Amendment 0003 2015 After Action Report.pdf

N00101.SF.003206

NAS SOUTH WEYMOUTH

5090.3c

FINAL AFTER ACTION REPORT LIMITED MUNITIONS AND EXPLOSIVES OF CONCERN

SURFACE CLEARANCE NOMANS LAND ISLAND NAS SOUTH WEYMOUTH MA

11/01/2015

TETRA TECH EC INC

4659-WE05-15-0467

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND, ATLANTIC

REMEDIAL ACTION CONTRACT (RAC)

CONTRACT NO. N62470-13-D-8007

CONTRACT TASK ORDER NO. WE05

FINAL AFTER ACTION REPORT

LIMITED MUNITIONS AND EXPLOSIVES OF CONCERN SURFACE CLEARANCE

NOMANS LAND ISLAND

CHILMARK, MASSACHUSETTS

November 2015

Prepared for

Department of the Navy

Naval Facility Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic 9742 Maryland Avenue

Norfolk, VA 23511-3095 and

Base Realignment and Closure Program Management Office, East

4911 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19112-1303

Prepared by

Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

5250 Challedon Drive Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462

Revision Date Prepared By Approved By Pages Affected

0 11/13/15 D. Murray B. Corbett All

This page intentionally left blank

After Action Report Limited Munitions and Explosives of Concern Surface Clearance Final Contract No. N62470-13-D-8007 November 2015 CTO WE05 Nomans Land Island, Chilmark, MA

NOTICE

The United States Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, funded wholly or in part the preparation of this document and work described herein under Contract N62470-13-D-8007. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.0 REQUEST CANCELLATION OF EXCLUSION ZONES

3.0 SUMMARY OF MEC AND/OR MPPEH FOUND

4.0 RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS AND TECHNOLOGY LIMITATIONS

5.0 SUMMARY OF QUALITY CONTROL PROCESS

6.0 MAPS

7.0 LAND USE CONTROLS

8.0 LONG-TERM MANGEMENT

9.0 REFERENCES

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 6-1 2014 Limited MEC Surface Clearance Map

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1. MEC/MPPEH Items Recovered During 2014 Surface Clearance Table 4-1. MEC HA Hazard Level Scoring Ranges Table 4-2. MEC HA Hazard Level Determination Table 5-1. QC Processes

LIST OF APPENDICES

Note: In accordance with NOSSAINST 8020.15D, Enclosure (5), the following appendices are not included in the hard copy version of this AAR which the Navy project manager forwards to NOSSA. However, the appendices are included as portable document format files on the accompanying compact disc (CD).

Appendix A MDAS Certification Manifests/Bill of Lading Appendix B Certificate of Destruction/Blanket End Use Certification Appendix C Munitions and Explosives of Concern Hazard Assessment ii iii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AAR After-Action Report ASTSWMO Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials BRAC Base Realignment and Closure CD compact disc CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act DMM discarded military munitions DoD Department of Defense EODMU EOD Mobile Unit EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESQD explosive safety quantity distance ESRP Explosives Safety Remediation Plan ESS Explosives Safety Submission EZ exclusion zone HE high explosives MD munitions debris MDAS material documented as safe MEC HA Munitions and Explosives of Concern Hazard Assessment MEC munitions and explosives of concern MPPEH material potentially presenting an explosive hazard MRS Munitions Response Site NAVSEA Naval Sea Systems Command Navy U.S. Navy NCP National Contingency Plan NOSSA Naval Ordnance Safety and Security Activity QC quality control RAC Remedial Action Contract SCAR sub-caliber aircraft rocket TASWER Tribal Association for Solid Waste and Emergency Response TtEC Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service UXO unexploded ordnance UXOQCS UXO Quality Control Specialist iv

1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

Nomans Land Island is situated off the east coast of the United States, approximately 2.7 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard Island in Massachusetts. The 628-acre island is surrounded on three sides by wave-cut bluffs and narrow beaches, and a gently sloping sand and pebble beach on the north. East to west, the island is 1.6 miles long and slightly more than 1.0 mile wide, north to south.

Two large freshwater ponds and several smaller ponds dot the island. Ben’s Pond lies just west of the center of the island and is approximately 1,000 feet east to west and about 500 feet north to south. Rainbow Pond lies on the east end of the island and is approximately 625 feet east to west.

Two arms of the pond extend to the north and northwest. The island is heavily vegetated and dominated by rolling hills. Nomans Land Island was transferred from the U.S. Navy (Navy) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in July 1998, under the Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC) and was designated an unstaffed wildlife refuge. The island currently remains a wildlife refuge and there are no plans to change the island’s status.

2.0 REQUEST CANCELLATION OF EXCLUSION ZONES

The activities approved by the Limited Munitions and Explosives of Concern Surface Clearance Explosives Safety Submission (ESS), Revision 0 Tetra Tech EC, Inc. ((TtEC) 2014a) have been completed in accordance with the Limited Munitions and Explosives of Concern Surface Clearance Work Plan, Revision 0 (TtEC 2014b); therefore, request cancellation of all exclusion zones (EZs) and explosives safety quantity-distance (ESQD) arcs.

3.0 SUMMARY OF MEC AND/OR MPPEH FOUND

During the 2014 limited surface clearance zero MEC and 164 material potentially presenting an explosive hazard (MPPEH) items were recovered (see Table 3-1). Fragments, fins, and other munitions debris (MD) items are not included in that number, nor are they listed or on the table.

The recovery and management of MPPEH items was performed in accordance with the approved ESS (TtEC 2014a) and Work Plan (TtEC 2014b). On-site explosive venting or opening of some MPPEH items was necessary to facilitate visual examination. All MD and MPPEH items were inspected by qualified Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) technicians and certified as material documented as safe (MDAS) before being shipped off island for recycling. Appendix A provides the MDAS certification manifest/bill of lading. Appendix B provides the Certificate of Destruction/Blanket End Use Certification. Both Appendices B and C are included on the accompanying CD.

Table 3-1. MEC/MPPEH Items Recovered During 2014 Surface Clearance

MEC MPPEH

None 1 each 37-mm projectile

96 each 2.25-in sub-caliber aircraft rocket (SCAR) 1 each 2.75-in rocket warhead 13 each 3.5-in rocket motors 1 each 3.5-in rocket warheads 10 each 3.5-in rockets

MEC MPPEH

4 each 5-inch rocket motors 10 each 5-inch rocket warheads 1 each 3-inch rocket motor 1 each 3-inch rocket warhead 7 each MK 23 practice bombs 1 each MK 26 practice bombs 10 each MK 76 practice bombs 7 each 500-lb MK 82 practice bomb 1 each half of 250 lbs. old style bomb

4.0 RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS AND TECHNOLOGY LIMITATIONS

The relative effectiveness of the 2014 limited MEC surface clearance is best assessed by evaluating the level of potential explosive hazards to members of the public through the application of the Munitions and Explosives of Concern Hazard Assessment (MEC HA) Methodology (U. S. EPA 2010). This methodology for determining explosives safety hazards was developed by a task force chaired by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and made up of representatives from the Department of Defense (DoD), DOI, the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO), the Tribal Association for Solid Waste and Emergency Response (TASWER), and the EPA.

MEC HA was created to promote the consistent evaluation of potential explosive hazards to the public at Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and National Contingency Plan (NCP) Munitions Response Sites (MRSs). The MEC HA also was designed to provide a consistent and transparent methodology for evaluating and comparing MEC removal and remedial action alternatives and communicating the results. In July 2013 the MEC HA entered into its third two-year trial phase. MEC HA includes an automated scoring workbook to facilitate the consideration of information about the MEC found at or associated with a site and the site itself. Inputs to the MEC HA are organized into three categories:

• Severity of an outcome should an MEC function (represented by the classification and size of the MEC found in the area);

• Accessibility of the area (characterizing the likelihood that a person can interact or contact an MEC); and

Sensitivity of the MEC present (characterizing the likelihood that the MEC will function or detonate, if contacted).

The automated scoring workbook compiles area-specific input parameters associated with these categories, applies established weighting factors (reflecting importance or conservatism) and combines the inputs and weighting factors into a score for each hazard category, and then constructs an overall relative hazard score for that area for the baseline scenario. The resulting Hazard Level is a relative measure of the potential explosive hazard posed by the MEC associated with that area. Out of a total possible 1,000 points, the four MEC HA Hazard Levels are defined by the ranges presented in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1. MEC HA Hazard Level Scoring Ranges

Hazard Level Maximum MEC HA Score

Minimum MEC HA Score

Direction of Increasing Hazard

1 1,000 840 2 835 725 3 720 530 4 525 125

Consistent with the February 2010 methodology, application of the MEC HA for Nomans Land Island relative to the Limited Munitions and Explosives of Concern Surface Clearance performed in 2014 (TtEC 2009) is documented in Appendix C of this AAR which is included on the accompanying CD. Application of the MEC HA was also previously performed during the 2008 surface clearance effort. An analysis was performed of the current and projected future use of the island as an unstaffed wildlife refuge (i.e., the current land use is expected to be the same as the future land use). Under this land use, the USFWS may conduct a variety of routine and project-specific activities. When these activities involve digging or any type of intrusion into the ground USFWS will utilize a UXO technician employing anomaly avoidance techniques. In addition, limited authorized visits to the island by individuals accompanied by USFWS personnel may occur. Again, however, these visits for cultural or other reasons would not involve any disturbance of the ground.

The MEC HA was applied to the following scenarios:

• Baseline Conditions (reflecting pre-1998 conditions);

• Conditions following the surface clearance of 1998;

• Conditions following the surface clearance of 2003;

• Conditions following the surface clearance of 2008; and

• Conditions following the surface clearance of 2014.

The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2. MEC HA Hazard Level Determination Site ID: Nomans Land Island, Chilmark, MA Hazard Level

Category Score Date: 12/23/2014

a. Current Use Activities 2 730

b. Future Use Activities 2 730

c. Response Alternative 1: Baseline (Conditions Pre-1998) 2 730

d. Response Alternative 2: Surface Removal 1998 4 475

e. Response Alternative 3: Surface Removal 2003 4 475

f. Response Alternative 4: Surface Removal 2008 4 475

g. Response Alternative 5: Surface Removal 2014 4 475

The key inputs to the baseline analysis were:

• MEC items are potentially located on the island;

• Land use is/will be an unstaffed wildlife refuge with no intrusive activities;

• There is limited accessibility to the island;

• Site visitors will spend very few potential hours on the island;

• The island’s prior use was as a target area;

• MEC is potentially present on the surface of the ground and in the subsurface of the island;

• There are no “special case” (highly sensitive – as defined in the MEC HA) munitions on the island; and

• There may be small, easily transportable, munitions items located on the island.

As noted above, these inputs initially resulted in Hazard Level 2 (refer to Table 4-2), which identifies a site with a relatively high potential for explosive hazard.

Each succeeding surface clearance serves to eliminate the projected overlap of the MEC presence at the surface with the surface contact associated with the current/future land use activities of the USFWS (leading to a reduction of 190 points in the overall score). This along with the MEC HA reductions in the Potential Contact Hours input factor (a reduction of 5 points) and the Amount of MEC input factor (a reduction of 60 points) that are associated with surface clearance, resulted in a drop in the total score of 255 points. This score is associated with Hazard Level 4 (refer to Table 4-1), which identifies a site with relatively low potential for explosive hazard to the public. These results indicate that periodic surface clearances have served to keep the island in the lowest hazard level category given the use of the island as an unstaffed wildlife refuge.

It should be emphasized that these explosive hazard assessment results conservatively assumed that there are high explosives (HE) munitions remaining in the subsurface at the island, even though no HE-filled munitions or MPPEH (including MD) which pose an explosive hazard have been recovered during the recent surface clearances. If no HE is assumed to be present, the baseline score would have been 625 instead of 730 (reflecting the presence of propellant instead of HE and fuzed discarded military munitions (DMM) instead of UXO. This would have corresponded to a lower Baseline Hazard Level of 3, a site with conditions posing a relatively moderate potential for explosive hazards. Surface cleanup would have, again, been projected to lower the Hazard Level to 4 for the assumption of no HE being present.

5.0 SUMMARY OF QUALITY CONTROL PROCESS

Quality Control (QC) checks were conducted by the Unexploded Ordnance Quality Control Specialist (UXOQCS) in accordance with Table 5-1.

Table 5-1. QC Processes

Activity Frequency Pass/Fail Criteria Corrective Action Documentation Notes

Area/Grid Layout

When area/grid is established, 3 phase inspection, periodic inspection

UXOQCS to check the locations of 10% of area/grid flags during installation. If flag location is >3 feet away from GPS location, area/grid fails

Reset area/grid flags

UXOQCS

logbook noting equipment, personnel, date and time

The area/grid flags will be marked with the grid numbers

Locator checkout

Beginning and end of each day

Detector functions on known metal object

Re-do function test

Repair/replace equipment

UXOQCS

logbook noting equipment, user, date and time

Surface sweep 3 phase inspection, periodic inspection

UXOQCS will inspect 10% of lanes swept. If MEC or MPPEH is found in a swept lane, the grid fails

Re-sweep failed grid

UXOQCS

logbook, entry, Deficiency Notice

Deficiency Notice issued

MEC

identification

Upon MEC discovery

100% positive ID of MEC items (2-man rule)

Obtain complete publication set

MEC acquisition and accountability log noting: type, nomenclature, condition and location.

Initial discovery and MEC/MPPEH assessment

MEC disposal 3 phase inspection, periodic inspection

Any non-conformance to demolition operation specifications

As necessary, root-cause analysis

UXOQCS

logbook, entry, Deficiency Notice

Where appropriate, issue a Non- Conformance Report and develop a causal analysis/ corrective action

Sweep lane inspection

10% of lanes that underwent QC Checks

No remaining MEC or

MPPEH

Re-sweep the grid/area

Checklist/grid sheet

MDAS

management

Weekly

UXOQCS will observe MDAS processing procedure

Inspect 10% of the debris

Any MEC found in the scrap processing area

Any element not conforming to the specifications

Re-inspect failed lot

Contractor Quality Event Report and a causal analysis and corrective action will be developed

Field Log All MDAS and other debris will receive dual 100% inspections before being moved off island

Activity Frequency Pass/Fail Criteria Corrective Action Documentation Notes

Personnel qualifications

Initial project assessment, personnel records review, and assigned

UXO

technicians interviews

Any element not conforming to specifications in ESS Section 8.2

Immediately notify PM

Submit contractor Quality Event and Corrective Action Reports

Weekly QC Report

QC Plan was incorporated into the project Work Plan

General safety requirements

Directly observe execution of the definable features of work

Any element not conforming to specifications in ESS Sections 7.1, 7.2

Immediately notify PM

Submit contractor Quality Event and Corrective Action Reports

Weekly QC Report

QC Plan was incorporated into the project Work Plan

The UXOQCS identified no deficiencies and/or Corrective Action Requests during this effort.

6.0 MAPS

Figure 6-1 shows the areas from which MEC and/or MPPEH were removed along the accessible roadway and shoreline. The island is maintained as an unstaffed wildlife refuge, closed to the public. The majority of the island is inaccessible due to heavy vegetation and undergrowth.

Through agreement with all stakeholders, only accessible areas are included in these recurring clearances. Future clearance operations may include additional areas if vegetation is removed or burned. Taking advantage of the dry site conditions, TtEC also performed a surface clearance of three ponds that were dried out. These ponds had not been swept before. Figure 6-1 also depicts the location of the pond bed clearance. There is no figure depicting the known or reasonably anticipated end use of the site since the entire island has been designated as a Wildlife Refuge administered by the USFWS.

7.0 LAND USE CONTROLS

Land-use controls prohibiting site access and intrusive activities are in place. Land-use controls/ restrictions currently in place include the following:

• Designated restricted area R-4105 on Federal Aviation Administration aerial charts (#L- 33);

• UXO awareness pamphlets/hand-out;

• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has declared the waterways around

Nomans Land Island a prohibited area (Danger Zone/Restricted) on nautical charts (#13233);

After Action Report Limited Munitions and Explosives of Concern Surface Clearance Contract No. N62470-13-D-8007 Final CTO WE05 Nomans Land Island, Chilmark, MA November 2015

Figure 6-1. 2014 Limited MEC Surface Clearance Map

• UXO hazard warning signs established along shoreline of island;

• USFWS no trespassing (UXO hazard) signage established along shoreline of island; and

• Real estate transfer documents specify that USFWS will administratively close the island to all public access.

8.0 LONG-TERM MANGEMENT

The USFWS is responsible for the long-term management of the island as an unstaffed wildlife refuge. Section 4 of the Explosives Safety Remediation Plan (ESRP) calls for periodic sweeps of the island by Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit (EODMU) TWELVE Detachment Newport to look for signs of surfaced MEC caused by frost heave, erosion, etc. Following the clearance that took place in 1997, a limited clearance of the island (roads, trails, beaches) was completed by a UXO contractor in 2003; approximately five years later, a more comprehensive burn and surface clearance was conducted (in 2008). The schedule for this surface clearance, every five years, is expected to continue. It is anticipated that these clearances will be completed by contract due to the large effort involved. EODMU TWELVE may be called upon between contracted clearances to address emergent MEC, as was done in 2010 and 2011.

9.0 REFERENCES

Tetra Tech 2014a. Limited Munitions and Explosives of Concern Surface Clearance Explosives Safety Submission, Revision 0. July.

Tetra Tech 2014b. Limited Munitions and Explosives of Concern Surface Clearance Work Plan, Revision 0. August.

U.S. EPA. 2010. Munitions and Explosives of Concern Hazard Assessment Methodology.

February.

U.S. Navy. 2014. Ammunition and Explosives Ashore. NAVSEA OP 5, Volume 1, Seventh Revision, Change 12. May 27.

U.S. Navy. 2013. Military Munitions Response Program Oversight. NOSSAINST 8020.15.D.

April 18.

APPENDIX A

MDAS CERTIFICATION MANIFESTS/BILL OF LADING

not included in the hard copy version of this AAR which the Navy project manager forwards to

NOSSA. However, the appendices are included as portable document format files on the accompanying CD.

APPENDIX B

CERTIFICATE OF DESTRUCTION/BLANKET END USE CERTIFICATION

APPENDIX C

MUNITIONS AND EXPLOSIVES OF CONCERN HAZARD ASSESSMENT

MEC HA Workbook v1.0 November 2006

Applied December 2008

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

Summary Info - General information regarding the site.

Munitions/Explosive Info - MECs and bulk explosives present at the site.

Current and Future Activities - Current land use activites as well as planned future activities, if any.

Remedial-Removal Action - General information regarding remediation/removal alternatives being considered for the site.

Post-Response Land Use - Land use activities associated with the alternatives listed in the 'Remedial-Removal Action' sheet.

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

December-07

Instructions

MEC HA Workbook v1.02

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

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

Instructions Worksheet Interim MEC HA October 2008

Applied December 2008

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

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

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

Blue Comment

Yellow Cell (User Input)

Faded Cells (Ignore)

Red Text (Calculated

Information)

Applied December 2008

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

Applied December 2008

MEC HA Summary Information Comments

Site ID: Nomans Land Island, Chillmark, MA Date: 1/2/2015

A. Enter a unique identifier for the site:

Ref. No.

B. Briefly describe the site:

1. Area (include units):

2. Past munitions-related use:

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

No

5. What is the basis for the site boundaries?

6. How certain are the site boundaries?

Reference(s) for Part B:

C. Historical Clearances

2. If a clearance occurred:

a. What year was the clearance performed?

1998, 2003, 2008 and 2014

Final Phase II Comprehensive Site Assessment Report, Nomans Land Island, Chilmark, Massachusetts, March 2001

Entire Nomans Land Island

Target Area

Unmanned Wildlife Refuge

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

Nomans Land Island

Title (include version, publication date)

Explosives Safety Submission and Site Approval Request (2008), Nomans Land Island Surface Clearance of Munitions and Explosives of Concern, June 16, 2008

Final Release Abatement Measure Completion Report (Ordnance Debris Removal), Nomans Land Island, Chilmark, Massachusetts, May 14, 2004.

Limited Munitions and Explosives of Concern Surface Clearance After Action Report, Nomans Land Island, December 2014.

After-Action Report (2004), Nomans Land Island, Chilmark, Massachusetts, August 2004 After Action Report (2008) (Draft), Nomans Land Island, Chilmark, Massachusetts, Table 7.1, MEC Surface Clearance, December 2008

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

Final Phase II Comprehensive Site Assessment Report, Nomans Land Island, Chilmark, Massachusetts, March 2001

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

Very certain

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

1. Have there been any historical clearances at the site? Yes, surface clearance

The physical shoreline of the Island

Select Ref(s)

Summary Info Worksheet Interim MEC HA October 2008

Applied December 2008

Reference(s) for Part C:

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

After-Action Report (2004), Nomans Land Island, Chilmark, Massachusetts, August 2004 After Action Report (2008) (Draft), Nomans Land Island, Chilmark, Massachusetts, Table 7.1, MEC Surface Clearance, December 2008 Final Release Abatement Measure Completion Report (Ordnance Debris Removal), Nomans Land Island, Chilmark, Massachusetts, May 14, 2004.

Limited Munitions and Explosives of Concern Surface Clearance After Action Report, Nomans Land Island, December 2014.

The extent of the surface clearance in 1998 and 2008 was all accessible areas of the Island (including the roads in 1998). The surface clearance in 2003 was performed on the accessible roads and shoreline.

In 1998, a total of 11,021 inert or practice munitions items were removed (551,780 pounds gross weight). The items recovered were bombs, projectiles, rockets, and mortars. In 2008, 465 MEC items were recovered. These included bombs, rockets and incendiaries. The surface clearance in 2014 was performed on the shoreline. No MEC items and 139 MPPEH items were recovered.

Summary Info Worksheet Interim MEC HA October 2008

Applied December 2008

Site ID: Nomans Land Island, Chillmark, MA Date: 1/2/2015

Cased Munitions Information Item No. Munition Type

(e.g., mortar, projectile, etc.)

Munition Size

Munition Size Units

Mark/ Model Energetic Material Type

Is Munition Fuzed?

Fuzing Type Fuze Condition

Minimum Depth for Munition

(ft)

Location of Munitions

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

1 Bombs 1000 lb Various (see to the right)

High Explosive

UNK UNK UNK 0 Surface and Subsurface

Various practice bombs have been found on the Island, including: MK-

2, MK-4, MK-7, MK-15, MK-23, MK-26,

MK-41, MK-47, MK-76, MK-81, MK-82,

MK-83, MK-106, MK-117, M-122, M-

124, MK-229, GP250, GP500, BDU40,

BDU48 and BDU50. Physical evidence of the detonation of 500 and 1000

lb. bombs has been observed on the Island (i.e., craters). The listed munition size is the maximum bomb size associated with the Island.

2 Rockets 5 inches Various (see to the right)

High Explosive

UNK UNK UNK 0 Surface and Subsurface

Various practice rockets have been found on the Island, including:

2.25 SCAR, 2.75, 3.0, 3.5 and 5

inch rockets. There is no documentation that HE rockets were fired at the Island. The listed munition size is the maximum rocket size associated with the Island.

3 Artillery 6 inches Various (see to the right)

High Explosive

UNK UNK UNK 0 Surface and Subsurface

Various practice projectiles have been found on the Island, including: 37mm, 40mm, 3 and 6 rounds. The listed munition size is the maximum projectile size associated with the Island.

Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info Worksheet Interim MEC HA October 2008

Applied December 2008

Reference(s) for table above:

Bulk Explosive Information Item No. Explosive Type Comments

Reference(s) for table above:

After-Action Report (2004), Nomans Land Island, Chilmark, Massachusetts, August 2004 After Action Report (2008) (Draft), Nomans Land Island, Chilmark, Massachusetts, Table 7.1, MEC Surface Clearance, December 2008 Final Release Abatement Measure Completion Report (Ordnance Debris Removal), Nomans Land Island, Chilmark, Massachusetts, May 14, 2004.

Limited Munitions and Explosives of Concern Surface Clearance After Action Report, Nomans Land Island, December 2014.

Select Ref(s)

Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info Worksheet Interim MEC HA October 2008

Applied December 2008

Site ID: Nomans Land Island, Chillmark, MA Date: 1/2/2015

Activities Currently Occurring at the Site Activity No.

Activity Number of people per year who participate in the activity

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

Potential Contact Time

(receptor hours/year)

Maximum intrusive depth (ft)

Comments

1 Wildlife Management (routine)

2 200 400 0 Based on 5 months/year; 4 events/month; 10 hours/event

2 Visitor (authorized) 3 8 24 0 Based on 3 people; 2 events/month; 4 hours/event

3 Wildlife Management (tern nesting program)

2 960 1,920 0 Based on 2 people; 5 months/year; 4 events/month; 24 hours/event

Total Potential Contact Time (receptor hrs/yr): 2,344 Maximum intrusive depth at site (ft): 0

Reference(s) for table above:

Activity No. Activity

Number of people per year who participate in the activity

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

Potential Contact Time

(receptor hours/year)

Maximum intrusive depth (ft) Comments

1 Wildlife Management (routine)

2 200 400 0 Based on 5 months/year; 4 events/month; 10 hours/event

2 Visitor (authorized) 3 8 24 0 Based on 3 people; 2 events/month; 4 hours/event

3 Wildlife Management (tern nesting program)

2 960 1,920 0 Based on 2 people; 5 months/year; 4 events/month; 24 hours/event

Total Potential Contact Time (receptor hrs/yr): 2,344 Maximum intrusive depth at site (ft): 0

Reference(s) for table above:

Final Phase II Comprehensive Site Assessment Report, Nomans Land Island, Chilmark, Massachusetts, March 2001

Final Phase II Comprehensive Site Assessment Report, Nomans Land Island, Chilmark, Massachusetts, March 2001

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

Select Ref(s)

Current and Future Activities Worksheet Interim MEC HA October 2008

Applied December 2008

Site ID: Nomans Land Island, Chillmark, MA Date: 1/2/2015

Planned Remedial or Removal Actions Response Action No.

Response Action Description Expected Resulting

Minimum MEC Depth (ft)

Expected Resulting Site Accessibility

Will land use activities change if this response action is implemented?

What is the expected scope of cleanup?

Comments

1 Baseline (Conditions Pre-1998) 0 Limited Accessibility

No No MEC cleanup A boat is needed to access the Island (i.e., special transportation) and there is no landing facility at the Island; In addition, the Island is surrounded by "restricted" waters.

2 Surface Removal 1998 0.25 Limited Accessibility

No Cleanup of MECs located on the surface only

A boat is needed to access the Island (i.e., special transportation) and there is no landing facility at the Island; In addition, the Island is surrounded by "restricted" waters.

3 Surface Removal 2003 0.25 Limited Accessibility

No Cleanup of MECs located on the surface only

A boat is needed to access the Island (i.e., special transportation) and there is no landing facility at the Island; In addition, the Island is surrounded by "restricted" waters.

4 Surface Removal 2008 0.25 Limited Accessibility

No Cleanup of MECs located on the surface only

A boat is needed to access the Island (i.e., special transportation) and there is no landing facility at the Island; In addition, the Island is surrounded by "restricted" waters.

Surface Removal 2014 0.25 Limited Accessibility

No Cleanup of MECs located on the surface only

A boat is needed to access the Island (i.e., special transportation) and there is no landing facility at the Island; In addition, the Island is surrounded by "restricted" waters.

Current

Reference(s) for table above:

After-Action Report (2004), Nomans Land Island, Chilmark, Massachusetts, August 2004 After Action Report (2008) (Draft), Nomans Land Island, Chilmark, Massachusetts, Table 7.1, MEC Surface Clearance, December 2008 Final Release Abatement Measure Completion Report (Ordnance Debris Removal), Nomans Land Island, Chilmark, Massachusetts, May 14, 2004.

Limited Munitions and Explosives of Concern Surface Clearance After Action Report, Nomans Land Island, December 2014.

According to the 'Summary Info' worksheet, no future land uses are planned. For those alternatives where you answered 'No' in Column E, the land use activities will be assessed against current land uses.

Remedial-Removal Action Worksheet Interim MEC HA October 2008

Applied December 2008

Site ID: Nomans Land Island, Chillmark, MA Date: 1/2/2015

Activity No. Activity

Number of people per year who participate in the activity

Number of hours a single person spends on the activity

Potential Contact Time (receptor hours/year)

Maximum intrusive depth (ft) Comments

Total Potential Contact Time (receptor hrs/yr):

Maximum intrusive depth at site (ft):

Reference(s) for table above:

Activity No. Activity

Number of people per year who participate in the activity

Number of hours a single person spends on the activity

Potential Contact Time (receptor hours/year)

Maximum intrusive depth (ft) Comments

Total Potential Contact Time (receptor hrs/yr):

Maximum intrusive depth at site (ft):

Reference(s) for table above:

Activity No. Activity

Number of people per year who participate in the activity

Number of hours a single person spends on the activity

Potential Contact Time (receptor hours/year)

Maximum intrusive depth (ft) Comments

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

Land Use Activities Planned After Response Alternative #1: Baseline (Conditions Pre-1998)

Land Use Activities Planned After Response Alternative #2: Surface Removal 1998

Land Use Activities Planned After Response Alternative #3: Surface Removal 2003

Select Ref(s)

Post-Response Land Use Worksheet Interim MEC HA October 2008

Applied December 2008

Total Potential Contact Time (receptor hrs/yr):

Maximum intrusive depth at site (ft):

Reference(s) for table above:

Activity No. Activity

Number of people per year who participate in the activity

Number of hours a single person spends on the activity

Potential Contact Time (receptor hours/year)

Maximum intrusive depth (ft) Comments

Total Potential Contact Time (receptor hrs/yr):

Maximum intrusive depth at site (ft):

Reference(s) for table above:

Land Use Activities Planned After Response Alternative #4: Surface Removal 2008

Select Ref(s)

Applied December 2008

Activity No. Activity

Number of people per year who participate in the activity

Number of hours a single person spends on the activity

Potential Contact Time (receptor hours/year)

Maximum intrusive depth (ft) Comments

Total Potential Contact Time (receptor hrs/yr):

Maximum intrusive depth at site (ft):

Reference(s) for table above:

Activity No. Activity

Number of people per year who participate in the activity

Number of hours a single person spends on the activity

Potential Contact Time (receptor hours/year)

Maximum intrusive depth (ft) Comments

Total Potential Contact Time (receptor hrs/yr):

Maximum intrusive depth at site (ft):

Reference(s) for table above:

Land Use Activities Planned After Response Alternative #6:

Land Use Activities Planned After Response Alternative #5: Surface Removal 2014

Select Ref(s)

Applied December 2008

Site ID: Nomans Land Island, Chillmark, MA Date: 1/2/2015

Energetic Material Type Input Factor Categories Comments

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

100 100 100

70 70 70 60 60 60 50 50 50 40 40 40 30 30 30

Score

Baseline Conditions: 100 Based on historical evidence; Only propellants, incendiaries and spotting charges have been found during the surface clearances.

Surface Cleanup: 100 Based on historical evidence; Only propellants, incendiaries and spotting charges have been found during the surface clearances.

Subsurface Cleanup: 100

3447 feet This ESQD value is the MFD-H for a 1000 lb. MK- 83 bomb as listed in the current (April 2013) DDESB TP-16 document.

This ESQD is 159 feet greater than the original 3,288 feet listed in the 2008 MEC HA. The difference does not impact the scoring of this MEC HA given the isolated nature of the Island and lack of routine public activities onshore and offshore.

Location of Additional Human Receptors Input Factor Categories

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

1. What is the Explosive Safety Quantity Distance (ESQD) from the Explosive Siting Plan or the Explosive Safety Submission for the MRS?

The most hazardous type of energetic material listed in the 'Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info' Worksheet falls under the category 'High Explosive and Low Explosive Filler in Fragmenting Rounds'.

High Explosive and Low Explosive Filler in Fragmenting Rounds

White Phosphorus Pyrotechnic Propellant Spotting Charge Incendiary

Input Factors Worksheet Interim MEC HA October 2008

Applied December 2008

No There are no features or facilities within the ESQD arc where additional human receptors (i.e., individuals that are not listed on the Current and Future Activities tab) may congregate in significant numbers.

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

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

30 30 30 0 0 0

Score

No There are no plans for the construction of any permanent USFWS structures or cultural monuments / features on the Island.

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

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

30 30 30

0 0 0 Score

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

Inside the MRS or inside the ESQD arc

2. Are there currently any features or facilities where people may congregate within the MRS, or within the ESQD arc?

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

Subsurface Cleanup:

Subsurface Cleanup:

6. Please describe the facility or feature.

Outside of the ESQD arc

Baseline Conditions:

7. Future use activities are 'Outside of the ESQD arc', based on Question 5.'

3. Please describe the facility or feature.

Baseline Conditions:

Surface Cleanup:

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

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

4. Current use activities are 'Outside of the ESQD arc', based on Question 2.'

Surface Cleanup:

Item #1. Bombs (1000lb, High Explosive) [MK-83]

Item #1. Bombs (1000lb, High Explosive) [MK-83]

Select MEC(s)

Select MEC(s)

Applied December 2008

Site Accessibility Input Factor Categories

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

Full Accessibility 80 80 80

Moderate Accessibility 55 55 55

Limited Accessibility 15 15 15

Very Limited Accessibility

5 5 5

Score

Baseline Conditions: 15 Surface Cleanup: 15 Subsurface Cleanup: 15

Baseline Conditions: 15 Surface Cleanup: 15 Subsurface Cleanup: 15 Reference(s) for above information:

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

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

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

No barriers to entry, including signage but no fencing

Significant barriers to entry, such as unguarded chain link fence or requirements for special transportation to reach the site

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

Limited Accessibility

Limited Accessibility

Current Use Activities

Future Use Activities

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

Final Phase II Comprehensive Site Assessment Report, Nomans Land Island, Chilmark, Massachusetts, March 2001

Applied December 2008

Baseline Conditions: 15 Surface Cleanup: 15 Subsurface Cleanup: 15

Baseline Conditions: 15 Surface Cleanup: 15 Subsurface Cleanup: 15

Baseline Conditions: 15 Surface Cleanup: 15 Subsurface Cleanup: 15

Baseline Conditions: 15 Surface Cleanup: 15 Subsurface Cleanup: 15

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

Response Alternative No. 4: Surface Removal 2008

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

Response Alternative No. 2: Surface Removal 1998

Response Alternative No. 3: Surface Removal 2003

Response Alternative No. 1: Baseline (Conditions Pre-1998)

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

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

Applied December 2008

Potential Contact Hours Input Factor Categories

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

Many Hours 120 90 30 Some Hours 70 50 20

Few Hours 40 20 10

Very Few Hours 15 10 5

2,344 receptor hrs/yr

15 Score

2,344 receptor hrs/yr

15 Score

2,344

Score Baseline Conditions: 15 Surface Cleanup: 10 Subsurface Cleanup: 5

2,344

Score Baseline Conditions: 15 Surface Cleanup: 10 Subsurface Cleanup: 5

2,344

Score Baseline Conditions: 15 Surface Cleanup: 10 Subsurface Cleanup: 5

2,344

Score Baseline Conditions: 15 Surface Cleanup: 10 Subsurface Cleanup: 5

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

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

Response Alternative No. 3: Surface Removal 2003

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

Response Alternative No. 4: Surface Removal 2008 Based on the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet, land use activities will not change if this alternative is implemented.

Total Potential Contact Time, based on the contact time listed for current use activities (see 'Current and Future Activities' Worksheet) Based on the table above, this corresponds to input factor scores of:

<10,000 receptor-hrs/yr

Response Alternative No. 1: Baseline (Conditions Pre-1998)

Future Use Activities :

Current Use Activities :

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

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

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

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

≥1,000,000 receptor-hrs/yr 100,000 to 999,999 receptor hrs/yr

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

Description

Response Alternative No. 2: Surface Removal 1998 Based on the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet, land use activities will not change if this alternative is implemented.

Total Potential Contact Time, based on the contact time listed for current use activities (see 'Current and Future Activities' Worksheet) Based on the table above, this corresponds to input factor scores of:

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

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

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

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

Applied December 2008

Amount of MEC Input Factor Categories

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

Target Area 180 120 30

OB/OD Area 180 110 30

Function Test Range 165 90 25

Burial Pit 140 140 10

Maneuver Areas 115 15 5

Firing Points 75 10 5

Safety Buffer Areas 30 10 5

Storage 25 10 5

Explosive-Related Industrial Facility

20 10 5

Score

Baseline Conditions: 180 Surface Cleanup: 120 Subsurface Cleanup: 30

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

Target Area

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

Areas used for conducting military exercises in a simulated conflict area or war zone The location from which a projectile, grenade, ground signal, rocket, guided missile, or other device is to be ignited, propelled, or released.

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

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

Former munitions manufacturing or demilitarization sites and TNT production plants

Areas where the serviceability of stored munitions or weapons systems are tested. Testing may include components, partial functioning or complete functioning of stockpile or developmental items.

Areas at which munitions fire was directed

Sites where munitions were disposed of by open burn or open detonation methods. This category refers to the core activity area of an OB/OD area.

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

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

Description

Applied December 2008

0 ft

0 ft

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

240 150 95

240 50 25

150 N/A 95

50 N/A 25

240 Score

Deepest intrusive depth:

0 ft

240 Score

0 ft

0 ft

Score Baseline Conditions: 240 Surface Cleanup:

Subsurface Cleanup:

0.25 ft

0 ft

Because the shallowest minimum MEC depth is less than or equal to the deepest intrusive depth, the intrusive depth will overlap after cleanup. MECs are located at both the surface and subsurface, based on the 'Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info' Worksheet.

Therefore, the category for this input factor is 'Baseline Condition: MEC located surface and subsurface. After Cleanup: Intrusive depth overlaps with subsurface MEC.' For 'Current Use Activities', only Baseline Conditions are considered.

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

After Cleanup: Intrusive depth overlaps with subsurface MEC.'. For 'Future Use Activities', only Baseline Conditions are considered.

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

Response Alternative No. 1: Baseline (Conditions Pre-1998)

Future Use Activities

Maximum Intrusive Depth, based on the maximum intrusive depth listed for current use activities (see 'Current and Future Activities' Worksheet) Because the shallowest minimum MEC depth is greater than the deepest intrusive depth, the intrusive depth does not overlap. MECs are located at both the surface and subsurface, based on the 'Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info' Worksheet. Therefore, the category for this input factor is 'Baseline Condition: MEC located surface and subsurface, After Cleanup: Intrusive depth does not overlap with subsurface MEC.'

Baseline Condition: MEC located surface and subsurface. After Cleanup: Intrusive depth overlaps with subsurface MEC.

Baseline Condition: MEC located surface and subsurface, After Cleanup: Intrusive depth does not overlap with subsurface

MEC.

Baseline Condition: MEC located only subsurface. Baseline Condition or After Cleanup: Intrusive depth overlaps with minimum MEC depth.

Response Alternative No. 2: Surface Removal 1998 Expected minimum MEC depth (from the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet):

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

The table below is used to determine scores associated with the minimum MEC depth relative to the maximum intrusive depth:

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

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

Maximum Intrusive Depth, based on the maximum intrusive depth listed for current use activities (see 'Current and Future Activities' Worksheet) Because the shallowest minimum MEC depth is less than or equal to the deepest intrusive depth, the intrusive depth overlaps. MECs are located at both the surface and subsurface, based on the 'Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info' Worksheet. Therefore, the category for this input factor is 'Baseline Condition: MEC located surface and subsurface.

After Cleanup: Intrusive depth overlaps with subsurface MEC.'

Minimum MEC Depth Relative to the Maximum Intrusive Depth Input Factor Categories Current Use Activities The…