2. If AGC analyses meet any of the following criteria, they will be selected as TOI and placed on an ordered dig list: a) the polarizability
decay curve matches that of an item in the project-specific TOI library, or b) estimates of the size, shape, symmetry, and wall thickness
indicate the item is long, cylindrical or spherical, and thick-walled, or c) there is a group (cluster) of unknown anomalies having similar
polarizability decay curves that, after investigation, are discovered to be TOI.
All anomalies from the AGC cued survey were assigned to one of TOI, non-TOI, or inconclusive. AGC analyses meeting the criteria
were placed on the dig list. All seeds were correctly identified as TOI.
3. If AGC analyses yield inconclusive polarizability decay curves they will be added to the dig list or otherwise resolved.
All inconclusive analyses were added to the dig list or otherwise resolved.
Step 3c. Update the CSM.
No updates to the CSM were required. The data are suitable to support intrusive investigation.
Step 4. Document lessons learned and make recommendations
Summarize lessons learned and make recommendations for changes to DQOs or the sampling design for future delivery units at the site, or future
investigations. Prepare the data usability summary report.
Recommendations: The intrusive investigation should begin.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 283 of 303
MRS C - Project-Conclusion DUA
Identify personnel (organization and position/title) who participated in the data usability assessment: [Note: the same personnel should
participate in all phases of the DUA.
For the Government:
The DoD Remedial Project Manager
The DoD Technical Manager
The Project Geophysicist
The Project Quality Assurance Manager
The OESS
For the Contractor:
The Project Manager
The Project Geophysicist
The Quality Control Geophysicist
The Field Geophysicist (Lead)
The Regulator
Identify documents used as input to the project-conclusion data usability assessment:
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Contract Specifications
Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan
Final Verification and Validation Plan
Weekly QC Reports
Assessment Reports Corrective Action Reports
Production Area Seed Report
IVS Memoranda
Detection Survey Data Validation Report
Site-Specific Library
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 284 of 303
Cued Survey Data Validation Report
Prioritized Target "Dig" List
Target Classification Report
Classification Validation Report
Step 1. Review the project's objectives and sampling design
Step la. Are underlying assumptions in the initial CSM valid? Review the data quality objectives. Review the data collection plan as implemented
for consistency with stated objectives.
The primary objective of the removal action in MRS C was to remove:
All 100-pound HE bombs to the depth of bedrock.
Nose and tail fuzes to a depth of 0.30 m and spotting charges to a depth of 0.40 m.
Any other munitions present on the site that are detectable at the anomaly selection criteria.
The library and TOI selection criteria for the AGC step were both specified with the assumption that these munitions would make up the TOI.
The munitions-related objects recovered in the intrusive investigation include:
15 HE bombs to a depth of 1.1 m.
Fragments and debris from HE bombs.
Munitions components in including fuzes and spotting charges.
Debris from practice bombs.
No evidence of other munitions was found.
The vertical CSM in Figure D-4 shows the recovered MEC, seeds, and maximum reliable detection depths.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 285 of 303
E
o
20
ฉ 40
Q
60
112 Seeds,
Each Type
_L
_L
_L
_L
~
~
_L
oฐ
I Seed Depth Range
~ Recov. MKII PGs
A Recov. Smoke 60mmM
^ Recov. Ilium. 60mmM
Max. Reliable Det.
<ฃ>
Item
Figure D-8. Vertical CSM for MRS C at the conclusion of the RA
All information from the removal action is consistent with the initial CSM, confirming planning assumptions and the validity of the sample plan.
The project team reached the following conclusions:
Dynamic AGC target selection criteria were based on detecting a 100-pound bomb to its maximum reliable detection depth of 1.75 m
(deeper than bedrock). Fifteen intact bombs were found in the subsurface at depths between 0.3 and 1.1 m.
The target selection criteria correspond to a reliable detection depth of fuzes to 0.30 m. 115 fuzes were recovered at depths ranging
from 0.05 to 0.20 m.
The target selection criteria correspond to a reliable detection depth of spotting charges to 0.40 m. Ninety-three spotting charges were
recovered at depths ranging from 0.05 to 0.3 m.
All potential munitions and hazardous components identified in the CSM were included in the AGCTOI library.
Seeded items and depths were appropriate to represent the munitions recovered.
All field specifications, including line spacing, sampling rate and sensor standoff planned to the initial assumptions were valid.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 286 of 303
Conclusion: There are no inconsistencies of a nature that would call into question whether the data collection and analysis methodology can
meet the project objectives.
Step lb. Consider sources of uncertainty. Was uncertainty appropriately managed?
There was little uncertainty related to the design of the classification step regarding the expected munitions. The CSM provided compelling
evidence from historical records of use and the detailed classification in the Rl that MRS C was used as a bomb target. The library contained all
possible munitions and hazardous components from the historical records, and the TOI selection criteria were set to identify the required items.
Other uncertainties included whether site noise would allow for consistent classification of TOI to the required depth across the entire site and
the extent to which background variation would affect the analysis. Data were reviewed and no areas were found where the noise was too high.
Background data were acquired multiple times per day and variability was as expected.
Step lc. Summarize any deviations from the planned sampling design and describe their impacts on the data quality objectives.
The sampling design was implemented as planned.
Step 2. Review the data verification/validation outputs and evaluate conformance to MPCs documented on Worksheet #12
Step 2a. Review available QA/QC reports, including weekly QC reports, assessment reports, corrective action reports, and the data
verification/validation reports. Evaluate the implications of unacceptable QC results. For any non-conformances, was the RCA/CA effective?
Summarize the impacts of non-conformances on data usability.
The data validation report contains a summary of all data, QC results, as well as non-conformances and RCA/CA. All data were collected as
planned. There were no unacceptable QC results. CA were effective. Upon implementation of the CA, no non-conformances were repeated. At
the conclusion of the project, all data complied with all MPCs and MQOs.
Table D-19: Summary of non-conformances, root causes, and corrective action
Non-conforming MQO
Root cause
Corrective action
implemented?
Complete table from data
validation report
Step 2b. Evaluate conformance to MPCs documented on Worksheet #12.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 287 of 303
Table D-20: MPC Evaluation for MRS C- Project Conclusion
Measurement
Data Quality Indicator
Specification
Document/Activity
Used to Assess
Performance
Status
DFW 10,11, and 12 - Anomaly Resolution, Excavation, and Final DUA
24. Anomaly resolution
(QC Seeds)
Accuracy/Completeness
100% of QC seeds are recovered.
1) QC Seed Database
2) RCA/CA Review and
Acceptance
Complete. All QC seeds
recovered.
25. Anomaly resolution
(Validation Seeds)
Accuracy/
Completeness
100% of validation seeds are
recovered.
Validation Seed Database
Complete. All validation
seeds recovered.
26. Anomaly
resolution
Accuracy
100% of predicted non-TOI that are
intrusively investigated are confirmed
to be non-IOC. This includes threshold
verification digs and validation digs.
Intrusive Results
Database
Complete. All predicted
non-TOI that were
investigated were non-
TOI.
27. Intrusive
Investigation
Accuracy
Inversion results correctly predict one
or more physical properties (e.g., size,
symmetry, or wall thickness) of the
recovered items (specific tests and test
objectives established during project
planning).
Intrusive Results
Database
Complete. All recovered
items were consistent
with predicted physical
properties.
28. Intrusive
Investigation
Completeness/
Comparability
A complete project-specific database
including records reconciling inversion
results to the physical properties of the
recovered items.
Intrusive Results
Database
Complete. All records are
documented in the
database. All anomaly
locations were
investigated and
resolved.
29. Intrusive
Investigation
Accuracy/Completeness
AGC results indicate original
polarizabilities resulting in TOI are no
longer present and no additional TOI
sources present above the project-
specific stop-dig threshold.
Post-mapping database
Complete
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 288 of 303
Step 2c. Evaluate data completeness. Identify data gaps (i.e., data inputs that have not been satisfied.) and summarize their impact on the DQOs.
AGC dynamic survey data were collected as specified throughout the site. AGC cued data were collected at all cued anomaly locations, analyzed,
and a TOI/non-TOI decision was made for each location. All MPCs were achieved. Together the MPCs provide evidence to support the design
was successfully implemented; specifically:
Full coverage of the site with the AGC dynamic survey was achieved. All accessible data gaps were resurveyed or otherwise resolved.
The IVS confirmed the AGC dynamic system was operating properly at the beginning and end of each data collection day.
All seeds were detected in the AGC dynamic detection step, correctly classified in the AGC analysis, and recovered.
All recovered munitions were consistent with the AGC analysis predictions.
All verification digs were non-TOI.
All validation digs were consistent with AGC analysis.
Step 3. Document data usability, update the CSM, apply decision rules, and draw conclusions
Step 3a. Determine if the data can be used as intended, considering implications of deviations and corrective actions. Assess the performance of
the sampling design and identify any limitations on data use.
The sampling design for the subsurface removal performed as expected. The MPCs/MQOs demonstrate the data meet the remediation goal
articulated in Step 1.
Step 3b. Considering the implications of any deviations and data gaps, can the data be used as intended? Are the data sufficient to answer the
study questions?
The sampling design for the surface and subsurface removal performed as expected. The data were successfully used to excavate and remove all
surface and subsurface munitions for which there was evidence on the site. The MPCs/MQOs demonstrate the data meet the remediation goal
of no bombs to bedrock, no fuzes to 0.30 m, and no spotting charges to 0.40 m.
The data are suitable for supporting a weight-of-evidence decision regarding UU/UE; specifically:
The AGC dynamic survey was completed as planned and all MPCs were met.
The AGC data collection and analysis was completed as planned and all MPCs were met.
All results were consistent with the CSM, and underlying planning assumptions were valid.
No munitions were recovered that are more hazardous than anticipated.
No unexpected munitions were recovered and no evidence suggesting their presence was observed.
No munitions were recovered below their reliable detection and classification depth.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 289 of 303
Verification digs recovered no IOC.
Validation digs recovered no IOC and all recovered items were consistent with the AGC analysis.
Step 3c. Apply decision rules and draw conclusions
1. If field observations are consistent with the CSM, the project team will continue with the remediation under the current assumptions. If
field observations are inconsistent with the CSM, the project team will update the CSM and determine the impacts on the DQOs and
remedial design.
Field observations were consistent with the CSM. Remediation was completed under current assumptions.
2. If the threshold verification digs do not uncover any IOC as described above, then the threshold is verified. If any IOC are recovered, then
the project team will conduct an RCA/CA that results in an adjustment of the threshold and determination of the impacts on project
objectives.
Threshold verification digs did not uncover any IOC. The threshold is verified.
3. The geophysical classification results will be valid if:
a. Validation digs do not uncover any IOC, and
b. The properties of all recovered objects are consistent with predicted properties.
No IOC were recovered, and no recovered items were inconsistent with the predicated properties. Results are valid.
4. If validation digs uncover any IOC as described above, the project team will conduct a QA stand-down and evaluate the impacts on MPCs
and DQOs.
Validation digs did not recover any IOC. Analysis results are validated.
5. If the properties of any recovered object are inconsistent with predicted properties, then the project team will conduct an RCA/CA and
determine the impacts on achievement of MPCs and DQOs.
The properties of all recovered objects were consistent with the predicted properties.
6. If all lines of evidence are complete and support UU/UE, the project team will develop documentation supporting UU/UE for
consideration by final decision-makers. If lines of evidence are incomplete or any line of evidence does not support UU/UE, the project
team will develop documentation rejecting UU/UE for consideration by final decision-makers.
All lines of evidence are complete and support UU/UE. The project team has developed documentation for decision-makers.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 290 of 303
Step 3d. Update the CSM.
The CSM was updated to reflect the locations, depths, and types of all munitions recovered on the site. The post-removal CSM supports the site
team making a recommendation regarding UU/UE, specifically:
The only munitions found on the site are 100-pound HE and practice bombs and associated components.
Dynamic AGC target selection criteria were based on detecting a 100-pound bomb to its maximum reliable detection depth of 1.75 m
(deeper than bedrock depth of 1.4 m). Fifteen intact bombs were found in the subsurface at depths between 0.3 and 1.1 m.
No evidence was uncovered during the surface sweep, or the subsurface removal of any other munitions identified in the original CSM
as potentially present.
No evidence of unexpected munitions was found. The AGC criteria for TOI looked for cylindrical or spherical items and looked at
"clusters" of similar unknown items.
No findings suggest a hazard that exceeds what is expected from the original CSM.
No evidence suggests that IOC exist below their maximum reliable detection depth. Bedrock limited penetration of bombs to 1.4 m.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 291 of 303
641,000 642,000 643,000
i i iiiii[
641,000 642,000 643,000 641,200 641,400 641,600 m
Easting (m)
Figure D-9: Final MRS C CSM: Bomb Target Aerial View
Step 4. Document lessons learned and make recommendations
Summarize lessons learned and make recommendations for changes to DQOs or the sampling design for the next phase of investigation or
future investigations. If this is the final DUA, prepare the final DUA report to be included in the RA report.
Recommendations: The RA has been performed as planned and all the DQOs have been achieved. The site work is complete and IOC has been
detected and removed to the required depths. The project team should prepare documentation supporting UU/UE for consideration by
decision-makers.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 292 of 303
Appendix E: Example Memorandum Supporting Unrestricted Use/Unlimited Exposure
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 293 of 303
MEMORANDUM
1. SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Site Name: Former Camp Example, MRS A1
Site Location: Example County, California
Site ID: XXXX-XX-XX
2. STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Memorandum approves the recommendation that MRS A1 of the former Camp Example in Example
County, California become designated for Unlimited Use/Unrestricted Exposure (UU/UE) following the
completion of the remedy specified in the Record of Decision. The selected remedy was chosen and
implemented in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) of 1986.
This Memorandum is issued by the DoD LEAD AGENCY and the ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY AGENCY.
The DoD LEAD AGENCY managed the Remedial Action, with participation of the ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATORY AGENCY, in accordance with CERCLA, as required by the Defense Environmental
Restoration Program (DERP). As the lead agency, DoD LEAD AGENCY designates MRS A1 of the former
Camp Example for UU/UE. ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY AGENCY concurs.
The Administrative Record (AR) files, containing information supporting this decision, are located in the
LOCATION at ADDRESS. The AR includes the following documents:
Archives Search Report (ASR)
Preliminary Assessment (PA)
Historical Records Review (HRR)
Site Inspection (SI)
Remedial Investigation (Rl)
Record of Decision (ROD)
Remedial Action Report (RACR) and associated Remedial Action Deliverables
3. DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY
The remedy selected in the ROD was the removal of subsurface MEC from the maneuver area
designated as MRS A1 using non-AGC DGM detection and cued (AGC) with Interim Land Use Controls.
The goal stated in the ROD is to demonstrate achievement of conditions that support designation for
UU/UE following MEC removal to permit site development. The military training that typically occurs on
a maneuver area is expected to result in munitions that are contained in the shallow subsurface. The
detection and classification systems specified in the remedy are capable of detecting likely munitions to
the depths that they are expected (specified below). Rigorous quality control measures are specified to
demonstrate the successful implementation of the remedy and support a UU/UE determination.
The specific MEC removal remediation goals were detection and removal of:
60-mm mortar to a minimum depth of 0.45 m bgs.
Hand grenades, signals, flares, pyrotechnics, 2.36" rockets, and anti-tank mines to a depth of
0.30 m bgs.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 294 of 303
Any other munitions detected.
The technology approach specified was:
Detection of anomalies indicating subsurface MEC using EM61.
Classification to identify targets of interest using cued AGC.
TOI investigation and source removal using manual and backhoe-assisted excavation.
All recovered MEC to be detonated in place or otherwise destroyed on site.
4. EFFECTIVENESS OF IMPLEMENTED REMEDY
All lines of evidence indicate no munitions remain on the site. The accompanying report summarizes the
steps that were taken to ensure that the RA removed the required munitions. Details can be found in
the referenced documents.
The recommendation of UU/UE is based on the determination that the remedy, as implemented,
removed all IOC and is protective of human health and the environment for any potential use. The
remedy has successfully removed munitions contamination as required in the ROD. The technology used
in the remedy is capable of detecting all specified munitions to the required depths. All recovered
munitions were shallower than reliable detection depths and seeds that were placed deeper than any
recovered munitions were all detected and correctly classified. All evidence indicates that no deeper
munitions exist. All quality measures evaluated in the data usability assessment indicate that the work
done on the site is in accordance with the measurement performance criteria and meets all applicable
standards.
All data and quality metrics support the conclusion that the UU/UE determination is scientifically valid
and meets the ROD requirements and no other remedial action is required. As a result, the site does not
require continuation of institutional controls and is fully protective of human health and the
environment. Munitions Response activities for Camp Example MRS A1 are now considered to have
reached the Response Complete stage.
5. AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES
This signature documents concurrence of UU/UE decision for MRS A1 on the former Camp Example.
NAME Date
DoD Lead Agency Signature Authority
NAME Date
Lead Regulatory Agency Signature Authority
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 295 of 303
UU/UE Recommendation and Report
Camp Example MRS A1
1. Site Background
The former Camp Example is located in Yuba and Nevada Counties, California, along the foothills of the
Sierra Nevada Mountains. In 1940, the Camp Example area consisted of grassland, rolling hills, and the
abandoned mining town of Exampleville. The U.S government purchased 87,000 acres in 1942 for a
training post for the 13th Armored Division. Camp Example also held training facilities for the 81st and
96th Infantry Division, a 1,000-bed hospital, and a prisoner of war camp. As a complete training
environment, Camp Example had training maneuver areas, mortar and rifle ranges, and bombardier-
navigator training. In 1948, Camp Example became Example Air Force Base. In 1959, the installation
ceased being used as a bombing range, and the U.S. government declared portions of Example Air Force
Base as excess, eventually transferring 60,805 acres to private individuals and the State of California.
Following the RI/FS, the Maneuver Area was designated as MRS A. MRS A was used near the end of
WWII for troop maneuvering and encampment. No records of live-fire training have been discovered.
During the Rl, an EM61 transect survey determined the maneuver area to be a low anomaly density (LD)
area. No surface evidence of MEC, MD, or RRD was found during the Rl; however, because of its
documented use as a historic maneuver area, the presence of MEC could not be ruled out.
Subsequently, MRS A was divided into two MRSs as shown in Figure E-l because future use scenarios
and selected remedies are unique to each:
MRS A1 - Maneuver Area Development Area, shown in green
MRS A2 - Maneuver Area Recreational Area, the remainder of the site
The ultimate goal of the remedy is to achieve Unlimited Use/Unrestricted Exposure (UU/UE) for MRS A1
to allow future residential development.
The anomaly density map shown in Figure E-l illustrates that no part of MRS A1 showed evidence of a
high-use area. However, the Rl transect survey was designed to detect target areas of the size and
anomaly density expected for 60-mm mortar target areas. Since no High-Density Areas were found, no
detailed characterization was performed on MRS Al. In a maneuver area, munitions would have been
used in low intensity throughout the area. Further, maneuver exercises such as grenade training would
produce areas where munitions were used with smaller spatial footprints that would not be detected by
the transect survey.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 296 of 303
639,000
640,000
641,000
642,000
O)
c
-C
r
o
639,000 640,000 641,000
Easting (m)
642,000
Figure E-l: MRS A1 Maneuver Area Development Area
Munitions known or suspected to be present on MRS A1 in the initial CSM that were used to plan the
technical approach include:
MKII practice hand grenades
Mkl Mod 0 Trip Flares
M83 60-mm Illumination mortars
M2 60-mm smoke mortars
M1/M1A1 practice anti-tank mines
M6A1 2.36" practice anti-tank rockets
Typical maneuver-area training would not result in these munitions penetrating beyond their reliable
detection depths. Experience and professional judgement indicate that they will be significantly
shallower than 0.45 m for the mortars and 0.30 m for the other munitions. Full details of the Conceptual
Site Model can be found in Worksheet 10 of the Quality Assurance Project Plan. (Ref)
2. Description of Remedy
The remedy selected in the ROD was the removal of subsurface MEC using non-AGC DGM detection
followed by cued AGC to identify targets of interest for excavation, with Interim Land Use Controls
during remedy implementation. The goal stated in the ROD is to demonstrate achievement of conditions
that support designation for UU/UE following MEC removal to permit site development. Table E-l
provides an overview of the remedy. Full details are in Worksheet 17 of the QAPP-
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 297 of 303
Table E-l: Overview of the Remedy for Camp Example MRS A1
Activity
Remedial Action Objective
Remedy Component
MEC Removal
MEC Treatment
Land-Use Controls
MRS A1
Maneuver Area
Development Area
Alternative # - MEC
Subsurface Removal
using non-AGC DGM
detection and Cued
AGC with Interim
Land Use Controls
Remove MEC in the surface and
subsurface.
Following MEC removal and site
development, demonstrate
achievement of (UU/UE)
MEC Removal Remediation Goals
Detection and removal of:
60mm mortar to a minimum
depth of 0.45 m bgs
Hand grenades, signals, flares,
pyrotechnics, 2.36" rockets, and
anti-tank mines to a depth of
0.30 m bgs
Any other munitions detected
Subsurface anomaly
detection using non-AGC
DGM
TOI Selection using cued
AGC
TOI investigation and
source removal using
manual and backhoe-
assisted excavation
All recovered MEC to be
detonated in place or
otherwise destroyed on-
site
Interim LUCs as
specified in the ROD.
Upon successful
demonstration of
UU/UE, removal of
LUCs.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 298 of 303
Measurement Performance Criteria (MPCs) and Measurement Quality Objectives (MQOs) as shown in
QAPP Worksheets 12 and 22 were developed to ensure data usability. Key MPCs included:
Instrument Verification Strip to ensure correct instrument operation on each survey day
Completeness of coverage in the EM61 survey
Verification of EM61 anomaly selection
Sensitivity to support detecting the required munitions
Detection of blind QC (contractor) and QA (government) seeds
Completeness of the detection survey anomaly selection
Completeness of the cued anomaly AGC data collection
Completeness of the AGC library
Correct classification of blind QC (contractor) and QA (government) seeds
Completeness of excavation of anomaly sources
Accuracy of compared AGC analyses with recovered items
Verification of AGC target-of-interest threshold
Validation of AGC analysis parameters
3. Remedy implementation and Results
The remedy was implemented as described in Table E-l. Upon completion of the work, four areas of
munitions use were identified, as shown in Figure E-2.
639,000
640,000
641,000
642,000
o
E ง
^ LD
CO
Tf
ฆc
o
o
o
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 299 of 303
GT2 - Grenade training area 1 acre in size containing 35 MKII practice grenades.
MR1 - Mortar area 15 acres in size containing two M2 smoke and one M83 illumination 60-mm
mortars and scattered fragments, parachutes, and pyrotechnics.
MR2 - Mortar area 53 acres in size containing three M2 smoke and three M83 illumination
60-mm mortars and scattered fragments, parachutes, and pyrotechnics.
Figure E-3 shows the depth distribution for each of the recovered munitions types, as well as the depths
of the seeds that were emplaced as part of the quality control and the maximum depth of reliable
detection for each type of item.
0 -
20 -
E
o
ฉ 40
Q
112 Seeds,
Each Type
60 -
_L
_L
_L
_L
~
~
_L
yv"
oฐ
I Seed Depth Range
~ Recov. MKII PGs
A Recov. Smoke 60mmM
^ Recov. Ilium. 60mmM
Max. Reliable Det.
Item
Figure E-3: Depth profile of recovered munitions, seeds, and maximum reliable detection depths
Beyond the four areas described the removal action:
Found no evidence during the surface sweep or the subsurface removal of any other munitions
identified in the original CSM as potentially present.
Found no evidence of unexpected munitions, including MEC, MD, objects resembling munitions,
and clusters of similar AGC responses that were investigated.
Had no findings suggest a presence of any MEC with a hazard that exceeds the sensitivity and
severity of the munitions expected from the original CSM.
Found no evidence that items exist below their maximum reliable detection depth. All recovered
items were shallower than both the maximum reliable detection depth and the seeds. This is
consistent with the use of practice grenades, as well as of smoke and illumination mortars.
Identified large areas of the site that show no evidence that munitions were ever used.
4. Quality and Effectiveness of Remedy Implementation
The data usability assessment determines whether the results of a project can be used as intended with
an acceptable level of confidence. It is performed at key decision point in a project as a qualitative and
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 300 of 303
quantitative evaluation to determine if the project data are of the right type, quality, and quantity to
support the MPCs and DQOs, and ultimately to conclude that a project was conducted successfully.
Specifically, it is a retrospective review of the systematic planning process to evaluate whether the
underlying assumptions are valid, the sources of uncertainty have been managed appropriately, and the
data are of acceptable quality.
The full DUA for MRS A1 is in the RACR. DUA was performed at the conclusion of the EM61 detection
survey and analysis, at the conclusion of the AGC cued data collection and analysis, and at the
conclusion of the project. Specifically, at each stage it evaluated:
Step 1. The project's planning assumptions, objectives, and sample design.
Step 2. The data and its conformance to all MPCs.
Step 3. The overall usability and application of decision rules.
Step 4. The lessons learned and recommendations.
The overall conclusion of the DUA is that the data are suitable to support a weight-of-evidence
recommendation of UU/UE for MRS Al. Here we summarize the key findings that support this
recommendation.
4.1 Documentation of all RA activities is complete:
All deliverables are present.
All deliverables were reviewed and approved by the government.
All deliverables were provided for review to all Project Team members.
See [REFERENCE] for a list of deliverables and dates of draft, government review, regulator review, final,
and acceptance, as applicable.
4.2 The site findings, as documented in the final CSM, do not raise any unanticipated concerns with
regard to explosive hazards and site safety. Specifically:
The four areas of munitions use identified were within expectations and consistent with the
initial CSM:
o GT1 contained 40 practice grenades,
o GT2 contained 35 practice grenades.
o MR1 contained 2 smoke and 1 illumination mortars and scattered fragments, parachutes,
and pyrotechnics.
o MR2 contained 3 smoke and 3 illumination mortars and scattered fragments, parachutes,
and pyrotechnics.
No evidence (including MD) was uncovered during the surface sweep, or the subsurface removal
of any other munitions identified in the original CSM as potentially present.
No evidence (including MD) of unexpected munitions was found.
No findings suggest a hazard that exceeds the sensitivity and severity of the munitions expected
from the original CSM.
No evidence suggests that items exist below their maximum reliable detection depth.
Large areas of the site show no evidence that munitions were ever used.
4.3 The site findings, as documented in the final CSM, are consistent with planning assumptions and
raise no questions about the validity of the sample design:
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 301 of 303
The only munitions found on the site were mortars and practice hand grenades that were in the
initial CSM.
EM61 target selection criteria were based on detecting a 60-mm mortar to 0.45 m bgs. Nine
mortars were found in the subsurface at depths between 0.05 and 0.30 m.
The target selection criteria correspond to a reliable detection depth of hand grenades to
0.30 m. Seventy-five practice hand grenades were recovered at depths ranging from 0.05 to
0.20 m.
Mortars, hand grenades, and all other potential munitions identified in the CSM were included
in the AGC TOI library.
Seeded items and depths are representative of the munitions recovered and verify the depth of
detection.
All field specifications, including line spacing, sample rate, sensor standoff planned to the initial
assumptions were valid.
There are no inconsistencies of a nature that would call into question whether the data collection and
analysis methodology can meet the project objectives.
4.4 All MPCs were achieved and demonstrate successful execution of the remedy. A complete
evaluation of the MPCs is in the DUA. Key conclusions are:
The IVS confirmed the EM61 system and AGC systems were operating properly at the beginning
and end of each data collection day.
Completeness of coverage in the EM61 survey: The EM61 survey achieved full coverage of the
site at the specified data metrics. All accessible data gaps were resurveyed. Any areas
inaccessible to the array were surveyed with a handheld DGM system that was capable of
meeting the ROD requirements.
Sensitivity to support detecting the required munitions. Measurements of site noise support
detection of required items to required depths at the thresholds chosen.
Detection of blind QC (contractor) and QA (government) seeds: All valid blind QC (contractor)
and QA (government) seeds were detected in the EM61 detection step at the correct locations
with signals consistent with the buried item and placed on the cued list.
Completeness of the detection survey anomaly selection: All anomaly locations were placed on
the cued list. Verification reanalysis of 10% of the data did not result in any additional anomalies
selected.
Completeness of the cued anomaly AGC data collection: AGC data were collected at all
locations on the cued list, and all were designated as either TOI, non-TOI or inconclusive. All TOI
and inconclusive designations were placed on the list to be excavated.)
Completeness of the AGC library: The library included signatures from all items confirmed or
suspected to be present.
Correct classification of blind QC (contractor) and QA (government) seeds: All valid blind QC
(contractor) and QA (government) seeds were correctly classified.
Completeness of excavation of anomaly sources: All locations on the excavation list were
excavated and resolved.
Accuracy of compared AGC analyses with recovered items: All recovered items were consistent
with predicted physical properties.
Verification of AGC target-of-interest threshold: No IOC were found in the threshold verification
digs.
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 302 of 303
Validation of AGC analysis parameters: No IOC were recovered in the validation digging and the
recovered objects were consistent with the AGC analysis parameters.
Post-dig verification: At all TOI locations, re-interrogation with the AGC sensor confirmed that
the original polarizability was no longer detected. Locations of inconclusive analyses were
resolved.
4.5 The contractor's quality program was implemented as planned:
The contractor performing the RA is fully DAGCAP-accredited.
The contractor's quality program identified MQO failures, which were effectively corrected:
o The QC geophysicist identified 12 MQO deficiencies throughout the project. (Reference
deliverables).
o In all cases, an RCA was performed, a corrective action was implemented, and the corrective
action was accepted by the government.
The CA were implemented throughout the rest of the project and there were no repeat non-
conformances after the CA was implemented.
The work met all the quality metrics set by the government.
4.6 No significant technical challenges that would compromise the implementation of the remedy were
encountered:
The munitions recovered on the site did not stress the maximum reliable detection and
classification depth. Seeds were placed to their maximum reliable detection depth, and all were
detected and correctly classified. All recovered MEC were substantially shallower.
With one exception discussed below, the site was accessible and presented no significant
technical challenges:
o The site is open and flat and suitable for vehicular access,
o Geologic noise was low and consistent throughout the site.
o The site is remote and has no power, water, or sewer lines or other man-made sources of
noise or interference.
Gully:
o A gully area of approximately 10 m X 100 m could not be surveyed using the EM61 array,
o This area was surveyed using a handheld DGM EMI system capable of meeting ROD
requirements.
o The threshold for target selection was adjusted to account for the lower sensitivity of the
HH system and the SNR>5 was maintained assuring selection of required munitions.
5. Findings and Conclusions
Al lines of evidence indicate no munitions remain on the site. The recommendation of UU/UE is based
on the determination that the remedy, as implemented, is protective of human health and the
environment. The remedy has successfully removed contamination. The technology used in the remedy
is capable of detecting all specified munitions to the required depths. All quality measures evaluated in
the data usability assessment indicate that the work done on the site is in accordance with normal
measurement performance criteria and meets all applicable standards.
All data and quality metrics support the conclusion that the UU/UE determination is scientifically valid
and meets the ROD requirements and no other remedial action is required. As a result, the site does not
-------
MR-QAPP Module 2: RA
Final, March 2023
Page 303 of 303
require continuation of institutional controls and is fully protective of human health and the
environment. Munitions Response activities for Camp Example MRS A1 are now considered to have
reached the Response Complete stage.
6. References
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Camp Example Munitions Response Area, Final Report, January
2018
Munitions Response Quality Assurance Project Plan, Remedial Action, Camp Example Munitions
Response Area, January 2021
Remedial Action Report, Camp Example Munitions Response Area, Final, January 2022
------- |