€¦ · XLS file · Web view · 2017-09-07If on-site demilitarization of MDAS was performed,...

1

Note: All acronyms are defined on the "Acronyms" worksheet only.

Distribution Statement A. Approved for public release: distribution unlimited

Disclaimer: The NAVFAC Munitions Response Quality Assessment Spreadsheet is made available on an "as-is" basis without guarantee or warranty of any kind, express or implied. The U.S. Navy accepts no liability resulting from the use of this spreadsheet; nor does the above warrant or otherwise represent in any way the accuracy, adequacy, efficacy, or applicability of the contents hereof. Implementation is the sole responsibility of the user.

RPMs can use the NAVFAC MR Quality Assessment Spreadsheet as a tool to assess the quality of their UXO contractor's munitions response actions and help ensure contractual requirements are met. RPMs/3rd Party QA Contractors can also use the spreadsheet to develop a series of questions to ask during the performance of a project and to help develop content for the QASP. The spreadsheet can also be used by the UXO contractor to help improve quality by asking internal questions on a project.

Each worksheet is initially protected. To unprotect the worksheet, simply press the unprotect sheet button. There are no passwords for any of the worksheets.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTSDefinable Features of Work for Munitions Response Program (MRP) Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

AcronymsExplosives Safety Submission (ESS)Work Plans Munitions and Explosives of Concern Quality Assurance Project Plan (MEC QAPP) Advanced Geophysical Classification for Munitions Response Quality Assurance Project Plan (AGC QAPP) Munitions Constituents Quality Assurance Project Plan (MC QAPP) Accident Prevention Plan/Site Safety and Health Plan (APP/SSHP) Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) Waste Management Plan (WMP) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Cultural or Historical Preservation Plan (CHPP) Community Involvement Plan (CIP)Site Preparation and MobilizationSite Survey/Grid LayoutVegetation RemovalSurface RemovalAdvanced Geophysical Classification (AGC)Digital Geophysical Mapping/Geophysical Systems Verification (DGM/GSV)Anomaly Reacquisition and Intrusive InvestigationExcavation and Soil SiftingMunitions and Explosives of Concern/Material Potentially Presenting an Explosive Hazard (MEC/MPPEH) ManagementDemobilizationReporting After Action Report (AAR) Remedial Investigation (RI) Report Feasibility Study (FS) ReportQuality Assessment Surveillance Plan (QASP)Quality Assessment Surveillance Plan Advanced Geophysical Classification (QASP AGC) Quality Assessment Field Work (QA Field)Quality Assessment Field Work Advanced Geophysical Classification (QA Field AGC)Note: All acronyms are defined on the "Acronyms" worksheet only.

3

Acronyms2-Am-DNT 1-Amino-4,6-dinitrotolueneA/E/C Architecture, Engineering, and ConstructionAAR After Action ReportAGC Advanced Geophysical ClassificationAHA Activity Hazard AnalysesAOC area of concernAPP Accident Prevention PlanAR Accelerated ResponseARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequirementsBMP Best Management PracticesBRAC Base Realignment and ClosureBSI Blind Seed ItemsCA Chemical AgentCD compact discC/D class/divisionCERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActCHPP Cultural or Historical Preservation PlanCIP Community Involvement PlanCMUA Concentrated Munitions Use AreaCOPC chemicals of potential concernCPR cardiopulmonary resuscitationCRREL Cold Regions Research and Engineering LaboratoryCSM Conceptual Site ModelDAGCAP DoD Advanced Geophysical Classification Accreditation ProgramDDESB Department of Defense Explosives Safety BoardDFW definable feature of workDGM Digital Geophysical MappingDGPS Differential Global Positioning SystemDoD Department of DefenseDOP Dilution of PrecisionDOT Department of TransportationDQE data quality evaluationDQO data quality objectiveDR Determination RequestDU decision unitsDUA Data Usability AssessmentEE/CA Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis ECP entry control pointsEFH essential fish habitatsEM Engineering ManualEMM earth moving machineryEMT Emergency Medical TechnicianEOD Explosive Ordnance DisposalEPP Environmental Protection PlanES exposed siteESA Endangered Species ActESO Explosives Safety OfficerESQD Explosive Safety Quantity DistanceESS Explosives Safety SubmissionEZ Exclusion ZoneFCA Function Check AreaFGDC Federal Geographic Data CommitteeFOUO For Official Use OnlyFS feasibility studyGEQ Generic Equations CalculatorGIS Geographic Information SystemGPS Global Positioning SystemGRA General Response Actions

4

AcronymsGSR Green and Sustainable RemediationGSV Geophysical Systems VerificationHA Hazard AssessmentHFD hazardous fragmentation distanceIA Institutional AnalysisIBD Interline Building DistanceIDQTF Intergovernmental Data Quality Task ForceIMU Inertial Measurement UnitISO industry standard objectsISS Informed Source SelectionITRC Interstate Technology & Regulatory CouncilIVS Instrument Verification StripLUC land use control*MC munitions constituentsMCE Maximum Credible EventMDAS Material Documented as SafeMDEH Material Documented as an Explosive HazardMEC Munitions and Explosives of ConcernMEC HA MEC Hazard AssessmentMFD maximum fragmentation distanceMGFD munition with the greatest fragmentation distanceMIS Multi-Increment SamplingMMPA Marine Mammals Protection ActMPC Measurement Performance CriteriaMPPEH Material Potentially Presenting an Explosive HazardMQC Measurement Quality CriteriaMQOs Measurement Quality ObjectiveMRP Munitions Response ProgramMRS munitions response site MRSPP Munitions Response Site Prioritization ProtocolmV millivoltsNAVSEA Naval Sea Systems CommandNELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation ProgramNFA No Further ActionNKO Navy's Knowledge OnlineNOSSA Naval Ordnance Safety & Security ActivityNOSSAINST NOSSA InstructionNPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemNSSDA National Standard for Spatial Data AccuracyNTR Navy Technical RepresentativeOB/OD open burn/open detonationOP Ordnance PamphletPA Preliminary AssessmentPAL project action limitsPES potential explosion sitesPMO Program Management OfficePPE Personal Protection EquipmentPWO Public Works OfficerPWS Performance Work StatementQA Quality AssuranceQA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality ControlQAPP Quality Assurance Project PlanQC Quality ControlQPM quality performance metricsQSD Qualified SWPPP DeveloperRA Remedial ActionRAA Removal Action AreaRAO Remedial Action Objective

5

AcronymsRCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery ActRI Remedial InvestigationROD Record of DecisionRPM Remedial Project ManagerRTK Real Time KinematicSI Site InvestigationSNR Signal to Noise RatioSOP standard operating proceduresSPP systematic planning processSSHP Site Safety and Health PlanSUXOS Senior UXO SupervisorSWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention PlanTBC To Be ConsideredTL team leadTNT TrinitrotolueneTOI Target of InterestTP Technical PaperTSD team separation distanceU.S.EPA United States Environmental Protection AgencyUFP-QAPP Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project PlanUSACE United States Army Corps of EngineersUU/UE Unlimited Use/Unrestricted ExposureUXO unexploded ordnanceUXOQAM UXO Quality Assurance ManagerUXOQCS UXO Quality Control SpecialistUXOSO UXO Safety OfficerVSP Visual Sample PlanWMP Waste Management PlanWP white phosphorusWS Worksheet

Note: All acronyms are defined on the "Acronyms" worksheet only.*Note: California sites may be subject to Land Use Covenants in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Section 25220.

6

DFW Section Subsection QuestionESS General ESS Requirement Do any of the sites involved in this response action contain CA or munitions containing CA? (Contact NOSSA)

Does the Navy intend to place explosives on the site? (ESS is Required)

Is this an explosives or munitions emergency response? (ESS is not required)Are these actions maintenance and clearance activities occurring on operational ranges that do not address identified burial sites? (ESS is not required)

Is this action demolition of magazines where no evidence of residual MEC contamination or historical record of explosive spills exists? (ESS is not required)

Is this operation, maintenance or cleanup of ammunition and explosives operating buildings in an active, standby or layaway status? (ESS is not required)

Signatures For active Naval installations, have the Navy project manager, cognizant ESO and PWO signed the signature page?

For BRAC projects, has the BRAC Environmental Coordinator signed for the PWO?Is the Draft ESS formatted in accordance with Enclosure (3) and submitted in accordance with Paragraph 5.e.(3)(b)?Is the Final ESS formatted in accordance with Enclosure (3) and submitted in accordance with Paragraph 5.e.(4)(b)?Has the Project Team been notified that NOSSA may require up to one month to review the Final ESS and endorse it to DDESB?

Is intentional physical contact with MEC and/or MPPEH including the decontamination and demolition of buildings and installed equipment potentially contaminated with residual MEC anticipated? (ESS is required)

Is the conduct of ground-disturbing or other intrusive activities, including dredging, in areas known or suspected to contain MEC and/or MPPEH when anomaly avoidance techniques are not employed anticipated? (ESS is required)

Are these actions construction or non-munitions response activities, including dredging, occurring in an area not known or suspected to contain MEC and/or MPPEH? (ESS is not required)

Is this on-call construction support or on-site construction support when included as a conservative measure? (ESS may not be required. ESS DR is required.)

Is this ground disturbing activity on former ranges used exclusively for testing and training with small arms ammunition? (ESS may not be required. ESS DR is required.)

Is the action performing anomaly avoidance techniques employed during vegetation reduction, cultural/natural resources surveys, PA site reconnaissance, the SI, sign or fence installation, or similar activities not involving intentional physical contact with MEC and/or MPPEH? (ESS may not be required. ESS DR is required.)

Is the action demolition of magazines where there is evidence or an historical record of a spill or other residual MEC, but where the spill or contamination was removed? (ESS may not be required. ESS DR is required.)

Is the action demolition of operating buildings where operations exclusively involved all-up rounds (no exposed explosives) and did not generate explosive residues? (ESS may not be required. ESS DR is required.)

Have any changes been made to the project that require the submission of an ESS amendment or correction? If so, see the amendments and corrections questions at the end of the ESS question set.

For BRAC projects, has an ESO (either Navy regional ESO or technically qualified explosives safety official designated by the BRAC PMO [e.g., UXO Contractor UXOSO]) signed the signature page?

ESS Formatting, Submittal and Timeline

7

DFW Section Subsection Question

ESS General

Has the Project Team been notified that DDESB may require up to one month to review and approve the Final ESS?

1. Background 1.1 Navy Project Manager Are the name and contact information for the RPM provided?

Is the current and/or former name or other unique identifier for the site provided?If the site is still under Navy control, is the name of the host installation and cognizant command provided?Is the size (in acres) of each site provided?If the site is divided into AOCs or parcels, are those identified?Is the status of the affected MRS (e.g., active installation, transferring or transferred under BRAC) provided?

1.3 Regional Maps

Is the current, determined or reasonably anticipated future land use of the site described?If multiple proposed actions or land uses will be occurring within the site, are the significant differences and respective timeframes described?

Are any construction or other activities taking place on the site concurrent with the proposed munitions response?Has the site history and/or background concerning munitions use been adequately described?Does this section explain why MEC and/or MPPEH are known or suspected to be present at the site?Are source documents cited with abbreviated citations?Are the full citations for source documents for this section provided in Section 13?Are the conclusions from previous reports of studies, investigations, characterizations and/or surveys of MEC and/or MPPEH summarized in this section?

Are the references for the information cited in Section 13?

2. Project Dates 2.1 Project Dates Does the project start date include sufficient time for NOSSA and DDESB review and approval of the ESS (Paragraph 5.e.(4)(b)2.)?Does this section provide the date on which munitions response activities are scheduled to begin?Does this section present the potential consequence, if any, should DDESB approval not be obtained on the anticipated start date?Does this section provide the estimated project completion date?

Are the reference documents cited with abbreviated references in this section and with full references in Section 13?

ESS Formatting, Submittal and Timeline

Has the Navy Project Manager determined that it will be necessary to request written interim ESS approval from NOSSA due to extenuating circumstances (e.g., liquidated damages while awaiting ESS approval, an approaching endangered species breeding season, potential loss of funding, etc.) and is the request for interim approval included in the ESS cover letter with sufficient justification to support the request?

1.2 Site Identifier and Description

Is a regional map or maps depicting the location of the planned munition response relative to the activity or installation and region provided? Note: Do not include this map in Appendix C. Appendix C is reserved for ESQD maps.

1.4 Scope of the Munitions Response

Is the overall scope of the proposed actions, including intermediate and future goals or project objectives provided? Note: Make sure that descriptions of response actions are not included. They will go in Sections 5 or 6.

1.5 History of Munitions Use

1.6 Previous Studies of the Extent of MEC and/or MPPEH Contamination

1.7 Justification for NFA Decision

Does the text provide a thorough justification for supporting the NFA decision including excerpts from documents showing regulatory concurrence with the NFA decision?

3. Types of MEC or MPPEH

3.1 Types and Quantities of MEC and/or MPPEH

Are the types and quantities of MEC and/or MPPEH described in this section based on the historical research discussed in Section 1.5 or the previous studies presented in Section 1.6?

8


ESS

For contaminated buildings and installed equipment, are unconfined explosives listed as MCE (Section 3.3)?Have one or more items been selected as the munition with the MGFD from among the known or suspected MEC and/or MPPEH at the site?

If one munition has the greatest HFD and another has a larger MFD, were both selected as the primary MGFD?Was one munition with a larger MFD selected as a contingency MGFD, even if that munition is only discussed in anecdotal evidence?

Have the calculations for HFD, MFD, and EZs been checked for accuracy?Are the Fragmentation Data Review Form(s) and GEQ printouts for MEC and/or MPPEH listed in Table 3-1 included in Appendix B?Are the primary and contingency MGFDs listed in a table in accordance with Table 3-1?Are the source documents identified in abbreviated form in the table notes with the full citations in Section 13?If the ESS covers multiple MRSs, were separate MGFD tables created?

Is the rationale for determining the amount of explosives or analogous munition item used to develop the MCE provided? If multiple operations are involved, is an MCE for each operation provided?Are the type(s), concentration(s) and location(s) of explosive contamination, including explosive soils, believed to be present at the site described?

Are all procedures for monitoring and managing MEC and/or MPPEH migration discussed?Has the frost line depth been identified?Have the controls that will be in place for MEC and/or MPPEH left above the frost line but below the proposed removal depth been described?

Does the section summarize the equipment and techniques which will be used to detect subsurface MEC and/or MPPEH?

Are the limitations of the equipment and mitigating actions addressed?Does the section describe the performance standards, including any contractual or regulatory standards that are being imposed?Does the section summarize the methods used to establish or validate performance standards (e.g., ISOs within an IVS as part of a GSV process)?

If an IVS is used, are the specific ISO sizes and depths listed?If ISOs are used in an IVS, is the required corresponding discussion about the use of ISOs as BSIs included in Section 7.1?

3. Types of MEC or MPPEH

3.1 Types and Quantities of MEC and/or MPPEH

For contaminated buildings and installed equipment, are MEC and/or MPPEH ONLY those explosives that are confined (e.g., air ducts, concrete drainage ditches, etc.)?

3.2 Munition with the Greatest Fragmentation Distance (MGFD)

Was the fragmentation distance information derived from either, by order of preference: 1) DDESB TP16 Fragmentation Data Review Forms; or 2) the DDESB TP16 Primary Fragment Range GEQ?

For contaminated buildings and installed equipment, was the MGFD created only for explosives which are confined (e.g., air ducts, concrete drainage ditches, etc.)?

3.3 Maximum Credible Event (MCE)

3.4 Explosively-Contaminated Buildings

4. MEC and/or MPPEH Migration

4.1 MEC and/or MPPEH Migration

Have the naturally occurring phenomena (e.g., drought, flooding, erosion, frost heave, wave action, etc.) that could cause migration or exposure of MEC and/or MPPEH been described?

5. Detection and Positioning Technologies

5.1 Detection Equipment, Method and Standards Does the section include the rationale used to select the equipment (e.g., best available technology based on terrain, geology, munitions characteristics,

etc.)?

9


ESS

Is there affirmation that the same detection technologies are being used to acquire and reacquire anomalies?

5.3 Equipment Checkout Are the daily checkout procedures for each critical piece of equipment (e.g., detectors, navigational equipment, etc.) described?

6.1 Response Technique Does the section describe the overall munitions response technique (e.g., surface removal, excavation, land use controls)?For each technique employed, does the section describe who, how and when it is to be done?

Are the types of protections, including engineering controls which will be employed to defeat fragments and protect essential personnel discussed?

Is shield thickness and barricade design discussed, where appropriate?

Are the processes by which UXO Technicians will intrusively investigate and recover MEC and/or MPPEH discussed?Is a description of how MEC and/or MPPEH will be hazard classified in accordance with OP5 provided?

Does the section state that MEC safe-to-move decisions must be documented in writing prior to movement?Are collection points within the boundary of the site and separated from intentional detonations by the HFD of the MGFD?If engineering controls are used, is the collection point distance still not less than 66 feet?

6.2 Exclusion Zones (EZs) Are EZs for the primary and contingency MGFDs shown in tables in Section 3 included in an EZ table in the format of Table 6-1?Is a separate EZ table included for each MRS, if multiple sites are covered by this ESS?Are the EZs shown graphically on maps in Appendix C?Are source documents cited with abbreviated citations in the table notes and fully cited in Section 13?Are the Fragmentation Data Review Form(s) and GEQ printouts for MEC and/or MPPEH listed in Table 6-1 included in Appendix B?

5. Detection and Positioning Technologies

5.1 Detection Equipment, Method and Standards

If advanced geophysical classification technologies are to be used, are the methods to be used to establish or validate their expected performance explained?

5.2 Positioning System, Method and Standards

Does the section describe the positioning system to be used and the methods by which it will be employed, to include any contractual or regulatory standards imposed?

Is there affirmation that the positioning system used for reacquisition is of equal or greater positional accuracy than the positioning system used or the initial data acquisition?

5.4 Data Collection and Storage

Are the various processes (i.e., hardware, software, storage media) to be employed to collect, process and archive data amassed during the response action described?

6. Response Actions

Is vegetation reduction discussed in detail including the equipment and processes to be employed and the measures to be taken to protect vegetation operators from the explosive and non-explosive hazards associated with the operation?

If a mechanized MEC processing operation is being proposed, is the equipment and operation described to include whether low-input mechanical operations are proposed and justification for the low-input categorization?

Are the types of blast overpressure protections, including personnel protective measures and engineering controls which will be employed to reduce arcs or reduce minimum separation distances discussed?

Is the decision tree used by the SUXOS and UXOSO to determine whether MEC and/or MPPEH are unsafe to move or safe to move to the designated collection point or storage area described?

10


ESS

6.2 Exclusion Zones (EZs)

Are all exposed sites identified (e.g., UXO personnel, public and non-essential personnel, etc.)?Are the basis and size of the ESQD arcs identified?Does the Controlling EZ Table (Example Table 6-2) contain the above listed information?

If there are multiple sites and multiple encumbrances, does the PES table contain an additional column showing which sites are encumbered by which PESs?

Does the PES table use the same source documentation rules as the previous tables in Section 6?Does the section describe how the EZs will be controlled?Are the ECPs described in proper detail (e.g., what will be used - barricades, etc.) and the contact information at each ECP described in detail?

Are the ECPs depicted on the ESQD maps in Appendix C?If a waterway is encumbered, does the section identify how and where spotters will be used to ensure that operations stop if the EZ is breached?

Is the EZ access protocol described correctly?Have authorized visitors been granted access to the EZ and is the access documented correctly?Have formal written procedures been prepared addressing EZ access in support of MEC operations?

Does Section 6.3.3 describe how recovered MEC and/or MPPEH will be transported both on and off site?

Does Section 6.3.4 affirm that OP5 requirements shall be strictly adhered to by a UXO contractor and EOD personnel during handling and storage?

Does Section 6.3.4 describe how and where recovered MEC and/or MPPEH items and how and where donor explosives will be held and/or stored?

6. Response Actions

Are the operations to be conducted at each site identified and characterized for the potential for either having an unintentional or an intentional detonation, including collection points?

Are only the source documents not used in the EZ Table (Example Table 6-1) listed in the table notes with an abbreviated citation and the full citation in Section 13?Does Section 6.2 affirm that the selected K18 distances are only used when essential personnel wear double hearing protection which provides ≥ 9 decibel attenuation?

Does the section identify all of the PES such as magazines and explosives operating buildings that encumber any part of the site in a PES table (Example Table 6-3)?

6.3 MEC and/or MPPEH Hazard Classification, Movement, Transportation and Storage

Does Section 6.3.1 affirm that all recovered MEC and/or MPPEH will be managed as C/D 1.1 unless otherwise classified by NOSSA?Does Section 6.3.2 describe how the SUXOS and UXOSO determine that a MEC and/or MPPEH item is safe to move on site and how that agreement is documented prior to movement?

If MDEH is to be transported off site for storage or treatment, does Section 6.3.3 affirm that an EOD Technician from the responding EOD unit or a UXO contractor UXO Technician III (or higher) or other designated technically qualified and certified person will certify the item(s) as safe to transport prior to being offered for shipment following criteria in OP 5, Table 14-1?

Does Section 6.3.3 affirm that Navy and DOT transportation requirements are strictly observed for on- and off-site transportation of ammunition and explosives, as applicable?

11


ESS

Does Section 6.3.4 state that just-in-time or on-demand donor explosives delivery in lieu of storage will be used, as applicable?

Are MEC and MPPEH disposition processes discussed separately in paragraphs 6.4.1 and 6.4.2, respectively?Does Section 6.4 affirm that OP 5 requirements will be strictly adhered to during MEC and/or MPPEH disposition by UXO contractor and EOD personnel?

Does Section 6.4.1 describe the use of a planned or established on-site OB/OD area to treat MEC recovered during a munitions response?

Are the methods used to reduce explosives concentrations to a non-reactive level or to reduce explosive hazards discussed?

Are the processes to disassemble and/or demolish explosively-contaminated buildings and installed equipment described?If multiple techniques are to be used, is each described in terms of who is doing it and how and when each is to be done?If decontamination is involved, are the processes discussed and a brief summary of the decontamination plans required by DoD 5160.65M provided?

6.8 Contingencies

General

Do both the UXOQCS and the UXOQAM meet the minimum qualification standards identified by DDESB TP-18 for the UXOQCS?If diving is required for the execution of underwater QA/QC tasks, do the UXOQCS/UXOQAM meet the requirements of Paragraph 8.2?

7.1 QC Implementation

6. Response Actions

6.3 MEC and/or MPPEH Hazard Classification, Movement, Transportation and Storage

Are discussions regarding environmental and/or legal aspects related to handling, transportation and storage of MEC and/or MPPEH items presented only in Section 9 of the ESS?

6.4 MEC and/or MPPEH Disposition Processes

If MEC or MDEH is being shipped off site, does Section 6.4.1 identify the site (military or civilian) to which the material is being shipped and affirm that it is DDESB site-approved?

If MDEH is to be treated off site, does Section 6.4.1 affirm that the site is RCRA permitted or operating under a RCRA interim status or that treatment is being conducted under a Level 1 or Level 2 explosives or munitions emergency response?

Does Section 6.4.2 describe the processes and procedures which will be used to assess and document that MPPEH is either MDAS or MDEH in accordance with OP5?

Does Section 6.4.2 describe the process by which the materials explosives safety status is assessed and documented and how its chain of custody is maintained?

Does Section 6.4.2, for MDAS, identify how MDAS will be demilitarized and recycled and affirm that the recycler will provide the UXO contractor with a certificate of destruction?

For non-munitions debris, does Section 6.4.2 describe processes and procedures that will be implemented to prevent it from being comingled with MPPEH, MDAS and MDEH?

6.5 Explosively-Contaminated Soil For screened soil once contaminated with MEC and/or MPPEH (including small arms ammunition) being shipped off site, are the clean-soil certification

processes and associated documentation discussed?

6.6 Contaminated Buildings

6.7 Operational Risk Management

Have the inherent risks involved in the proposed munitions response action been assessed and identified in a table such as Table 6-4?

Does this section describe alternative actions that may be implemented should site conditions prevent the primary approach from working efficiently or effectively?

7. Quality Control (QC) and Quality Assurance (QA)

Does the munitions response project have a QC program administered by the UXO contractor and a QA program administered by an independent, third-party source?

Are the QC processes and the standards against which the UXOQCS will be evaluating project quality identified in a table such as Table 7-1 and include pass/fail criteria for each criterion and the corrective action processes that will be used should the UXOQCS identify a failure?

12


ESS

7.1 QC Implementation

Are the types, sizes, quantities and depths of surrogates or ISOs which the UXOQCS will install in the IVS provided?Are the types, sizes, quantities and depths of surrogates or ISOs which the UXOQCS will place as blind seed items as part of the GSV provided?

7.2 QA Implementation Is the independent, third-party source that will execute the QA program on behalf of the Navy project manager identified?

8.1 EOD

8.2 UXO Contractor Is it affirmed that all UXO personnel performing UXO duties meet or exceed the requirements of DDESB TP-18 for their respective jobs?Have all UXO personnel completed the yearly MPPEH management training requirement?

Is it affirmed that all geophysical team members are trained for their respective jobs?

8.3 Physical Security

Are ECPs and waterway spotter locations on the maps in Appendix C?Is there a description of how the ECPs will be controlled?Is the regulatory statute governing the proposed munitions response and its phase identified?Are the regulatory agencies or agencies providing oversight and any legally binding dates for actions to occur identified?If the response action is not being mandated by regulation or regulators, does the ESS so state?

7. Quality Control (QC) and Quality Assurance (QA)

If excavated soil is to be screened, is a description provided of how the soil and remaining material will be tracked and documented by QC lot and how the UXOQCS will document each screened lot before release?

If screened soils are to be transported off base, is a description provided of the QC processes that were used to verify the soil is suitable for release from the site and quote the certification statement which affirms the soil's suitability for reuse?

Are the tasks assigned to the UXOQAM identified including a statement assigning the authority to stop work if operations are found to be out of compliance with contract requirements and/or specifications?

8. Technical Support

Is the military EOD unit that may be supporting the project identified along with reference to the memorandum of agreement or other support document that shows the understanding of support?

For operations involving decontamination and demolition of explosively contaminated buildings, is it affirmed that all employees having actual contact with explosives and explosives residues have been trained in the identification, classification and remediation of explosive hazards?

Is it affirmed that the contractor understands that employees performing manufacturing, handling, transportation, storage and assembly of ammunition and explosives must be prepared to produce documentation showing their employees who perform these tasks have been trained, found qualified and are certified by the contractor and that this documentation must be made available at the request of Navy representatives while performing contractual work for the Navy?

Is the project geophysicist-of-record qualified in accordance with Paragraph 8.2?Is it affirmed that all divers meet the requirements in Paragraph 8.2 and that all diving plans have been reviewed and approved by an authorized District Diving Coordinator?

Is the extent to which arms, ammunition and explosives physical security, private security forces and/or protective barriers are required while munitions response actions are underway identified?

9. Environmental, Ecological, Cultural and/or Other Considerations

9.1 Regulatory Statute, Phase and Oversight

If the ESS proposes use of in situ capping of all or a portion of a site containing MEC and/or MPPEH, is it affirmed that the capping is being implemented as an engineered remedy under an authorized response action?

13


ESS

9.3 Non-Explosive Soil Is the management of soil (or other media) contaminated with explosives at concentrations that do not present an explosive hazard described?

10.1 Land Use Controls

13. References 13.1 References Are all of the documents cited in the ESS listed in this section in the correct format?Appendices Are all of the required signatures affixed to the signature page?

Are the Fragmentation Data Review Forms the most current version?Are all of the required Fragmentation Data Review Forms (e.g., for each of the primary and contingency MGFD munitions) included in the appendix?

Appendix C - ESQD Maps Are the ESQD maps in scale 1:400 (or at a minimum, multiples of 100)?Do the maps show the planned locations for MEC and/or MPPEH response-related operations and surrounding MEC response operations?Were the ESQD arcs/EZs based on the MGFD?Do the maps show ECP and waterway spotter locations?Do the maps show storage locations and associated MGFD ESQD arcs for demolition explosives and/or recovered MEC and/or MPPEH?Do the maps show all ES and PES and their relationships whether on or off Navy property and is each properly labeled?Do the maps show all other primary ESQD arcs?

Do the maps contain any of the additional information referenced in NOSSAINST 8020.15(series)?

9. Environmental, Ecological, Cultural and/or Other Considerations

9.2 Environmental, Ecological, Cultural and/or Other Considerations

Are any additional environmental (e.g., permitting, mandated sampling and analysis), ecological (e.g., threatened and endangered species), cultural (e.g., tribal or religious gathering sites) and/or other considerations related to the management of MEC and/or MPPEH including any additional legal factors that may impact the proposed munitions response actions listed?

10. Residual Risk Management

Are all LUCs, both institutional controls and engineering controls that are to be placed on the real property described, including how each will enhance explosives safety consistent with current determined or reasonably anticipated future land use of the site?

10.2 Long-Term Management

Are site management, including maintenance, monitoring, record-keeping, five-year reviews, etc. that are initiated to manage potential residual risks after response objectives have been met described?

11. Safety Education Program

11.1 Safety Education Program

Are methods to be used to educate the public or receiving entity on the hazards/risks associated with MEC and/or MPPEH that may remain following the proposed munitions response action addressed?

12. Stakeholder Involvement

12.1 Stakeholder Involvement

Is the extent to which stakeholders are involved and a summary of how their concerns, if any, regarding the explosives safety and the environmental aspects of the munitions response are being addressed described?

Appendix A - Signature page Was example Table A-1 used as the signature page template?Appendix B - Supporting Explosives Safety Data

Do the maps have a legend, map scale bar and text, revision date and project name and include the header and footer "For Official Use Only" or the acronym "FOUO"?

14

DFW Section Subsection QuestionGeneral QAPP Format Note that all worksheets referenced in this Question Set are numbered according to the Streamlined USACE QAPP format per EM-200-1-15.

Has the Abbreviations and Acronyms section been reviewed to ensure that it includes all of the abbreviations and acronyms that are unique to the RI/FS?

Are only contractor and government QA personnel listed on Worksheets #4, 7 and 8?

Project Planning Have all planning meetings, including those meetings that involve only the internal team, been documented on WS #9?

Have the definitions for survey units been established and agreed to by the stakeholders and then documented (WS #10, 11, 12, 17 and 22)?

Does WS #11 identify the SPP used (e.g., U.S. EPA 7-step DQO process)? Was the selected process consistently applied across the worksheets?

Are the measurement performance criteria, developed from Step 6, presented in WS #12?Is the data collection design, from Step 7 (WS #10, 11, 12), presented in WS #17?Are the types and quantities of QC seeds specified correct for the site(s) being investigated (WS#12 and 22)?Do the plans require that details of the blind seed (BSI) program be maintained independent and isolated from production personnel?Is the project specific detection threshold specified correct for the site(s) being investigated (WS#12 and 22)?Do WS #17 and 18 contain the design and work flow information for the detection surveys?

If the munitions response area contains multiple areas to be surveyed, has a separate survey design section or WS #17 and 18 been prepared for each area?

Do WS #17 and 18 include methods for adjusting the boundaries of the MRS, if needed?

Does WS #29 specify that the GIS data will be presented in applicable formats?Are all of the required reports (e.g., IVS Plan) listed in the tables in WS #29?

MEC -QAPP

Does the Executive Summary contain a table cross-referencing the UFP-QAPP format to the document format which shows which worksheets have been modified or consolidated and shows the worksheet numbering being used?

Project Organization and Personnel Qualifications

Does Combined Worksheet #3 and #5 (Project Organization and QAPP Distribution) show the Geophysical Survey Organization Structure, the Explosive Operations Organization Structure on one or more organization charts?

Is Combined Worksheet #4, 7 and 8 (Personnel Qualifications and Sign-off Sheet) divided into separate sections for the Geophysical Survey Organization and the Explosive Operations Organization?

Are the qualifications for the explosive operations personnel compliant with DDESB TP 18 for the positions assigned? Do all UXO II personnel, including those who graduated from the U.S. Naval School EOD program have at least 3 years of experience?

Have all communication drivers (e.g., approvals, corrective actions, notifications, stop work issues) been identified along with procedures to address each driver including timing, pathways of communication, and documentation (WS #6)?

Has the project team identified and documented a clear, concise flexible RAO to serve as the basis for all of the data collection at the site (WS #10, 11, 12 and 17)?

Has the CSM presented in WS #10 been prepared and does it describe the horizontal and vertical distribution of the MEC, the potential receptors, the reasonably anticipated future land use, and the depth clearance requirements of the future land use (e.g. using such things as the ITRC guidance, ITRC Training Vertical CSM, etc)? Note: Verify that the contractor is using a GIS to maintain and manage all project geospatial data.

Were statistical-based programs, such as VSP and/or UXO Calculator used to determine the amount of transect and numbers of grids needed to identify the boundaries of suspected impact areas and density of munitions (e.g., to determine concentrated use and non-concentrated use areas)? Are the worksheets and results of these programs included as an appendix to the QAPP (WS #10, 11, 12)?

Are the munitions described in the Target Population section of Step 4 (Define the boundaries of the project) accurate and complete (e.g., exact nomenclature if known and includes any suspected munitions)? Are these munitions the same ones cited in the ESS? Is the amplitude threshold to be used in the detection survey stated accurately and correctly in this section (WS #10, 11, 12, 17 and 22)?

Measurement Data Acquisition

Survey Design and Project Work Flow

Have WS #17 and 18 included the requirement that the contractor prepare a Surface Sweep Technical Memorandum (reviewed by the RPM or the RPM's representative), and then the RPM conduct a visual inspection of the site?

Data Management, Project Documents and Records

Does WS #29 specify the GIS is compliant with the FGDC Geospatial Positioning Accuracy Standards, Part 2: NSSDA, and Part 4: A/E/C and Facility Management?

15

DFW Section Subsection QuestionData Review

Do Worksheets #28, 31, 32 and 33 segregate the information into a separate assessments table and an assessment response and corrective action table?

Has the schedule for assessments been reviewed for reasonableness and achievability in consideration of the overall schedule and staffing plan?

Are the appropriate personnel identified in WS #37 for performing the usability assessment?

GeneralIs there an SOP for each definable feature of work identified in WS #10, 11, 12, 14 and 17? Are there SOPs for subtasks, where appropriate?Are all of the SOPs listed in combined WS #21 and 23?Do each of the SOPs contain the Supervisor's Statement and the Worker's Statement?

Do each of the SOPs contain a Record of Review (e.g., identify the author and review/approval authority)? Are the names shown for current employees?Do each of the SOPs contain an equipment list, where applicable?Do each of the SOPs identify the required PPE, where applicable?Do each of the SOPs contain a QC Checklist? Has an AHA been prepared for each of the activities identified in the SOPs? (AHAs may be included in the SSHP, not the SOP).Do the SOPs for activities where MEC may be encountered include forms to document munitions accountability and Safe to Move forms?Do the QC checklists require accountability that personnel attended the morning safety briefing and signed that they attended?Do the QC checklists require accountability that personnel received a morning tailgate briefing before beginning work?Are the QC checklists detailed enough to list the QPM for each of the measurable activities covered in the SOP?

MEC -QAPP

Assessments and Corrective Action

Data Verification, Validation and Usability Inputs

Standard Operating Procedures

16

DFW Section Subsection QuestionAGC-QAPP General QAPP Format

Is Combined Worksheet #4, 7 and 8 divided into separate sections for the Geophysical Survey Organization and the Explosive Operations Organization?

Project Planning

Does WS #11 identify the SPP used (e.g., U.S. EPA 7-step DQO process)? Was the selected process consistently applied across the worksheet?

Are the Information Inputs (Step 3) consistent with those listed in the AGC-QAPP?

Are the measurement performance criteria, developed from Step 6, presented in WS #12?Is the data collection design, from Step 7, presented in WS #17?

Is the project specific detection threshold specified in WS #12 correct for the site(s) being investigated?Does the AGC-QAPP differentiate and identify the differentiation between MPC in WS #12 and MQO which are found in WS#22?Has the timing and format of project deliverables been agreed upon and documented on WS#17 and WS#29?Are the Project Tasks and Schedule presented in Combined WS #14 and 16 consistent with the example in the AGC-QAPP?

Does WS #17 contain criteria for determining the need for collecting background sensor data periodically during data collection activities?

Was the QAPP prepared utilizing the format that was developed by the IDQTF (Version 1 dated March 2016 or the latest version) and are all of the worksheets included?

Has the Abbreviations and Acronyms section been reviewed to ensure that it includes all of the abbreviations and acronyms that are unique to the anomaly classification process (e.g., SNR - Signal to Noise Ratio, TOI - Target of Interest, etc.)?

Project Organization and Personnel Qualifications

Does Combined Worksheet #3 and #5 (Project Organization and QAPP Distribution) show the Geophysical Survey Organization Structure and for the Explosive Operations Organization Structure on one or more organization charts?

Are the qualifications for the geophysics personnel, shown in Combined Worksheet #4, 7 and 8, in compliance with the requirements of the DAGCAP? Are resumes, the appropriate sections of the Corporate Quality Systems Manual and training records included in an appendix and is the appendix cited in the footnotes?

Have all communication drivers (e.g., approvals, corrective actions, notifications, stop work issues) been identified along with procedures to address each driver including timing, pathways of communication, and documentation (WS #6)?

Have all planning meetings, including those meetings that involve only the internal team, been documented on WS #9? Have all agreed-upon actions and deliverables been incorporated into the QAPP?

Have the definitions for survey units, for both detection surveys and cued interrogations been established and agreed to by the stakeholders and that agreement documented on a WS #9? Are the agreed-upon survey unit definitions presented in WS#11 and #17?

Has the CSM presented in WS #10 been prepared and does it describe the horizontal and vertical distribution of the MEC, the potential receptors, the reasonably anticipated future land use, and the depth clearance requirements of the future land use (e.g. using such things as the ITRC guidance, ITRC Training Vertical CSM, etc)? Does the CSM contain the minimum information described in the AGC-QAPP document (or latest revision)? Verify that the contractor is using a GIS to maintain and manage all project geospatial data.

Do the DQOs specify that advanced classification will be used, that if the target is classified as a TOI it will be removed but if classified as non-TOI it will be left in place without investigation?

Are the munitions described in the Target Population section of Step 4 (Define the boundaries of the project) accurate and complete (e.g., exact nomenclature if known and includes any suspected munitions)? Are these munitions the same ones cited in the ESS? Is the anomaly selection/filtering to be used in the detection survey stated accurately and correctly in this section?

Are the types (e.g., blind, validation) and quantities of QC seeds specified in WS #12 (Measurement Performance Criteria) correct for the site(s) being investigated?



Does WS #17 contain the design and work flow information for both the detection and classification surveys?If the munitions response area contains multiple areas to be surveyed, has a separate survey design section or WS #17 been prepared for each area, when appropriate?

Has WS #17 included the requirement that the contractor prepare, and the RPM review a Surface Sweep Technical Memorandum and then the RPM conduct a visual inspection of the site?

Does WS #17 identify and reference a QC Seeding Plan (including blind and validation seeds), IVS Plan and a Draft Verification and Validation Plan during the DFW associated with validation seeding, QC seeding and IVS installation and provide the appendix where these plans are located?

17


AGC-QAPP

Does WS #17 specify the requirement to identify an additional 200 "threshold verification" targets to add to the dig list?

Does WS#17 address the feedback from the validation digs to the TOI/non-TOI selection update process?Does WS #17 identify the requirement for a Final DUA and an updated CSM as part of the final reporting?Are the tables in WS #22 segregated according to Detection Survey, Cued Survey and Intrusive Investigation?Does WS #22 contain the minimum specification requirements as provided in the AGC-QAPP?

Does WS #29 specify that the GIS data will be presented in applicable formats?Are all of the required reports (e.g., Draft Verification and Validation Plan, IVS Plan, DUAs) listed in the tables in WS #29?

Has WS #29, Part 2 - Control of Documents, Records and Databases been reviewed against the examples in the AGC-QAPP document for completeness?

Data Review

Has the schedule for assessments been reviewed for reasonableness and achievability in consideration of the overall schedule and staffing plan?

Does WS #35 only discuss data verification and validation which occurs during field work, per the AGC-QAPP?

Are the appropriate personnel identified in WS #37 for performing the usability assessment?

In accordance with the AGC-QAPP WS #37, have lessons learned been identified, summarized and included in the data usability summary report?

General Is there an SOP for each definable feature of work identified in WS #12? Are there SOPs for subtasks, where appropriate?Are all of the SOPs listed in WS #17 and WS #22?Do each of the SOPs contain the Supervisor's Statement and the Worker's Statement?

Do each of the SOPs contain a Record of Review (e.g., identify the author and review/approval authority)? Are the names shown for current employees?Do each of the SOPs contain an equipment list, where applicable?Do each of the SOPs identify the required PPE, where applicable?Do each of the SOPs contain a QC Checklist? Has an AHA been prepared for each of the activities identified in the SOPs? (AHAs may be included in the SSHP, not the SOP).Do the SOPs for activities where MEC may be encountered include forms to document munitions accountability and Safe to Move forms?Do the QC checklists require accountability that personnel attended the morning safety briefing and signed that they attended?Do the QC checklists require accountability that personnel received a morning tailgate briefing before beginning work?Are the QC checklists detailed enough to list the QPM for each of the measurable activities covered in the SOP?



Does WS #17 require a Target Selection Technical Memorandum and a Detection Survey DUA Report as deliverables at the conclusion of detection surveys?

Does WS #17 address the design and work flow if, following the DUA, it is determined that cued interrogation and anomaly classification is an inappropriate technical approach for the site, or portions of the site?

Does WS #17 identify the requirement, prior to intrusive investigation, for a Cued Survey DUA Report at the conclusion of TOI selection, finalization of the Verification and Validation Plan and a determination by the RPM that the MPCs have been met?

Equipment Testing, Inspection and Quality ControlData Management, Project Documents and Records

Does WS #29 specify the GIS is compliant with the FGDC Geospatial Positioning Accuracy Standards, Part 2: NSSDA, and Part 4: A/E/C and Facility Management?

Assessments and Corrective Action

Does Combined Worksheet #31, 32 and 33 segregate the information into a separate assessments table and an assessment response and corrective action table?

Data Verification, Validation and Usability Inputs Does WS #36 document procedures to validate the overall anomaly detection and classification process as it is implemented at a specific site, per the AGC-

QAPP?

Standard Operating Procedures

18

DFW Section Subsection QuestionMC QAPP General QAPP Format Was the QAPP prepared in accordance with the UFP-QAPP procedures?

Documentation Have all necessary reviews been conducted and signatures provided by Navy and contractor personnel for QAPP submittal (WS #1 and 4)?Project Organization

Does the project organizational, staffing and responsibilities part of the work plan cover both technical and QA/QC functions (WS #5, 6, and 7)?

Does the QAPP provide a detailed organizational chart depicting management structure and lines of authority and communication (WS #5 and 6)?

Does the QAPP specify the nature, frequency, and mechanisms of communication among the contractor and the government project officer (WS #6)?

Does the QAPP include descriptions of relevant training and certifications held by all responsible parties involved in the project (WS #7 and 8)?Has a scoping meeting taken place involving all stakeholders to ensure all needs are defined adequately (WS #9)?Have scoping meeting dates been included in WS #2 and all participants of scoping meeting been included in WS #9?Has the problem to be addressed by the project been defined (WS #10)?Have all contaminants of concern to be addressed at the site been identified in WS #10 and WS #11 (e.g., explosives, metals, perchlorate)?

Was the U.S. EPA’s seven-step DQO process used during the planning stages of this project and subsequent details included in the QAPP (WS #10 and 11)?Is the CSM adequately described to support the sampling design rationale (WS #10 and #11)?

Are the DQOs/requirements attainable, considering the chosen technologies or methods of measurement and analysis (WS #11)?

Has potential transport of COPCs been considered in the sampling design (e.g., topography, runoff) (WS #10 and #11)?Have background levels of metals been taken into consideration for sites where metals are COPCs (WS #11)?

Have matrix interferences, low detection limits, etc. been taken into consideration when selecting the methods for analyzing COPCs (WS# 11 and #12)?Are the minimum quality of data requirements adequate to support specific decisions of regulatory actions (WS #12)?Are minimum measurement performance criteria specified (WS #12)?

Has the reliability of the secondary data been evaluated and determined to be usable for this project (e.g., proposing data collection methods) (WS #13)?

Project Management

Does the project organization and responsibilities section of the plan contain the names and telephone numbers of all key personnel within the organization responsible for every major phase, step, or activity of the project related to MC sampling and analysis (WS #5, 6, and 7)?

Have all communication drivers (e.g., approvals, corrective actions, notifications, stop work issues) been laid out along with procedures to address each driver including timing, pathways of communication, and documentation (WS #6)?

Project Planning/Problem Definition

Has site background information been provided to adequately support decisions on sampling design and MC compounds (e.g., types of munitions; expected compounds; site use such as storage, impact area, etc.) (WS #10 and #11)?

Has the sampling method (e.g., CRREL 7-point sampling wheel design, multi-incremental sampling, discrete sampling) been described as part of Step 7 of the DQO process (WS #11)?

Does the sampling design, described as part of Step 7 of the DQO process, take into consideration whether the investigation is to determine presence/absence of MC or to further characterize/delineate MC contamination (WS #11)?

Are breached munitions, staining and discoloration of soil next to a MEC item, MC visible at a volume that may endanger personnel during sampling (e.g., bulk explosives or other filler materials) addressed in Step 2 (Identify the Study Goal) and Step 5 (Develop the Analytical Approach) of the DQO process (WS #11)?

Have the number and type of DUs that will be investigated been adequately described (e.g., surface soil, near surface soil, burn areas, kick-out area, varied terrain, large site, delineation) (WS #11)? Note: If scope is to determine presence/absence of MC, a single DU for surface soil at a small site may be sufficient.

Have all sources of secondary data been identified and a description of how secondary information will be used been provided (e.g., data collected during previous investigations, modeling data, interviews, photographs) (WS #13)?

Has the need for sampling locations to be properly cleared by a qualified UXO technician prior to taking the samples been adequately described in WS #14 and WS #17?

19


MC QAPP

Have all the analytes along with PALs and achievable laboratory limits been included on WS #15?

Have the sources of PALs been identified and are the PALs listed for each analyte consistent with the sources they originated from (WS #10 and WS #15)?Sampling Tasks Is there a project schedule and are contractual and critical milestones included in the schedule (WS #16)?

Does the QAPP address the specific tasks and objectives of the project (WS #17)?Does WS #17 have sufficient detail to explain how each task/DFW related to MC sampling and analysis will be carried out?Does the sampling design include planned sampling intervals and rationale on how/why intervals were selected (WS #11 and #17)?

If white phosphorus (WP) is suspected to be present at a site, have special precautions and handling instructions been included in WS #17?

Does WS #17 discuss sample collection methods adequately if the project is conducting incremental sampling and WP is a desired analyte?Does WS #17 describe how metal fragments will be handled if encountered in a field sample (e.g., sieving in the field or lab, grinding)?Does WS #17 include the sample mass needed for all analyses to be performed?

Have all sampling locations, analytical groups, and SOP references been included in WS #18?

Has the field quality control sample summary been included in WS #20?

Do SOPs referenced in WS #22 match the field equipment described in WS #22?

Have the analytical instrument and equipment maintenance, testing, and inspection requirements been detailed in WS #25?

Project Management

Project Planning/Problem Definition

Have all worksheets (WS #12, #14, #16, #17, #35 and #37) that discuss DFWs and specific tasks within each DFW been cross-referenced to ensure consistency among worksheets?


Does the project schedule include a start and completion date for all project activities, as well as QA assessments that will be performed during the course of the project (WS #16)?

Does the sampling design describe how discrete sampling locations were chosen (WS #11 and #17)? Note: MIS may be best for soil samples within the top 6 inches and discrete sampling may be best when collecting deeper intervals (i.e., >6 inches bgs).

If WP is suspected to be present at a site, have all regulatory requirements been addressed in WS #17? Note: WP is a hazardous substance under CERCLA, a hazardous pollutant under the Clean Air Act, and is considered a RCRA reactive waste (D003).If sampling for WP, is the sampling to be done in anoxic sediments (WS #17)? If not, incremental sampling is not recommended (see CRREL Special Report 97-30).

If perchlorate contamination is suspected at a site, has surface water and groundwater sample collection also been taken into consideration due to its mobility (WS #17)?

If field analytical methods are used, have an appropriate percentage of samples (developed by the project team) been confirmed by fixed laboratory analysis (WS #17)?

Have the analytical SOP requirements for all matrices being sampled been included in WS #19 such as number of samples, analytical group, analytical method, sample volume, containers, preservation requirements, and holding times?

Has the appropriate analytical method been selected for perchlorate analysis (WS #19)? Note: SW6850 and SW6860 are recommended for drinking water, groundwater, soil, and wastewater according to the DoD Perchlorate Handbook.

When analyzing for secondary explosives expected to be potential contaminants at a site (based on site history), have transformation products also been considered (e.g., 2-Am-DNT is a breakdown product of TNT) (WS #19)?

Has the appropriate analytical method been selected based on project DQOs (e.g., SW8330 is appropriate for many samples, SW8095 for lower reporting limits, SW8321 for complex matrices) (WS #19)?

Are all SOPs related to sampling tasks to be conducted as part of the scope of the project listed in WS #21, along with the project phase, responsible party, and related equipment?

Are all field equipment and instruments listed in WS #22 along with the requirements for calibration, maintenance, testing, and/or inspection to meet project DQOs? This includes but is not limited to field test kits, data positioning and navigation equipment, and handheld metal detectors used to clear sampling locations.

Are all SOPs related to sampling tasks to be conducted as part of the scope of the project listed in WS #23, along with analytical methods, type of data, instrumentation, and organization performing the work?

Have all analytical instrument calibration procedures, frequency, acceptance criteria, corrective action, responsible person for corrective action, and SOP references been detailed in WS #24?

20


MC QAPP

Sampling Tasks

Have field sample custody, laboratory sample custody, sample identification, and chain of custody procedures been described in WS #27?

Have the laboratory control limits for each analyte been included in WS #28?Data Management

Has the primary and backup laboratory contact information for each analytical group to be analyzed been included on WS #30?Assessment Oversight Have all assessment types been listed on WS #31 along with frequency and responsible organization and personnel?

Data Review Data Review Does WS #34 provide a description of the verification process for all data and reports generated and who is responsible for the verification?Does WS #35 describe the validation procedures for all data and reports generated and who is responsible for the validation?Does WS #36 provide a description of the validation criteria for each analytical group to be analyzed and who will validate the data?

Does WS #37 describe how data quality issues will be addressed and how limitations on the use of data will be handled?SOPs SOPs

Do the operational SOPs provide information on how measurements are to be made for obtaining requirement and/or DQO and DQE information?Are there written operational SOPs for all sampling and analysis tasks covered by either Government or Contractor?


Have sample handling details such as the responsible person for sample collection, packaging and shipping; sample receipt and analysis; sample archiving; and sample disposal been included in WS #26?

Has a summary of the QC samples to be collected been included in WS #28 including frequency, QC acceptance limits, corrective action, responsible person for corrective action, data quality indicator, and measurement performance criteria?

Have all documents and records that will be generated for all aspects of the project (e.g., laboratory QA plan, NELAP accreditation, calibration logs) been identified and listed in WS #29?

Have procedures been provided on how project data and information will be documented, tracked, and managed, from generation in the field to final use and storage in a manner that ensures data integrity, defensibility and retrieval?

Assessment Oversight

Have the activities for identifying and correcting any problems encountered during the project that have potential to impact data quality been described (WS #32)?

Does WS #33 list all quality control management reports that will be generated along with the responsible party, frequency of reporting, and report recipient(s)?

Has the data usability assessment process for the project been described along with all procedures such as statistics, equations, and computer algorithms that will be used (WS #37)?

21

DFW Task QuestionGeneral

Are all of the sections identified in EM 385-1-1 included in the plan even if they are not used?Have all of the activities that require an AHA been identified in Section 2.0 and do those match up to the AHAs provided?Is the Corporate Statement of Safety and Health Policy provided (Section 3.0)?Are the appropriate personnel identified in the Project Contact List in Section 4.0 and is the information complete and correct?Are all subcontractors and suppliers who are working on the site identified in Section 5.0? They are required to follow the APP.Are the employees on site who are first aid/CPR qualified identified by name in Section 6.0?Are the instructions for Accident Reporting (Section 8.0) correct and complete (e.g., who to notify, timelines, etc.)?

Does the APP include a SSHP as an attachment which addresses all occupational safety and health hazards associated with the site MEC operations?

Are the biological hazards listed in the SSHP consistent with what might be found at the site?

General

Does the EPP describe the process to minimize and mitigate environmental pollution and damage that may occur as a result of project operations?

Is the listing of biotic habitats within the project area complete and correct? Is the listing of special status species within the project area complete and correct? Has a biological opinion been issued (if applicable)?

Are the listed ARARs and Planned Actions complete and correct?Does the EPP include a Spill Control Plan?

General Have locations of all cultural and historical resources at or near the site been identified?Are all of the site activities which might affect cultural and historical resources described in the Plan?Does the plan describe how cultural and historical resources will be protected to prevent substantive impact?Is a monitoring plan included in the CHPP?Has a qualified archeologist been involved in the management of cultural and historical resources at or near the site?

General Has a hazardous waste media manager been involved in the planning?

Accident Prevention Plan and Site Safety and Health Plan

Does the APP include all of the necessary AHAs relative to site operations? There should be an AHA for each of the DFW being performed (listed in the MEC QAPP) and additional AHAs for specialty activities such as boat operations if using a boat for transportation, etc.

Do the AHAs proved a detailed analysis of the hazards for each task involved in the fieldwork, as well as the procedures to be employed to eliminate or minimize those hazards?

Are assigned UXO safety personnel qualified in accordance with DDESB TP 18 and EM 385-1-1 (e.g., 30-hour Construction Safety in addition to the UXO qualifications and experience)?

Are all of the required sub-plans, per EM 385-1-1 Appendix A (Section 9.0), when applicable, present (e.g., radiation safety plans, man overboard/abandon ship, float plan, etc.)?

Is the information provided in Section 9.0 for Medical Support correct and complete (e.g., correct medical facility, directions correct, contact information correct, etc.)?

Is the emergency response information (e.g., hospital, location, directions, etc.) and contact information in the SSHP consistent with what is listed in the APP?

Environmental Protection Plan

Do all on-site project activities meet the substantive requirements of all pertinent federal, state, and local environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders and is this documented in the EPP?

Does the EPP identify areas where environmental pollution or damage could occur such as excavations, haul/access roads, streams, storage areas, stockpiles, as well as methods to control runoff and contain materials onsite?

Is biological monitoring required? If so, does the section on biological monitoring correctly and completely describe the monitoring and reporting requirements?

Cultural or Historical Preservation Plan

Have the results of cultural and historical resource survey and cultural and historical resource avoidance activities during the project execution been documented?

Waste Management Plan

Does the WMP describe the waste management practices and procedures (including storage, handling, and management) that will be followed for the types and quantities of waste expected to be generated during field activities?

22

DFW Task Question

General

Are the procedures listed for the disposition of MDAS consistent with those in the MEC QAPP?Does the WMP identify the facility (contractor) that will receive the MDAS for demilitarization and/or final disposal?Does the WMP include the name(s) and qualifications of person(s) responsible for handing waste manifests for waste removed from the site?Does the WMP identify the subcontractors responsible for transportation and disposal of waste offsite?Does the WMP describe how the disposal of waste will be tracked and documented?

General Does the SWPPP meet all of the state requirements for the state where the site is located?Does the SWPPP meet the requirements of the NPDES General Permit for the site?Was the SWPPP developed by a QSD?

Does the SWPPP include a BMP inspection, maintenance, and rain event action plan?Does the SWPPP include a list of project personnel responsible for SWPPP activities along with their contact information?

Does the SWPPP include a Site Monitoring Program that describes the monitoring and sampling procedures that will be used during field activities?General Will the contractor be used to implement the Plan?

Has the contractor established and maintained one or more information repositories?Have public meetings been planned or executed prior to and during the execution of the project?

Does the Plan address the background and history of community involvement at the site, including local activity and interest, key issues, and site history?

Did the Plan specify the community relations activities used to meet the stated objectives?

Were public information activities of the contractor closely integrated with the technical activities of the site study and remedial action?

Waste Management Plan

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

Does the SWPPP describe potential pollutant sources at the site, as well as BMPs that will be used to reduce or eliminate stormwater pollution during field activities?

Community Involvement Plan

Was the Plan based on discussions with state and local officials, civic and community organizations, interested residents and local news media representatives?

23

DFW Task QuestionPlanning

Has the Mobilization and Site Preparation task been listed as a standalone definable feature of work in the MEC QAPP WS #14?

Has the MPPEH Inspection and Certification Letter been issued by the Commanding Officer? (This is to be completed before field activities begin).Field Activities Have sufficient personnel and equipment been mobilized to the site to begin work in accordance with the approved work plans?

Were office facilities, utilities, internet, site communications, sanitary facilities, etc. needed to conduct field activities set up and tested?Are all personnel qualified and trained for the positions assigned and are all qualification and training records accessible?

Have coordination efforts with local emergency services (e.g., hospital, fire department, EMT support) been made as stated in the emergency action plan?Have the IVSs been installed following the procedures in the GSV Plan?Has an IVS Installation Report been prepared, submitted and accepted by the Navy in accordance with the GSV Plan?Have blind seeds been installed in the production areas in accordance with the GSV Plan and the MEC QAPP?

Has an established survey control benchmark been located or local GPS control point network been established, documented and accepted by the Navy?Have surveyed location(s) for daily GPS accuracy checks been identified, documented, and marked?Have surveyed location(s) for the GPS base station been identified, documented and marked?Have locations for GPS and communications repeater(s) been identified, documented and marked?

Have the portable explosives storage magazines been prepared for use (e.g., siting, security, locks, signage) in compliance with the ESS and MEC QAPP?Has the MEC/MDEH storage and processing site been sited and prepared in accordance with the ESS and MEC QAPP?

Have the preparatory inspections on all non-administrative DFWs been conducted in accordance with the work plan?

Has the EZ Entry Authorization Letter authorizing Navy (NTR, RPM) and QA personnel unrestricted access to the EZ been issued by the Commanding Officer?Have EZ entry locations been closed off/marked in accordance with the ESS?

Quality Control

Has the UXOQCS verified the qualifications and training for personnel assignments?Are the field staff ready to begin work?

Mobilization and Site Preparation

Have all of the project documents been approved (e.g., MEC QAPP, APP/SSHP, ESS, etc.) at least to the minimum required status to allow mobilization and work to begin?

Has site orientation and training on the work plan and SOPs been conducted, all project plans and SOPs been reviewed by personnel, and all training and review been acknowledged by signature?

Have the UXOQCS and UXOSO verified that the explosives storage magazines are properly sited and all security and accountability measures are in place and functioning properly?

Has the UXOQCS verified that the control measures for MDAS accountability are in place and functioning (e.g., lock and key system, access logs, MDAS certification and verification documents, etc.)?

24

DFW Task Question

Planning

Has the Site Survey and Grid Stakeout task been listed as a standalone definable feature of work in the MEC QAPP WS #14?Do the project plans (MEC QAPP, SOP or other planning document) identify how survey control will be established at the site?Do the project plans describe whether the project network is tied into a larger network or is only a local network?Do the project plans specify the survey accuracy metrics (e.g., +/- 5cm [X and Y]) in sufficient detail?Are the process and equipment described in the project plans adequate to achieve the required survey accuracies?Do the project plans specify the use of a Registered Land Surveyor for site survey and grid stakeout?Do the project plans specify the grid scheme and provide specific grid corner point coordinates?

Do the project plans specify using anomaly avoidance during all boundary/grid corner point installation activities?Do the project plans describe the procedures and metrics for validating the proper functioning of the metal detectors?

Do the project plans specify how deviations from planned survey locations (e.g., inaccessible grid corners or boundaries, etc.) are to be documented?Do the project plans specify the correct format for reporting the surveyed points (e.g., correct State Plane, Zone, datum, etc.)?

Do the project plans describe whether grid corner pins/stakes must be removed at the end of the project or whether they may remain in place?

Do the project plans specify whether inaccessible areas will be documented during site survey and grid stakeout or during another work activity?Do the project plans describe how the QC verification information will be reported?

Field Activities Was a daily safety briefing conducted which specified anomaly avoidance for boundary and grid corner point installation?

Were function checks of the metal detectors performed at the intervals required and the results documented as required in the approved project plans?

Was the correct functioning of the survey equipment (e.g., GPS, Total Station, etc.) verified and documented as required in the approved project plans?Were all corner point markers (stakes, pins, nails, etc.) installed according to plan and the finished location recorded?If deviations were required, were those deviations documented as required in the approved project plans?Were stakes, pins, nails or other markers installed following anomaly avoidance procedures?

Quality Control

Was a daily safety briefing conducted which specified anomaly avoidance for boundary and grid corner point installation?

Were satisfactory Preparatory Phase and Initial Phase Inspections conducted on this definable feature of work in accordance with WS #28, 31, 32 and 33?

Were the required percentage of boundary markers and grid corner points re-surveyed and verified for accuracy in accordance with WS #28, 31, 32 and 33?

Was the accuracy of the survey equipment (e.g., GPS, Total Station, etc.) verified and documented according to the schedule in WS #34, 35 and 36?Was the functionality of the metal detectors verified and documented according to the schedule in WS #34, 35 and 36?Were deviations from the survey plan properly documented, verified, and validated?Is the finished survey acceptable?

Site Survey and Grid Stakeout

Do the project plans specify how the finished grid corner point coordinates will be recorded (e.g., logging the exact location that grid corner markers are installed)?

Do the project plans describe the procedures that will be used to verify the accuracy of survey control and the final installation points for boundaries and grids?

If the plans specify that inaccessible areas will be documented during another work activity (e.g., DGM), were all boundaries and grid corner points surveyed and marked per the survey plan?

25

DFW Task QuestionVegetation Removal Planning Is a process-specific SOP provided and correctly identified by SOP number and location (appendix) in the MEC QAPP WS #17, 21 and 23?

Does the SSHP and the SOP correctly identify the required PPE for the task?Does the SOP identify the required training and experience for personnel to perform the task?

Does the SOP address UXO safety in compliance with EM 385-1-97 (e.g., team size, qualifications, exclusion zones, team configuration, etc.)?Field Activities Were all vegetation removal personnel trained and qualified to operate removal equipment?

Is vegetation managed in accordance with local requirements?Was PPE serviceable and properly worn by all team members?

Quality ControlWere satisfactory Preparatory Phase and Initial Phase Inspections conducted on this definable feature of work in accordance with WS #28, 31, 32 and 33?

Has vegetation been cut/removed in accordance with procedures detailed in the approved QAPP/SOP for vegetation removal?

Does WS #12 in the MEC QAPP adequately describe the required performance metrics? Are criteria provided for when additional vegetation removal may be necessary? Are criteria provided for documenting a determination that vegetation removal is not required?

Have all safety precautions been taken to ensure safety of all personnel on site (e.g., conduct daily safety briefing, establish exclusion zone, maintain team separation distance, use equipment safety features, maintain communications between team leader and equipment operators)?

Was a technology-aided surface sweep conducted by a UXO Technician prior to vegetation removal to mark any surface MPPEH, remove any surface debris or identify other hazards that might damage equipment or injure personnel?

Were items marked with stakes tall enough for vegetation removal personnel to clearly see and were personnel briefed on the location and type of hazardous features?

If vegetation regrowth has occurred that inhibits operational tasks, has additional vegetation removal been conducted so that work can be conducted correctly?

Have the QC metrics for vegetation removal listed in the approved QAPP/SOP been met? If the performance metrics were not met, has the deficiency been documented and corrective actions taken?

26

DFW Task Question

Surface Removal

Planning

Is a process-specific SOP provided and correctly identified by SOP number and location (appendix) in the MEC QAPP WS #17, 21 and 23?Does the SSHP and the SOP correctly identify the required PPE for the task?Does the SOP identify the required training and experience for personnel to perform the task?Does WS #12 in the MEC QAPP adequately describe the required performance metrics?

If the surface removal is technology-aided, do the plans describe the procedures and metrics for validating the proper functioning of the metal detectors?

Does the SOP address UXO safety in compliance with EM 385-1-97 (e.g., team size, qualifications, exclusion zones, team configuration, etc.)?

Field Activities

Were all surface removal personnel trained and qualified to conduct surface removal?Was PPE serviceable and properly worn by all team members?

When a UXO Tech I identified MPPEH, was the item confirmed by a fully qualified UXO Technician (Tech II or higher)?Has all MPPEH been visually inspected and certified by qualified individuals as either MDEH or MDAS in accordance with the approved plans?Has all MDAS been managed (e.g., removed from the grid and placed in secured storage) in accordance with the approved plans?Have all MDEH and MEC items been moved (if acceptable to move) or treated in place (if deemed not acceptable to move)?Have MPPEH, non-hazardous scrap, and boundary lines been marked with appropriate colored pin flags?

Quality Control


Has surface debris been removed in accordance with procedures detailed in the approved QAPP/SOP for surface removal?

If the surface removal is technology-aided, do the plans (MEC QAPP and SOPs) describe the use of equipment (e.g., EM or magnetometer) which is appropriate for the site conditions and geology?

Have the required safety precautions been implemented to ensure the safety of all personnel on site (e.g., conduct daily safety briefing, establish exclusion zone, maintain team separation distance, use equipment safety features, maintain communications between team leader and sweep personnel, etc.)?

If the surface removal is technology-aided, were function checks of the metal detectors performed at the intervals required and the results documented as required in the approved plans?

Have all MDEH and MEC been photographed and recorded (e.g., nomenclature, type, size, physical condition, fuzed/unfuzed, fuze type by function, fired/unfired or armed/unarmed, filler, coordinates)?

Have the QC metrics for surface removal listed in the approved QAPP/SOP been met? If the performance metrics were not met, has the deficiency been documented and corrective actions taken?

Has the management of all MEC and MDEH been properly documented from discovery through disposal including preparation of 'safe to move' forms when required?

If any metallic items which would interfere with geophysical mapping remain in the grid, are they documented in accordance with the approved plans (e.g., location, description, reason for remaining in place, etc.)? Did QC concur with leaving the items in place during DGM?

DFW Task QuestionPlanning Please refer to the AGC-QAPP tab in this spreadsheet.

Field Activities Has the surface clearance been accomplished in compliance with the MPC in WS #12?Have field conditions (e.g., terrain, vegetation, topography, etc.) that may prevent or impede AGC been identified, documented and reported? Are the surface conditions reported (e.g., amount of surface metal and MPPEH) consistent with the investigative findings of CMUA/non-CMUA?

Quality Control Has the contractor instituted a blind seeding program for surface sweeps?Are adequate engineering controls being used to limit contamination of surrounding areas from fragmentation due to blow-in-place of MEC?Are surrounding areas being re-swept following disposal of MEC?Was everything found to be consistent with the CSM as defined in the AGC-QAPP?

Reporting Has the lead agency (or designee) reviewed the Surface Sweep Technical Memorandum and visually inspected the site?Field Activities Are QC seeds placed at varying depths and orientations up to the maximum PWS detection depth?

Are QC seeds distributed so that field DGM teams will encounter between one and three seeds per day?Is QC seed placement information adequately firewalled from production staff?Are QA (validation) seeds installed across the full depth range of interest?Is the IVS installed and verified in compliance with the IVS Plan (QAPP Appendix)?

QA/QC Has QC verified, documented and reported that QC seeds were placed in compliance with the QC Seeding Plan (e.g., depth, orientation and distribution)?

Has QA installed validation seeds in accordance with the QA Surveillance Plan?Has QA documented and reported that QA validation seeds were placed in compliance with the QA Surveillance Plan?Has QC verified, documented and reported that the IVS was installed in compliance with the IVS Plan?

Reporting Has the lead agency reviewed and approved the QC Seeding Plan, IVS Plan and Draft Verification and Validation Plan?Has the lead agency reviewed and approved the QA Surveillance Plan for blind seeding?

Field Activities See DGM_GSV tab in this spreadsheet.Quality Control Do the IVS test results match the expectations of the IVS Plan?

Do the IVS test results support the remedial objectives (e.g., demonstrate that the remedial objectives are achievable)?Reporting Does the IVS Tech Memo demonstrate that the instrument(s) is functioning properly and is ready to collect data?

Does the IVS Tech Memo demonstrate that the remedial objectives are achievable?See DGM_GSV tab in this spreadsheet if performing a standard detection survey (e.g., EM61).

Was a safety briefing conducted prior to performing field data collection?

Was a photograph taken of the assembled sensor to verify the location of the IMU and GPS on the sensor in compliance with the SOP in the AGC-QAPP?

Quality Control Are MQOs in compliance with Table 22-1: Dynamic Survey, WS #22 of the AGC-QAPP?Are anomaly selections using ISS being made in compliance with the approved SOP (e.g., approved anomaly characteristics)?

Were the IVS results reviewed and within specification prior to beginning data collection each day?Were obstacles or inaccessible areas correctly documented?Did the geophysics personnel document their work in compliance with the work plans/SOPs?Were all BSIs accounted for in the DGM data?

Advanced Geophysical Classification (AGC)

Conduct Site Preparation

If the AGC is supporting an RI or EE/CA and 100% surface removal is NOT to be performed, is the surface clearance of transects broad enough to: 1) prevent interference with the detection sensor and 2) provide cleared areas for collecting background data with the advanced sensors?

Conduct Validation Seeding, QC Seeding, and Construct IVS

Assemble and Verify Operation of Geophysical Sensor for Detection Survey

Conduct Detection Survey

Field Activities (Informed Source Selection)

Were all of the details of assembly and functioning (e.g., installation of the GPS and IMU, transmit current over a static item and data inversion results) in compliance with the SOP for the respective instrument in the AGC-QAPP?

Were the daily quality control checks performed and documented in compliance with the work plans and SOPs (e.g., instrument warm up, GPS/IMU installation, GPS input check, static/spike, etc.)?

DFW Task Question

Quality Control

Was the coverage in compliance with the MQOs in WS #22 of the AGC-QAPP?Was valid position data, as verified by the GPS flag for fix and DOP verified in compliance with WS #22 of the AGC-QAPP?Was valid orientation data, as verified to be consistent within the bounds appropriate to the site, in compliance with WS #22 of the AGC-QAPP?

Were any data gaps either re-collected or properly documented as inaccessible areas or as obstacles?Did QC verify areas documented as inaccessible or as obstacles and is that documentation on file?Have all daily deliverables identified in the GSV plan been provided to the Navy?

Reporting Was the QC report summarizing the daily QC results of function tests and IVS results delivered?Activities Were the data processed using the UXA-Advanced module of Geosoft's Oasis montaj geophysical processing software or an approved alternate?

Quality Control Were the import data QC checks performed in compliance with the SOP from the AGC-QAPP appropriate to the sensor used?Were the import data in compliance with the MQOs in WS #22 of the AGC-QAPP? If not, was appropriate action taken as required in WS #22?

Were IVS measurements taken (SOP 2 - AGC-QAPP) at the start and end of each day of data collection and evaluated relative to the MQOs in WS #22?

Reporting

Field Activities Do the ongoing derived polarizabilities and ongoing derived target position precision meet the MQOs in WS #22?

Field Activities Was the sensor positioned within 5 cm over the provided anomaly position (cued)?

Were background measurements taken no less than every two hours and at one or more geographic locations throughout the survey day?Were background measurement locations selected and tested in compliance with SOP 6 of the AGC-QAPP?Do background measurement readings comply with the MQOs in WS #22?Following the in-field data inversion, is the reported target location within 40 cm of the provided anomaly position?

Quality Control Is the QC Geophysicist verifying daily that the MQOs from WS #22 are being achieved and documented?Reporting Were the results of the background measurement tests reported in the Background Summary Report?

Are all required checklists completed by the QC Geophysicist and attached to the daily QC reports as required by the SOP?Activities Did the data processor duplicate the function test measurements (SOP 1) performed in the field (background corrections) and log the results for QC/QA?

Quality Control Did QC verify and document that the cued target measurements met the MQOs in WS #22 before the data were used for classification?Reporting Was the QC Report documenting system performance against the MQOs in WS #22 submitted, reviewed and approved?

Was the Classification Report submitted, reviewed and approved?Field Activities See Intrusive Investigation tab in this spreadsheet.

Activities Did the QC geophysicist document and verify that each recovered item was compared to the analysis predictions?Quality Control Were mismatches between recovered items and analysis predictions resolved and documented in a verification report?

Conduct Detection Survey

Were cued data collected from an additional 200 anomalies excluded on the basis of advanced anomaly selection to verify the size and decay rate threshold in compliance with WS #22 of the AGC-QAPP?

Conduct Data Processing and Document Locations of Anomalies

Were the function test measurements (SOP 1 - AGC-QAPP) performed prior to each sortie, reviewed and the appropriate actions taken as required by WS #22?

Was a data processing log for each sortie (e.g., chronologically contiguous data collection set) containing the information required by the SOP from the AGC-QAPP appropriate to the sensor used?

Assemble AG Sensor and Test Sensor at IVS

Collect Cued Data and Static Background Data

Conduct Data Processing; Classify Anomalies and Make Dig/No-dig Decisions

Excavate Buried Objects

Verify the Threshold and Verify Recovered non-TOI are Consistent with Predictions

29

DFW Task QuestionDGM Planning Is there a NOSAA/DDESB approved ESS DR or ESS for the site?

Are the training and certification requirements for personnel conducting DGM specified in the work plans and SOP?Are the performance metrics for the DGM equipment (e.g., positioning error, amplitude deviations, etc.) specified in the work plans and SOPs?Is the desired percentage of area coverage specified in the work plans and SOPs? Is the line spacing to achieve the desired coverage specified?

Are the definitions for areas considered inaccessible or areas which otherwise are not subject to DGM coverage specified in the work plans and SOPs?

Are the requirements for collecting data in the IVS and the associated pass/fail criteria described in the work plans and SOPs?Are the requirements for other quality tests (e.g., static/spike tests, etc.) described in the work plans and SOPs?Are the requirements for blind seeding described in the work plans and SOPs?

Is the configuration for the DGM equipment (e.g., litter mode, hoop skirt mode, towed array, etc.) described in sufficient detail the work plans and SOPs?

Are all of the data processing parameters (e.g., grid cell size, latency/lag, battery voltage, sensor drift, etc.) specified in the work plans and/or SOPs?

If a local coordinate system is being used, is it explained adequately in the plans/SOPs so that personnel understand that it is only a local coordinate system?Were blind seeds installed and verified by QC at the intervals specified in the GSV Plan?

GSV PlanningDo the procedures and processes described in the GSV Plan closely follow those proposed by the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program?

Is the sensor(s) being tested in the IVS adequately described in the GSV Plan (e.g., sensor, platform, positioning, mode, etc.)?Are the approximate coordinates for IVSs provided along with a map of the location(s)?

Does the GSV Plan describe the daily IVS testing procedures in sufficient detail, including pass/fail criteria?Does the GSV Plan describe the daily IVS deliverables and reporting?Does the GSV Plan discuss blind seed installation?Does the GSV Plan describe how QC is to evaluate blind seed detection in the DGM data, including pass/fail criteria?

Field Activities Was a safety briefing conducted prior to beginning field data collection?

Did each DGM team pass the IVS prior to beginning data collection and at the finish of data collection each day?Is the DGM equipment configured and operated as specified in the work plans and SOPs?

Digital Geophysical Mapping

Are the responsibilities and procedures for documenting inaccessible areas or other areas not subject to DGM coverage specified in the work plans and SOPs?

Are the coordinates for survey control monuments provided in the work plans? Are the coordinates cited correctly (e.g., correct Datum, State Plane, measurement, etc.)?

Does the GSV Plan address installing an IVS for a sensor? If so, is sufficient explanation and data provided to address the requirement to model the ISO responses?

Are the IVS configurations provided? This includes a discussion of the type(s) of MEC known or suspected and depths, a discussion of which ISO(s) are selected for the IVS and which MEC they represent and a table and supporting plan view of the IVS installation.

Does the GSV Plan require an IVS Installation Report that discusses the installation, post-installation DGM data and discussion, and photographs and coordinates of installed ISOs and transects.

If GPS is used for data positioning, was the RTK DGPS base station set up using a known control point and verified using a second known location within the tolerances specified in the work plans and SOPs?

If an alternate (to GPS) positioning system is used, were the locations for the total station, ultra-sound transmitters and/or fiducial marks accurately surveyed (e.g., registered land surveyor) and recorded?

Are operational QC checks, such as static/spike tests, performed in accordance with the work plans and SOPs (e.g., frequency of testing, review of the results, etc.)?

30

DFW Task Question

Field Activities

Were all data downloaded and logbooks copied and given to the Site Geophysicist at the end of the day?Was the DGM survey conducted in accordance with the procedures described in the approved QAPP/SOP (e.g., line spacing, survey speeds)?Did the teams start new data files every two hours of data collection?Did the teams collect data over at least two grid corner pins for each grid surveyed?

IVS and BSI

Were BSIs installed in compliance with the GSV Plan?

Quality Control

Were the IVS results reviewed and within specification prior to beginning data collection each day?Were new data files started every two hours of data collection?Were obstacles or inaccessible areas correctly documented?

Did the geophysics personnel document their work in compliance with the work plans/SOPs?

Were all BSIs accounted for in the DGM data? Were the locations and amplitudes consistent with the expected results, based on the GSV Plan?Were grid corner points evaluated for positioning? Were the results consistent with the expected results based on the GSV Plan?Was the sample spacing consistent with the requirements in the work plans/SOPs?Were any data gaps either re-collected or properly documented as inaccessible areas or as obstacles?Did QC verify areas documented as inaccessible or as obstacles and is that documentation on file?Have all daily deliverables identified in the GSV plan been provided to the Navy?

Digital Geophysical Mapping

If surface metal was observed during a survey, was the SUXOS notified so that the metal could be removed prior to continuing DGM on that portion of the grid?

Were all obstacles (e.g., slopes, ravines, physical obstructions, etc.) recorded on the forms specified in the work plans/SOPs? Were photographs made of the obstacles if required in the work plans/SOPs?

Was an IVS Installation Report prepared and are the expected results validated by the IVS? If new measurement performance criteria were developed, were they accepted by the stakeholders?

Is the selected location of the IVS in close proximity to and does it have features (e.g., terrain, vegetation, geologic features) similar to the remedial action area to be mapped?

Were the daily quality control checks performed and documented in compliance with the work plans and SOPs (e.g., instrument warm up, sensor nulling, GPS input check, static/spike, etc.)?

Were the data processing parameters (e.g., latency, lag, grid cell size, demedian filter, etc.) applied to the data consistent with those specified in the work plans/SOPs?

Was the correct percentage of DGM data re-processed by geophysical QC personnel in compliance with the work plans/SOPs? Were the results consistent with the results achieved during the initial data processing? If not, were the inconsistencies investigated and resolved?

31


Are the MEC QAPP and SOPs consistent in their description of the reacquisition task?Are the performance metrics for the GPS and handheld metal detector, if used, listed in the MEC QAPP and SOPs?

Field Activities Was a safety briefing given prior to beginning field activities?

Were the system setup and QC checks for RTK DGPS (or other positioning method) and metal detectors performed prior to beginning reacquisition?

Was the RTK DGPS placed within 0.5 ft (15 cm) of the interpreted DGM target location and the 'pinned' coordinates recorded?

Was reacquisition information recorded on each pin flag/log book/survey controller (measured stakeout location and reacquisition comments)?

Was the DGM target location marked with a non-metallic pin flag which has the target number written on it?Was dig sheet updated with the reacquisition results/comments?

Quality Control Did the TL observe and document that each handheld instrument was checked at the FCA and that each detector is serviceable?

Did the team document the system setup and QC checks for the RTK DGPS (or other positioning method) in compliance with the MEC QAPP and SOPs?

Planning Do the performance metrics in the MEC QAPP clearly identify when an intrusive investigation may be considered completed?Are the lateral radius and depth below the ground surface to be investigated clearly identified in the MEC QAPP?

Field Activities Was a safety briefing given prior to beginning field activities?Was the EZ established and the TSD for the RAA observed?Has each DGM target location been searched to the designated lateral radius and depth below the surface?Has each DGM target location been investigated to the criteria where it may be considered completed?

If using manned EMM to excavate possible MEC/MPPEH, was the equipment shielded and configured in compliance with the requirements in the ESS?

Target Reacquisition

Do the MEC QAPP and SOPs clearly state whether the reacquisition team will refine the anomaly position using a handheld metal detector or whether they are only going to place a flag at the interpreted location?

Do the work procedures and performance metrics require the reacquisition team to log the 'pinned' location and that the 'pinned' location be checked against the interpreted location as a QC activity?

If a handheld metal detector is to be used to refine the anomaly location during reacquisition, does the MEC QAPP and SOPs require verification of detector operation in a function check area, and that the function check is documented?

Does the ESS require that the reacquisition team use a handheld metal detector to provide anomaly avoidance during reacquisition? (It is not always required, but there are sometimes inconsistencies between the ESS and work documents on this point and a NOSSA audit will hold the teams to the procedures in the ESS.)

Were the 'pinned' coordinates compared against the interpreted coordinates and were deviations which exceeded the performance metric flagged and investigated?If the anomaly locations were not refined using a handheld metal detector during reacquisition, were the offsets noted by the intrusive investigation teams compared against performance metrics in the MEC QAPP and SOPs and exceedances reported and investigated?

Intrusive Investigation

If EMM are to be used, does the MEC QAPP clearly identify whether the EMM are to be used only to remove overburden or whether the EMM are to be used to physically excavate MEC/MPPEH? Is the ESS consistent with the MEC QAPP?

If EMM are to be used for either instance (removal of overburden only and physical excavation of MEC/MPPEH) are the areas slated for each instance clearly identified in the MEC QAPP and the ESS?

Have DGM target locations where investigations cannot be completed due to extenuating circumstances (e.g., saturated with fragments, cultural debris, other) been documented in compliance with the requirements in the MEC QAPP?

If using manned EMM to excavate possible MEC/MPPEH, were personnel furnished and using proper shielding, distances and hearing protection in compliance with the requirements in the ESS?

If using remotely operated EMM, were personnel furnished and using proper shielding, distances and hearing protection in compliance with the requirements in the ESS?

32

DFW Task Question

Field Activities

Were dig sheets filled out correctly, using standardized nomenclature for MEC and MDEH?Were all MEC and MDEH items photographed?Were all blind seed items recovered and correctly documented?Were all DGM target excavation holes backfilled and leveled to grade?

Was all MEC inspected by the SUXOS and UXOSO and identified as an item requiring blow-in-place disposal or documented in writing as safe to move?

Quality Control Were 10% of the DGM target excavations checked by QC?Were all no finds verified by QC?Were all BSIs recovered and correctly documented?


Did all MPPEH items undergo a 100% inspection and an independent 100% re-inspection by two UXO Technician IIIs to determine and document its category as MDAS?

33

DFW Task Question

Planning

Do the plans specify the armoring requirements for all of the equipment being used for excavation and dirt moving?Has a traffic plan been prepared, if haul roads are to be installed and used?Have the plans considered a final MEC detection/removal of the haul roads, if they are installed and used?

Do the plans discuss the method for clearing underneath the sifting apparatus after sifting operations are completed?

Do the plans contain SOPs or BMPs for stockpile management (e.g., covering, stormwater runoff abatement, contamination control, etc.)?Do the work plans specify the backfill compaction requirements and the approved methods for verifying compliance?

Field Activities Is the site set up and operating to prevent comingling of sifted and not-sifted material (management of stockpiled soils)?

Are all personnel observing the site safety requirements for equipment operations (e.g., PPE, reflective vests, exclusion zones, armoring requirements, etc.)?

Quality Control


Is the required MPPEH training on NKO or from NOSSA documented for all site personnel?

If spread and scan techniques are used, do the plans specify blind seeding and provide the pass/fail metrics?Does WS #12 specify a blind seeding process for testing the sifting apparatus and provide the pass/fail metrics?

Do the QC checks include metrics to confirm that sufficient site data are being collected to analyze the site and update the CSM?

Excavating and Soil Sifting

Does the MEC QAPP require final topographical surveying of the excavation(s) prior to backfilling? If not, is there an exemption from this requirement in writing?

If equipment with a blade (e.g., bulldozer, grader) is to be used to push soil, do the plans discuss how the windrows will be inspected and documented cleared from MEC/MPPEH?

If soil screening is being done, has it been outlined how the contractor is to document findings in each 1 foot lift and/or in each area of the site so the final site decisions and controls can be supported?

Do the plans provide a method to measure the volume of material sifted will be calculated (e.g., a scale on the conveyor to the sifter or other approved method)?

Are personnel not operating equipment kept the minimum exclusion distance (HFD/K40 or K24 with appropriate fragment protection) away from active excavating and sifting activities?

Have the QC metrics for excavating and soil sifting listed in the approved QAPP/SOP been met? If the performance metrics were not met, has the deficiency been documented and corrective actions taken?

Has the management of all MEC and MDEH been properly documented from discovery through disposal including preparation of 'safe to move' forms when required?

34


Do the work plans and SOPs address the methods for segregating MDEH from MDAS so that comingling cannot occur?

Are the numbers of personnel assigned to demolition duties appropriate to the task (e.g., the minimum number of personnel to safely perform the task)?

Do the work plans and SOPs identify the requirement for a state licensed blaster, where required, and identify the individual(s) so assigned?

Do the work plans and SOPs clearly describe the process for maintaining segregation between MEC/MDEH and MDAS to prevent comingling of the items?

Do the work plans and SOPs clearly describe the process for establishing and maintaining the chain of custody for MDAS through the completion of disposal?

MEC/MPPEH Management

Are the work plans and SOPs clear on the procedures for determining whether MEC/MDEH are safe to move and the process defined for documenting that decision?

Are the work plans and SOPs clear on the procedures for inspecting munitions debris and making the determination whether the debris is MEC, MDEH or MDAS?

Do the work plans and SOPs specify that both the SUXOS and UXOSO must assess and agree that the risk associated with the movement of MEC is acceptable?

Do the work plans and SOPs identify the minimum required information to be recorded for MEC/MDEH (e.g., nomenclature, coordinates of where the item(s) was found, condition, fuzing, etc.)?

Do the work plans and SOPs specify the exclusion zones to be used and identify where road closures or other safety measures (e.g., evacuations, re-routing of ferries, air traffic, etc.) must be implemented?

Do the work plans and SOPs describe or reference the use of engineering controls to mitigate the effects of blast and fragmentation, if appropriate to the site and conditions?

Are the preparing, priming, initiating and post-detonation procedures consistent with Federal, state and local requirements and with general EOD safety standards? Are the wait times associated with misfires correct for the type of initiation system to be used (e.g., electric or non-electric)?

Do the work plans and SOPs specify the proper type of MEC/MDEH storage for the project (e.g., portable magazine, other approved storage facility, etc.) for the munitions expected?

Do the work plans and SOPs require proper accountability for MEC/MDEH from discovery through disposal, including regular inventory if the items are stored for any length of time?

Do the work plans and SOPs identify separate storage for MEC/MDEH and donor explosives? If portable magazines are used, are they sited at the correct IBD for the net explosive weight assigned?

If multiple portable magazines are to be used, do the work plans and SOPs specify the correct configuration for lightening protection in compliance with NAVSEA OP 5 Volume 1?

Do the work plans and SOPs reflect the correct requirements for transportation of MEC and donor explosives (e.g., licensing, driver's certification, vehicle configuration, etc.) in compliance with SW020-AF-HBK-010?

If the contractor plans to do any treatment of MPPEH other than by detonation (e.g., thermal flashing, etc.), do the work plans and SOPs clearly describe the processes and equipment to be used?

If the contractor plans to do any treatment of MPPEH other than by detonation (e.g., thermal flashing, etc.), is the procedure identified and approved in the ESS?

If the contractor plans to do treatment of MPPEH other than by detonation, is the treatment site sited in the ESS and the siting information provided in the work plans and SOPs?

If the contractor plans to do any demilitarization of MDAS, do the work plans and SOPs clearly describe the processes and equipment to be used? (Note: The purpose here is to make sure that the proposed methods will achieve the required level of demilitarization.)

If the work plans and SOPs indicate that MDAS is to be transferred to a third party for final disposition, is the third party positively identified with some verification of qualifications and authority to dispose of MDAS provided?

35

DFW Task QuestionField Activities Did the SUXOS and UXOSO assess all MEC and agree on whether the risk associated with movement was acceptable or not?

Do the field teams follow the three-tiered inspection process to identify and categorize the MPPEH?Were all MEC and MDEH items photographed?Was all MPPEH inspected using the three-tier inspection process?

If on-site treatment of MPPEH was conducted (e.g., flashing), was the process performed in strict compliance with the work plans, SOPs and the ESS?

If on-site demilitarization of MDAS was performed, were the processes in strict compliance with the work plans, SOPs and ESS?

Did the Disposal Team handle, issue, and turn in MEC/MDEH and donor explosives in strict compliance with the work plans, SOPs and ESS?Quality Control

Did the SUXOS and the Navy QA representative complete the certification and verification process for each container of MDAS prior to shipment?

Did the UXOQCS verify and document the accuracy of the magazine inventory results for both MEC/MDEH and donor explosives, as applicable?

Did the UXOQCS verify and document proper operation of on-site MPPEH treatment and/or demilitarization equipment?Did the UXOQCS verify and document the pre-operation safety briefing provided to the demolition team and support members?

MEC/MPPEH Management

Was the decision to move MEC documented in writing before moving or transporting the items to the storage magazines for temporary storage or to a consolidated shot location?

Did all MDAS undergo a visual 100% inspection and then an independent 100% re-inspection, inspections documented on the approved form, and MDAS placed in lockable containers in a designated MDAS storage location?

Were MDAS further categorized by whether demilitarization was required? Were these items segregated and managed to prevent comingling with other MDAS?

Was successfully flashed MPPEH placed in containers, re-categorized as MDAS, sealed, locked, weighed, labeled, and a 1348-1A signed by the contractor and the Navy/Navy QA representative attached to the drum(s)?

Were the disposal locations (for blow-in-place and for consolidated disposal) thoroughly checked, using either DGM or a handheld metal detector, and investigated to ensure that no MPPEH remained?

Were disposal materials (e.g., firing wire, blasting cap wire, cardboard inserts, etc.) collected for proper disposal and the site of the disposal operation cleaned up?

Did the UXOSO/Disposal Team Leader verify that the exclusion zone was secure prior to performing the disposal operation and then release the exclusion zone when the disposal operation was completed?

Did the UXOQCS independently verify and document that disposal locations (for blow-in-place and consolidated disposal) were clear of MPPEH and general disposal materials (e.g., firing wire, blasting cap wire, cardboard inserts, etc.)?

36

DFW Task QuestionDemobilization Administrative

Has the accuracy and currency of the project database been verified?Have data gaps and/or missing data been identified and corrective action taken or identified for follow-on field seasons?Have administrative inaccuracies been corrected?

Field Activities Have all utilities, office and field facilities been shut down, removed, or turned over as appropriate?

Has all MDAS been inspected, certified, verified, locked and sealed in containers pending recycling or been shipped to the recycling facility?Have all MEC/MDEH and donor explosives been disposed of and storage magazines emptied and verified empty?Have disposal areas been closed and/or restored in accordance with the MEC QAPP?Has excess contractor equipment and supplies (e.g., wood, sampling supplies, grout, propane, fuel, etc.) been disposed of properly?Have all personnel and equipment been demobilized from the site?

Quality Control Has the UXOQCS cleared all open Punch List items?

Have all project data for the current field season been reviewed, errors identified and corrections made or identified for the follow-on field seasons (e.g., consistency between sources, accuracy, completeness, etc.)?

37

DFW Task QuestionAfter Action Report General

Does the AAR include a request to cancel any EZ or site approval established in the ESS?

Is a summary of all QC and QA activities/reports included in the AAR?Does the AAR include maps of the site showing where MEC/MPPEH was recovered and the end use of the site?Is a summary of any land use controls that were implemented and the areas they were applied included?Is a discussion of long-term management of the site included in the AAR?

Has an after action report been prepared and submitted in accordance with NOSSAINST 8020.15(series)? Note: An AAR is only submitted after all intrusive work is complete for a site.

Does the AAR include a description of the site, the work conducted at the site and a summary of the MEC/MPPEH recovered, and discuss any residual risk at the site?

Does the hard copy report include any supporting documentation (e.g., field logs, daily reports, certificates of destruction for MDAS)? Note: Supporting documentation can be provided in pdf format on a CD but cannot be included in the hard copy. The hard copy will not be forwarded by NOSSA to DDESB.

38

DFW Section Subsection QuestionRI Report Introduction Site Description

Stakeholders Are all stakeholders identified in the report?

Mobility Does the report contain an analysis on frost heave and/or other mobility issues at the site?

Nature and Extent Data Collection Do the data collected support the anticipated remedial action objectives?Were draft RAOs mentioned in the plans for the site? Does the analysis provide descriptive information, which defines the extent and type of MEC contamination at each AOC?

Were the data collected using the minimum target selection threshold (e.g., 3 mV) and if not, is the rationale for a higher threshold provided in the report?

Are the data collected sufficient for analyzing the site and updating the CSM?Has an audit trail been maintained for all data acquired for detection?Can the FS data be obtained directly from the RI data acquired?

UXO Density EstimatesHave the MRSs been categorized based on use (e.g., concentrated use areas such as target areas or less concentrated use areas such as buffer areas)?

Did the team use VSP or a similar program to calculate the density of anomalies within supposed target areas?Have estimates been made for each density estimates to capture the ranges of uncertainty in the estimates?

UXO Migration/Erosion Does the report discuss migration or erosion patterns for MEC within the MRSs? Have the migration/erosion patterns for the different types of MEC been estimated for the site conditions?

Conceptual Site ModelDoes the RI report include an updated CSM using data obtained during the RI?

Are there any data gaps that need to be filled to complete the CSM?Hazard Assessment Hazard Assessment Has an updated MEC HA been completed for the site?

Has the MRSPP been updated, based on the RI Results?ARARs ARARs Have potential ARARs been identified in the RI Report?Reporting Reporting Has the report been submitted to the public and stakeholders for review and comment?

Has a partnering session for discussion of the report been undertaken?Does the report present all of the background material, information acquired, and analyses made?Are the conclusions of the report supported by the data, analyses, and CSM?Are areas which require further study clearly identified?

Has any requirement for AR been identified and justified in the submittal report?

Does the analysis provide descriptive information of the site (including size, location, topography, and accessibility details) for purposes of addressing the MEC risks?

Physical Characteristics of the Study Area

Were the data evaluated (e.g., location and number of transects, location and number of grids) and confirmed to be sufficient to bound the MRS(s) prior to demobilization from the field and is this documented in the report?

Were areas where specific surface MPPEH items were found, such as mortar tail fins, included as areas for further investigation even though no subsurface MEC may have been found during the RI intrusive investigations?

Conceptual Site Model

Accelerated Response Decision

39

DFW Section Subsection Question Remedial Action Objectives Are the RAOs measurable (i.e., are there specific MEC items or MC analytes and a clear definition of the boundaries from the RI)?

Does the FS spell out the specific hazard, exposure pathway (s) and remediation goal?Do the RAOs provide a clear and concise description of what the remedial action should accomplish without specifying a given technology?

If removal depths are specified in the RAO, are those depths considered as they relate to the maximum depth that MEC or MPPEH is expected?Do the ARARs listed meet the defining criteria for an ARAR?Are entire laws and/or regulations cited or just the specific substantive requirements?Are any laws and/or regulations which stand through their own force and authority listed as ARARs?Are state requirements equivalent to Federal requirements listed as ARARs?

Has the definition of 'onsite' been applied correctly (40 CFR 300.5)?

General Response Actions In addition to the No Action alternative, do the GRA consider an alternative that will get the site to UU/UE?Do the GRAs consider an alternative that requires LUC?

Is the description for the technologies and process options written at a high enough level that specific technologies are not identified or inferred?

Was sustainability included in the screening criteria and included in the short-term effectiveness criteria evaluation?General Is there any duplication (i.e., saying the same thing a different way) in the alternatives?

Are the technologies described in general terms that allow freedom to select specific technical approaches by the design team?Are the LUCs described in general terms that allow freedom to select specific language and format by the design team?Was the Remedial Alternative Analysis completed and included in the FS?

Threshold Criteria

Have any TBC requirements been thoroughly evaluated for their need to be included in the FS because once included in a ROD, they become legally binding?

Balancing Criteria Has GSR been included in the evaluation for Short-Term Effectiveness?Has an IA been conducted to evaluate the opportunities to implement LUC at the site and are the results of the IA appended to the FS?

Have the relative cost evaluations been reviewed for consistency and intuitiveness, particularly where multiple alternatives are presented?

Feasibility Study

Identification and Screening of Technologies

If removal depths are specified in the RAO, are those depths based on agreed-upon reasonably anticipated future land use and in consideration of the depth that technology has an ability to detect a target of interest?

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARAR)

If facility siting laws are cited as ARARs, do they specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location or other circumstance found at a CERCLA site?

Are the ARARs matched with specific alternatives on a site specific basis in the FS? (The ARAR list should be expected to be reduced from the potential list identified in the RI and not just copied over).

Has consideration been given to the impact of adherence to the ARAR, (e.g., greater risk, compliance is technically impractical from an engineering standpoint, the action taken is only part of a total remediation that will attain ARARs upon completion, etc.) and ARAR waivers been considered?

Do regulator reviewers agree with the LUC objectives that are being proposed? Note: California sites may be subject to Land Use Covenants in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Section 25220.

Screening of Remedial Technologies and Process Options

Development and Screening of Alternatives Are any 'just in case' alternatives included in the FS (e.g., is the site characterized adequately in the RI so that 'contingency' alternatives are not included,

i.e., removal to a deeper depth than supported by the RI data)?

Does the FS identify an exit strategy for each MRS (e.g., upon completion of the preferred alternative, the post-remedial site condition is clearly defined, i.e., removal to a specified depth and LUCS)?

Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

In evaluating the compliance with ARARs criteria, are any alternatives which do not satisfy ARAR requirements still considered if a specific ARAR waiver is granted?

Do the ARARs include the ESA, MMPA and/or EFH and were consultations performed with the respective agency, if needed, during the alternatives compliance analysis?

At underwater MRSs, has administrative feasibility been evaluated as part of Implementability (e.g., coordination with other offices if ESA, MMPA or EFH are involved, or access agreements if long term monitoring is required as part of the remedy)?

In evaluating the alternatives, has the performance of technologies or processes in previous use at the site been considered and been used as criteria to include/exclude at this point?

40

DFW Section Subsection Question Assumptions

Are the assumptions applied to the cost model/estimate applied consistently across all of the alternatives?

Feasibility Study

Comparative Analysis of Alternatives

DFW Section Subsection QuestionIntroduction General

Does the introduction section state the Remedial Action Objectives?

Purpose and Objective General

Organization General

Communication

QA Procedures Does this Section provide a complete summary of the QA Tasks to be performed?

Quality Assessment Surveillance Plan Does the Introduction describe specifically what area(s) are the focus for the field season being

addressed to include maps and tables? (Experience has shown that it is useful to update the QASP for each year or field season on projects which run for multiple years/field seasons. An end-of-season report by the production contractor supported by a Quality Assurance Surveillance Report provides the Navy with a definitive start and end point for the evaluation of quality on the project for that period of performance and provides two independent assessments of progress.)

Does the introduction contain a listing of previous investigations and if a multi-year project, is it updated through the previous field season?

Does the introduction specify that QA will utilize the production contractors' work documents, and reference the appropriate Worksheets, as the basis for performing QA? (Rationale: When QA is based solely on the production contractors' work documents only, there should be no dispute over the performance standards being evaluated.)

Are the purpose and objectives clear and focus on QA-specific activities (e.g., identifying contractor work that deviates from approved project plans, evaluating contractor work against pre-work performance measures, verifying conformance to MPCs and MQOs, etc.)?

Does the organization section include a table showing the assignments, qualifications, duties and responsibilities of all personnel assigned to QA?

Does the QASP contain a communications section that clearly outlines the communication pathways between QA, the production contractors' personnel (production and QC) and the Navy?

Does this Section outline those QA tasks considered critical (e.g., reporting contractor work that deviates from the approved project plans or is incomplete, evaluating contractor work against the pre-work performance measures, whether QA is responsible for conducting root cause analysis and developing corrective actions, etc.)?

Does this Section provide for QA to do an administrative review of project plans and SOPs, personnel qualifications and assignments, siting of magazines or other PES and other administrative requirements?

Does this section specify that successful completion of the work rests with the production contractors' QC organization (e.g., it is not the responsibility of QA to do QC for the contractor)?


QA Procedures

Does this Section specify an independent QA Blind Seeding program/plan?

ReportingAre the required QA reports specified in this Section complete with due dates and distribution?

Quality Assessment Surveillance Plan

Are the QA requirements for each DFW adequately addressed and consistent with what the production contractor has written in the MEC QAPP, GSV Plan and other work plans? This would include administrative QA requirements (e.g., review of the daily IVS testing for geophysical equipment, periodic review of team leader logbooks, regular review of QC inspection results, etc.) and field QA requirements (e.g., specifying the timing and amount of QA inspection of completed work (e.g., up to 5% of completed intrusive investigations, 5% reinspection of spread and scan material from sifting/mass excavation operations, etc.)?

Does this Section specify the frequency for and identify each of the QA inspection points for each DFW? Is the Contractor documentation to review for each inspection specified?

Is the QA individual/contractor required to sign MDAS documentation on behalf of the Government and is that specified in this Section?

Are all final QA inspections and verification measures specified in this Section to include what specific inspections/verifications are to be made (e.g., review of QC documentation for the work unit, QA inspections of completed work, QA DGM, etc.)?

Does this Section specify how QA activities are to be documented (e.g., specific forms whether paper or electronic, etc.) and the QA data managed?

DFW Section Subsection QuestionIntroduction General

Does the Introduction Section clearly delineate which of the project areas are subject to AGC?

Does the introduction section state the Remedial Action Objectives?

Purpose and Objective General

Organization General

Communication

QA Procedures General

Does the QASP review any modifications from the original AGC QAPP template?Does the QASP ensure that the contractor is accredited to perform AGC work?

Site Preparation

Does the QASP specify a blind seeding program for the surface sweep?

Does the QASP specify a review and comment role for the Surface Sweep Technical Memorandum?

Quality Assessment Surveillance Plan for Advanced Geophysical Classification

Does the introduction contain a listing of previous investigations and if a multi-year project, is it updated through the previous field season?

Does the introduction specify that QA will utilize the production contractors' work documents, and reference the appropriate Worksheets, as the basis for performing QA? (Rationale: When QA is based solely on the production contractors' work documents only, there should be no dispute over the performance standards being evaluated.)

Do the purpose and objective state that the primary QA role for AGC is Audit and Verification, that QA should have a role in reviewing the internal draft of all production contractor deliverables (e.g., Surface Sweep Memorandum, IVS Memorandum, etc.), that QA should have a seat on the Data Usability Team and that QA provides independent verification that the MQOs and MPCs in the AGC-QAPP have been met?

Does the organization section include a table showing the assignments, qualifications, duties and responsibilities of all personnel assigned to QA?

Does the QASP contain a communications section that clearly outlines the communication pathways and drivers between QA, the production contractors' personnel (production and QC) and the Navy?

Are the QA requirements for each DFW adequately addressed and consistent with what the production contractor has written in the AGC QAPP, GSV Plan and other work plans? This would include administrative QA requirements (e.g., review of the daily IVS testing for geophysical equipment, periodic review of team leader logbooks, regular review of QC inspection results, etc.) and field QA requirements (e.g., specifying the timing and amount of QA inspection of completed work)?

Does the QASP specify the frequency for and identify each of the QA inspection points for each DFW? Is the Contractor documentation to review for each inspection specified?

Does the QASP specify how QA activities are to be documented (e.g., specific forms whether paper or electronic, etc.) and the QA data managed?

Does the field QA for completed work cover a sufficient percentage of the area to adequately check the production contractor's work, considering the criticality of doing a thorough surface sweep?


QA Procedures

Seeding and IVS

Detection Survey

Is QA assigned as a member of the Data Usability Assessment Team?

Does the QASP specify a review and comment role for the Target Selection Technical Memorandum?

Cued SurveyDoes the QASP specify that QA review the background sites selected from the detection data?


Data Usability Assessment Is QA assigned as a member of the Data Usability Assessment Team?

Does the QASP specify a review and comment role for the Final Classification Validation Report?

Appendices

Quality Assessment Surveillance Plan for Advanced Geophysical Classification

Does the QASP provide for QA to reprocess IVS data and compare results with the production contractor?

Is a QA Blind Seeding Plan included with the QASP? Does the QA Blind Seeding Plan have the proper restricted distribution?

Does the QASP specify a review and comment role for the Draft Verification and Validation Plan and the IVS Memorandum?

Does the QASP specify re-processing a percentage of the detection DGM data and comparing the selections against the production contractors' selections?

Does the QASP specify a review of a percentage of the detection DGM data and selection results when the contractor is using Informed Source Selection?

Does the QASP specify that QA review the QC Report data outputs for each survey unit prior to intrusive investigations?

Does the QASP specify that QA review the Classification Report for each survey unit prior to intrusive investigation?

Does the QASP specify that QA review the excavation results for a percentage of the items to verify depth predictions, predicted size and shape?

Does the QASP specify that QA review the Analysis Verification Report with particular emphasis on the mismatch discussion?

Final Classification Validation Report

Has QA assembled the QC Surveillance Forms from the AGC contractor's work plans into an appendix to the QASP to use for QA audits?

Project DFW QA Task/RoleNon-AGC Field QA Planning

Site Preparation

Has QA audited and verified the IVS setup is in compliance with the GSV Plan?

Has QA audited and verified the QC blind seed installation is in compliance with the GSV Plan?Has QA implemented a QA blind seeding program in compliance with the QASP?

Surface Removal

Has QA implemented a QA blind seeding program in compliance with the QASP?Digital Geophysical Mapping

Does QA review the results of daily IVS testing to verify compliance with the GSV Plan and WS#14?

Has QA independently verified that data coverage meets the MQO on WS#14?


Has QA independently verified the purpose and documentation of all abandoned digs?

Does QA have a review and comment role on the production contractors' work plans (e.g., MEC QAPP, ESS, APP/SSHP, etc.)?

Has QA audited and verified the accuracy of site survey control and grid stakeout? Have sensitive habitats and cultural resources been marked?

Has QA verified that the surface removal is adequate for the type of geophysical work to follow (e.g., analog or digital)?

Does QA reprocess a percentage of the IVS data and compare results with those of the production contractor?

Does QA review the results of daily instrument tests (e.g., static standard, etc.) to verify compliance with the MQOs on WS#14?

Has QA verified that QC is conducting all of the required surveillances at the intervals specified in WS#28?

Has QA verified that all of the QA blind seed items have been detected and called out in the geophysical data as targets for investigation?

Has QA verified that any and all corrective actions taken as a result of a non-conformance have been applied and the results meet the desired outcome?

Has QA verified that intrusive investigations are removing metallic debris from the target areas in compliance with the MQO on WS#14?

Have all blind seed items (QC and QA) been recovered, identified and documented during intrusive investigations?

Has QA independently verified that the intrusive investigation results and the anomaly amplitudes are consistent with expectations?

Project DFW QA Task/Role

Non-AGC Field QA

Analog Geophysical Detection

Do the QA blind seeds represent the maximum detection limits for the munitions represented?Excavation and Sifting Has QA verified the boundaries (X,Y and Z-depth) of the final excavation(s)?

Is QA independently tracking the production contractors' stockpile management and control?MEC/MPPEH Management

Reporting

Are all field change requests (FCR) captured and documented in the QASR for the period covered?Does the QASR discus the results from the blind QA seeding program?

Does the QASR include an independently derived vertical CSM with an analysis?

Has QA implemented a blind seeding program that incorporates both blind seeds and detection coverage seeds?

Has QA implemented a blind seeding program for both the excavation activity and the sifting activity?

If using a spread and scan operation as a final step, has QA implemented a blind seeding program for this operation?

If QA is to sign the MDAS documents as the government representative, have the responsible QA personnel been authorized in writing by the appropriate Command?

Does the QA Surveillance Report (QASR) accurately capture the beginning (what needs to be done) and ending (what was done and what remains to be done) condition at the site for the period covered? Have all project-specific records been generated, distributed as agreed upon, and reviewed for completeness?

Are all non-conformances and deficiencies properly addressed and the documentation properly closed as of the ending of the period covered?

Does the QASR include a section discussing data usability with regard to the DGM data that addresses the validity of the picking threshold used and/or any other recommendations (e.g., change in platform, etc.) for ongoing or future DGM?

Does the QASR include a discussion of no-finds, whether the percentage appears excessive and if so, an analysis of the reason to include suggestions for improvement?

Does the QASR contain sufficient details about the work performed during the reporting period (e.g., location, type of work, results, statistics, etc.) to support developing a Remedial Action Completion Report (RACR) at the conclusion of the project?

Project DFW QA Task/RoleAGC Field QA Planning

Has QA verified that the contractors' accreditation is current?

Do the work plans show that QA is a member of the Data Usability Assessment (DUA) Team?

Site PreparationDoes QA have a review and comment role on the Surface Sweep Technical Memorandum?

Seeding and IVS Does QA have a review and comment role on the QC Seeding Plan and IVS Plan?

Does QA reprocess the IVS test data and independently verify the production contractor results?

Does QA have a review and comment role on the Draft Verification and Validation Plan?

Does QA have a review and comment role on the IVS Memorandum?Detection Survey

Does QA generate an independent DUA Memorandum for the detection survey data?

Does QA have a review and comment role on the Target Selection Technical Memorandum?

Cued Survey Does QA re-process a percentage of the IVS test data to verify the production results?

Does QA review the final background surveillance results to verify that sites meet MQOs?

Does QA have a review and comment role on the production contractors' work plans (e.g., AGC QAPP, MEC QAPP, ESS, APP/SSHP, etc.)?

Do the work plans reflect a workable communication pathway and drivers between QA/Navy, the Accrediting Body and the production contractor?

Are the site conditions (e.g., post-sweep surface contamination) stated in the Surface Sweep Technical Memorandum consistent with the independent QA audit findings?

Has the independent QA Seeding Plan been reviewed and approved by the Navy, regulators and provided to the Accrediting Body for reference?

Does QA re-process a percentage of the detection survey data and compare the results against the production contractor's results?

Does QA review QC documentation of all detection data and measure QA-processed data against MQOs and compare the results against the production contractor results?

Does QA review and comment on the selection of background sites selected from the detection data?

Project DFW QA Task/Role

AGC Field QA

Cued Survey


Threshold Verification

Classification Validation

Does QA review the QC Report data outputs (from AGC-QAPP SOP 8) for each survey unit prior to intrusive investigation?

Does QA review the Classification Report (from AGC-QAPP SOP 8) for each survey unit prior to intrusive investigation?

Does QA review the excavation results to the predictions for a percentage (10%) of the items to verify depth predictions (±10cm), predicted size (sm, med, lg), and shape?

Does QA review the Analysis Verification Report (AGC-QAPP SOP 9) paying particular attention to the mismatch discussion?

Does QA compare excavated items against the classification spreadsheet to verify the TOI/non-TOI threshold?

Does QA compare excavated non-TOI (validation digs) items to the prediction in the Validation Report (AGC-QAPP SOP 9)?

Data Usability Assessment

Does QA generate an independent Final DUA Memorandum (Cued Survey, Intrusive Investigation, etc)?

Does the DUA discus the results from the blind QA seeding program (detected, classifed, and removed)?

€¦ · XLS file · Web view · 2017-09-07If on-site demilitarization of MDAS was performed,...

Documents

Transcript of €¦ · XLS file · Web view · 2017-09-07If on-site demilitarization of MDAS was performed,...