Amendment 0002 MAMMS III Sample Project Revision with Highlights.pdf

Mortar Range MRS

BACKGROUND

The Mortar Range MRS is a 1,083.2 acre site located in western Maryland. Currently the MRS is a mix of both private and state owned land, mostly undeveloped. The site extends 8,690 feet north to south and covers three separate properties owned by a logging company (Area A), a development company (Area B) and the Maryland State Department of Natural Resources (Area C). The MRS terrain consists of the following areas: clear cut forest 17.0% (184.5 acres), grassland 8.0% (87.9 acres), pine forest 53.0% (574.4 acres), rugged mountain terrain 5% (49.5 acres), and lake (15.0%, 164.4 acres), see Figure 1.

Please note Figure 1 is an illustration, and is not to exact scale. The scale provided on the illustration is approximate. The remaining area is developed with roads and parking lots: 2.0% (22.5 acres). The forest is new growth pine with moderately dense underbrush. The average tree height is 20 feet. There are no residential properties located within the MRS. The topography in Area A and Area B is generally flat, with limited access via one main road (Rural Route 101). Rural Route 101 is a two lane secondary highway with very light to moderate traffic, depending on the time of day. Area C is a State Park with flat topography around the lake, with steep slopes toward the North, known as Lazy Mountain. The State Park contains approximately 3 miles of hiking trails that extend around the lake and to the top of Lazy Mountain. Lazy Mountain consists of thin residual soils underlain by metamorphic bedrock. “Park Lake” is a manmade lake and is 164.4 acres, with a maximum depth in the center of 60 feet.

Between 1950 and 1972 the Mortar Range MRS was owned and operated by the U.S. Army as part of a larger installation. In 1973, 2,486 acres were transferred to the State of Maryland to create Lazy Mountain State Park.

Park Lake has public access viaa paved parking lot, and paved boat ramp located off Park Road (also paved). The park receives approximately 100,000 visitors a year, with peak attendance during the summer months. In 1977, the state sold 635.74 acres of land south of the lake to private investors. A logging company owns Area A and has clear-cut the entire area. The area was logged approximately 12 months ago. The area is mostly open with rough logging roads, stumps, and tree tops remaining. A development company owns Area B and plans to develop a portion of the land north of Rural Route 101 for residential housing. The area to be developed is 76.15 acres, wooded and is located adjacent to the State Park, as illustrated on Figure 1 (TCRA Area).

The Mortar Range MRS operated between 1950 and 1972, and was used to train soldiers on the use of 60mm mortars. No other munitions were known to have been used at the site. An SI was completed for the site. Historical records indicate that multiple targets were used and maintained for live-fire training.

The site was heavily used for live-fire training during the Korean and Vietnam Wars. The known firing and target areas are illustrated on Figure 1. There are three (3) known target areas centrally located in the MRS. In addition, there are two (2) other targets not identified on the map (locations unknown). One unknown target is believed to be located in the lake, the other unknown target is located on land. The direction of fire was to the north with the firing point located on the southern end of the MRS (Figure 1).

The firing point area is 22.95 acres. Firing was aimed at targets positioned on land and water. Multiple range fans exist at the site. No structures were reported to have been built within the range area. No other military activities were known to have taken place other than live-fire military training.

On multiple occasions, mortars were discovered within Lazy Mountain State Park. Between 1974 and 2018, over one hundred (100) mortars were found on the surface and subsurface (a total of twenty (20) separate discoveries) by visitors and park officials. Recently a number of munition items were reportedly found outside the park in the area currently being developed (TCRA Area). Anecdotal evidence suggest that buried munitions were unearthed in Area A during logging operations in 2004.

e1enxjam Highlight e1enxjam Highlight e1enxjam Highlight e1enxjam Highlight

SAMPLE PROBLEM #1

Based on the information above, complete a TCRA for MEC within the TCRA Area in Area B, as illustrated on Figure 1.

SAMPLE PROBLEM #2

Based on the information above, complete an RI for MEC and MC for the Mortar Range MRS.

General Assumptions:

GUIDANCE

- Assume DoD is in the process of updating existing guidance to be consistent with the MR QAPP Module 1, and developing the MR QAPP Module 2.

- Assume most current guidance for the RI Sample Problem is the MR QAPP dated December 2018.

- Assume most current guidance for the TCRA Sample Problem is the AGC-QAPP dated March 2016, and EM 200-1-15 dated 30 October 2018.

CSM and DQOs

- Assume this is a FUDs site.

- Assume an SI was completed for the site and an RI was recommended for MEC and MC.

- An Action Memorandum has been signed requiring a TCRA be completed in Area B. The TCRA requires a MEC clearance be completed to a depth of 2 feet bgs. There are no other requirements for the

TCRA.

- The Conceptual Site Model for the Sample Problem is provided as Worksheet #10.

- The Project/Data Quality Objectives 1-4 for the Sample Problem RI are provided as Worksheet #11.

ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE SITE

- A release of MEC has occurred at the site.

- Assume the RI evaluation will determine that a release of MC has occurred in soil, sediment, and groundwater at the site.

- Assume no endangered species are present at the site.

- Assume no nesting birds or other wildlife restrictions.

- Assume no historical or cultural resources are present.

- Assume groundwater flow is towards the lake.

- Assume Park Facilities utilize a well as a potable water source.

- Assume the potable well is located 500 feet east of the parking lot boundary, adjacent to a park facility building, and is located outside the MRS.

- Assume the well for potable water source is 500 feet deep.

- Assume average depth to groundwater at the site is 20 feet bgs.

- Assume average depth to bedrock is 30 feet bgs.- Assume the MRS has a total of 5 target areas.

- Assume that the TCRA only contains 3 target areas.

- For Concentrated Munitions Use Areas (CMUAs) and High-Use Areas (HUAs): Assume average anomaly density of 1000 anomalies per acre.

- For Non Concentrated Munitions Use Areas (NCMUAs) and Low-Use Areas (LUAs): Assume average anomaly density of 20 anomalies per acre.

- Assume moderate level of clearing in forested areas will allow access of digital geophysical equipment.

- Assume there is a Restoration Advisory Board.

- Assume that the government will self-perform the QA blind seeding.

- Assume a background data set is not available for any media.

- Assume residuals soils consist of silty sand (SM) and silty clay (SC) soil types.

e1enxjam Highlight e1enxjam Highlight e1enxjam Highlight e1enxjam Highlight

- Assume that ROEs will be available and procured by the government for all areas.

- Assume power lines parallel state route 101, but not Park Road.

- Assume no topographical grade exceeds 15%.

WORKSHEET 10 - MEC Conceptual Site Model Pathway Analysis Summary

Site Details Known or Suspected Contamination Source

Potential/Suspected Location and Distribution

Source or Exposure Medium

Current and Future

Receptors

Potentially Complete

Exposure Pathway

Name: Mortar Range MRS

Acreage: MRS - 1,083.2 acres

Suspected Past DoD Activities (release mechanism): Live-fire Mortar Training Range. Multiple targets on land and water from single firing point area.

Current and Future Land Use:

Area A - Current: Privately owned, undeveloped. Future: Privately owned, undeveloped.

Area B – Current: Privately owned, undeveloped. Future: Privately owned, residential development.

Area C – Current: State Park. Future: State Park.

Former Mortar Range:

MEC from live-fire training with 60mm mortars. DMM from burial activities at firing point. No other munitions were known to have been used.

On multiple occasions, mortars were discovered within Lazy Mountain State Park.

Between 1974 and 2018, over one hundred (100) mortars were found on the surface and subsurface (a total of twenty (20) separate discoveries) by visitors and park officials. Recently a number of munitions were reportedly found outside the park in the area currently being developed (Area B).

Anecdotal evidence suggests that buried munitions were unearthed in Area A during logging operations in 2004.

MEC in surface soil (0-0.5 ft bgs) and in subsurface soil (>0.5 ft bgs).

MEC in surface sediment (0-0.5 ft bgs) and in subsurface sediment (>0.5 ft bgs).

Area A – Current and future trespassers, hunters.

Area B – Current:

trespassers, hunters. Future:

construction workers, child and adult residents.

Area C – Current and future:

workers, recreational visitors.

Area A – Current and Future Human receptors may encounter surface MEC through trespassing or hunting activities.

Exposure to subsurface MEC below 0.5 ft is not anticipated.

Area B – Current Human receptors may encounter surface MEC through trespassing or hunting activities. Exposure to subsurface MEC is not anticipated.

Future Human receptors may encounter surface and subsurface MEC from construction, Site Details Known or Suspected Contamination Source

Potential/Suspected Location and Distribution

Source or Exposure Medium

Current and Future

Receptors

Potentially Complete

Exposure Pathway walking, maintenance, or intrusive activities.

Area C – Current and Future Human receptors may encounter surface and subsurface MEC through site worker maintenance activities and recreational activities including hiking, camping, and water activities that would come into contact with the lake bottom.

WORKSHEET 10 - MC Conceptual Site Model Pathway Analysis Summary

Known or Suspected

Contamination Source Potential/Suspected

Location and Distribution

Source or Exposure Medium

Current and Future

Receptors

Potentially Complete

Exposure Pathway Name: Mortar Range MRS

Acreage: MRS - 1,083.2

Suspected Past DoD Activities (release mechanism): Live-fire Mortar Training Range. Multiple targets on land and water from single firing point area.

Current and Future Land Use:

Area A - Current: Privately owned, undeveloped. Future: Privately owned, undeveloped.

Area B – Current: Privately owned, undeveloped. Future: Privately owned, residential development.

Area C – Current: State Park. Future: State Park.

Area A – Propellants, Explosives, Metals

Area B – Explosives, Metals

Area C – Explosives, Metals

Area A – Firing point with potential for propellants to be present in surface soil, and explosives from MEC in burial pits. Where damaged and/or heavily corroded cache of DMM items are discovered with visible signs of an MC release (e.g., stained soil under MEC).

Area B – Impact Area(s) on land. Where impact/detonation of MEC occurred, or damaged and/or heavily corroded individual MEC items are discovered with visible signs of an MC release (e.g., stained soil under MEC).

Area C – Potential Impact Area(s) on land or water.

Where impact/detonation of

MC in surface soil and sediment (0-

0.5 ft bgs) and/or subsurface (>0.5 ft bgs) soil and sediment. MC is surface water and groundwater.

Area A – Current and future trespassers, hunters.

Area B – Current:

trespassers, hunters. Future:

construction workers, child and adult residents.

Area C – Current and future: site workers, recreational visitors.

Area A – Human receptors may be exposed to MC in surface soil through dermal contact, incidental ingestion, and/or inhalation pathways for all human receptors.

There are no subsurface exposure pathways to MC for human receptors.

Ecological receptors may be exposed to MC in surface soil (0-0.5

ft) through dermal contact, incidental ingestion, inhalation, and/or food chain.

Area B – Human receptors may be exposed to MC in

Contamination Source Potential/Suspected

Location and Distribution

Source or Exposure Medium

Current and Future

Receptors

Potentially Complete

Exposure Pathway MEC occurred at target or buffer area. Where damaged and/or heavily corroded individual MEC items are discovered with visible signs of an MC release (e.g., stained sediment or soil under MEC) or in low visibility scenarios, tactile signs of a potential MC release (e.g., cracks, holes).

surface soil, subsurface soil, and groundwater through dermal contact, incidental ingestion, and/or inhalation pathways for all human receptors.

Ecological receptors may be exposed to MC in surface soil (0-0.5

ft) through dermal contact, incidental ingestion, Area C – Human receptors may be exposed to MC in surface soil, subsurface soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment through dermal contact, incidental

Contamination Source Potential/Suspected

Location and Distribution

Source or Exposure Medium

Current and Future

Receptors

Potentially Complete

Exposure Pathway ingestion, and/or inhalation pathways for all human receptors.

Ecological receptors may be exposed to MC in surface soil (0-0.5 ft), sediment (0-0.5 ft), and surface water through dermal contact, incidental ingestion, WORKSHEET 11 - PROJECT/DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES (Sample Problem RI)

DQO Element Data Quality Objective (DQO) Activity Description

1. State the Problem

• The nature and extent of MEC and MC has not been defined in the Mortar Range MRS.

The existence, location, and geometry of HUA/LUAs has not been verified.

• Based on historical encounters with munitions items in various locations within the Mortar Range MRS, MEC in the form of UXO or discarded military munitions (DMM) is potentially present, resulting from the use of the MRS as a live-fire training range between 1950 and 1972. If present, the MEC may present an unacceptable risk to receptors.

• Specific locations for firing locations and burial pits within the firing point boundary, if present, are unknown.

• The occurrence and approximate density of MEC within the MRS has not been verified.

• The effects of current land use on the distribution of MEC and MC is unknown.

• It is unknown if MC is present due to MEC/MPPEH being damaged, leaking/corroded, or otherwise potentially releasing MC into the environment.

• It is unknown if MC has impacted surface soil, subsurface soil, sediment, or groundwater at the site, and if so, to what extent.

• Determine if there are non-impacted areas (NIAs) for MEC and MC within the MRS.

• Collect data to support a feasibility study (FS), if necessary.

2. Identify the Goal of the Study

Identify the goals of the data collection: The overall goal of the RI is to determine the presence or absence of MEC and MC at the Mortar Range MRS, and if present, then determine the nature and extent, and fate and transport of MEC and/or MC in all media within the MRS.

• Determine if a release of MEC has occurred at the site.

• Determine the type of MEC, munitions debris (MD), range-related debris (RRD), and other metallic debris are/may be present in the HUAs/LUAs.

• Determine the existence, size, location, and geometry of HUAs/LUAs.

• Determine the horizontal and vertical density of MEC in HUA/LUAs.

• Determine areas not impacted by MEC.

• Determine if MEC poses a risk to current and future receptors based on land use.

• Determine if a release of MC has occurred at the site.

• Determine the type of MC present at the site.

• Determine the horizontal and vertical distribution of MC in HUAs/LUAs.

• Investigate and sample surface soil, subsurface soil, sediment, and groundwater to determine if MC poses a current or future threat to human health and the environment at the site.

• Determine areas not impacted by MC.

• Confirm the horizontal boundary of the MRS.

• Collect data needed to evaluate remedial alternatives in a feasibility study, if needed.

3. Identify Information Inputs

Refer to Sample Problem for assumptions.

4. Define the Boundaries of the Study

Refer to Sample Problem for assumptions.

WORKSHEET 11 - PROJECT/DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES (Sample Problem TCRA)

DQO Element Data Quality Objective (DQO) Activity Description

1. State the Problem

• Based on historical encounters with munitions items in various locations within the Mortar Range MRS, MEC in the form of UXO or discarded military munitions (DMM) is potentially present, resulting from the use of the MRS as a live-fire training range between 1950 and 1972. If present, the MEC may pose an unacceptable risk to receptors.

• It is unknown the extent of impacted and non-impacted areas for MEC within the TCRA site.

• Development is planned within a part of area B (TCRA Site) likely impacted by MEC. Development will proceed before RI/FS can be completed.

2. Identify the Goal of the Study

• The overall goal of the TCRA is to reduce the potential for exposure to explosive hazards to receptors during property development and future residential use. An exposure pathway exists on both the surface and subsurface land areas. The final action for the TCRA must include the removal of MEC where the potential for receptor exposure exists.

• The secondary objective is to collect data to be utilized as part of the RI for the Mortar Range MRS.

• Detect and remove MEC to complete a clearance to a depth of two feet bgs.

• Complete the removal utilizing geophysical methods that can detect a 60mm mortar at a depth of two feet bgs.

3. Identify Information Inputs

Refer to Sample Problem for assumptions.

4. Define the Boundaries of the Study

Refer to PWS for defined site map illustrating boundaries.

• All areas are accessible.

• Horizontal boundaries of the TCRA site include forested areas adjacent to a public road.

• There are no limitations on access except the vegetation, there are no constraints on vegetation clearing.

e1enxjam Highlight

Line

• There are no known cultural or ecological considerations.

• Vertical boundary is depth of clearance to two feet depth.

• Temporal boundaries include, time it takes to complete the work, weather constraints, stakeholder constraints.

Line

C. CONTRACT DESCRIPTION FORM (This is only a suggested template)

Volume III Factor 3. Volume 1, Factor 1, Contract No.: W912DR19R0051

Provide a completed form for each project for which experience is being submitted. Project experience submitted by the Offeror as a subcontractor will not be evaluated.

(a) OFFEROR’S NAME (Prime Contractor):___________________________________ Project Name: __________________________________________________________ Project Location:_________________________________________________________ Client/Customer:_________________________________________________________

(b) Contract Number: _____________________________________________________ (For Indefinite Delivery type contracts, GSA contracts, and Blanket Purchase Agreements, include Delivery Order Numbers) Contract Type (e.g. Fixed-Priced, Cost Reimbursement, etc.):

Awarded price/cost: __________________________ Final or projected final price/cost: _____________________________ Original delivery schedule (include dates of start and completion): _________________ Final or projected delivery schedule (include dates of start and completion): ______________ Percent of Completion or Last Milestone Completed (if project is currently ongoing) ________

(c) Client/Customer Point of Contact: __________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________________________________________ Email: ______________________________ Fax: ________________________________ Telephone: ___________________________

(d) Government Contracting Activity/Agency (if applicable): _________________________ Address: __________________________________________________________________ Contracting Officer: _________________________________________________________ Email: ______________________________ Fax: ________________________________ Telephone: ___________________________

Government Contract Administration Activity (if applicable): _____________________ Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO): _______________________________________ Contracting Officer Representative (COR): ______________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________________________ Email: _________________________________ Fax: ___________________________________ Telephone: ______________________________

(e) Description of project: (Provide a specific narrative explanation of the contract and objectives achieved. Detail how the effort is relevant to the requirement of this RFP):

(f) If contract did not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence:

(g) Describe the stakeholders and/or regulators involved in the project and describe the interactions. If any challenges were encountered, describe the processes utilized to manage.

(h) Was the project terminated early or was Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received on this contract? Yes ____ No____:

If yes, explain nature of termination (default/convenience). Provide copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received and describe any corrective action(s) implemented by the Offeror or subcontractor:

(i) Safety record (Use the number reported on OSHA Form No. 200 or equivalent):

Injuries with Lost Workdays __________ Injuries without Lost Workdays _________ Explain any injuries that occurred and corrective action(s) taken:

(j) List and explain any customer concerns or dissatisfaction. Explain how you responded:

(k) Was this project performed under performance based milestones? Yes ____ No____: If yes, describe the process for managing the project within the performance-based milestones.____________________________________________________________________________