Conway Bombing Range Investigation Report

FINAL
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

FORMER CONWAY BOMBING AND GUNNERY RANGE
HORRY COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA
MRS-R01, RANGE II; MRS-R02, RANGE III; MRS-R03, RANGE IV;
MRS-R09, MACHINE GUN/RIFLE RANGE
(U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, CHARLESTON DISTRICT)
Contract W912DY-10-D-0023
Task Order 0018
Prepared for:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville
May 2018
This page was intentionally left blank.
FINAL
MRS-R01, RANGE II; MRS-R02, RANGE III; MRS-R03, RANGE IV; MRS-
R09, MACHINE GUN/RIFLE RANGE
(U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, CHARLESTON DISTRICT)
Contract W912DY-10-D-0023
Task Order 0018
FUDS Project I04SC002501R01
Prepared for:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville
Prepared by:
HydroGeoLogic Inc.
11107 Sunset Hills Road
Suite 400
Reston, VA 20190
May 2018
Signed:
Kimberly Vaughn
HGL Project Manager
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................ 1

1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................ 1
1.2 MEC CHARACTERIZATION .......................................................... 2
1.2.1 MEC Explosive Hazards Risk Assessment .................................... 2
1.2.2 MEC Contamination Extent...................................................... 3
1.2.3 Land Use by MRS ................................................................. 3
1.3 MC CHARACTERIZATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT ......................... 4
1.3.1 Munitions Constituents ........................................................... 4
1.3.2 BLRA for MC ...................................................................... 5
1.4 RI RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ 5
2.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 PURPOSE .................................................................................. 2-2
2.2 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION .......... 2-3
2.2.1 Project Location and Land Use ............................................... 2-3
2.2.1.1 Project Location ..................................................... 2-3
2.2.1.1.1 MRS-R01, Range II ................................. 2-4
2.2.1.1.2 MRS-R02, Range III ................................ 2-4
2.2.1.1.3 MRS-R03, Range IV ................................ 2-4
2.2.1.1.4 MRS-R09, Machine Gun/Rifle Range ........... 2-4
2.2.1.2 Projected Land Use ................................................. 2-5
2.2.2 Demographics .................................................................... 2-5
2.2.3 Surface Features ................................................................. 2-5
2.2.4 Climate ............................................................................ 2-5
2.2.5 Geology and Soil ................................................................. 2-6
2.2.6 Hydrology and Groundwater Conditions .................................... 2-6
2.2.7 Ecology ............................................................................ 2-6
2.2.7.1 Endangered Species ................................................. 2-6
2.2.7.2 Vegetation ............................................................ 2-7
2.2.7.3 Sensitive Environmental Resources at the Project Site ....... 2-7
2.3 HISTORICAL INFORMATION....................................................... 2-7
2.3.1 MRS-R01, Range II History ................................................... 2-8
2.3.2 MRS-R02, Range III History .................................................. 2-8
2.3.3 MRS-R03, Range IV History .................................................. 2-8
2.3.4 MRS-R09, Machine Gun/Rifle Range History ............................. 2-8
2.4 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS ...................................................... 2-9
2.4.1 Former Conway BGR ........................................................... 2-9
2.4.2 MRS-R01, Range II ........................................................... 2-10
2.4.3 MRS-R02, Range III .......................................................... 2-11
2.4.4 MRS-R03, Range IV .......................................................... 2-13
2.4.5 MRS-R09, Machine Gun/Rifle Range ..................................... 2-14
HGL Contract No.: W912DY-10-D-0023

May 2018 i Task Order No.: 0018
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
3.0 PROJECT REMEDIAL RESPONSE OBJECTIVES ......................................... 1

3.1 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL AND PROJECT APPROACH ................... 1
3.1.1 Current and Future Land Use ................................................... 1
3.1.2 Preliminary Conceptual Site Model ............................................ 1
3.2 PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION GOALS ........................................... 3
3.3 PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION OF ARARS AND TBC
INFORMATION ............................................................................ 4
3.3.1 Chemical-Specific ARARs ....................................................... 5
3.3.2 Location-Specific ARARs ........................................................ 6
3.3.3 Action-Specific ARARs .......................................................... 6
3.4 SUMMARY OF INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS .................................... 6
3.5 DATA NEEDS AND DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES ........................... 6
3.5.1 Data Needs .......................................................................... 6
3.5.2 Data Quality Objectives .......................................................... 7
4.0 CHARACTERIZATION OF MEC AND MC ............................................... 4-1
4.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 4-1
4.1.1 Obtaining Right of Entry ....................................................... 4-3
4.1.2 Field Activities ................................................................... 4-4
4.2 MEC CHARACTERIZATION ........................................................ 4-4
4.2.1 Identification of MEC Contamination ........................................ 4-5
4.2.1.1 Archeological and Paleontological Surveys .................... 4-5
4.2.2 Geophysical Investigation ...................................................... 4-5
4.2.2.1 Site Preparation: Vegetation Clearance and Surface
Clearance ............................................................. 4-5
4.2.2.2 Location Surveys and Transect / Grid System
Development ......................................................... 4-6
4.2.2.3 DGM and Analog Geophysics .................................... 4-6
4.2.2.3.1 GSV .................................................... 4-8
4.2.2.3.2 Analog Verification ................................. 4-8
4.2.2.3.3 Data Collection....................................... 4-8
4.2.2.4 Data Transfer ........................................................ 4-9
4.2.2.4.1 Data Conversion and Initial Processing ......... 4-9
4.2.2.4.2 Review of Daily Instrument Functional
Tests ................................................... 4-9
4.2.2.4.3 Final Data Processing – Characterization
Transects ............................................ 4-10
4.2.2.4.4 Final Data Processing - Full Coverage
Grids ................................................. 4-10
4.2.2.5 Target Selection ................................................... 4-11
4.2.2.6 Geophysics Quality Control Results ........................... 4-11
4.2.2.7 Dig Sheet Development .......................................... 4-14
4.2.3 Intrusive Investigation ........................................................ 4-14

May 2018 ii Task Order No.: 0018
Page
4.2.3.1 Anomaly Reacquisition and Resolution ....................... 4-15

4.2.3.2 Munitions with the Greatest Fragmentation Distance ...... 4-15
4.2.3.3 Minimum Separation Distance .................................. 4-15
4.2.3.4 Exclusion Zones ................................................... 4-15
4.2.4 MPPEH Management ......................................................... 4-16
4.2.4.1 MPPEH Identification and Removal ........................... 4-16
4.2.4.2 Explosives Storage Magazine ................................... 4-16
4.2.4.3 MDEH Disposal ................................................... 4-16
4.2.4.4 Inspection of MPPEH ............................................ 4-16
4.2.4.5 Intrusive Investigation QC....................................... 4-17
4.3 MC CHARACTERIZATION ........................................................ 4-17
4.3.1 Purpose of MC Sampling Activities ........................................ 4-17
4.3.2 Field Sampling Activities Summary ........................................ 4-17
4.3.2.1 Surface Soil Sampling ............................................ 4-17
4.3.2.2 Sample Handling and Packaging ............................... 4-21
4.3.2.3 QC and QA......................................................... 4-21
4.3.3 Analytical Laboratory and Analyses........................................ 4-22
4.3.4 Analytical Data Validation ................................................... 4-22
4.4 DEPARTURES FROM PLANNING DOCUMENTS ........................... 4-22
4.4.1 ROE Limitations ............................................................... 4-22
4.4.2 Expanded Investigation Areas ............................................... 4-23
4.4.3 Work Plan Variances .......................................................... 4-23
5.0 REVISED CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL AND RI RESULTS ......................... 5-1
5.1 MEC INVESTIGATION ................................................................ 5-1
5.1.1 Introduction ....................................................................... 5-1
5.1.2 MRS-R01, Range II MEC Investigation ..................................... 5-1
5.1.3 MRS-R02, Range III MEC Investigation .................................... 5-3
5.1.4 MRS-R03, Range IV MEC Investigation.................................... 5-5
5.1.5 MRS-R09, Machine Gun/Rifle Range MEC Investigation ............... 5-7
5.2 MC INVESTIGATION .................................................................. 5-9
5.2.1 Overview .......................................................................... 5-9
5.2.2 Quality Control and Quality Assurance ...................................... 5-9
5.2.3 Analytical Data Validation ..................................................... 5-9
5.2.4 Analytical Results for Remedial Investigation Munitions
Constituents Samples ............................................................ 5-9
5.2.5 Analytical Results for Historical Munitions Constituents Soil
Sampling .......................................................................... 5-9
5.3 EXTENT OF MEC AND MC CONTAMINATION ............................ 5-10
5.3.1 Extent of MEC Contamination .............................................. 5-10
5.3.1.1 MRS-R01, Range II MEC Contamination Delineation ..... 5-11
5.3.1.2 MRS-R02, Range III MEC Contamination Delineation .... 5-11
5.3.1.3 MRS-R03, Range IV MEC Contamination Delineation ... 5-13

May 2018 iii Task Order No.: 0018
Page
5.3.1.4 MRS-R09, MG/RR MEC Contamination Delineation ..... 5-14

5.3.1.5 MRS Realignment/Delineation in FUDSMIS ................ 5-14
5.3.2 Extent of MC Contamination ................................................ 5-14
5.4 STATUS OF DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES .................................. 5-15
5.4.1 MEC Characterization ........................................................ 5-15
5.4.2 MC Characterization .......................................................... 5-15
5.5 REVISED CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL ........................................ 5-16
5.5.1 Summary ........................................................................ 5-16
5.5.2 MEC Exposure Pathways .................................................... 5-16
5.5.3 MC Exposure Pathways ...................................................... 5-17
6.0 MUNITIONS CONSTITUENTS ............................................................... 6-1
7.0 BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT FOR MC AND EXPLOSIVE HAZARDS
RISK ASSESSMENT FOR UXO/DMM/MC ................................................ 7-1
7.1 MEC RISK ASSESSMENT ............................................................ 7-1
7.1.1 Risk Matrices ..................................................................... 7-1
7.2 RISK ASSESSMENT FOR MC ....................................................... 7-1
7.2.1 Data used in the BLRA ......................................................... 7-2
7.2.2 Evaluation of Background Data ............................................... 7-3
7.2.3 Human Health Evaluation ...................................................... 7-5
7.2.3.1 Exposure Assessment............................................... 7-5
7.2.3.1.1 Exposure Setting and Conceptual Site
Model .................................................. 7-5
7.2.3.1.2 Receptors .............................................. 7-6
7.2.4 Exposure Quantification ........................................................ 7-6
7.2.4.1 Screening to Identify Chemicals of Potential Concern ....... 7-6
7.2.4.2 Uncertainty Analysis ............................................... 7-7
7.2.4.3 Human Health Risk Assessment Summary and
Conclusions .......................................................... 7-7
7.2.5 Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment .............................. 7-7
7.2.5.1 Problem Formulation ............................................... 7-7
7.2.5.1.1 Ecological Setting and Conceptual Site
Model .................................................. 7-8
7.2.5.1.2 Preliminary Assessment and
Measurement Endpoints ............................ 7-8
7.2.5.2 Technical Approach ................................................ 7-9
7.2.5.3 Initial Screening ..................................................... 7-9
7.2.5.3.1 MRS-R01, Range II ................................. 7-9
7.2.5.3.2 MRS-R02, Range III .............................. 7-10
7.2.5.3.3 MRS-R03, Range IV .............................. 7-10
7.2.5.3.4 MRS-R09, Machine Gun/Rifle Range ......... 7-10
7.2.5.4 Initial Food Web Analysis for Terrestrial Wildlife ......... 7-10

May 2018 iv Task Order No.: 0018
Page
7.2.5.5 Refined Analysis for Plants and Terrestrial

Invertebrates ....................................................... 7-11
7.2.5.5.1 Mercury at MRS-R02 ............................. 7-11
7.2.5.5.2 Zinc at MRS-R02 .................................. 7-12
7.2.5.6 Refined Food Web Analysis for Terrestrial Wildlife ....... 7-12
7.2.5.7 Uncertainty Analysis ............................................. 7-13
7.2.6 Ecological Risk Assessment Summary and Conclusions ............... 7-13
8.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS ..................................................................... 7-1
8.1 SUMMARY ............................................................................... 8-1
8.1.1 MEC and MC Nature and Extent ............................................. 8-1
8.1.1.1 MEC................................................................... 8-1
8.1.1.2 Munitions Constituents ............................................. 8-1
8.1.2 BLRA for MC .................................................................... 8-1
8.1.3 MEC Risk Assessment .......................................................... 8-2
8.2 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................... 8-2
8.2.1 Recommendations for FS ....................................................... 8-2
9.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 8-4

May 2018 v Task Order No.: 0018
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1.1 Current and Previous MRS References .................................................... 1-1

Table 1.2 Summary of Field Activities Completed by MRS .......................................... 4
Table 1.3 RI Recommendations ............................................................................ 7
Table 3.1 Current and Future Land Use and Receptors by MRS .................................... 2
Table 3.2 Potential ARARs and TBCs .................................................................... 5
Table 3.3 Decision Rules for MRSs ..................................................................... 3-9
Table 3.4a Site-Specific MEC Data Quality Objective Summary for MRS-R01 .............. 3-11
Table 3.4b MEC DQO Summary for MRS-R02 ................................................... 3-13
Table 3.4c MEC DQO Summary for MRS-R03 .................................................... 3-15
Table 3.4d MEC DQO Summary for MRS-R09 .................................................... 3-17
Table 3.4e MC DQO Summary: MRS-R01, MRS-R02, MRS-R03 and MRS-R09 .......... 3-19
Table 4.1 Summary of Field Activities Completed by MRS ........................................ 4-3
Table 4.2 Number of Anomalies Identified for Investigation in Grids .......................... 4-14
Table 4.3 Sampling Locations and Rationale - MRS-R01 ......................................... 4-19
Table 4.7 MRS vs. Expanded Investigation Acreage ............................................... 4-23
Table 5.1 Summary of RI Field Activities Completed – MRS-R01 ............................... 5-2
Table 5.2 Summary of Intrusive Investigation Results – MRS-R01 ............................... 5-2
Table 5.3 Summary of MD Recovered – MRS-R01 .................................................. 5-3
Table 5.8 Summary of MD Recovered – MRS-R03 .................................................. 5-6
Table 5.10 Summary of Intrusive Investigation Results – MRS-R09 .............................. 5-8
Table 5.11 Laboratory Analytical Results ............................................................ 5-19
HGL Contract No. W912DY-10-D-0023

August 2016 vii Task Order No.: 0018
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 General Location

Figure 1.2 MRS-R01, Range II Location
Figure 1.3a MRS-R02/MRS-R09, Range III and Machine Gun/Rifle Range Location with
Federal Settlement Agreement Areas
Figure 1.3b MRS-R02/MRS-09, Range III and Machine Gun/Rifle Range Location with
SCDHEC Consent Agreement Areas
Figure 1.4 MRS-R03, Range IV Location
Figure 2.1 MRS-R01, Range II Wetlands

Figure 2.2 MRS-R02, Range III, Wetlands
Figure 2.3 MRS-R03, Range IV Wetlands
Figure 2.4a MRS-R01, Historical Information and Previous Investigation
Figure 2.4b MRS-R01, Range II Historical Work (by Type)
Figure 2.5b MRS-R02, Range III Historical Work (by Type)
Figure 2.6b MRS-R03, Range IV Historical Work (by Type)
Figure 2.7b MRS-R09, Machine Gun. Rifle Range Historical Work (by Type)
Figure 2.8 MRS-R01, Range II Historical MC Sampling
Figure 2.9 MRS-R02, Range III Historical MC Sampling
Figure 2.10 MRS-R03, Range IV Historical MC Sampling
Figure 3.1a MRS-R01 Conceptual Site Model-MEC Contamination

Figure 3.1b MRS-R02 Conceptual Site Model-MEC Contamination
Figure 3.1c MRS-R03 Conceptual Site Model-MEC Contamination
Figure 3.1d MRS-R09 Conceptual Site Model-MEC Contamination
Figure 3.2a MRS-R01 Conceptual Site Model-MC Contamination
Figure 3.2b MRS-R02 Conceptual Site Model-MC Contamination
Figure 3.2c MRS-R03 Conceptual Site Model-MC Contamination
Figure 3.2d MRS-R09 Conceptual Site Model-MC Contamination
Figure 3.3 MRS-R01 Proposed Field Activity, Work Plan
Figure 4.1 MRS-R01, Right of Entry (ROE) Status by Parcel

Figure 4.2 MRS-R02, ROE Status by Parcel
Figure 4.5 MRS-R01, Actual Transect Paths and Grid Locations

May 2018 viii Task Order No.: 0018
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Figure 4.9 MRS-R01 Sample Locations
Figure 4.13 MRS-R01, Digital Geophysical Mapping Anomaly Density
Figure 5.1 MRS-R01 Remedial Investigation MEC Delineation

Figure 5.2a MRS-R02 Remedial Investigation MEC Delineation
Figure 5.2b MRS-R02 Remedial Investigation MEC Delineation and Agreement Areas
Figure 5.3 MRS-R03 Remedial Investigation MEC Delineation
Figure 5.4a MRS-R01 Conceptual Site Model – MEC Contamination, Post RI Site Conditions
Figure 5.4b MRS-R02 Conceptual Site Model – MEC Contamination, Post RI Site Conditions
Figure 5.4c MRS-R03 Conceptual Site Model – MEC Contamination, Post RI Site Conditions
Figure 5.4d MRS-R09 Conceptual Site Model – MEC Contamination, Post RI Site Conditions
Figure 5.5a MRS-R01 Conceptual Site Model – MC Contamination, Post RI Site Conditions
Figure 5.5b MRS-R02 Conceptual Site Model – MC Contamination, Post RI Site Conditions
Figure 5.5c MRS-R03 Conceptual Site Model – MC Contamination, Post RI Site Conditions
Figure 5.5d MRS-R09 Conceptual Site Model – MC Contamination, Post RI Site Conditions

May 2018 ix Task Order No.: 0018
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Documentation of Disposition of MPPEH, MD and Wastes

Appendix B Analytical Results Tables, Risk Assessment and QA/QC Evaluations
Appendix C Institutional Analysis and Institutional Analysis Report
Appendix D Demolition Activity Summation Tables
Appendix E TPP Memorandum
Appendix F Geophysical Summary Reports and IVS Letter Report
Appendix G Field Work Variances
Appendix H SUXOS, UXOSO, UXOQCS Reports, Logs, and Memoranda
Appendix I Work Plan Variances and Corrective Actions
Appendix J Project Photographs
Appendix K MRSPP Scoring Sheets and MEC Risk Assessment
Appendix L GIS Submittal

May 2018 x Task Order No.: 0018
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ºF degrees Fahrenheit
% percent
AAB Army Air Base

AAF Army Air Field
ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
ASR archives search report
ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

BGR Bombing and Gunnery Range
bgs below ground surface
BLRA baseline risk assessment
Cd Cadmium
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulation
cm centimeter
COC contaminant of concern
COPC chemical of potential concern
COPEC chemical of potential ecological concern
CSM conceptual site model
CWA Clean Water Act
DERP Defense Environmental Restoration Program

DGM digital geophysical mapping
DMM discarded military munition
DNT dinitrotoluene
DoD Department of Defense
DQO data quality objective
Eco-SSL ecological soil screening level

EE/CA Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EM Engineer Manual
EM CX Environmental and Munitions Center of Expertise
EODT EOD Technologies, Inc.
EP Engineer Pamphlet
ER Engineer Regulation
ERM Environmental Resources Management
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESP Explosives Site Plan
EZ exclusion zone
FFAR Folding-Fin Aircraft Rocket

May 2018 xi Task Order No.: 0018
FS Feasibility Study
ft foot/feet
FUDS Formerly Used Defense Site
FUDSMIS Formerly Used Defense Site Management Information System
FWV fieldwork variance
GDB Oasis Montaj geophysical databases

GIS geographical information system
GPS global positioning system
GSV geophysical system verification
HA hazard assessment
Hg Mercury
HGL HydroGeoLogic, Inc.
HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment
HQ hazard quotient
HVAR high velocity aircraft rocket
Hz hertz
IAW in accordance with

IC institutional control
ID identification
IS incremental sampling
ISM incremental sampling method
ISO industry standard object
IVS instrument verification strip
lb pound
LC50 50 percent lethal concentration
LDC Laboratory Data Consultants, Inc.
LE Listed Endangered
LOAEL lowest observed adverse effect level
LT Listed Threatened
LUC land use control
MC munitions constituent
MD munitions debris
MDAS material documented as safe
MEC munitions and explosives of concern
MG Machine Gun
MGFD munition with greatest fragmentation distance
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
mg/L milligrams per liter
mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter
mm millimeter

May 2018 xii Task Order No.: 0018
MMRP Military Munitions Response Program

MPPEH material potentially presenting an explosive hazard
MRA munitions response area
MRS munitions response site
MRSPP Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol
MS matrix spike
MSD matrix spike duplicate
mV millivolts
NDAI No DoD Action Indicated

NMEA National Marine Electronics Association
NOAEL no observed adverse effects level
NPS National Park Service
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PA Preliminary Assessment
Pb Lead
PDA personal digital assistant
PDT project delivery team
PEL permissible exposure limit
PRG preliminary remediation goal
PWS Performance Work Statement
QA quality assurance
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QC quality control
QCP Quality Control Plan
RAGS Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund

RAO Remedial Action Objective
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RI Remedial Investigation
ROE right-of-entry
RR Rifle Range
RSL Regional Screening Level
RTK real-time kinematic
SAA Small Arms Ammunition

SCAR Sub-Caliber Aircraft Rocket
SCDAH South Carolina Department of Archives and History
SCDHEC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
SCDNR South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
SE State Endangered
SI Site Inspection

May 2018 xiii Task Order No.: 0018
SLERA Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment

ST State Threatened
SU sampling unit
SUXOS senior unexploded ordnance supervisor
TBC to-be-considered
TCRA Time Critical Removal Action
TCT-St. Louis Twin City Testing – St. Louis
TNB trinitrobenzene
TNT trinitrotoluene
TO task order
TPP technical project planning
UCL upper confidence limit

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USAE USA Environmental
USAESCH U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
UTL upper tolerance limit
UXO unexploded ordnance
UXOQCS unexploded ordnance quality control specialist
UXOSO unexploded ordnance safety officer
VSP Visual Sampling Plan
WAAS wide area augmentation system

WERS Worldwide Environmental Remediation Services
Zn Zinc

May 2018 xiv Task Order No.: 0018
FINAL
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 BACKGROUND
1.1.1 HydroGeoLogic, Inc. (HGL) conducted a Remedial Investigation (RI) for four Munitions
Response Site (MRSs) at the former Conway Bombing and Gunnery Range (BGR) located in
Horry County, South Carolina. Field activities for the RI were completed by HGL and its
subcontractors from August 25, 2015, through May 13, 2016. This RI report describes the
investigation conducted at four MRSs within the 55,854-acre Conway BGR Formerly Used
Defense Site (FUDS). The Formerly Used Defense Sites Management Information System
(FUDSMIS) is a single online database of information for tracking and support of environmental
cleanup and restoration projects on FUDS. For continuity with previous investigations, current
and previous MRS references and the FUDSMIS Project Numbers are included in Table 1.1.
The following FUDS projects characterized by this investigation and will be collectively referred
to as the “project site”:
1) MRS-R01, Range II, approximately 649 acres (FUDS Project No. I04SC002501R01);
2) MRS-R02, Range III, approximately 1,961 acres (FUDS Project No. I04SC002501R02);
3) MRS-R03, Range IV, approximately 888 acres (FUDS Project No. I04SC002501R03);
4) MRS-R09, Machine Gun (MG)/Rifle Range (RR), approximately 2,056 acres (FUDS
Project No. I04SC002501R09).
Table 1.1, Current and Previous MRS References
FUDSMIS
Current RI 2012 EODT RI EE/CA Original MRS FUDS 2014
MRS Reference Reference Reference Reference Project No. Reference
Area A and
MRS-R01 MRS-R01 Area A-1
Range II I04SC002501R01 Project 05
Project 01,
Area B and
MRS-R02 MRS-R02 Area B-1
Range III I04SC002501R02 Project 08, and
Project 09
Area C and
MRS-R03 MRS-R03 Area C-1
Range IV I04SC002501R03 Project 03
Machine
MRS-R09 MRS-R09 None
Gun/Rifle Range
I04SC002501R09 Project 07
1.1.2 The location of the project site, the MRS boundaries, and the expanded investigation areas
are shown in Figures 1.1 through 1.4. During development of the RI Work Plan, extensive
historical research on past investigation and past removal efforts was conducted and added to
the project geographical information system (GIS) database to help define the areas needing

May 2018 1-1 Task Order No.: 0018
HGL - Final RI Report, Former Conway BGR – Horry County, South Carolina
investigation to delineate the munitions and explosives of concern (MEC)-contamination

boundary. Multiple privately funded removal actions have been performed for various parcels,
paid for by private developers, in advance of construction of housing subdivisions. Where
possible, the privately funded removal actions reports were obtained by U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) and by inquiries made to other Contractors. Some landowners have
negotiated settlement agreements with the U.S. Government effectively relieving the U.S.
Government of liability at these properties. For this reason, the parcels owned by these entities
are not included in U.S. Government future response actions. For work conducted by private
entities without U.S. Government supervision, the quality of the data cannot be confirmed.
However, some of the privately funded work was reviewed by SCDHEC and information was
provided to USACE by SCDHEC. Also during development of the RI Work Plan, a preliminary
conceptual site model (CSM) for MEC and for munitions constituents (MC) was developed to
provide an understanding of the site conditions and identify potential data needs. The preliminary
CSM was developed from historical investigation reports, reports of MEC/munitions debris
(MD) discovered after site closure, and the potential for source/receptor interaction. Right-of-
entry (ROE) refusals prevented HGL’s geophysical investigation or intrusive investigation in all
planned locations. Portions of all the MRSs were not investigated because of ROE refusals.
1.1.3 As established in the approved work plan (HGL, 2015a), the objective of the RI is to
characterize the nature and extent of MEC, and to define a MEC-contamination boundary. An
additional objective is to determine if MC contamination is present and collect defensible
analytical data to determine the nature and extent of any contamination. HGL has met the
objectives of the project site RI and has safely completed the MEC and MC investigation to
characterize the project site in accordance with (IAW) the approved data quality objectives
(DQOs) as set out in the approved work plan. This characterization is sufficient to identify and
evaluate potential MEC and MC contamination and these results will be used to support the
Feasibility Study (FS) to identify appropriate remedial alternatives, if necessary.
1.1.4 The RI fieldwork included vegetation clearance and surface clearance of MEC,
geophysical surveying, and intrusive investigations conducted where ROE was granted by
landowners at MRS-R01, MRS-R02, MRS-R03, and MRS-R09. Surface soil samples also were
collected from the project site and analyzed for MC. The field investigation was conducted under
the February 2015 Final Work Plan (HGL, 2015a), and all approved fieldwork variances
(FWVs) reviewed and approved by the technical project planning (TPP) team, which includes
the U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville (USAESCH), USACE Charleston,
Wilmington and Savannah Districts, and the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control (SCDHEC).
1.2 MEC CHARACTERIZATION
1.2.1 MEC Explosive Hazards Risk Assessment
1.2.1.1 Three of the four MRSs have an unacceptable risk due to explosive hazards (MRS-R01,
MRS-R02, and MRS-R03). Based on the MEC contamination present, an unacceptable risk
exists for human receptors to be exposed to explosive hazards at these three MRSs. For the
evaluation of MEC explosive hazards, a baseline risk assessment was performed utilizing Risk

Matrices (Appendix K) developed for the proposed delineated MRSs, in accordance with the
interim guidance document Trial Period for Risk Management Methodology at Formerly Used
Defense Sites Military Munitions Response Program Projects (USACE, 2017). This
methodology determines if unacceptable risk exists for MEC and aides the development of
Remedial Action Objectives to identify remedial action alternatives to be evaluated in the FS.
The existing (i.e., baseline) conditions at the three recommended MRSs and the no further action
MRS, using the risk matrices are presented in Appendix K. This information will provide the
baseline for the assessment of response alternatives to be conducted in the FS.
1.2.2 MEC Contamination Extent
1.2.2.1 The extent of MEC contamination at the four MRSs was determined based on the RI
field investigation and evaluation of previous investigation results. As described in Subchapters
5.2.1, 5.2.3, and 5.2.4, MEC contamination was identified in MRS-R01, MRS-R02, and
MRS-R03. The RI was conducted IAW the approved Work Plan and to meet the established
DQOs (Table 1.1 shows the extent of RI field activities). MEC contamination boundaries were
determined within the MRSs and the types of munitions and depths that items may be found
were determined. Based on MEC contamination boundaries determined during the RI, the
following MRS delineation is proposed:
• MRS-01: 296 acres, the MEC-contaminated area of the former MRS-R01. The
remainder of the MRS (353 acres) are recommended for no further action.
• MRS-02: 1,525 acres, the MEC-contaminated area of the former MRS-R02. The
• MRS-03: 495 acres, the MEC-contaminated area of the former MRS-R03. The
• MRS-R09: No MEC contamination was identified; the portion of MRS-R09 that is not
part of the MEC contaminated portion of MRS-R02 should be recommended for no
further action.
1.2.2.2 The proposed new MRS-01, MRS-02 and MRS-03 are recommended for further
evaluation in the FS. The remainder of each of MRS-R01, MRS-R02 and MRS-R03 are
recommended for no further action. The area of MRS-R09 that is not part of the MEC
contaminated portion of MRS-R02 is recommended for no further action.
1.2.3 Land Use by MRS
1.2.3.1 The land uses and receptors for each MRS were evaluated and presented in Section 3.1.1
and Section 5.5 summarized that the RI data gathered did not identify any changes to the land
uses and receptors previously identified. The current and future land uses for each MRS are:
• MRS-R01, Range II: residential, commercial/industrial and recreational;

• MRS-R02, Range III: residential, commercial/industrial and recreational;
• MRS-R03, Range IV: residential, commercial/industrial (forestry), recreational
(hunting) and minor agricultural; and

• MRS-R09, MG/RR: residential, commercial/industrial (forestry), recreational (hunting)

and minor agricultural.
1.2.3.2 The receptors present at the four MRSs are identical under the current and potential
future land use scenarios and are summarized in Section 3.1.2. The potential activities
conducted by receptors include activities from the surface through up to 25-ft bgs.
Table 1.2
Summary of Field Activities Completed by MRS
Item Description Unit MRS-R01 MRS-R02 MRS-R03 MRS-R09
Brush Clearance (all Transect types) Miles 7.74 13.33 3.31 4.03
Overland Mag and Count Transects Miles 0.64 0.36 0.61 0.28
Wetland Mag and Count Transects Miles 1.89 1.33 0.51 0.24
Residential Mag and Count Transects Miles 0.25 0 0 0
Overland DGM Transects Miles 8.71 7.41 0.31 3.38
Wetland DGM Transects Miles 5.82 2.19 0.16 0.35
Golf Course DGM Transects Miles 16.2 0 0 4.82
Grids 50 36 28 10
Characterization DGM Grids
Equivalent Acres 2.48 2.07 1.61 0.57
Characterization DGM Grids Grids 47 30 28 10
Intrusively Investigated Equivalent Acres 2.31 1.72 1.61 0.57
Characterization DGM Grids in Grids 38 30 26 10
Background Areas Intrusively
Investigated
Background Mag and Dig Transects Miles 7.34 4.5 4.17 0
(4.5-ft) Acres 4.00 2.45 2.28 0.00
QC Transects Miles 0.94 0.26 0.63 0
Grids 12 4 3 8
Background DGM Grids
Background Grids Intrusively Grids 12 6 5 8
Investigated* Equivalent Acres 2.54 1.08 0.96 1.84
EE/CA DGM Grids Intrusively Grids 9 32 59 0
Investigated in Background Areas Equivalent Acres 0.52 1.84 3.39 0.00
Intrusively Investigated Anomalies
Each 688 202 227 162
(within Grids)
Incremental Samples / with co-located
Each 9 10 10 10
Discrete Surface Soil Sample
Background Sample, for metals Each 10 10 10 10
*includes analog grids
DGM = digital geophysical mapping
QC = quality control
1.3 MC CHARACTERIZATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT
1.3.1 Munitions Constituents
1.3.1.1 During the RI/FS activities, Incremental Sampling Method (ISM) surface soil samples
were collected within the all four MRSs and in background areas and analyzed for explosives
and metals. The RI results as well as historical MC sampling investigation were evaluated as
part of this RI. No MC was detected at levels constituting a risk to human health or the

environment, indicating there is no MC contamination. The results of the Baseline Risk

Assessment (BLRA) for MC are summarized below.
1.3.2 BLRA for MC
1.3.2.1 MC contamination was assessed in surface soil collected from 0 to 0.5 feet (ft) below
ground surface (bgs). As discussed in Chapters 5.2, 7.2.3, and 7.2.5. The screening of the
analytical results against background concentrations and health-based screening values identified
one chemical of potential concern (COPC): cadmium (Cd) in MRS-R02; however, after
evaluation the Cd was determined to be no threat to human health under unrestricted land use.
The initial screening identified Cd, mercury (Hg), and zinc (Zn) as chemicals of potential
ecological concern (COPECs) for MRS-R02; and lead (Pb) and Zn as COPECs for MRS-R09.
No COPECs were identified for MRS-R01 and MRS-R03. The Screening Level Ecological Risk
Assessment (SLERA) showed that no threats were identified for exposure of ecological receptors
to soil in all four MRSs. Based on the information provided in Chapter 7.2, it was concluded
that no MC is present on site at levels that present a risk to human health or the environment.
Therefore, MC sampling performed during this RI, and during previous investigations, does not
indicate a release of MC.
1.4 RI RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.4.1 The conclusions of this RI and the MEC Risk Assessment show that MEC contamination
was identified within MRS-R01, MRS-R02 and MRS-R03 and does pose explosive hazards to
current and future receptors. No MEC contamination was identified in the portion of MRS-R09
that does not overlap with MRS-R02. The BLRA for MC identified no actionable risk to human
or ecological receptors at any of the MRSs.
1.4.2 The site was recommended for future Formerly Used Defense Site Management
Information System (FUDSMIS) delineation as proposed for MRS-R01, MRS-R02 and
MRS-R03. An unacceptable risk for MEC has been identified at these MRSs and the MRSs are
recommended for inclusion in an FS to develop potential remedial alternatives capable of
reducing MEC site hazards. No further action for MC is recommended in these MRSs. The
southern portion of MRS-R09 that does not overlap with MRS-R02 is an uncontaminated area
recommended for no further action for MEC and MC. The collected data and the associated
characterization described in this report are considered sufficient to characterize the project site,
to identify and evaluate associated potential MEC hazards or MC risks, and to support the
recommended FS.

HGL –Final RI Report, Former Conway BGR – Horry County, South Carolina
Table 1.3 RI Recommendations

Potential Depth MC
Recommended MEC of Risk
MRS MRS Acreage Hazards Munitions Identified MEC Present Recommendation
• 100-pound (lb) M38A2 Practice bomb
• 20-lb M41 Fragmentation Bomb
MRS-R01, • 2.25-inch Sub-Caliber Aircraft Rocket (SCAR)
296 High 0-5 ft No FS for MEC only
Range II • MK1 50-lb Practice Bomb
• Small Arms Ammunition (SAA) – 0.50-caliber
cartridge
• 1.1-inch Mark 2 projectile
• 100-lb M38A2 Practice Bomb
• M48 20-lb Practice Bomb
• 5-inch high velocity aircraft rocket (HVAR) Mk 1
• 4-lb Incendiary AN-M54
• 6-lb Incendiary AN-M69X
• 250-lb M57 Bomb
• practice 2.5-inch rocket
MRS-R02,
1,525 High • 2.25-inch SCAR 0-6 ft No FS for MEC only
Range III
• 2.36-inch rocket
• 5-inch HVAR, Mk 1
• 5-inch Mk 24 Mod 0 Zuni Rocket
• Mk4 2.75-inch Folding-Fin Aircraft Rocket (FFAR)
• M16 Smoke Grenade
• AN-M110 A1 Bomb Fuze
• M63 37mm Projectiles
• SAA (0.50-cal casings)
• 4-lb Incendiary AN-M54
MRS-R03, • M48 20-lb Practice Bomb
495 High 0-3.5 ft No FS for MEC only
Range IV • 100-lb M38A2 Practice bomb
• Mk4 2.75-inch FFAR
MRS-R09,
Machine
Gun 886 Low • SAA only N/A No No Further Action
(MG)/Rifle
Range (RR)


FIGURES
2,600,000 2,620,000 2,640,000 2,660,000 2,680,000 2,700,000
Statewide Location Figure 1.1

SOUTH
General Location
Former Conway BGR
760,000
760,000
CAROLINA
Former
Conway BGR Legend
HGL— RIRe
Former Conway Bombing
and Gunnery Range Boundary
740,000
740,000
0 60 120
Miles Munitions Response Site
port— Form e
R03 North Expanded Investigation Area
Myrtle
Beach
r Conw a yBom b
Red R01
720,000
720,000
Hill
R02
in ga n dGu n n e
700,000
700,000
R09
r yRa n g
Atlantic Ocean Notes:
e
Myrtle
,S
Coordinates in South Carolina State Plane, NAD83, feet.
Beach
C
BGR=Bombing and Gunnery Range
RI=Remedial Investigation
680,000
680,000
\
\Gst-
sr v-01\HGLGI S\ Conw a y
\_MSI W\
RI\
(
1-01)Si te
_Lo c
a ti
on s.m xd
4
/14/20 17J AR
S
ource:HGL,USGS ,US ACE
Arc GISOn lin eWorl dI m a ge
ry
0 1.5 3 6
Miles
2,600,000 2,620,000 2,640,000 2,660,000 2,680,000 2,700,000

2,610,000 2,615,000 2,620,000
Figure 1.2
MRS-R01
Range II Location
Legend
HGL— RIRe
725,000
725,000
Munitions Response Site
(649.2 acres)
port— Form e
Expanded Investigation Area
(2,629 acres)
r Conw a yBom b
R01
in ga n dGu n n e
720,000
720,000
r yRa n g
Notes:
e
³
,S
C
MRS=munitions response site
ad
y Ro RI=Remedial Investigation
ac
e rL
rd n \
\Gst-
sr v-
01\HGLGIS\ Conw a y
\_MSI W\
RI\
Ga (
1-02)R01 .
m xd
4
/14/20 17J AR
S
ArcGISOn l
in eWorldI m a ge
ry
0 1,050 2,100 4,200
Feet
2,610,000 2,615,000 2,620,000

2,625,000 2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000 2,650,000 Figure 1.3a
MRS-R02/MRS-R09
Range III
and Machine Gun/Rifle
720,000
720,000
Range Location
With Federal Settlement
Agreement Areas
Legend
715,000
715,000
HGL—RIRe
MEC Contamination Area
Federal Settlement
p o r t—Fo r me
Agreement Area
710,000
710,000
R02 (1,961.2 acres)
r Co nw ay Bo mb
(8,189.6 acres)
Notes:
705,000
705,000
The U.S. Government has been relieved of liability
through multiple federal settlement agreements with
private landowners.
y
Pa rkwa
ingandGun
lina Bays DOD=Department of Defense
Caro
MEC=munitions and explosives of concern
700,000
700,000
R09
ner y Rang
501
£
¤
e
³
,S
C
695,000
695,000
\\Gs t-
s r v-
01 \HGLGI S\Co n
wa y\_MSIW\RI
\
a y (1- 03a ) R02.mxd
i ghw 5 /9/201 8J AR
rn er H S o urc
e :HGL,USGS ,US ACE
Ga
ArcGI SOnlineWo r ldI mage
ry
0 2,500 5,000 10,000 rk
Ma
690,000
Feet 690,000
2,625,000 2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000 2,650,000

2,625,000 2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000 2,650,000 Figure 1.3b
MRS-R02/MRS-R09
Range III
and Machine Gun/Rifle
720,000
720,000
Range Location
With SCDHEC Consent
Agreement Areas
Legend
715,000
715,000
HGL—RIRe
Federal Settlement
p o r t—Fo r me
Agreement Area
710,000
710,000
SCDHEC Consent
R02 Agreement Area
SCDHEC Consent
r Co nw ay Bo mb
and Federal Settlement
Agreement Areas
705,000
705,000
(1,961.2 acres)
ingandGun
(8,189.6 acres)
y
a rkwa
ays P
Notes:
a ro lina B Coordinates in South Carolina State Plane, NAD83, feet.

700,000
700,000
The U.S. Government has been relieved of liability for
R09 the Federal Settlement Agreement Area.
ner y Rang
DOD=Department of Defense
501
£
¤ MEC=munitions and explosives of concern
e
³
SCDHEC= South Carolina Department
,S
of Health and Environmental Control
C
695,000
695,000
\\Gs t-
s r v-
01 \HGLGI S\Co n
wa y\_MSIW\RI
\
a y (1- 03b ) R02.mxd
i ghw 5 /9/201 8J AR
rn er H S o urc
e :HGL,USGS ,US ACE
Ga
ArcGI SOnlineWo r ldI mage
ry
0 2,500 5,000 10,000 rk
Ma
690,000
Feet 690,000
2,625,000 2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000 2,650,000

2,675,000 2,680,000 2,685,000 2,690,000
Figure 1.4
740,000
740,000
MRS-R03
Range IV Location
Legend
HGL—RIRe
735,000
735,000
(886.4 acres)
p ort—Form e
(2,812 acres)
r Conw ay Bom b
R03
730,000
730,000
ingandGun
nery Rang
Notes:
e
³
,S
725,000
725,000
C
\
\Gs t-
s rv-
01\HGLGIS\
Conwa y\
_ MSIW\RI
\
(
1-04) R03 .
m xd
4
/14 /20 17J AR
S
ourc e :HGL,USGS ,USACE
ArcGISOnli
neWorldIma ge
ry
0 1,500 3,000 6,000
Feet
2,675,000 2,680,000 2,685,000 2,690,000

2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0.1 HGL conducted this RI at four MRSs within the former Conway BGR located in Horry
County, South Carolina (Figure 1.1). This work was executed for USACE under Contract
W912DY-10-D-0023, Task Order (TO) 0018. The objective of this TO is to perform an RI/FS
and achieve acceptance of Decision Documents in compliance with Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National
Contingency Plan, 40 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 300. The RI was executed IAW
the approved Work Plan (HGL, 2015a) and FWVs and provides sufficient data to facilitate
implementation of remedial action through the future FS. This MEC/MC RI is prepared IAW
CERCLA and characterizes the nature and extent of MEC and MC contamination at the MRSs.
The RI meets the project DQOs as defined during the TPP process (Appendix E) and set out in
the accepted Final Work Plan.
2.0.2 This RI Report has been prepared IAW the requirements of the Performance Work
Statement (PWS), dated April 11, 2013, and with USACE data item description Worldwide
Environmental Remediation Services (WERS)-010.01. This RI Report was prepared in
compliance with USACE Engineer Pamphlet (EP) 1110-1-18 and Environmental and Munitions
Center of Expertise (EM CX) Interim Guidance 06-04, and Army RI/FS guidance. The
ecological and human health risk assessment (HHRA) is performed IAW the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) and USACE
Engineer Manual (EM) 200-1-4, Volumes I and II, as appropriate. This RI Report is a standalone
document; it includes characterization of the previously defined MRSs and recommendations for
revised MRS boundaries that will be further addressed in a future FS.
2.0.3 The RI report is organized as follows:

• Chapter 1.0 Executive Summary – Provides a brief summary of objectives of the RI;
RI activities; RI data and interpretation; risk assessment information; and
recommendations.
• Chapter 2.0 Introduction – Describes the layout of the report, the purpose of the RI,
the physical site setting, and the historical information about the site and each MRS, and
also summarizes previous investigations.
• Chapter 3.0 Project Remedial Response Objectives – Discusses the results of the TPP
process, which addresses both MEC and MC. It includes the overall project remedial
response objectives developed for the planned or reasonably anticipated future use of the
site property.
• Chapter 4.0 Characterization of MEC and MC – Summarizes the RI field activities.
The processes used for identifying and characterizing MEC and MC contamination are
detailed and departures from the work plan are discussed.
• Chapter 5.0 Revised CSM and RI Results – Presents information on the nature and
extent of MEC at the project site, MC contamination of environmental media, and
physical characteristics of the project site determined from the field activities conducted
as part of the RI.

• Chapter 6.0 Contaminant Fate and Transport – Provides a discussion of fate and
transport of contaminants detected at the project site.
• Chapter 7.0 Baseline Risk Assessment for MC and Explosive Hazards Risk
Assessment for MEC – Details site-specific evaluations conducted for hazards posed by
MEC and risks posed by MC to human and ecological receptors. MEC Risk Assessment
results are discussed and MC results are compared to screening levels to determine
whether contamination is present at levels that pose unacceptable risk.
• Chapter 8.0 Summary of Results – Summarizes the results of the RI including the
following: nature and extent of MEC and MC at the project site; whether the findings
are consistent with known sources; the magnitude, direction, and rate of contaminant
migration; presents a summary of site risks; and presents conclusions.
• Chapter 9.0 References – Lists the documents and other materials used in the
preparation of this RI.
• Appendices:
○ Appendix A – Documentation of Disposition of Material Potentially Presenting an
Explosive Hazard (MPPEH), MD and Wastes
○ Appendix B – Analytical Results Tables, Risk Assessment and Quality Assurance
(QA)/Quality Control (QC) Evaluations
○ Appendix C – Institutional Analysis and Institutional Analysis Report
○ Appendix D – Demolition Activity Summation Tables
○ Appendix E – TPP Memorandum
○ Appendix F – Geophysical Summary Reports and Instrument Verification Strip (IVS)
Letter Report
○ Appendix G – Field Work Variances
○ Appendix H – Senior Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Supervisor (SUXOS), UXO
Safety Officer (UXOSO), UXO QC Specialist (UXOQCS) Reports, Logs, and
Memoranda
○ Appendix I – Corrective Action Requests
○ Appendix J – Project Photographs
○ Appendix K – Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol (MRSPP) Scoring
Sheets and MEC Risk Assessment
○ Appendix L – Geographic Information System (GIS) Submittal
2.1 PURPOSE
2.1.1 The purpose of this RI is to determine the nature and extent of MEC and evaluate the
presence of MC contamination within four MRSs at the former Conway BGR. The RI identifies
data gaps, updates the CSM, evaluates MEC hazards and human health and ecological risks,

and includes updated MRSPP scoring sheets. Results from the RI will be used to develop and
evaluate remedial alternatives and to provide recommendations as part of a future FS.
2.2 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
2.2.1 Project Location and Land Use
2.2.1.1 Project Location
2.2.1.1.1 The former Conway BGR encompasses approximately 55,854 acres in Horry County,
South Carolina, immediately southeast of Conway, South Carolina. The southern boundary of
the site is situated to the north of the U.S. Hwy 501 and U.S. Hwy 17 intersection and the
Atlantic Ocean is located to the east. A general site location map is provided in Figure 1.1. The
former Conway BGR consists of nine MRSs; however, only four are addressed by this TO.
MRS-R01, Range II (MRS-R01), MRS-R02, Range III (MRS-R02), MRS-R03, Range IV
(MRS-R03), and MRS-R09, MG/RR (MRS-R09) are included in this RI report.
2.2.1.1.2 During preparation of this RI Report, the individual MRS boundaries used in the RI
report were compared to the current data recorded in FUDSMIS, the USACE repository which
documents FUDS property acreages. It was determined the property boundaries were revised in
an update to FUDSMIS in 2014 (see Table 1.1). The MRS boundaries used in this RI Report
were kept consistent with those used throughout the planning phase to avoid confusion. The
MRS acreage recommended to continue to the Feasibility Study phase were compared to the
current FUDSMIS boundaries, for consistency with FUDSMIS in future phases.
2.2.1.1.3 Based on historical information, previous investigations conducted at each MRS, and
project delivery team (PDT) input, the investigation areas of the four MRSs were expanded for
the current RI/FS. Various previous investigations identified MEC near the boundaries of the
MRSs. The modified investigation areas include potential source areas located outside of the
original MRS boundaries and exclude areas previously characterized. Table 2.1 presents the
historical MRS acreages as well as the expanded areas investigated during the RI/FS.
Table 2.1
Investigation Areas
RI/FS Expanded Investigation
(1)
MRS MRS Acreage Acreage (2)
MRS-R01, Range II 649 2,629
MRS-R02, Range III 1,961 5,823
MRS-R03, Range IV 888 2,812
MRS-R09, MG/RR 2,056 2,366(3)
(1)
– MRS Acreage provided to HGL in the Memorandum for Commander, South Atlantic Division, on May 26, 2017.
(2)
The RI/FS Expanded Investigation Acreage includes the Historical MRS Acreage.
(3)
For the munitions response operations to establish the Explosive Siting Plan safety zones, MRS-R02 and MRS-R09 were grouped by one
boundary since the areas are contiguous and share the same munitions with the greatest fragmentation distance (MGFD).

2.2.1.1.1 MRS-R01, Range II

2.2.1.1.1.1 MRS-R01 is located in the northwest section of the former Conway BGR. The MRS
is composed of approximately 649 acres. Figure 1.2 illustrates the location of MRS-R01 and
Figure 2.1 shows the wetlands in the area.
2.2.1.1.2 MRS-R02, Range III
2.2.1.1.2.1 MRS-R02 is located in the southern section of the former Conway BGR. The MRS
is composed of approximately 1,961 acres. MRS-R02 overlaps the northern portion of MRS-
R09. For the purposes of this RI investigation, the overlapping portion of MRS-R02 and MRS-
R09 was investigated and documented as a part of MRS-R02. Four private landowners whose
parcels lie within the MRS-R02 boundary have negotiated settlement agreements with the U.S.
Government effectively relieving the U.S. Government of liability at these properties. For this
reason, the parcels owned by these entities are not included in U.S. Government future response
actions. For work conducted by private entities without U.S. Government supervision, the
quality of the data cannot be confirmed. However, some of the privately funded work was
reviewed by SCDHEC and information was provided to USACE by SCDHEC. The Federal
Settlement Agreement Areas will not be included in any future DoD funded response actions
due to transfer of U.S. Government liability. Figure 1.3a illustrates the location, MRS boundary,
Federal Settlement Agreement Areas and investigation area of MRS-R02 and MRS-R09 and
Figure 2.2 shows the wetlands in the area. Figure 1.3b illustrates the location, MRS boundary,
Federal Settlement Agreement Areas and SCDHEC Consent Agreement Areas.
2.2.1.1.2.2 A portion of this MRS was recommended for No DoD Action Indicated (NDAI)
during the 2014 FUDSMIS realignment. FUDSMIS is the USACE database repository which
tracks all FUDS properties. Parcels on the east side of MRS-R02 were recommended for NDAI
because they were part of privately funded removal actions, reviewed by SCDHEC as part of a
consent agreement (Figure 1.3b). As currently documented in FUDSMIS, the privately cleared
lands portion of MRS-R02 is now designated as Project 09 and was recommended for NDAI on
August 1, 2014. The parcels were cleared of munitions related hazards by a private landowner
funded operation. SCDHEC has concurred with the NDAI recommendation. These acres are
not recommended to move forward to the FS phase. For consistency with the work plan and RI
field documentation, the “Current RI MRS” reference shown in Table 1.1 is used throughout
this RI Report.
2.2.1.1.3 MRS-R03, Range IV
2.2.1.1.3.1 MRS-R03 is located in the eastern section of the former Conway BGR. The MRS
is composed of approximately 888 acres. Figure 1.4 illustrates the location of MRS-R03 and
Figure 2.3 shows the wetlands in the area.
2.2.1.1.4 MRS-R09, Machine Gun/Rifle Range
2.2.1.1.4.1 MRS-R09 is located in the southern section of the former Conway BGR. The MRS
is composed of approximately 2,056 acres. The northern portion of MRS-R09 overlaps with the
southern boundary of MRS-R02. The overlapping area was investigated and documented as a

part of MRS-R02. Figures 1.3a and 1.3b illustrate the location of MRS-R02 and MRS-R09 and
Figure 2.2 shows the wetlands.
2.2.1.2 Projected Land Use
2.2.1.2.1 The former Conway BGR is currently owned by private as well as public groups. The
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) is the largest land owner for the
entire munitions response area (MRA). For the four MRSs which are included in this RI, there
are diverse landowners, with parcels used for recreational (golf courses), residential, and
commercial purposes. The undeveloped portions are used primarily for hunting and timber
harvesting. The future land use is projected to remain similar to the current usage, and extensive
residential development is planned and ongoing. Additional land use information is covered in
Section 3.1.1 and additional landowner information is included in the description of the ROE
obtained, in Section 3.4.2.
2.2.2 Demographics
2.2.2.1 The former Conway BGR is located in Horry County in the northeastern portion of
South Carolina, immediately north of the intersection of U.S. Hwy 501 and U.S. Hwy 17. It is
surrounded by Conway, South Carolina to the northwest and the Atlantic Ocean to the east. The
2010 U.S. Census Bureau estimated population for Horry County is 309,199 with a population
density of approximately 237.5 people per square mile (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016).
2.2.3 Surface Features
2.2.3.1 Horry County is within the Lower Atlantic Coastal Plain province and the Pee Dee River
Basin. This physiographic area is characterized by minor topographic relief and several wetlands
associated with the surrounding Carolina Bays. Elevation varies from just above sea level to
approximately 40 ft above mean sea level.
2.2.4 Climate
2.2.4.1 The former Conway BGR, located in the Atlantic Coastal Region, has a humid
subtropical climate. Climate statistics are as follows (U.S. Climate Data, 2016).
• Average annual temperature: 64.3 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF)
• Average winter temperature: 53ºF
• Average summer temperature: 75ºF
• Total annual precipitation: approximately 52 inches (approximately 60 percent of the rain
falling between April and September)
• Wettest month of the year: August (followed by July and September)
• Snowfall: no measurable amount
• Average relative humidity in mid-afternoon: approximately 60 percent
• Sunshine: about 65 percent in summer and 60 percent in winter

2.2.4.2 Based on these climate statistics, there is minimal to no potential for MEC movement
from frost heave at the MRSs.
2.2.5 Geology and Soil
2.2.5.1 The project area lies on top of Upper Cretaceous, Tertiary, and Pleistocene deposits.
The Middendorf Formation, the Black Creek Formation, and the Pee Dee Formation lie on top
of basement rock within the Upper Cretaceous deposit and vary from medium course grain sand
to dark gray fine clay sands. The Tertiary Formation consists of fine clayey sand, fine calcareous
sand, and coquina. Interbedded fossiliferous sands and clays make up the remainder of the
formation (EOD Technologies, Inc. [EODT], 2012).
2.2.5.2 Soils present at the project site are classified into four soil associations: The Lynn-
Haven-Leon association, the Yuahanna-Ogeechee-Bladen association, the Pocomoke-Echaw-
Centenary association and the Brookman-Bladen Association. All associations are characterized
by very poorly drained to moderately well drained soils (EODT, 2012).
2.2.6 Hydrology and Groundwater Conditions
2.2.6.1 Horry County obtains well water from the Black Creek aquifer; however, it tends to
have a high mineral content and a significant concentration of certain ions. This aquifer lies
below the Pee Dee Formation requiring well to be drilled between 250 and 600 ft bgs. The Pee
Dee River Basin slopes to the southeast allowing for surface water runoff to drain into several
rivers including the Pee Dee, Little Pee Dee, Waccamaw, and the Intercoastal Waterway
(EODT, 2012).
2.2.7 Ecology
2.2.7.1 Endangered Species
2.2.7.1.1 The species listed below occur within Horry County and have a status of Threatened
(LT) or Endangered (LE) with protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or are state
protected as Threatened (ST) or Endangered (SE). The bald eagle is federally protected under
the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA).
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) – BGEPA
Wood stork (Mycteria Americana) – LE, SE
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) – LE, SE
Least Tern (Sterna antillarum) – ST
Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) – SE
2.2.7.1.2 Additionally, three species of plants are found in the county with the status of LE
under the ESA.
American Chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) – LE
Canby’s dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi) – LE
Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) – LE

2.2.7.2 Vegetation
2.2.7.2.1 The vegetation at Conway BGR varies based on land use. Nearly half of the county is
considered forestland, 30 percent of which is classified as forested wetlands. Vegetation in these
areas includes thick underbrush, a variety of pine species, bald cypress, and water tupelo trees
(Horry County, 2015).
2.2.7.3 Sensitive Environmental Resources at the Project Site
2.2.7.3.1 The MRSs investigated under this RI are not located within a national wildlife refuge,
national forest, state park, or protected area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2014a;
USFWS, 2014b; National Park Service [NPS], 2014a; U.S. Forest Service, 2014). However,
the 9,393-acre Lewis Ocean Bay Heritage Preserve Wildlife Management Area is located in the
central portion of the former Conway BGR just northeast of MRS-R02.
2.3 HISTORICAL INFORMATION
2.3.0.1 Prior to 1940, the Conway BGR area was primarily privately owned and used for timber
harvesting and farming. Research has provided no evidence that munitions or explosives were
used on the site prior to War Department acquisition (EODT, 2012). From June 1940 to
December 1941, the Army Air Corps conducted aerial photographing and charting of the local
area. In 1941, the 112th Observation squadron established support operations for BGR in the
Myrtle Beach Area and later provided coastal defense of the area. Live fire training was
conducted, including aerial bombing and direct-fire training using rockets, small arms, and small
artillery (37 millimeter [mm]) (EODT, 2012).
2.3.0.2 From 1942 through 1947, several Army Air Fields (AAFs) and Army Air Bases (AAB)
utilized the former Conway BGR for various types of airplanes and practice ordnances. In March
1942, the 112th Observation Squadron was replaced by a detachment from Savannah AAB. The
Myrtle Beach municipal airport became the Myrtle Beach General BGR in March 1942. The
range, which was renamed Myrtle Beach AAF on November 8, 1943, was composed of
approximately 100,000 acres of land. The AAF consisted of a cantonment area in Myrtle Beach,
an air to ground gunnery ranges in the Myrtle Beach area, a BGR in the Conway Area (Conway
BGR), a BGR in the Georgetown area, and a crash target boats at Murrells Inlets (EODT, 2012).
2.3.0.3 During World War II, Myrtle Beach AAF conducted flight, air to ground gunnery, and
bombing training for Army Air Corps and Army Air Forces pilots. The principal plane used at
Myrtle Beach AAF was the Douglas A-26 Invader; however, other types include the North
American B-25 Mitchell, North American P-51 Mustang, Northrop P-61 Black Widow, and
Republic P-47 Thunderbolt. Other airfields/bases utilized the Myrtle Beach AAF, including
Columbia AAB, Greenville AAB, Florence AAF, Morris Field, and Charleston AAB (USACE,
1995). The Myrtle Beach AAF closed in November 1947.
2.3.0.4 On February 4, 1948, Conway BGR was declared surplus to U.S. Government needs.
On June 22, 1948, 19,246 acres of land owned by the U.S. Government in fee was transferred
to the War Assets Administration and eventually sold. By October 1948, leases on 34,685 acres
had been terminated and the land returned to the International Paper Company (EODT, 2012).

The Conway BGR areas have been developed into recreational, commercial, and/or residential
areas with plans for additional development.
2.3.0.5 The following subchapters provide historical information by MRS.
2.3.1 MRS-R01, Range II History
2.3.1.1 The historical usage of MRS-R01 was practice bombing, including high- and medium-
altitude bombing, skip bombing, parafrag bombing, and rocket firing (EODT, 2012). Figure
2.4a and Figure 2.4b illustrate in further detail the historical investigations currently available
to USACE for evaluation and historical use areas determined from historical aerial photograph
research conducted in previous investigations (Parsons, 2003) and during this project.
2.3.2 MRS-R02, Range III History
2.3.2.1 The historical usage of MRS-R02 was high- and medium- altitude bombing, skip
bombing, and rocket firing including demolitions bombing, dive bombing, strafing, rocket
firing, and incendiary bombing (EODT, 2012). Historical evidence at this MRS indicated that
100-pound (lb) practice bombs and 2.25-inch rockets were used (USACE, 1995). Figure 2.5a
and Figure 2.5b further illustrate details on the historical investigations currently available to
USACE for evaluation and historical use areas determined from historical aerial photograph
2.3.2.2 Historical MEC finds in MRS-R02 have included 37-mm projectiles and 2.36-inch
rockets. These items have been recovered in a portion of MRS-R02 adjacent to MRS-R09. In
the past, EODT concluded those types of munitions would probably not have been used on MRS-
R02, which is a bombing range (EODT, 2012). In the past, EODT concluded that those
munitions were present due to being overshoots from MRS-R09, which used ground fired
munitions (EODT, 2012). Based on information gathered during the RI and an evaluation of the
types of munitions found across MRS-R02, MRS-R09 was not used for those types of munitions.
The 37-mm projectiles and 2.36-inch rockets are included as used historically on MRS-R02.
Based on results obtained during the RI, those munitions are not included as being historically
used on MRS-R09, though past reports state they were.
2.3.3 MRS-R03, Range IV History
2.3.3.1 The historical usage of MRS-R03 was for practice bombing, including medium-altitude
bombing (EODT, 2012). This site was identified in a 2003 Engineering Evaluation/Cost
Analysis (EE/CA) (Parsons, 2003) and further investigated during the 2012 RI. Figure 2.6a and
Figure 2.6b further illustrate details on the historical investigations currently available to
2.3.4 MRS-R09, Machine Gun/Rifle Range History
2.3.4.1 Historical documentation indicated that activities at MRS-R09 were limited to firing
bomber turrets and MGs in a ground-mounted mode. The historical use of the range was reported

as exclusively for small arms training activities, such as basic rifle marksmanship training.
Privately funded cleanups in the overlapping portions of MRS-R02 and MRS-R09 have
recovered items ranging from 37-mm projectiles to 2.36-inch rockets. However, those munitions
were determined to be used historically on MRS-R02 only. Due to lack of ROEs for this MRS,
it was not characterized for MEC and MC during the 2012 RI (EODT, 2012). Figure 2.7a and
Figure 2.7b further illustrate details on the historical investigations currently available to
2.4 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
2.4.0.1 This section describes the previous investigations that have been conducted at the former
Conway BGR, MRS-R01, MRS-R02, MRS-R03, and MRS-R09. It should be noted that other
privately funded removals may have been conducted without notification to USACE and
therefore are not included in this RI report.
2.4.1 Former Conway BGR
2.4.1.1 The following investigations of the former Conway BGR, which occurred between 1991-
1995, were the preliminary investigations leading to the establishment of the MRSs at the
installation:
• 1991: A Preliminary Assessment (PA) of ordnance contamination at the former Conway
BGR was prepared by USACE and Twin City Testing – St. Louis (TCT-St. Louis). The
assessment, titled “Final Archives Report” consisted of three volumes; “Final Report,”
“Conclusion and Recommendations,” and “Records Compilation.” The PA concluded
that MEC contamination potentially existed at the former Conway BGR, specifically at
Ranges II, III, and IV. A high priority confirmation study at these ranges using visual
and geophysical surveys was recommended (EODT, 2012).
• 1991: The U.S. Department of Transportation and South Carolina Department of
Highways and Public Transportation prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for proposed bypass, which crossed through the former Conway BGR. The EIS
acknowledged the site was once used as a bombing range that is possible for MEC to
exist in the area (EODT, 2012).
• 1994: A PA was performed by the USACE - Charleston District under the Defense
Environmental Restoration Program (DERP)/FUDS program. At that time, the
“Findings and Determination of Eligibility,” dated 4 January 1994, concluded that the
55,854-acre site located in Horry County, South Carolina had been formerly used by the
Army Air Corps. A MEC site inspection (SI) was recommended (EODT, 2012).
• 1995: An SI and archives search of the former Conway BGR was conducted by USACE,
Rock Island District. The final report outlined the nature and degree of MEC recovered
from the former ranges, as well as estimated depth at which ordnance may be present
(by area), and probable end usage of the land. The Archives Search Report (ASR)
concluded that the presence of ordnance is “confirmed” in Area A and Area C based on
verifiable historical evidence and direct witness of ordnance items. The presence of

ordnance was “potential” in Areas B, D, E, A-1, B-1, C-1, D-1, and E-1 based on
inference from records and indirect witness accounts. Areas F and G were not considered
to have any MEC based on a lack of “confirmed” or “potential” ordnance evidence. No
historical recorded evidence was located to suggest the presence of Chemical Warfare
Materiel or radiological waste at the site (EODT, 2012).
• Various investigations included soil sampling as part of the field effort for MRS-R01,
MRS-R02, and MRS-R03. These data were also incorporated into the planning phase for
the RI field activities and analytical results are incorporated into the MC characterization
for these MRS. The historical sampling locations which are included in this RI evaluation
are shown on Figure 2.8 (for MRS-R01), Figure 2.9 (for MRS-R02), and Figure 2.10
(for MRS-R03).
2.4.2 MRS-R01, Range II
2.4.2.1 The list below provides a summary of previous investigations (Figure 2.4a and Figure
2.4b) at MRS-R01:
• 1991: A PA was prepared by TCT-St. Louis. The PA concluded that MEC contamination
potentially existed at MRS-R01.
• 1991: When TCT-St-Louis conducted the SI, a practice rocket and 0.50-cal bullets were
found within Range II (MRS-R01). Between 1991 and the 2003 EE/CA, golf course
management reported encountered with MD (Parsons, 2003).
• 1995: USACE Rock Island District conducted a SI and ASR. The ASR established MRS-
R01 and recommended further investigation. The ASR confirmed that MPPEH was
present at MRS-R01, Range II (USACE, 1995).
• 2003: The EE/CA investigated MRS-R01, and identified the potential presence of MEC
in Area A, which was a 425-acre circular area established at the center of MRS-R01,
Range II. No risk due to MEC presence was identified in Area A-1 (a buffer created
around the centrally located Area A). The EE/CA recommended clearance to depth only
for planned construction sites within Area A (the 425-acre circular area). The EE/CA
also recommended surface clearance elsewhere (in the buffer area) and institutional
controls (ICs) throughout the MRS (Parsons, 2003). During the EE/CA, MD identified
included a 100-lb practice bomb and small arms ammunition (SAA) debris.
• 2005/2006: Final Sampling Report (Removal Action), Areas A and A-1. EODT
performed a geophysical sampling subsurface investigation for Sun Star, LLC. The
investigation covered 439 acres at the Wild Wing Plantation (including the Avocet, Wood
Stork, and Hummingbird golf courses, as well as the clubhouse). No MEC items were
identified, but MD items found included the following: 100-lb practice bomb pieces
(Wood Stork #2); 100-lb practice bomb (tail fin only) (Avocet #4); bomb rack, 20-lb
(Wood Stork #5); expended .50-cal cartridge (Wood Stork #15); bomb lugs (Wood Stork
Hole # 16); expended .50-cal cartridge (Avocet # 3). The Final Sampling Report
recommended 70 acres for subsurface clearance. Geophysical surveys were performed
on 50 of the 439 acres investigated and a preliminary report was issued in 2005
summarizing the results. Additional surface clearance and construction support followed,

which was summarized in the Interim Final Report issued in 2006 covering the UXO
Clearance in Area A. EODT performed a removal on 70 acres of the Wild Wing
Company LLC property located in Area A.
• 2012: The RI report prepared by EODT concluded that the potential for MEC hazard
was “Unlikely” and that no MC contamination was present; however, the RI report states
that MEC had not been delineated and recommended further investigation. The refusal
of ROEs impacted the RI field activities that could be conducted (EODT, 2012).
2.4.2.2 Figure 2.4a and Figure 2.4b illustrate that areas within the MRS-R01 that have been
characterized previously and the locations of recovered MD.
2.4.3 MRS-R02, Range III
2.4.3.1 The list below is a summary of previous investigations (Figure 2.5a and Figure 2.5b) at
MRS-R02:
potentially existed at MRS-R02, Range III.
• 1995: USACE Rock Island District conducted an SI and ASR. The ASR established nine
MRSs and recommended further investigation. USACE conducted a site visit in 1997
and confirmed the presence of MEC at Range III, and located .50-cal shell casings,
bullets, fragments of 4-lb incendiary bombs, and a practice 2.5-inch rocket.
• 1997: During site visit at the former Conway BGR in Range III (Area B) several 0.50-cal
shell casings, bullets, and fragments of 4-lb incendiary bombs were noted at the ground
surface. A practice 2.5-inch rocket was also discovered along the edge of the access dirt
road. Aerial photographs depicting site conditions in the early 1950s were reviewed as
part of an archival records search to identify specific areas or locations where evidence
of MEC can be more adequately assessed during the EE/CA investigation. The
photographs were included in Appendix E of the “Final EE/CA Report” (Parsons, 2003).
• 2002: A Time Critical Removal Action (TCRA) was performed in 2002 on 45 acres of
MRS-R02. Construction support was provided during the property owner’s construction
activities on all 45 acres (EODT, 2012). MEC items identified included the following:
MK II 1.1-inch projectile; M38A2 100-lb sand-filled practice bombs; M48 practice 20-lb
fragmentation bomb; practice 5-inch HVAR warhead; M54 4-lb incendiary bomb; M69
6-lb incendiary bomb; fuzes, including M16 fuze burster, M16 igniter, and AN-M16
white phosphorus igniter; and M57 250-lb general purpose old style bomb. During the
TCRA, the large number of 4-lb incendiary bombs encountered brought about concerns
of potential presence of Cd in the site soils. Over the seven-month period, 16 soil samples
were collected and analyzed only for Cd. Cd was not detected in the soil samples, but
was detected in the metal alloy of the incendiary bombs at 51.1 milligrams per kilogram
(mg/kg). The Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure result of 0.0553 milligrams
per liter (mg/L) for Cd was well below the USEPA regulatory level of 1.0 mg/L. The
results of air samples analyzed for Cd during the investigation were below the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Permissible Exposure Limit
(PEL) of 0.005 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3). Therefore, Cd was not a concern

during the remainder of the removal action. The detailed laboratory analysis results were
provided in Appendix E of the “Final Removal Report TCRA” (Parsons, 2002).
• 2005: Environmental Resources Management (ERM) conducted a removal action for
International Paper Realty Company (former property owner) in multiple phases between
2004 and 2005. The removal action covered 231 acres along the central border to the
north and east of Range III as shown in Figure 2.5b. A 100 percent geophysical survey
was performed. ERM’s removal summary listed MEC items, including M54, 4-lb
incendiary bombs, 2.25” SCAR, 5” HVAR, M38A1 100-lb sand-filled practice bombs,
and cluster support, with a total count of 254 items. The removal action report states that
the property was “cleared of UXO and ordnance related items identified as potential
anomalies . . . to a depth of six feet below ground surface.” However, the exact MEC
identification and count by types are unknown. During the work planning phase, HGL
evaluated the text from the Phase II and Phase III Removal Action reports; however, the
count and locations of these items was unknown during the work plan phase. After RI
field work was completed, the figures that accompany the 2005 Phase II and Phase III
reports were obtained. This data has been incorporated into the GIS for historical MRS-
R02 investigations.
• 2005: ERM conducted geophysical surveys and removal actions for International Paper
Realty Company (former property owner) at two parcels located in the central portion of
the MRS; however, the exact locations where removals were conducted are unknown.
Geophysical surveys were conducted over 100% of the project area with the exception
of jurisdictional wetlands. Of the anomalies recovered, no BIP procedures were required.
All UXO items, including M54 four-pound incendiary bombs, were destroyed in two
separate consolidated detonations just south of each removal areas. The exact number
and type of items recovered and destroyed is unknown. Soil samples were collected from
the bottom of the demolition pits and analyzed for explosives and barium. Specific results
of the soil samples collected are unknown. The Phase II geophysical survey report and
Phase III removal report for each area indicated that “All detected UXO and OE have
been removed to a maximum depth of six feet below the original ground surface…”
• 2005: Clearance was performed by Kestrel (with others) covering 456 acres (Parcels A
and B). MEC contamination was confirmed. Soil sampling was conducted for explosives.
No MC contamination was identified.
• 2006: An MC investigation of soil and surface water was conducted at the Goodson site,
located within Range III. A total of 16 samples (including one duplicate sample and one
background sample) were analyzed for explosives and metals associated with munitions
use. Of these constituents, only Pb, Zn, Cd, and Hg were identified as potential
constituents from munitions used at the former Conway BGR. No explosives were
detected. The metals detected (Pb, Zn, Cd, and Hg) were related to MC potentially
present. However, based on a limited background investigation and the potential for these
constituents to be present as a result of natural or anthropogenic sources, additional
sampling was recommended to confirm the presence or absence of MCs at Range III
(Parsons, 2006).

• 2006: A Phase I ordnance removal was conducted for D.R. Horton on 114 acres
immediately east of and outside the Area B-1 safety zone, which was established during
the EE/CA. MD found included a 100-lb practice bomb; a 5-inch ZUNI rocket warhead;
and 2.75-inch rocket.
• 2006: A privately funded removal action was conducted by EODT in support of
construction in the east-central portion of MRS-R02. During the action, several 2.25”
practice rockets and 100-lb bombs were removed and destroyed. A half-acre portion of
the parcel was unable to be investigated due to wetlands; however, the remaining 4.5
acres were described as “clear of UXO contamination”.
• 2007: Removal was conducted for Landbank, LLC, on 336 acres (Tracts 15, 16A, and
16B) within the buffer safety zone. Digital geophysical mapping (DGM) was conducted.
• 2010: An investigation was performed for Horry County Schools on approximately 40
acres prior to development. 371 targets identified using geophysical techniques were
investigated, and there were only cultural debris items found; no MEC or MPPEH related
items were discovered.
• 2012: An RI confirmed the presence of MEC and concluded that no MC contamination
was present. The report also states that MEC had not been delineated and that further
investigation should be performed.
• 2016: A privately funded investigation and removal action was conducted over
approximately 13 acres in the east-central portion of the MRS-R02 for New Harmony.
The final report indicated that no further action for MEC or MC is necessary and
regulatory concurrence and closure was document in an April 26, 2016 memorandum.
2.4.3.2 Figure 2.5a and Figure 2.5b illustrate the areas within the MRS-R02 that have been
characterized previously and the location of recovered MEC/MD.
2.4.4 MRS-R03, Range IV
2.4.4.1 The list below is a summary of previous investigations (Figure 2.6a and Figure 2.6b) at
MRS-R03:
potentially existed at MRS-R03.
• 1995 USACE Rock Island District conducted an SI and ASR. The ASR established
MRS-R03 and recommended further investigation.
• 2003: The EE/CA identified the potential presence of MEC in both Area C and Area
C-1, as they were designated at that time, in Range IV. The EE/CA recommended
clearance to depth only at planned construction sites, and surface clearance elsewhere
for both areas. MD identified included the following: 4-lb incendiary bombs; 20-lb
fragmentation bombs; and 100-lb practice bombs (Parsons, 2003).
• 2004-2005: USA Environmental (USAE) conducted a geophysical survey and removals
for Centex Homes in the Barefoot Resort area. The report, “Final Report Conway BGR,

South Carolina Phase IV Investigations, Centex Homes” (USAE, 2006), indicated no

MEC items were encountered.
• 2006: Arcadis performed soil and groundwater sampling for Centex Homes prior to the
development of the Barefoot Golf Course. No explosives detected. Volatile organic
compounds and some metals were detected (Arcadis, 2006).
• 2012: RI report concluded that the potential for a MEC hazard was “Unlikely” and that
no MC contamination was present. Although a MEC hazard was not anticipated for this
MRS, further investigation was recommended (EODT, 2012).
characterized previously and the locations of recovered MEC/MD.
2.4.5 MRS-R09, Machine Gun/Rifle Range
2.4.5.1 The list below is a summary of previous investigation (Figure 2.7a and Figure 2.7b) at
the southern portions of MRS-R09 that does not overlap with MRS-R02:
• 2003: EE/CA recommended a No U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Action Indicated
(NDAI) determination for this MRS (Parsons, 2003).
• 2012: RI concluded there was a potential presence of MEC that was unable to be
investigated because of ROE refusal. The RI did not assess MC contamination and
recommended further investigation (EODT, 2012).
characterized previously.

FIGURES
2,610,000 2,615,000 2,620,000
Figure 2.1
MRS-R01
Range II Wetlands
Legend
HGL—RIRe
725,000
725,000
(649.2 acres)
p ort—Form e
(2,629 acres)
NWI Wetlands (May 2015)
r Conw ay Bom b
R01
ingandGun
720,000
720,000
nery Rang
Notes:
e
³
,S
C
NWI=National Wetlands Inventory
d RI=Remedial Investigation
oa
yR
ac \
\Gs t-
s rv-
01 \HGLGI S\Conway\
_ MSIW\RI
\
e rL
rd n (
2-01) R01 _ Wetlan
ds.mxd
Ga 4
/14 /20 17J AR
S
ourc e :HGL,USGS ,US ACE,NWI
Arc GISOnlineWorldIma ge
ry
0 1,050 2,100 4,200
Feet
2,610,000 2,615,000 2,620,000

2,625,000 2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000 2,650,000 2,655,000
Figure 2.2
MRS-R02
720,000
720,000
Range III Wetlands
Legend
715,000
715,000
HGL—RIRe

(1,961.2 acres)
p o r t—Fo r me
710,000
710,000
(8,188.6 acres)
R02
r Co nwayBo mb
ay
arkw
705,000
705,000
ys P
lin a Ba
Caro
ingandGun
700,000
700,000
ner yRang
501
£
¤ Notes:
e
³
,S
C
695,000
695,000
\\Gs t-s r v-
01\HGLGI S\Co nwa y
\_MSIW\RI
\
ay
(2- 02) R02 R09_We
tlan ds.mxd
hw
4 /14 /
20 17J AR
er Hi g S o urce :HGL,USGS ,US ACE,NWI
ar n
ArcGISOnlineWo r ldImage
ry
0 2,500 5,000 10,000
rk G
Ma
690,000
Feet 690,000
2,625,000 2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000 2,650,000 2,655,000

2,675,000 2,680,000 2,685,000 2,690,000
Figure 2.3
740,000
740,000
MRS-R03
Range IV Wetlands
Legend
HGL—RIRe
735,000
735,000
(886.4 acres)
p o r t—Fo r me
(2,812 acres)
r Co nw ayBo mb
R03
730,000
730,000
ingandGun
ner yRang
Notes:
e
³
,S
725,000
725,000
C
\\Gs t-s r v-
01\HGLGI S\Co n
wa y
\_MSIW\RI
\
(2- 03) R03 _Wetlan
ds.mxd
4 /14 /
20 17J AR
S o urce :HGL,USGS ,US ACE,NWI
ArcGISOnlineWo r ldImage
ry
0 1,500 3,000 6,000
Feet
2,675,000 2,680,000 2,685,000 2,690,000

2,615,000 2,620,000 2,625,000
Figure 2.4a
730,000
730,000
MRS-R01
Historical Information
and Previous Investigation
Legend
100lb Bomb (16 Items)
HGL—RIRe
/
"
/
" 2.25" Rocket (1 Item)
/
" 20lb Bomb (1 Item)
Small Arms (3 Items)
725,000
725,000
p o r t—Fo r me
/
"
/
" Other (1 Item)
r Co nway Bo mb
/
" /
"
/
"

(649.2 acres)
/
"
/
"
""
/ /
"
/
R01 Expanded Investigation Area
(2,209.8 acres)
"
/
/
" /"
"/
"
/
ingandGun
/
"
/"
/"
/
Previously Characterized Area

"
within Investigation Area

720,000
720,000
(45 acres)
Previously Investigated Area
ne
/
"
r y Rang
Historical Use Area (318.6 acres)
"
/
/
" Notes:
HGL considers it unlikely that munitions with HE filler are
e
³
ad
,S
present within MRS-R01.
Ro Historical Use Areas were areas of ground scarring visible
C
y
ac in historical aerial photographs not necessarily indicative
rL of munitions presence.
rd ne Coordinates in South Carolina State Plane, NAD83, feet.
Ga \\Gs t-
s r v-
01 \HGLGI S\Co n
wa y\_MSIW\RI
\
(2- 04a ) R01_ His to r ic
a l.
mxd
5 /9/201 8J AR
Notes: S o urc
e :HGL,USGS ,US ACE
HE=high explosive ArcGI SOnlin eWo r ldI mage
ry
715,000
715,000
0 1,200 2,400 4,800 MEC=munitions and explosives of concern
Feet RI=Remedial Investigation
2,615,000 2,620,000 2,625,000

2,615,000 2,620,000
Figure 2.4b
MRS-R01
Range II Historical Work
(by Type)
Legend
HGL— RIRe port— Form e r Con way Bom b

725,000
725,000
(649.2 acres)
(2,209.8 acres)
Funded by USACE
Parsons, 2003 (Investigation)
Funded Privately
R01 EODT for Sun Star Subsurface
2006, (Removal)
in g andGun n e ry Rang e ,S
720,000
720,000
Notes:
³
C
\
\Gst-
srv-01 \
HGLGI S\Con wa y\_MSIW\ RI\
(
2-04b)R0 1_His
toric
a l_Work .
m xd
5
/9/201 8J AR
S
ource :HGL,U SACE,Pa rs
on s,Sun Star
ArcGISOn li
ne Topog ra ph
icIm age ry
0 1,050 2,100 4,200
Feet
2,615,000 2,620,000
2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000 2,650,000
Figure 2.5a
MRS-R02
715,000
715,000
"
/
/"
"/"
/
"
/
"
/" "
/"
/
Legend
"
/"
//
"
/
"
/ "
/
"
"
/"
/
"
"
/
/ "
///
"
"/
"
/ "
/
HGL—RI Report—Former Conway Bombing and Gunnery Range, SC

"
/
"
"
/ "
/
"
/
"
/
"
/ 1.1" Projectile (4 Items)
/
"
/"
// "/
"
"
/
"/
"/
"/ "
"" "
///
"
/"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
" "
/
/
"
/
"
//
"
/
"
/
"
/ "
/
"
/
"
/
"
/ 100lb Bomb (2,705 Items)
/
"
/ "
/ "
/"
/ "
/" /"
"
/"
/
/
"
/"
/"
/"
/"
"
/ /
" /"
/"
/" "
/
/"/""
//"/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/"
/
"
"
/ "
/ 10lb Bomb (2 Items)
"
/"" "
"
/ ""
/
"
/ / /"
/"
" /
/ " "
/ /
//
"
"
/"
/
/"
/
"
"
/
""/ "
/""
/ "
"
"
/
"
/
/"
"
/
/"
/
"
/
/""
//
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
"
"
/
"
/
//
"
""
/
/// "
"
/
"
/"
/
/"
/
/
"
/
""
//
/
""
//
"
/
"
/ "
/
"
/
"
/
"
/"/
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
"""
////
" /
/ "
"/
" "
/ 2.25" Rocket (689 Items)
"
/ / "
// "
" /
/ " /
"
/
" "
/
"
/"
/
/ " /"/ "
"
/ "
/ // "
"
"
/ "
/"
"
/
"
/
/
/ /
"
/
"/
"/
"
/
"
"
"
/
"
/"
/"
/ /
/"/""
"
/"
"
/
/ /
/ /
"/ "
" / "
"
/
" /
/
"
/ 2.36" Rocket (3 Items)
710,000
710,000
"/ "/"/"/ ""/ "
"/ "
/ " "
/ / " "
/ " "/
/ " "
" //
"
"
/
/
" " /
" / / "/ " " " " //
/" ""
/// / /"
/ " / //"
/ "/ " /
""
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/"
//
"
/
"
/
" /
""
//
/
""
//
"
/""
/
"
"
"
/"/
/
"
/""
/
""
"
//
/"
"
/
/
""
/
/"
/"
/
"/
/
/
//
"
"
"/
"
/
" "
/"
/"
"/
/"
/"
/"
"
/
"
/
""
//
"
/
/"
/"
/
"
/
/
"
/"/"
"
/
/" /
"" /
"/
/ "/
""/
/
"
/
"/
/
"/
"
/ "
" /
"
/"
/ "
/
"/
"
/"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
/"
" "/
"
/"
/
"
/
""
/
"
/ / ""
// "
/ "
/
"
/
"" ""
/"
"
/
/ "
"
"
/ "
/"
/
"
"/
/
/"/
"" /
""
/"
"
"/
/ "
/"/
"/
/ "
"/
""
//
/
""/
/ " "
/ 2.75" Rocket (4 Item)
/"
/"
/"
/ "
/
/"
///"/
/
" ""
"/ / /""/" "" " /"
/ / /" / "/ /" / //
"
/" /
/"
""
/
/ /"
/"
/"
/"
/
"
////""
/ /
"/ " " / "" " ///" " /" /"
"
"
/
/"
""
/"
/
//
/
"
/
""
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/""
//
"
/
"
""
/
"
//
"
/
/
"
"
/
"
/"
"
/
"
/ "
// "
/"/
""
/ /"
//"
/"
"
/"
"
/
/""
" //"
/"
/ /
/ /
"""
/"
/
"
/"
/
"/
"/
/
"
"
/
"
//
"
"
"
"/
"
/"
""
//
/
" ""
"/
"
"/
"/
"
/
" "" / "
/
""
/
"
/
"
"
/ "
"
/
"
/
/"
/ /"
" /
"
/
"
/"
/
"
/"
/"
/
/"
"
/
"
/"
"
/
/
"
/
/"
"
/
"
/"
/
"
/
/"
"
/ "
/ " / "
/
/"
/"
"
/"
/" / "
"
/"
/
"
/"
"
//"
/ " "
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
/
"
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
"
/
"
/
""
"
//
/
"
/
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
/"
"
/ "
"
//
/"
/
"
"
/
"
/
/
"
"
/
/"
"
"
//
"
"
"
/
/
"
/
/"/"
/
"
"
"
/"
/"
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
/
"
"
/
//
" "
/ "
"
/
"
"
/
//
/"
"
/"
"
// "/
""
/"
"
/ / ""/ "
/
"
/
"
/
"
/ 3" Rocket (1 Item)
/"""
/
//"
/
"/
/
"
/ /
" " /
"
/ /
""
//"
/""
// "
/
/
"
"
/
/
" /
/ "
//"
//"
//
"/
"
""
//
"
//
/ "
/"
/ / "
/"
/"
//"
/"
/
"
/ "
/
"/
"
"
//"
//
"
"
/
/"
/
"
/"
/
"
/"
/ "
/
"
/""
/"
/
"
/"
/"
/""
//
"
/"
/
""
/
"
/"
/ "
/ "
/ " /
"
/
"
/
"
/"
/"
/
/
"
/
"
/"
/
"
/
""
//
""
/"
/
"
/
"
/ /
/
"
"
/"
/
"""
/ "
/"
/"
/"
/ "
/ "
/ "/ " "
/"
//
"
/ "/ / "
/ "
/
"
" "
/
""
/ / /
"
/
"
/"
/
"
/"
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
/"
/
"
/
""
//
/"
/
/
"
/
"
/
/"
"
"
/
/
"
/
"
/"
/
"
/
/
"
"
"
/
//""
/
"
"
/
/ ""
/
"
//"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
/
"
"
/
""
"
/
//
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
"
/
/
"
/
""
"
//
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
/"
"
/
"
//
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
""
/ "
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/"
"
//
"
/
"
/
"
"/
"
""
///
/" /
"
/"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"/
/"
"/
/
"
/"
"
/ "
/
"
/
""/
//
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
""
/
"
/
"
/"
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
"
/
/
/
"
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/"
/
"/
"
/
/
"
/
"
"
/
/
""
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
/
/"
/
"
"
/
"
/"
"
/
"
/
/""
"
"
/
"
/
"
//
/
/"
/
"
/"
/
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
""
//
"
"
/
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
/ "
"
/
"
/
/ "
"
/
/
/ "
/"
/"
/"
/ "
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
/
"
/"
/ "
/"
/
"
/
"
/"
/
"
/"
/
"
/
""
/ /
/"
"/"
"
/
/
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
"
/
/
"
"
/
/
"
"
/
/
"
"
/
/
"
"
/
/
"
"
/
"
/
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
"
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
/
""
/
/
/
"
"
//
//
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
/
"
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
/"
"
/
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
/"
/
"
/
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
"
/"
/"
"
/
"
//
"
/
/
""
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
/
"/
/
"
/
"
"
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
/"
"
/
"
/
/
/
"
""
/
"
/
"
/
"
/"
/
"
/
"
/
""
//
"
"
/"
"/
//
"
/"
"
/ "
/
"
/"
/"
"
/
/
"
"
"
/
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/"
"
"
/
""
/ /
/ /
"
/ "
/
""
/"
//"
"
/ "
/
"
"
/ " "
//
/ ""
//"
"/" / "
/"
/"
"/ /"
/
""
/ /"
//
""
/
"
/
"
/
/"
"/"
/
"
/
"
/ "
/"
"/"/" "/"/"
"
//"
/"
/
"
/"
/
"
/
"
/"
/
"
"
/"
/"
/ "
//
"
/""/"
/ "
/"/ "/ /
/" "
/ /"
"
/
/ "
/
"
/"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/"
/
"
/"
/"
/"
/"
/"
/
"
/"
/"/
//
"
"
/
"
"
/
"
"
"
/
/
"
"
/
/
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
"
"
/"
/
"
"
/""
/
/
/
"
/
/
"/
//
"
""
"
/
//
"
"
//
/
"
"
/
""
"
//
"
""
"
//
/
/
"
/"
/
"
/"
/
"
/"
/
"
/"
/
"
//
"/
/
""
/
"
""
/
"/
//"
/
"
/
"
"
/
/"
/"
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
//
"
//"
/
""
//
"
/
"
/"
/
"
/
/
/"
//
"
/
"
/
"
/"/
"/ "
/
"
/"
/ "
"
/
/""
/ "
/ " / "
/ "/"
/ "
/ "
/
"
/
/"
"/
"
"
/
/"
/"
"
/
/ " /
"
/ " /
"
/ "/"
/ "
/"
/"
//
""
//"
" "
/
"
/
/
/
"
/
""
//
"
//
/
//
"
"/
/
"
/
"/
"
"
"
/
"/
"
/"
/
""
/
"
/
"
/"
/"
"
/"
/
/"
/""
"
"
/
/
//
"
"
/
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
"
/
//
""
//
"
/"
"
/
""
//
""
//
"
//
"
/
/
"
/
"
/"
/
"/
"/
"/
//
"
"/
"
/
"
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"/
" / "
"
"
/"
/
"
/"
/
/"
//"
/"
" /"
/ "
/
""
/"
/
"
/
"
//"
"
/
/
"/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/""
//"
"
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
/
"
"
/
/
"
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
"
"
/
/
""
""
//
"
/
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
""
/
""
//
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
""
//
""
//
/
/
"
"
/
""
//
"
""
""
/
//
//
"
"
""
//
//
"
"
/
/
"
/
"
"
/
""
//
/
"
/
/
""
//
//
""
//
""
"
""
""
"
"
"
/
/
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
"
/
/
"
"
"
/
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
/
"
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
"
/
/
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
""
//
/
"
/
"
/
"
/"
/
"
/
""
//
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
"
/
/
/
"
"
//
"
"
/
/
""
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
""
"
/
/
"/
//
"
"
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
/
""
"
"
"
/
/
/
/
"
"
/
//
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
""
"
"
//
/
"
/
/
"
"
/
/
"
"
/
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
""
""
/
//
""
/
"
"
//
/
""
"
/
/
//
"
"
""
//
//
/
"
""
"
//
""
/
//"
/
"
"
/
/
"
"
/
/
""
//
"
/
""
//
"/
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
/
/
"
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
"
//
"
/
"
/
/
/
"
"
/
/
""
"
//
"
/"
/
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
""
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
" /""
"
/
/"
//
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/"
"
/
/
"
/
/
"
/
/ "
/
"
/
"
/ "
/"
/"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/ / /
"
"
/"
/"
// "
"" /" "
/ /" /"
/
""
//
"
/
/"
" /"
/
"
"
/"/" ""
//"/
/ ""
/ // ""
"
/
/ / "
/ "
/ ""
/"
/
/
"
"
"//
"
//
//
/
""
//
""
"
/ /
/
/
"
""
//
//
"
"
//"
/
"/
" "
/ "
///
""
//
"
"
""
/
//
//
"
//
"
/
"//
"
""
//
/
/"
/
""/
"
/"
/"
/
""/
""
/""
/
""
//
/ "
//
"
/
"
/"
/
" " " "
/ /"/ "
//"
/ "
/
/"
"
"
/
//
"/
"
/
"/"
/
"/ "
/
"
/" /
"
/
/
"/
/ ""
"/ "
"
/"/
/
"
/"
/"
/"
/
"
//
"
/
"/
"" "
/
"
/
"
/
"
/"
/ "
//
"
/
""
//
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/"
"
/
"
/
"
"
/"
/
"
/
"
//
"
/
"
/ "
/
"
/
"
/ "
/"
//
"
"
/
"
// ""
/ "
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
"
/
/
/
"
"
/
""
//
""
"
"
//
/"
/
"
//
""
/"
"
""
"/
//
/
"
/
""
"
//
/
/"
/
/
""
""
//
"
/
""
"
//
/
//
""
//
//
/
/
"
"
/
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
"
"/
/
"
""
"
//
""
//
"
"
/
/"
/
"
/
/
/
"
"
/
/
/
"
"
""
/
//
/
/
"
"
"
"
/
"
""
/
//
"
""
//
//
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
""
//
/
/"
/
"
/
"
"
"
/
/
"
/
/
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
/
""
/
/ "
"
"
/
/ "
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
""
//
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
""
//
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
""
//
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
//
/"
"
/
"
""
//
"
/"
""
/
//
"
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
""
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/""
//
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
/"
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/"
"
//
"
/
"
/
"
/
/"
//
" /
/
"/
/"
""
//"
/
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
"
/
"
/"/
/
"
/
"/
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
/"
/
"/
/
"""
"
/"
/"
/
"
/
" "
/
/"
/
"
///
"
/
"
/
"
/ "
"
/"
/ ""
/
"
/ "
/"/
/"
/
"
/
"
/ "
/ 37mm Projectile (31 Items)
"
/ "
/ "
"/
/"/
/ " / " "
/ / "/ " / ""
/
"
/"
//"
"
/ / "
/"
/
/
""
/
" "
/
"
/"
// // " "
/ /
"/
/ "
"/"
/"
"
/// "" /
/"/
"/ "
"
//
" "
/
"
/
"/ /
/"
"
/"
""
/ "
/" ""
/
/
/ "
/" /"
/
/
"
/ "
/
"
/
""
/ /
" /
/
"
/ " "
/
"
// /"
" "
/
""
//
/"
/"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/"
"
/
"
/"
/
"
"
/
/
"
/"
/
"
/"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
/"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/"
/"
"
/
"
/
/"
"
/
"
/
/"
"
/"
/
/"
/
"
/
"
/"
/
"
/"
/
/
""
/
"
/"
/ "
/ "
"
/
/"/"
"
/
/ /
"
/ "
/ "
/ 4lb Bomb (3,942 Items)
"
/ " /" ""
///
"
"
/
/ "/
//"
/
"/
"
"
/"
/"
/
"
/"
/
"
/"
"
/
/
" "
/ " / "
" / "
" / "
/
"/ " " / " " "
//
"" "
/
/ "
"
"
/
/
"
/ "
/
/"/
"/ "
"
/ "
/ "
/
/
"
/ "
/
"
/"/""
///
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
" "
/
"
/"
/
"
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/"
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
/
/
"
""
//
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
//
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
/
"
"
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
"/
"/
//
"
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"/
/"
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
""
/ "
/
/ "
/"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/ 5" Rocket (236 Items)
"
// ""
/"
/ "/
/" / "
/"
/
/" "
"
/"
/ " /
""
// /"" "
/ //"
/" "
// "
/ "
/ "
/
"
/
"
/
"/ " "
/"
//
" ""
//
/"/"/"
/
"
/"
"
/
/"
"
//"
/""
/
/"
"/
"/"
/"
/"
"
/
/"
/
/"
"
/"
// /
/ "
/"//"
//"
"
"
/
"
/"
/"
"
/
""
//
/"
// "
/"
/"
/
//"
/"
/ ""
/"/
// "
/ /"
/" /"/"/"
/
/"
"
"
//"
/"
"
/ /"
//
"
/"
/
"
" ""
/"//"
//"
"
/
"
/
/"
"
/"
"
/
/
"
/"
/"
"/
"
/"
/
" /""
/ "/
"/
/
/"
"
/ "
"
/ "
R02 "
/
/" / /" /"
"/
" "
/"/"
"
//" "
/" "
/"
/" /"
"/"
/
"
/"
"
"
//
"
/""/
/ " "
//
"
/
"
/"
/"
/
" "
/ // /
""
/
/""
/ "
/ /
"
"
/
"
/ " /
/
"
" " /"
/
/
"
/"
/ "
/" / /
"
/
/ "
"
"
/
/"
/"// "
/"
/ "
/
"
/
"//
/ ""
"
"
/" /
/
"
/
"
/
" " /
"
/ "
/
"
/"
/ "
/ Other (2,224 Items)
"
/"
/"
/ / "
/ / / " /" / "
/" /"
"/"
/"/"
/ "
/
"
" "
/
"
/
""
"
/
"/"
/ "/ " /"
/"
/" / " /
" Former Conway Bombing
705,000
705,000
/ /""
// "
/ /
//
" "
/ / /
" ""/ "
/
"
/ " /"
/
"
/
"
// " ""
//"/
"
/
"
/
/"
"
/
"
// "
"
/
/ / "" ""
// / "/ "
/
"
/ "
/
a rk w
ay and Gunnery Range Boundary
ys P
"
/"
"/ "
/" /" " " "
/
"/
/""
/"
/
"
/
/ /
a Ba
"
/ / "
/ "
/ /
"/ " "/
"
/ "
/ " "
/
/"
"
// "
/
"
/
"
/ C arolin MEC Contamination Area
"
/
(1,961.2 acres)
(2,192.0 acres)
³
(2057.6 acres)
Notes:
Based on the historical information available, the following Historical Use Area (165.6 acres)
non-practice munitions may potentially be present on
700,000
700,000
MRS-R02: (AN-M57, 250-Pound Bomb, General Purpose;
AN-M54, 4-Pound, Incendiary Bomb; M6, 2.36 Inch, Rocket) \\Gst-srv-01\HGLGIS\Conway\_MSIW\RI\
Historical Use Areas were areas of ground scarring visible in (2-05a)R02_Historical.mxd
historical aerial photographs not necessarily indicative of 3/14/2018 JAR
munitions presence. Source: HGL, USGS, USACE
Coordinates in South Carolina State Plane, NAD83, feet. ArcGIS Online World Imagery
2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000 2,650,000

2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000 2,650,000
Figure 2.5b
MRS-R02
Range III Historical Work
715,000
715,000
(by Type)
Legend
HGL— RIRe port

(1,961.2 acres)
710,000
710,000
— Form e r Con way Bom b

R02 (2,192.0 acres)
Funded by USACE
Parsons, 2003 (Removal)
EODT, 2012 (Investigation)
705,000
705,000
w ay
Park
lina Bays
i
Caro Removals Funded Privately
n g andGun n e ry Rang e ,S
ERM for International Paper,
2005
Legend
EODT for Seventh Day Adventist
Removals Funded Privately Church, 2006
Advent for Horry County Kestrel for LandBank, 2006-2008
Schools, 2010
700,000
700,000
Kestrel & Advent for
³
Seres for New Harmony, 2016 Waterbridge, 2006
C
Investigations Funded Privately Tetra Tech for DR Horton, 2006
TetraTech for DR Horton, 2006 \
\Gst-
srv-01 \
HGLGI S\Con wa y\_MSI W\ RI\
Notes: (
2-05b)R0 2_His
toric
a l_Work .
m xd
5
/9/201 8J AR
Coordinates in South Carolina State Plane, NAD83, feet. S
ource :HGL,U SACE,ERM, Ke st
re l,Pars on s
,Tet
raT
ech
It should be noted that other privately cleared lands may ArcGISOn li
ne Topog ra ph
icI m age ry
0 1,750 3,500 7,000 exist, unknown to USACE and therefore are
not identified.
695,000
695,000
2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000 2,650,000

2,675,000 2,680,000 2,685,000
Figure 2.6a
MRS-R03
735,000
735,000
Legend
HGL—RIRe
/
" 100lb Bomb (1,386 Items)
/
" 2.75" Rocket (3 Items)
/
"
/
" /
" 20lb Bomb (5 Items)
p o r t—Fo r me
4lb Bomb (4 Items)
"
/ /
"
/
" /
"
/ "
" / /
" /
"
Other (10 Items)

/
" /
"
/"
"
/
" / /
" ""
// /
"
/
"
/"
/
"/"
/" /
"

/"
"/ /
"
/
" /
" /"
/"
"
/
" //
"/"
/"
"" //
"
/
"/
"
/
" /
" /
"
/
"/
"/"
/ //
/"
" /
"/
" /"
" /"
"
//"

/
" /
" /
"/
"/
"
/
"/
"
/
"/"
"/ "/
"/
"/
" /"
"//
"
/
" /
"/
"/
" / " /
/
" /
"/
"
/"
" /
"/
" /
" /
"/
"/
"
/"
"/"/
"/
"
/"
" /"
"/" /
"
/
" / "
" /
"
/
" /"
"/ /"
"
/ / /
"/
"/
/
"/
"/
"/" / /
"
/
" /" /"
"
// /"
/
/"
" /"
" / /"
" /
"
r Co n way Bo mb
/
" /
"/
"/
"/
"
/
"/
"
/
"
/
"/
" /
"/
"
/
"
/
" /
"/
"
/
"/
"/
/
" /
"
/
"/
"
/
" /"
"
/
"
/"
///
"/"
" //
"
/
"/
"
/
"/
"
/
"/"
" /
" /
"/
" /
" /
"
/
" /
" /
" /
" /
" /"
"
/
" /
" /"
/
R03
/ /
" /
"/
" /"/"
/ "
/"
"
//
"
/
" /
" /
"
/
"
/
"/"
"
/"
//"
/"
/
//
"
/
"
/"
"//
"
/
" /
"
/
" /
"/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"/
"
/
"/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"/
"
/
"/
"
/
"
/
"/
"
/
"
/
"/
"
/
"
/
"/
"
/
" /"
" /"
/
/"
" / /
"/
" "
/

/
" /"
" "
/
" /
"/
"
/
"/
" /
" /
"
/
"/
"
/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"
/
"/
"/
" /
"
/"
/"
/"
" /
/
"/"
"/"/
" /
"
/
"
/"
" /"
/
/
"/"
"
/
"/"
"
/
/
"
/
" /"/ /
"
/
"
/
"/"
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
/"
/"/
/
"/
"/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/"
"/
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"/
"/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
" /
"/
"
"
"
/"
/ / /"
"/
/
"
//
" /
" /
"/
"
/
"/
" /
" /
" /
"
/"
"/"
/"
"
// /
" /
"
/
"
/
"
/"
"
/
"
/
/
"/"
"
/
"
/
" //
/"
/
" " /
"/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"/
"
/
" /"
"
/
"
/
"
/
"//
"
/
"/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"/
"/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
" / "
"
/
"
/
" /"
/
" //
"/
"/
" /
"
/
" /"
/ /
" /
"
/"
//
"
/
"/
"
/
"
/
"/
"
/
"/
"/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"/
"
/
"/
"
/
"/
"
/
"
/
"/
"
/
"/
"
/
"
/
" /"
" /
/
" / "
" /
/
" "/
" /
"
/
"/
"/
"/
"
/
"/
"
/
"/
"/
"
/
" " /
"
/
"
/
"/
"
/
"
/
"/
"
/
"/
"
/
"/
"
/
"
/
"/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"/
"
/
"/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"/
"
/"
" /"
" /
/"
"

/
" /
"/
"
/
"/
"
/
"
/
"/
"
/
"/
"/
"/
"
/
"
/
"/
"/
"
/
"/
"
/
"/
"/
"
/
" /
" /
"
/
"/
"/
"
/
"/
"/
"
/
"/
"/
"/
"
//
"/
"
/
" //
"
/
"
/
"/
"
/
" /
"/
"/
"
/
"/
"/
"
/
" /"
" / /"
"/
/
"/
" /
"
/
" /
"/"
/"
" / /
" /
" /
"
/"
" /
" /
"
/"
" //
" /
"
/
"
/
"/
"/
"/
"/"
"/" /
" /
"
/"
" /
"
/"
/" /
"
/
" /"/" /
"
/
" "/"
/"
/
" //"
"
/"
"/ /
/
"/ /
/" /
(886.4 acres)
/"
" /"
"
/ /"/"
"
/ /"
/
//"
/
"/"
"
//"
/
/"
//
"
/
"/"
"/" //
"
/"//"
"//"
"
/
"
/
"
/
"/
/"
"
/
" //
"
/
"//
" " /
"
/"
"/"/ " /" "
/
"
/"
" /"" /
"
/"
" /"
//"
"//
"
/"
"
/
"//
/"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
""
/"/
/ /"
"/"/
/ "
" /" /
"/
"
/
"/ "
" //
" //
/"
" /
" /"
" /
"
/
" "
/
" /
"" /
" /"
"
/"
/
"
/ " / /
" /
"
/ "
" /
" /
"
/
"/
/"
/
/
"
/
"
/
" //"
" /

/
" /
"
/
" /
" /
" /
"/
"
730,000
730,000
/
"
/"
"// " /"
/
/"
/
"
"//"
" /
"/ "
" /"
"
(2,056.4 acres)
/"
" // //
" /
"/"
" /"
/" /
"
/" /
" /
" /"/
"//
"
in g andGun n e
/"
" "/
"
/" /
"
/"
//"/"/"//
/
" /
"/
"
/"
" /"
/"/"/" /
"
/
"
Previously Characterized Area

/
" /"
" /
/
"

/
"
/
"
/
"
(570.8 acres)
r y Rang e
Notes:
HGL considers it unlikely that munitions with HE filler are
,S
present within MRS-R03.
C
Historical Use Areas were areas of ground scarring visible
in historical aerial photographs not necessarily indicative
of munitions presence.
\
\Gst-
sr v-
01 \
HGLGI S\Co n wa y\
_MSIW \
RI\
(
2-06a) R03_Histo r ic al.
mxd
5
/9/201 8J AR
Notes: S
o urc
e:HGL,USGS ,US ACE
725,000
725,000
HE=high explosive ArcGISOn l in eW o r l
dImage
ry
2,675,000 2,680,000 2,685,000

2,675,000 2,680,000 2,685,000
Figure 2.6b
MRS-R03
Range IV Historical Work
(by Type)
735,000
735,000
Legend
HGL—RIRe
(886.4 acres)
por
t—For
(2,056.4 acres)
Funded by USACE
merConw ayBom b
R03 Parsons, 2003 (Investigation)
EODT, 2012 (Investigation)
Funded Privately
730,000
730,000
USA Environmental for Centex
ingand Gunne
2005, (Removal)
ryRang
Notes:
e
³
,S C

\\Gst-srv-
01 \HGLGI S\Conw ay\
_MS I W\RI
\
(2- 06b)
R0 3_ Histor
ic a
l_Wor k.
m xd
5 /9/2018J AR
S ou r
ce:HGL,US ACE,Pa rsons,US AEnvir onm e
ntal,EODT
725,000
725,000
Arc GIS OnlineT opograph ic I
m ag
ery
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet
2,675,000 2,680,000 2,685,000

2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000
Figure 2.7a
MRS-R09
R02
705,000
705,000
HGL—RIRe
p o r t—Fo r me
w ay (2,503.2 acres)
P ar k
B ay s
Caro
lina Expanded Investigation Area
Portion Investigated
r Co nway Bo mb
under MRS-R02 (905.2 Acres)
700,000
700,000
R09
Historical Use Area
ingandGun
ne
Notes:
r y Rang
695,000
695,000
e
³
,S
C
w ay
H igh \\Gs t-
s r v-
01 \HGLGI S\Co n
wa y\_MSIW\RI
\
ar ner (2- 07a ) R09_ His to r ic
a l.
mxd
rk G 5 /9/201 8J AR
Ma S o urc
e :HGL,USGS
ArcGI SOnlin
,US ACE
eWo r ldI mage
ry
0 1,500 3,000 6,000
690,000
Feet 690,000
2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000

2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000
Figure 2.7b
MRS-R09
Machine Gun/Rifle Range
Historical Work
(by Type)
Legend
705,000
705,000
HGL—RIRe por
(2,503.2 acres)
t—For
Funded by USACE
m e rConw ay Bom b
Parsons, 2003 (Removal)
700,000
700,000
R09 EODT, 2012 (Investigation)
Funded Privately
ERM, 2005 (Removal)
Kestrel, 2006 (Removal)
ingand Gunne r
Kestrel, 2007 (Removal)
Kestrel, 2009 Advent, 2009
(Removal)
Tetra Tech, 2006 (Removal)
y Rang
695,000
695,000
Landbank, 2001 (Removal)
e ,S
³
Sweet 16, LLC (Removal)
C
\
\Gst-
sr v-
01 \
HGLGI S\Conw a y\_MSI W\RI\
(
2-07b)R0 9_His
tor
ica l_Wor k.
m xd
5
/9/201 8J AR
S
ou rc
e :HGL,USACE,Pa rsons,ERM, Ke s
tre l,T e tr
aT e c
h
Notes: ArcGISOnline T opogra phicI
m agery
0 1,500 3,000 6,000 Coordinates in South Carolina State Plane, NAD83, feet.
690,000
690,000
2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000

2,610,000 2,615,000 2,620,000 2,625,000 HGL—RIRe p ort
Form e
r Co
nw ay Bom bi
ngandGun ne
ry Range
,SC
Figure 2.8
MRS-R01
Range II
Historical MC Sampling
Legend
#
0 MEC/MC Sample


725,000
725,000
4250-RII-MIS-001
#
0
R01
720,000
720,000
Notes:
o ad Coordinates in South Carolina State Plane, NAD83, feet.
yR
ac
³
e rL MC=Munitions Constituents
r dn MEC=munitions and explosives of concern
Ga MRS=munitions response site
\
\Gs t-
s rv-
01 \HGLGI S\
Conwa y\
_ MSIW\RI
\
(
2-08) R01 _ His tori
calMC.mxd
4
/14 /20 17J AR
S
Arc GISOnli neWorldIma ge
ry
0 800 1,600 3,200
715,000
715,000
Feet
2,610,000 2,615,000 2,620,000 2,625,000

2,625,000 2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000 2,650,000 2,655,000 HGL—RIRe p ort
Form e
r Co
nw ay Bom bi
ngandGun ne
ry Range
,SC
720,000
720,000
Figure 2.9
MRS-R02
R oa
d
Range III
cy
n er
La Historical MC Sampling
G ar d
Legend
715,000
715,000
#
0 MEC/MC Sample
S
" 2005 Parsons Soil Sample


See Inset Expanded Investigation Area
710,000
710,000
MIS-04 #
0
MIS-05 #
0"#
0"
S
"
SS"
SS
"#
0
S"
S
"
"S
"S#
S"0
R02
705,000
705,000
R09
Inset
S-14
700,000
700,000
MIS-01 S-05
S
" MIS-03
#
0
S
" S-11
S-04
S-13 Notes:
S #
0
"
S
"
S-12
³
S
"
S-03 MC=Munitions Constituents
"
S S
"
""
S
S
" S
S
" S
"
#
0 MRS=munitions response site
S-10 RI=Remedial Investigation
695,000
695,000
S
"
S
" \
\Gs t-
s rv-
01 \HGLGI S\
Conwa y\
_ MSIW\RI
\
S-09 MIS-02 (
2-09) R02 _ His tori
calMC.mxd
4
/14 /20 17J AR
S-08 S
S-06 S-02 Arc GISOnli neWorldIma ge
ry
0 1,500 3,000 6,000
0 150 300
S-01
Feet
Feet S-07
2,625,000 2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000 2,650,000 2,655,000

2,675,000 2,680,000 2,685,000 HGL— RIRe port
Form e
r Co
n w a yBom bi
n ga n dGu n n e
r yRa n ge
,SC
Figure 2.10
MRS-R03
Range IV
Historical MC Sampling
Legend
#
0 MEC/MC Sample

735,000
735,000

4250-RIV-MIS-001
#
0
#
0
4250-RIV-MIS-002
R03
730,000
730,000
Notes:
³
MC=Munitions Constituents
\
\Gst-
sr v-
01\HGLGI S\Conw a y
\_MSI W\
RI\
(
2-10)R01 _Histori
cal MC.m xd
4
/14/20 17J AR
S
ArcGISOn lin eWorldI m a ge
ry
0 800 1,600 3,200
725,000
725,000
Feet
2,675,000 2,680,000 2,685,000

3.0 PROJECT REMEDIAL RESPONSE OBJECTIVES

3.0.1 This RI was conducted IAW the PWS, the approved Final Work Plan (HGL, 2015a), and
Field Work Variances (provided in Appendix G). The purpose of this RI (Section 2.1.1) is to
determine the nature and extent of MEC and evaluate the presence of MC contamination within
the MRSs at Conway BGR. Further, if MC contamination is identified, the RI will determine
the nature and extent MC contamination. The overall goal of this process is to gather information
for development and future evaluation of remedial alternatives in a FS, and to provide sufficient
data to facilitate the future remedial action. The preliminary remedial response objectives are
presented in Chapter 3.2.
3.1 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL AND PROJECT APPROACH
3.1.1 Current and Future Land Use
3.1.1.1 Current land use within the former Conway BGR includes residential, commercial, and
recreational (golf courses) uses. It is anticipated that future land use will remain consistent with
current land use, and increased development is planned and ongoing. The presence of a
known/suspected source of MEC and possible receptor interaction with MEC means that
exposure pathways are potentially complete at the former Conway BGR. Current or future
human receptors may be exposed to MEC hazards and MC contamination, if present, at the
project site. Table 3.1 presents the current and future land uses evaluated based on GIS data
and the receptors for each MRS. The receptors and activities are discussed further in the
paragraphs below.
3.1.2 Preliminary Conceptual Site Model
3.1.2.1 As part of the TPP process for the RI at the project site, preliminary CSMs were
prepared for MEC and MC, based on site-specific details for each MRS. The preliminary CSMs
indicate the known or suspected MEC/MC contamination sources; the potential/suspected
locations and distribution of contamination; the related source or exposure media; the current
and future receptors; and the potentially complete exposure pathways IAW EM 1110-1-1200.
The CSMs incorporate the presence of MEC and MC in the environment and the pathways by
which the receptors may contact MEC or MC. These exposure pathways can vary based on site-
specific conditions. The site-specific conditions are incorporated into the evaluation of risks
posed to receptors, along with the current and future land use, for any contaminated media
confirmed to be present onsite. The exposure pathways are considered incomplete unless all four
of the following are present:
• A source for contamination;
• An environmental transport and/or exposure medium;
• A point of exposure where contaminants contact a receptor; and
• A likely route of exposure at the point of exposure.
3.1.2.2 If any single factor listed is not present, the pathway is considered incomplete, meaning
that there is no means for a receptor to contact MEC or MC. If there is no complete exposure
pathway, there is no risk present from exposure to MEC or MC. Based on the initial evaluation

Table 3.1
Current and Future Land Use and Receptors by MRS
Percent of
MRS Land Use Types Receptors
Investigated Area (1)
Commercial 32% Resident
Indoor/Outdoor Worker
Industrial 1% Construction Worker
MRS-R01 Recreational 21% Utility Worker
Residential 32% Trespasser
Recreational User
Unclassified (2)
14%
Residential Trespasser
94%
Recreational User
Unclassified 1%
71%
Recreational User
Unclassified 0%
56%
Recreational User
Unclassified 4%
(1)
– Land use percentages estimated using the current RI investigation GIS data. The percentage of the Expanded
Investigation Area investigated during the current RI field activities is given.
(2)
– Unclassified acreage consists of public roads or highways and other similar types of land use.
conducted before the RI fieldwork commenced, the following receptors are considered to have
the potential to be present at the former Conway BGR under the current and potential future
land use scenarios:
• Trespasser;
• Recreational User;
• Resident;
• Indoor Worker;
• Utility Worker;
• Construction Worker; and
• Outdoor Worker (e.g., landscaper).
3.1.2.3 The activities performed by receptors at the site that may disturb surface soil are
construction activities (for example residential or utility construction), gardening and home
improvement projects by residential users, and landscaping projects by commercial users.

Construction projects by residential or commercial users may disturb subsurface soil. The
presence of a known/suspected source of MEC and possible receptors means that exposure
pathways are potentially complete. The identified current or future human receptors would
potentially be exposed to explosive hazards and MC within the MRSs. Based on the identified
current and future land uses (Commercial/Industrial, Recreational, and Residential, see Table
3.1) the human receptors for all MRSs are the receptors listed above. Typical intrusive activities
could be conducted to 2-ft bgs for residential and recreational users, with intrusive activities
conducted up to 25-ft bgs for construction workers (construction of ponds, utilities, swimming
pools, etc.).
3.1.2.4 The preliminary MEC CSMs are presented on Figures 3.1a through Figure 3.1d and the
preliminary MC CSMs are presented on Figure 3.2a through Figure 3.2d. The preliminary CSM
is based on past DoD activities, potential MEC/MD presence, MEC/MD found since closure,
previous investigation or historical clearance activities, historical and current land use, potential
receptors, potential source and receptor interaction, and relevant exceedances of screening
criteria for the MRSs present at the former Conway BGR.
3.1.2.5 The land that comprises MRS-R01 and MRS-R02 is privately owned and has been
developed for residential housing and golf courses. Land uses identified within MRS-R01 and
MRS-R02 include commercial/industrial, residential, recreational, and forestry. The maximum
depth of intrusive activities associated with these land uses is anticipated to be up to 25-ft bgs.
The preliminary MEC CSMs developed for MRS-R01 and MRS-R02 are presented in Figure
3.1a and Figure 3.1b. Preliminary MC CSMs for MRS-R01 and MRS-R02 are presented in
Figure 3.2a and Figure 3.2b.
3.1.2.6 Similarly to MRS-R01 and MRS-R02, the land that comprises the MRS-R03 and MRS-
R09 is privately owned and has been developed for residential housing and golf courses. Land
uses identified within MRS-R03 and MRS-R09 include residential, recreational, and forestry.
Hunting, mining, and agricultural activities have also taken place within MRS-R03 and MRS-
R09; however, there is very little farm land remaining within these areas. The maximum depth
of intrusive activities associated with these land uses is anticipated to be up to 25-ft bgs. The
preliminary MEC CSMs developed for MRS-R03 and MRS-R09 a presented in Figure 3.1c and
Figure 3.1d. Preliminary MC CSMs for MRS-R03 and MRS-R09 are presented in Figure 3.2c
and Figure 3.2d.
3.2 PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION GOALS
3.2.1 Preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) are concentrations of contaminants for each
exposure pathway that are believed to be protective based on preliminary site information. As
with the CSM, PRGs may be reevaluated and refined throughout the RI process as new
information becomes available.
3.2.2 As agreed to by the PDT during the TPP process (Appendix E), the goal of this RI/FS is:
“to reduce the potential of exposure to MEC hazards and MC risk and ensure hunters, workers,
residents, and farmers are aware of the risk of MEC. After completion of the Decision Document
requirements that potential risk to human health and the environment from MEC or MC will be

reduced to the extent practical.” This site closeout statement developed during the TPP process,
and concurred to be the current stakeholders, is not confined specifically to this RI project. This
site closeout statement should be viewed as the overall goal for the site in the future and following
this RI project and any future projects, investigations or removals.
3.2.3 The PRG for MC is based on the screening values agreed to by the TPP Team and
established in the work plan as protective to the receptors in the identified exposure pathways
for former Conway BGR. The PRG is to ensure that any identified MC contamination at the site
determined to pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment is addressed to
minimize or mitigate those risks. For unacceptable risks, and in accordance with 40 CFR Part
300.430(e)(i), the USACE shall establish remedial action objectives (RAOs) specifying
contaminants and media of concern, potential exposure pathways, and remediation goals. There
were not unacceptable risks due to MC.
3.2.4 For unacceptable risk due to explosive hazards, development of the RAO requires the
identification of specific munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) and media of concern at
each MRS, the identification of exposure pathways to receptors within each MRS, and
identification of acceptable remediation goals for each MRS. Then, for each MRS, the RAOs
are presented in Section 8.2.
3.3 PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION OF ARARS AND TBC INFORMATION
3.3.0.1 Preliminary identification of chemical-specific and location-specific ARARs is

conducted during the RI site characterization. Under federal and state laws, and as required by
USACE Engineer Regulation (ER) 200-3-1, response actions must identify and attain or
formally waive ARARs. ARARs are used as a starting point to determine the protectiveness of
a site remedy. ARARs will guide the extent of site cleanup; help scope, formulate, and select
appropriate remedial alternatives; and implementation and operation of the selected remedial
alternative. As part of the future FS, primary consideration will be given to remedial alternatives
that attain or exceed the requirements of the identified ARARs (Table 3.2). When ARARs do
not exist for a particular chemical or remedial activity, other criteria, advisories, and guidance
referred to as TBC are useful in designing and selecting a remedial alternative. The TBC
information identified for this site is also presented in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2
Potential ARARs and TBCs
Standard,
Requirement,
Criterion, or ARAR Method of
Limitation Status Description Analysis Attainment
Chemical-Specific
USEPA TBC RSLs are conservative, risk-based screening Levels are Comparison of
Regional concentrations used for evaluating and applicable sample
Screening cleaning up contaminated sites. USEPA has comparison analytical
Levels (RSLs) developed RSLs for industrial and criteria for MC results to
residential land use. These concentrations analytical results. RSLs.
represent allowable levels of chemicals in
soil, groundwater, and drinking water.
The RSL table can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/region9/superfund/prg/
Location-Specific
Clean Water Applicable Actions must be taken to avoid adverse Potentially Work within
Act, 33USC impacts to, minimize potential harm, and applicable if any wetland areas
§1344, Section preserve and enhance wetlands, to the water bodies are is limited to
404(b)(1) extent possible. present on site investigation
33 CFR and if any and removal of
320,322, 323, possible actions MEC,
325-330 may result in MPPEH, or
33 USC 1341, disturbance MD.
Section 401, 40 within or
CFR 230-231 adjacent to water
bodies.
Action-Specific
Resource Relevant and Environmental performance standards for Applicable if Waste material
Conservation Appropriate treatment of munitions using consolidated OB/OD areas are (such as
and Recovery shots at a designated open burning and open used during any deposition of
Act (RCRA), detonation OB/OD location. remedial actions explosives and
Subpart X, 40 for consolidated metals in soil)
CFR 264.601 shots. Not resulting from
applicable for disposal
blow-in-place activities will
shots. be
characterized
by soil
sampling IAW
requirements.
3.3.1 Chemical-Specific ARARs
3.3.1.1 Chemical-specific ARARs are promulgated health-based or risk-based numerical values

that establish the acceptable amount or concentration of a chemical that may remain in, or be
discharged to, the ambient environment. There are no chemical -specific ARARs identified for
former Conway BGR. The risk-based screening levels (e.g., USEPA RSLs) are not considered
chemical-specific ARARs because they are not promulgated, however are categorized as “To

Be Considered (TBC)”. The chemical-specific TBCs that may be applicable were evaluated
based on the completed exposure pathways.
3.3.2 Location-Specific ARARs
3.3.2.1 Location-specific ARARs generally are restrictions placed on the concentration of a

hazardous substance or the conduct of activities solely because they are in special locations. The
location-specific ARAR identified at the former Conway BGR includes the Clean Water Act
(CWA), 33USC 1251, et seq., due to wetlands with the boundaries of the MRSs.
3.3.3 Action-Specific ARARs
3.3.3.1 Action-specific ARARs are usually technology or activity-based requirements or

limitations placed on actions taken with respect to remedial actions, or requirements to conduct
certain actions to address the conditions present at a site. One action-specific ARAR has been
identified for the former Conway BGR, 40 CFR 264.601 (Subpart X). Any consolidated shot,
or consolidated and blow activities, would need to adhere to RCRA rules. Waste material (such
as deposition of explosives and metals in soil) resulting from disposal activities will be
characterized by soil sampling IAW requirements.
3.4 SUMMARY OF INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS
3.4.1 Institutional analyses are prepared to support the development of IC strategies and plans
of action as a munitions response alternative. These strategies rely on existing powers and
authorities of government agencies to protect the public at large from potential MEC hazards
and MC risks.
3.4.2 A review of government institutions and private entities that exercise jurisdiction and
ownership of the project site indicated that ownership and control of land within the boundary
of the four MRSs which are included in the RI are varied. Research during the ROE solicitation
process indicates that of the 450 separate parcels identified within the four MRSs, there are 315
unique landowners, with some landowners holding multiple parcels. Of the 315 landowners, the
majority are single family residences, with one unique owner for each parcel. Other types of
landowners include: 28 commercial businesses, eight golf course management companies, eight
property homeowner associations, 21 land developers, and five churches. The institutional
analysis identified the entities with jurisdiction over the project site with regard to ICs. The
Institutional Analysis is provided as Appendix C of this RI Report.
3.5 DATA NEEDS AND DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES
3.5.1 Data Needs
3.5.1.1 Previous investigations at the former Conway BGR (as discussed in Chapter 2.4) were
reviewed and evaluated during development of the Work Plan. Decision rules were developed
and included in the Final Work Plan (HGL, 2015a) and are shown in Table 3.3. The methods
used for the RI data collection included:

• Development of DQOs and data requirements through the TPP (documentation of

TPP-related activities are presented in Appendix E);
• Performance of geophysical investigations to delineate potential extent of MEC
contamination;
• Intrusive investigation of anomalies to evaluate the types and depths of MEC present;
• Sampling of site-specific media (surface and subsurface soil, sediment, and
groundwater), as site-specific conditions dictate;
• Laboratory analysis and data management to compare detected MC concentrations with
accepted criteria;
• Disposal of MEC, as necessary;
• Reporting of results through the TPP during the RI to identify data gaps and/or gain
stakeholder concurrence;
• Update of the CSM and MRSPP; and
• Submittal of the RI report.
3.5.2 Data Quality Objectives
3.5.2.1 The DQOs are qualitative and quantitative statements that specify the data needs
including type, amount, and quality required to support the decision-making processes for a
project. The DQOs developed during the TPP process are provided in Tables 3.3a through 3.3e.
The overall project DQOs were developed to obtain data to sufficiently characterize the nature
and extent of MEC and/or MC contamination present at the project site, and to evaluate potential
MEC hazards related to any identified contamination. The data obtained must also be sufficient
to assess human health and ecological risks to facilitate development of the future FS. Chapter
5.1 through 5.3 show how DQOs were met. Chapter 5.1 discusses characterization of the types
of MEC encountered within the site. Chapter 5.2 discusses the potential for MC contamination.
Finally, Chapter 5.3 addresses the extent of MEC and MC contamination.

This page intentionally left blank.
Table 3.3
Decision Rules for MRSs, Former Conway BGR, Horry County, South Carolina
Characterization
(UXO/MC) and
Row Preliminary Final Status and
No. Status Investigation Decision Rule Intermediate Status Decision Rule Intermediate Status Decision Rule Recommendation
1) Elevated Anomaly Density: UXO Contaminated:
Demonstrate that a 90 percent Following intrusive
Following completion of UXO
confidence has been achieved for investigation, if UXO or a
geophysical surveys, the area will Contaminated:
If UXO and MD are determining both the potential depth of significant amount of MD
be identified as: Recommended for
UXO Conduct surface sweep in areas to located: UXO and the nature (type and density) is found, the area will be
evaluation in FS.
characterization undergo DGM survey and conduct of UXO (See Section 4.2.1.0.1 and characterized as UXO
UXO contamination is 1) an area having elevated
1 where UXO DGM survey (visual inspection of Modify MRS boundaries to Table 4.1). contaminated.
anticipated. anomaly density or the potential to
contamination is surface and aboveground locations improve boundary accuracy 2) Unlikely to Contain UXO Unlikely to Contain UXO
contain UXO, or No Significant
anticipated for UXO or MD). and expand investigations (if Contamination: Contamination:
UXO Present:
needed). If no MEC or MD are
2) areas unlikely to contain UXO No FS evaluation
Demonstrate that the investigation found, the area will be
contamination. required, potential
approach was capable of locating characterized as No
for NDAI.
potential UXO contamination. Significant UXO Present.
If UXO and MD are If UXO contamination is
UXO UXO contamination is
located: anticipated, the decision rules in
characterization Conduct surface reconnaissance anticipated.
Modify MRS boundaries to Row 1 will apply.
2 where no UXO using a Schonstedt magnetometer
improve boundary accuracy If no UXO or MD is found, the area
contamination is in non-MEC use areas. UXO contamination is No significant UXO is present.
and expand investigations (if will be characterized as no
anticipated (1) not anticipated. Recommended for NDAI.
needed). significant UXO present.
If MC is not detected during
Phase 1 sampling or if
concentrations are less than
screening levels and/or No MC contamination
background (as defined in is present.
the Work Plan Quality
Assurance Project Plan
Conduct sampling of soil for MC
[QAPP], Appendix E), then:
MC (explosives and select metals)
3 If MC contamination is present,
characterization during Phase 1.
additional evaluations of the nature If MC contamination is present and
If MC are detected during and extent of MC contamination there is a risk to human health or the
Phase 1 sampling at (soil, sediment, and groundwater environment, then additional
MC contamination is
concentrations exceeding the sampling) will be performed during evaluations of the nature and extent
present.
screening levels and/or Phase 2 and 3, and a risk assessment of the MC contamination will be
background, then: will be conducted to determine if a performed.
risk to human health or the Recommended for FS.
environment exists.
(1) Areas where no UXO contamination is anticipated based on historical data or observed site conditions are omitted from the statistical requirements of the PWS.

Table 3.4a
Site-Specific MEC Data Quality Objective Summary for MRS-R01
Criteria from Problem Statement / Analytical
USEPA(1) P Problem Goals Required Information Inputs Input Boundaries Approach Performance Criteria Plan for Obtaining Data
Contaminant or Reference Concentration of
Criteria from Project Objectives Data User Characteristic of Required Locations Number of Samples Interest or Other Performance
USACE Satisfied Perspectives Interest Media of Interest or Areas Required Criteria Sampling Method Analytical Method
MEC There is a potential for Risk, Remedy MEC (UXO) Surface and The analytical data inputs The analytical All investigations were conducted in Following the DGM Not applicable, see
Characterization MEC to be present at Subsurface soil for this RI include the approach for the RI accordance with (IAW) the performance surveys, the expanded analytical methods
MRS-R01, Range II, results of the previous will include and data quality metrics outlined in the investigation area will listed for MCs.
because it was used as investigations conducted performing: Work Plan Quality Control Plan (QCP) be delineated into
practice bombing range, at MRS-01, Range II. As • Surface sweep in (Section 4.0). The investigation set out “elevated anomaly
including high- and listed in Section 1.7.2, areas to undergo in Figure 3.3 will meet the performance density” areas and
medium-altitude these include a PA, SI, DGM survey; standards of the PWS: areas unlikely to
bombing, skip bombing, EE/CA, Removal Action • DGM surveys • all areas with elevated anomaly contain UXO
parafrag bombing, and and RI. The 2012 RI (transects and density or with potential to contain contamination. The
rocket firing. concluded that MEC had grids) and; UXO are traversed and that there is intrusive investigations
not been delineated and • Intrusive a 90 percent chance of detecting will be placed
The goal of the RI is to recommended further investigations. these areas; accordingly based on
define the nature and investigation. • the boundaries of all identified the performance
extent of MEC See RI Approach UXO contaminated areas have been criteria and decision
potentially associated The boundaries of the detailed in the Work delineated to an accuracy of at least rule applied, with
with MRS-R01, Range current RI will address Plan. 250 ft; project team
II and to determine if an expanded • 90 percent confidence has been concurrence.
further response actions investigation area, which achieved for determining the
are required to support include potential source potential depth of UXO; Evaluations of the
current and future areas located outside of • 90 percent confidence in the nature presence of UXO,
residential, commercial, the original MRS (type and density) of UXO and MD, and known high-
and recreational land boundaries in areas that munitions related debris, for each density anomaly areas
use(2) were not previously relatively homogeneous UXO will be used to indicate
characterized. The MRS- contaminated area, has been the likelihood of
R01, Range II RI/FS achieved; contamination.
Expanded Investigation • portions of an MRS which are
Area is unlikely to contain UXO
1,561 acres. contamination may be omitted from
the above statistical requirements;
and
• Demonstrate areas unlikely to
contain a target with elevated
anomaly density, but with the
potential for UXO contamination
(e.g. burial pits) are capable of
being located by the investigation
approach.
(1) This table provides a summary of the DQO development conducted during the TPP process (see Appendix H) and presents an overview of the DQO statements developed. This table provides a crosswalk for each DQO element to the development steps from both the USEPA’s Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the
Data Quality Objectives Process USEPA, USEPA QA/G-4, USEPA/240/B-06/001, February 2006, and USACE’s Technical Project Planning Process, EM 200-1-2, 31 August 1998. The data collected under the DQOs summarized here will continually be evaluated during field investigations against the appropriate
decision rules.
(2) For the RI/FS the preliminary remediation objective for MEC is based on limiting interaction between any residual MEC and any receptors accessing the site and is anticipated to be either removal of any MEC present to a depth at which they no longer present a hazard to the anticipated human receptors, or to implement
land use controls that will minimize the possibility of receptors coming into contact with MEC at the site.

HGL – Draft RI Report, Former Conway BGR – Horry County, South Carolina

July 2016 3-12 Task Order No.: 0018
Table 3.4b
MEC DQO Summary for MRS-R02
USEPA (1) Problem Goals Required Information Inputs Input Boundaries Approach Performance Criteria Plan for Obtaining Data
Criteria from Project Objectives Data User Characteristic of Required Locations or Number of Interest or Other Performance Project Objectives Data User
USACE Satisfied Perspectives Interest Media of Interest Areas Samples Required Criteria Satisfied Perspectives
MEC There is a potential for Risk, Remedy MEC (UXO) Surface and The analytical data inputs The analytical • All investigations were conducted Following the DGM Not applicable, see
Characterization MEC to be present at Subsurface soil for this RI include the approach for the RI IAW the performance and data surveys, the expanded analytical methods
MRS-R02, Range III results of the previous will include quality metrics outlined in the investigation area will listed for MCs.
because it was for high- investigations conducted performing: Work Plan QCP (Section 4.0). The be delineated into
and medium-altitude at MRS-02, Range III. • Surface sweep in investigation set out in Figure 3.4 “elevated anomaly
bombing, skip bombing, There have been areas to undergo will meet the performance density” areas and
and rocket firing numerous investigations DGM survey; standards of the PWS: areas unlikely to
including demolition of this MRS, as listed in • DGM surveys • all areas with elevated anomaly contain UXO
bombing, dive Section 1.7.3, which (transects and density or with potential to contain contamination. The
bombing, strafing, include: PA, SI, TCRA, grids) and; UXO are traversed and that there is intrusive investigations
rocket firing, and EE/CA, removal actions • Intrusive a 90 percent chance of detecting will be placed
incendiary bombing. and RI. The 2012 RI investigations. these areas; accordingly based on
confirmed the presence of • the boundaries of all identified the performance
The goal of the RI is to MEC, concluded that See RI Approach UXO contaminated areas have been criteria and decision
define the nature and MEC had not been detailed in the Work delineated to an accuracy of at least rule applied, with
extent of MEC delineated, and Plan. 250 ft; project team
potentially associated recommended further • 90 percent confidence has been concurrence.
with MRS-R02, Range investigation. achieved for determining the
III and to determine if potential depth of UXO; Evaluations of the
further response actions The boundaries of the • 90 percent confidence in the nature presence of UXO,
are required to support current RI will address an (type and density) of UXO and MD, and known high-
current and future expanded investigation munitions related debris, for each density anomaly areas
residential, commercial area, which include relatively homogeneous UXO will be used to indicate
and recreational land potential source areas contaminated area, has been the likelihood of
use(2) located outside of the achieved; contamination.
original MRS boundaries • portions of an MRS which are
in areas that were not unlikely to contain UXO
previously characterized. contamination may be omitted from
The MRS-R02, Range III the above statistical requirements;
RI/FS Expanded and
Investigation Area is
4,153 acres.
approach.
decision rules.

Table 3.4c
MEC There is a potential for Risk, Remedy MEC (UXO) Surface and The analytical data inputs The analytical All investigations will be conducted Following the DGM Not applicable, see
Characterization MEC to be present at Subsurface soil for this RI include the approach for the RI IAW the performance and data quality surveys, the expanded analytical methods
MRS-R03, Range IV, results of the previous will include metrics outlined in the QCP (Section investigation areas will listed for MCs.
because was for practice investigations conducted performing: 4.0). The investigation set out in Figure be delineated into
bombing, including at MRS-03, Range IV. • Surface sweep in 3.5 will meet the performance standards “elevated anomaly
medium-altitude As listed in Section areas to undergo of the PWS: density” areas and
bombing 1.7.4, these include a DGM survey; • all areas with elevated anomaly areas unlikely to
PA, SI, EE/CA, • DGM surveys density or with potential to contain contain UXO
The goal of the RI is to Removal Action and RI. (transects and UXO are traversed and that there is contamination. The
define the nature and The 2012 RI concluded grids) and; a 90 percent chance of detecting intrusive investigations
extent of MEC that MEC had not been • Intrusive these areas; will be placed
potentially associated delineated and investigations. • the boundaries of all identified accordingly based on
with MRS-R03, Range recommended further UXO contaminated areas have been the performance
IV and to determine if investigation. See RI Approach delineated to an accuracy of at least criteria and decision
further response actions detailed in the Work 250 ft; rule applied, with
are required to support The boundaries of the Plan. • 90 percent confidence has been project team
current and future current RI will address achieved for determining the concurrence.
residential, commercial, an expanded investigation potential depth of UXO;
and recreational land area, which include • 90 percent confidence in the nature Evaluations of the
use(2) potential source areas (type and density) of UXO and presence of UXO,
located outside of the munitions related debris, for each MD, frag, and known
original MRS boundaries relatively homogeneous UXO high-density anomaly
in areas that were not contaminated area, has been areas will be used to
previously characterized. achieved; indicate the likelihood
The MRS-R03, Range IV • portions of an MRS which are of contamination.
RI/FS Expanded unlikely to contain UXO
Investigation Area is contamination may be omitted from
composed of 1,170 acres. the above statistical requirements;
and
approach.
decision rules.

Table 3.4d
MEC There is a potential for Risk, Remedy MEC (UXO) Surface and The analytical data inputs The analytical All investigations will be conducted Following the DGM Not applicable, see
Characterization MEC to be present at Subsurface soil for this RI include the approach for the RI IAW the performance and data quality surveys, the MRS will analytical methods
MRS-R09, MG/RR results of the previous will include metrics outlined in the QCP (Section be delineated into listed for MCs.
because the historical EE/CA and RI performing: 4.0). The investigation set out in Figure “elevated anomaly
use of the range was investigation conducted • Surface sweep in 3.6 will meet the performance standards density” areas and
exclusively for small at MRS-09, as discussed areas to undergo of the PWS: areas unlikely to
arms training activities, in Section 1.7.5. The DGM survey; • all areas with elevated anomaly contain UXO
such as basic rifle 2012 RI concluded that • DGM surveys density or with potential to contain contamination. The
marksmanship training. there was a potential (transects and UXO are traversed and that there is intrusive investigations
presence of MEC at grids) and; a 90 percent chance of detecting will be placed
The goal of the RI is to MRS-R09, however it • Intrusive these areas; accordingly based on
define the nature and was unable to be investigations. • the boundaries of all identified the performance
extent of MEC investigated due to ROE UXO contaminated areas have been criteria and decision
potentially associated refusal. See RI Approach delineated to an accuracy of at least rule applied, with
with MRS-R09 to detailed in the Work 250 ft; project team
determine if further The historical boundary Plan. • 90 percent confidence has been concurrence.
response actions are of MRS-R09, achieved for determining the
required to support encompassing 2,056 potential depth of UXO; Evaluations of the
current and future acres, was not expanded • 90 percent confidence in the nature presence of UXO,
residential, commercial, for the RI. However, the (type and density) of UXO and MD, and known high-
and recreational land portion of MRS-R09 that munitions related debris, for each density anomaly areas
use(2) is also part of MRS-R02, relatively homogeneous UXO will be used to indicate
will be investigated as a contaminated area, has been the likelihood of
part of MRS-02. The achieved; contamination.
remaining acres were • portions of an MRS which are
investigated as MRS-09 unlikely to contain UXO
during the current RI. contamination may be omitted from
the above statistical requirements;
and
approach.
decision rules.

Table 3.4e
MC DQO Summary: MRS-R01, MRS-R02, MRS-R03 and MRS-R09
Criteria from Project Objectives Data User Characteristic of Media of Required Locations Number of Samples Interest or Other Performance
USACE Satisfied Perspectives Interest Interest or Areas Required Criteria Sampling Method Analytical Method
MC Characterization Evaluate and determine Risk, Remedy MC to include Soil Incremental sampling Ten 100- by 100-ft ISM The screening levels as developed Approach included ISM samples were
nature and extent of MC explosives and methodology (ISM) sampling unit (SU) during the TPP process are set out in collection of ISM soil analyzed for
parcels based on results
contamination (2) select metals sampling (explosives) the Work Plan Appendix E (QAPP) samples, and discrete explosives (8330B).
of the geophysical
analyses in soil. and discrete sampling survey. Ten discrete worksheets. surface soil samples Analysis of discrete
(metals) conducted at samples collected within Site-specific background samples were within each MRS. soil samples included
locations selected based each MRS. (One discrete used to assess metals concentrations. select metals
on historical information, sample collected from (6020A/7471).
DGM data, and intrusive each of the 10 SUs.) Decision rules regarding MC
investigative results. characterization are provided in Table
If required, surface 3.3.
water features adjacent to
impacted areas were If there are MC detections at
identified for surface concentrations indicating contamination
water, and sediment is present which may constitute a risk to
sampling. Additionally, the public or the environment, a risk
existing groundwater assessment will be performed (Section
wells down gradient of 7.2).
impacted MRSs were
sampled.
decision rules.
(2) For the RI/FS the preliminary remediation objective for MC is based on the screening levels agreed to by the TPP team as being protective of the identified exposure pathways shown in the CSM. The preliminary remediation objective is to ensure that any identified MC contamination at the site determined to pose an
unacceptable risk to human health or the environment is addressed to minimize or mitigate those risks.

FIGURES
Source Interaction Receptors
Current/Future
Outdoor Worker
Indoor Worker
Utility Worker
Construction
Recreational
Trespasser
Resident
Worker
Biota
User
Secondary
Primary Primary Release Secondary Contaminated
Release Exposure Route
Source Mechanism Source Medium
Mechanism
Surface Soil Surface Soil Direct Contact • • • • • • -- •
MEC
Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil Direct Contact • -- • -- -- -- -- --
• Potentially Complete Exposure Route

Figure 3.1a
-- Incomplete Exposure Route Conceptual Site Model - MEC
Contamination
Current Site Conditions
Conway RI; MRS-R01, Range II
Current/Future
Outdoor Worker
Indoor Worker
Utility Worker
Construction
Recreational
Trespasser
Resident
Worker
Biota
User
Secondary
Mechanism
MEC

Figure 3.1b
Contamination
Conway RI; MRS-R02, Range III
Current/Future
Outdoor Worker
Indoor Worker
Utility Worker
Construction
Recreational
Trespasser
Resident
Worker
Biota
User
Secondary
Mechanism
MEC

Figure 3.1c
Contamination
Conway RI; MRS-R03, Range IV
Current/Future
Outdoor Worker
Indoor Worker
Utility Worker
Construction
Recreational
Trespasser
Resident
Worker
Biota
User
Secondary
Mechanism
MEC
• Potentially Complete Exposure Route Figure 3.1d

-- Incomplete Exposure Route
Conceptual Site Model - MEC
Contamination
Conway RI; MRS-R09, Machine
Gun/Rifle Range
Current/Future
Outdoor Worker
Indoor Worker
Utility Worker
Construction
Recreational
Trespasser
Resident
Worker
Biota
User
Secondary Release
Primary Source Primary Release Mechanism Secondary Source Contaminated Medium Exposure Route
Mechanism
Erosion and Stormwater Runoff Incidental Ingestion • • • • • • -- •

MC (from MEC presence) Surface Soil
Dermal Contact • • • • • -- -- •
Incidental Ingestion -- -- -- • • • -- •
Sediment
Dermal Contact -- -- -- • • -- -- •
Surface Soil Bioaccumulation Vegetation/Prey Ingestion -- -- -- -- • • -- •
Surface Soil Dust Emissions Ambient Air Inhalation • • • • • -- • •
Subsurface Soil Incidental Ingestion • -- • -- -- -- -- --

Subsurface Soil
Dermal Contact • -- • -- -- -- -- --
Leaching
Ingestion -- -- -- -- -- -- -- •
Groundwater
Dermal Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- -- •
Inhalation while Showering -- -- -- -- -- -- -- •
Direct Contact1 -- -- -- -- -- • -- --

Figure 3.2a
Conceptual Site Model - MC Contamination
Note: The composition of future surface soil (surface soil data or pooled surface/subsurface soil data) will be determined after evaluation of the soil data. Current Site Conditions
1
If the shallow groundwater is sampled, potential effects to the transition zone community will be evaluated.
Current/Future
Outdoor Worker
Indoor Worker
Utility Worker
Construction
Recreational
Trespasser
Resident
Worker
Biota
User
Primary Release Secondary Release
Primary Source Secondary Source Contaminated Medium Exposure Route
Mechanism Mechanism
Erosion and
MC (from MEC Incidental Ingestion • • • • • • -- •
Stormwater Runoff Surface Soil
presence)
Sediment
Dermal Contact -- -- -- • • -- -- •

Subsurface Soil
Dermal Contact • -- • -- -- -- -- --
Leaching
Ingestion -- -- -- -- -- -- -- •
Groundwater
Dermal Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- -- •
Inhalation while Showering -- -- -- -- -- -- -- •
Direct Contact1 -- -- -- -- -- • -- --

Figure 3.2b
Note: The composition of future surface soil (surface soil data or pooled surface/subsurface soil data) will be determined after
evaluation of the soil data. Current Site Conditions
1
Current/Future
Outdoor Worker
Indoor Worker
Utility Worker
Construction
Recreational
Trespasser
Resident
Worker
Biota
User
Secondary Secondary Release
Primary Source Primary Release Mechanism Contaminated Medium Exposure Route
Source Mechanism
Erosion and Stormwater

Runoff Surface Soil
presence)
Sediment
Dermal Contact -- -- -- • • -- -- •

Subsurface Soil
Dermal Contact • -- • -- -- -- -- --
Leaching
Ingestion -- -- -- -- -- -- -- •
Groundwater
Dermal Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- -- •
Inhalation while
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- •
Showering
Direct Contact1 -- -- -- -- -- • -- --

Figure 3.2c
Note: The composition of future surface soil (surface soil data or pooled surface/subsurface soil data) will be determined after
evaluation of the soil data. Current Site Conditions
1
Current/Future
Outdoor Worker
Indoor Worker
Utility Worker
Construction
Recreational
Trespasser
Resident
Worker
Biota
User
Secondary Secondary Release
Primary Source Primary Release Mechanism Contaminated Medium Exposure Route
Source Mechanism
Erosion and Stormwater

Runoff Surface Soil
presence)
Sediment
Dermal Contact -- -- -- • • -- -- •

Subsurface Soil
Dermal Contact • -- • -- -- -- -- --
Leaching
Ingestion -- -- -- -- -- -- -- •
Groundwater
Dermal Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- -- •
Inhalation while
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- •
Showering
Direct Contact1 -- -- -- -- -- • -- --

Figure 3.2d
Note: The composition of future surface soil (surface soil data or pooled surface/subsurface soil data) will be determined after evaluation of
the soil data. Current Site Conditions
Conway RI; MRS-R09, Machine Gun/Rifle Range
1
2,610,000 2,615,000 2,620,000 2,625,000
Figure 3.3
730,000
730,000
MRS-R01
Proposed Field Activity
Work Plan
Legend
HGL—RIRe
Proposed Overland Transect
(55,981 ft)
Proposed Wetland Transect
(25,318 ft)
725,000
725,000
Proposed Golf Course Transect
p ort—Form e
(78,018 ft)
Proposed Residential Transect
(8,445 ft)
r Conw ayBom b
(649.2 acres)
R01
(2,209.8 acres)
ingandGun
720,000
720,000
(362 acres)
neryRang
Notes:
e
³
,S
C
d
oa of munitions presence.
yR
ac MRS=munitions response site
rL
r dne RI=Remedial Investigation
Ga
\
\Gs t-
s rv-
01 \HGLGI S\Conwa y\
_ MSIW\
RI\
(
3-03) R01 _ Fie
ld_ Ac
tivi
ty
.m xd
1
0/9 /20 17J AR
S
ourc e :HGL,USGS ,US ACE
Arc GISOnlineWorldI ma ge
ry
715,000
715,000
0 1,200 2,400 4,800
Feet
2,610,000 2,615,000 2,620,000 2,625,000

2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000 2,650,000
Figure 3.4
MRS-R02
Work Plan
715,000
715,000
Legend
HGL—RIRe
(58,366.1 ft)
(31,513.7 ft)
p o r t—Fo r me
Proposed Mag and Dig Transect
(11,893.2 ft)
710,000
710,000
r Co nw ayBo mb
R02 (1,961.2 acres)
(2,192.0 acres)
ingandGun
(1,966.3 acres)
705,000
705,000
ay
a r kw
ne
ay s P
lina B
r yRang
Caro Notes:
e
³
,S
C
\\Gs t-s r v-
01\HGLGI S\Co nwa y
\_MSIW\RI
\
(3- 04) R02 _Fie
ld_Activity
.mxd
1 0/ 9/
20 17J AR
700,000
700,000
S o urce :HGL,USGS ,US ACE
ArcGISOnlin eWo r ldImage
ry
0 1,500 3,000 6,000
Feet
2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000 2,650,000

2,675,000 2,680,000 2,685,000
Figure 3.5
MRS-R03
Work Plan
735,000
735,000
Legend
HGL—RIRe
(18,544 ft)
(45,718 ft)
Proposed Golf Course Transect
p o r t—Fo r me
(13,419 ft)
Proposed Mag and Dig Transect
(39,428 ft)
r Co nw ay Bo mb
R03 (4,989 ft)
(886.4 acres)
730,000
730,000
ingandGun
(2,056.4 acres)
(570.8 acres)
ner y Rang
Notes:
e,S
³
C
\\Gs t-s r v-
01\HGLGI S\Co nwa y\_MSIW\RI
\
(3- 05) R03 _Fie
ld_Activity.
mx d
1 0/ 9/
20 17J AR
725,000
725,000
ArcGISOnlin eWo r ldI mage
ry
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet
2,675,000 2,680,000 2,685,000

2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000
Figure 3.6
MRS-R09
Work Plan
Legend
705,000
705,000
HGL— RIRe
(36,024 ft)
p o r t— Fo r me
(231 ft)
ay
a r kw
a ys P
lina B Proposed Wetland Transect
Caro
(4,874 ft)
r Co n w ay Bo mb
700,000
700,000
R09 and Gunnery Range Boundary

(2,503.2 acres)
in g andGun n e
r y Rang e
695,000
695,000
Notes:
,S
C
w ay
H igh \
\Gst-sr v-
01\HGLGI S\Co n w ay\
_MSIW \
RI\
ar ner (
3-06) R09 _Fie
ld_Activity.
mx d
rk G 4
/14 /
20 17J AR
Ma S
o urce:HGL,USGS
ArcGISOn l
,US ACE
in eW o r l
dImage
ry
0 1,500 3,000 6,000
690,000
Feet 690,000
2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000

4.0 CHARACTERIZATION OF MEC AND MC

4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.1.0.1 HGL performed RI field activities at MRS-R01, MRS-R02, MRS-R03, and MRS-R09
from August 24, 2015, through May 13, 2016. The RI field activities were conducted IAW the
approved Work Plan (HGL, 2015a) and FWVs. To meet the established project DQOs, the HGL
RI field team completed the RI activities summarized below. A detailed description of the
methods used for completion of the field activities is included in the approved Work Plan (HGL,
2015a).
Site Planning- ROE:

• HGL compiled county parcel ownership information within the former Conway BGR
and coordinated with USACE to send and track ROE requests to landowners.
Site Preparation:
• HGL conducted surface sweeps by visual inspection of surface locations for MEC or MD
in transects and grids. MEC/MPPEH avoidance procedures were utilized IAW the
approved work plan.
• UXO-trained personnel cleared undergrowth using Bobcat Tracked Loaders with a
50-inch forestry cutter attachment, chainsaws, weed trimmers, and hand tools in the
planned transects and grids on properties with approved ROE.
• Global positioning system (GPS) units were employed to track transect locations for
approximately 28 miles of transects during brush clearing operations. An additional 11.7
miles of brush clearance of transects was required as access paths to allow teams to
access remote areas.
• Teams defined grid boundaries, conducted brush clearance, and set up 158 grids.
Geophysical Surveying:
• HGL teams conducted DGM surveys of 49 miles along transects, and 24 miles of analog
surveys of two types (both intrusive and non-intrusive) which included 17.7 miles of mag
and dig transects and 6.1 miles of non-intrusive analog transects (mag and count).
• HGL conducted 100 percent DGM over a total of 152 variously sized grids.
• HGL processed geophysical data collected using Geosoft Oasis Montaj, generated
anomaly density maps, and prioritized target lists.
Anomaly Reacquisition and Investigation:
• UXO-trained personnel intrusively investigated 1,210 targets and polygons within 143
DGM grids. Not all of the grids with DGM surveys completed could be intrusively
investigated, for various reasons. An additional twelve anomalies were detected and
investigated using analog mag and dig methods in four grids.

• During the completion of the mag and dig transects, teams intrusively investigated 123
total anomalies. Within MRS-R01, 8.9 miles of mag and dig transects included 98
anomalies (15 were MD, 83 were other items or cultural debris); within MRS-R02, 4.5
miles of mag and dig transects did not identify any anomalies; and within MRS-R03,
4.38 miles of mag and dig transects were completed which included 25 anomalies (one
was MD, and 24 were cultural debris).
• Under the direct supervision of the SUXOS, MEC teams resolved identified anomalies
and containerized MD for off-site disposal. (All UXO personnel on this project met the
minimum qualifications outlined in the Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board
Technical Paper-18.)
MC Sampling:
• Based on existing site conditions, historical site activities, and previous investigation data
and results, the PDT determined that a combination of a biased ISM and discrete
sampling strategy was appropriate for characterizing MC at the former Conway BGR.
HGL collected 10 ISM and 10 discrete soil samples within each MRS. Each 100- by
100-ft ISM sampling unit (SU) was composed of 32 increments. Soil sample locations
were biased toward areas of MEC/MD presence, based on historical information, the
confirmed presence of MEC, or high concentrations of MD during RI field activities.
• A total of 10 discrete background soil samples were collected from outside the
investigation boundaries for each MRS. Background samples were analyzed for metals,
including Pb and Zn (Method 6020A).
• Based on the analytical results from the Phase 1 sampling, sampling of additional media
such as sediment, surface water, and subsurface soil was not required.
4.1.0.2 Table 4.1 provides a summary of completed field activities broken down by MRS.
Additional detail of field activities in each MRS is included in the following subchapters.
Figures 4.1 through 4.4 show the ROE permissions received for each MRS. Figures 4.5 through
4.8 show the DGM transect paths that were completed. Figure 4.9 through 4.12 show the
background surface soil locations and the surface soil and ISM SU sampling locations sampled
within the MRS during the RI field activities. Figure 4.13 provides anomaly densities developed
from DGM transect data for MRS-R01.

Table 4.1
Summary of Field Activities Completed by MRS
Item Description Unit MRS-R01 MRS-R02 MRS-R03 MRS-R09

Brush Clearance (all Transect types) Miles 7.74 13.33 3.31 4.03
Overland Mag and Count Transects Miles 0.64 0.36 0.61 0.28
Wetland Mag and Count Transects Miles 1.89 1.33 0.51 0.24
Residential Mag and Count Transects Miles 0.25 0 0 0
Overland DGM Transects Miles 8.71 7.41 0.31 3.38
Wetland DGM Transects Miles 5.82 2.19 0.16 0.35
Golf Course DGM Transects Miles 16.2 0 0 4.82
Grids 50 36 28 10
Characterization DGM Grids Grids 47 30 28 10

DGM Grids in Background Areas Grids 38 30 26 10

Background Mag and Dig Transects Miles 7.34 4.5 4.17 0

(4.5-ft) Acres 4.00 2.45 2.28 0.00
QC Transects Miles 0.94 0.26 0.63 0
Grids 12 4 3 8
Background Grids Intrusively Grids 12 6 5 8

Investigated* Equivalent Acres 2.54 1.08 0.96 1.84
EE/CA DGM Grids Intrusively Grids 9 32 59 0

Investigated in Background Areas* Equivalent Acres 0.52 1.84 3.39 0.00
Intrusively Investigated Anomalies
Each 688 202 227 162
(within Grids)
Incremental Samples / with co-located
Each 9 10 10 10
Discrete Surface Soil Sample
Background Sample, for metals Each 10 10 10 10
*The required acreage to meet residential use (< 0.1 UXO per acre) considering all MRSs is 22.9 acres at 90% confidence. The required
acreage to meet low use (< 0.5 UXO per acre) considering all MRSs is 4.6 acres at 90% confidence.
4.1.1 Obtaining Right of Entry
4.1.1.1 HGL attempted to obtain ROE for the properties within MRS-R01, MRS-R02,
MRS-R03, and MRS-R09 where investigation activities were planned. ROE was granted for a
sufficient number of parcels within the MRSs to complete field activities. HGL mailed ROE
requests to landowners. HGL and USACE Wilmington District representatives also conducted
in person requests to negotiate additional obtain ROE. ROE was tracked using a web-based map
so that the PDT could follow the ROE progress. Figure 4.1 through Figure 4.4 present the
parcels where ROE was granted and where ROE was not granted. Of the 450 separate parcels

identified for field activities, ROE was granted for 221 parcels. ROE was solicited for all parcels
where the work plan proposed field effort, and 221 landowners granted permission for work to
be performed.
4.1.1.3 HGL completed the following activities to obtain ROE:

• Built a GIS database with the real estate data and developed the parcel legal descriptions.
• Conducted ROE support including updating property records in the project GIS for all
landowners within the project boundaries.
• Assisted the USACE Savannah District, Real Estate Division by mailing and tracking
mailed and executed ROEs.
• Supported mailings to landowners, conducted a public meeting, and traveled to the site
to attempt to obtain ROEs by personally contacting landowners.
4.1.2 Field Activities
4.1.2.1 HGL gathered data using a combination of DGM and analog geophysical techniques,
equipment, and methods to investigate MEC. In general, DGM and analog transects and grids
were used to identify potential subsurface anomalies/MEC associated with former activities and
to determine the distribution density and extent of MEC.
4.1.2.2 Vegetation clearance was required before field activities were conducted, if the
landowner granted permission. Mature trees of 4 inches or more in diameter were left in place
and some dense stands of vegetation were not cleared. The geophysical investigations for
MRS-R01, MRS-R02, MRS-R03, and MRS-R09 were conducted with EM61-MK2A detectors
on a wheeled platform and in litter carry mode in combination with a GPS. The DGM
characterization was conducted by a two-person team consisting of a geophysicist and a UXO
technician (or two experienced UXO technicians) along transects that varied in spacing that were
3 ft in width. Grids were placed in areas of high, medium, and low anomaly density IAW the
Work Plan, transect data, and past investigative results. The HGL team processed the digital
geophysical data from the grids to produce maps showing the distribution and magnitude of
identified anomalies that most likely represented MEC or MPPEH. Anomalies were selected
based on size and amplitude results from the IVS. A target list was developed from this data and
was intrusively investigated by HGL to determine the nature of the selected target anomalies.
4.1.2.3 HGL conducted soil characterization for MC using the ISM IAW USACE guidance,
The Implementation of Incremental Sampling of Soil for the Military Munitions Response
Program (MMRP) (USACE, 2009). Soil characterization sampling was conducted at ten 100-ft
by 100-ft SUs and ten co-located discrete soil sample locations in high anomaly density areas,
areas with identified MD or historical investigation MEC, and at 10 background locations for
each MRS.
4.2 MEC CHARACTERIZATION
4.2.0.1 The MEC characterization tasks performed during this RI, described in Chapter 4.1
included the field activities summarized above. The characterization methods performed at the

project site are described in the following subchapters. For project support, portable toilets were
mobilized to the project site. An office and a storage area were set up at a warehouse near MRS-
R02. The office area was equipped with laptop computers and a printer, copier, scanner, and
other supplies and was used for overnight storage of equipment and field gear. On-site
communication was maintained using two-way handheld radios/repeater and cell phones. On-
site conditions and findings were documented using personal digital assistants (PDAs), handheld
GPS, and digital cameras. All field vehicles and the office trailer were equipped with first aid
kits and fire extinguishers.
4.2.0.2 Equipment and sensor technology used for the MEC characterization included WAAS-
enabled GPS, White’s All Metals detectors, Schonstedt GA-52Cx magnetic locators, and the
Geonics EM61-MK2A.
4.2.1 Identification of MEC Contamination
4.2.1.0.1 The RI fieldwork focused on areas where MEC contamination needed further
delineation, based on historical investigations and historical MEC and MD finds, and areas
where no MEC was expected. The overall approach was: (1) conduct DGM surveys along
transects of varying spacing to identify the potential distribution of anomalies, and
(2) incorporate DGM investigations of grids in areas of high, medium, and low anomaly density.
For implementing this strategy at MRS-R02 and MRS-R03, the extensive historical investigation
data was also used to recommend grid locations. Once the established background area was
determined, DGM grid investigations were conducted based on UXO Estimator acreage
requirements to achieve 90 percent confidence that non-MEC contaminated areas have fewer
than 0.1 MEC item per acre for residential use or fewer than 0.5 MEC item for low use areas.
DGM grids were placed throughout each MRS in background areas. The required acreage to
meet residential use (< 0.1 UXO per acre) is 22.9 acres at 90 percent confidence. The required
acreage to meet low use (< 0.5 UXO per acre) is 4.6 acres at 90 percent confidence. Results
of the MEC contamination delineation are provided in Chapter 5.
4.2.1.1 Archeological and Paleontological Surveys
4.2.1.1.1 There are no sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places or with the
American Battlefield Protection Program within the investigation areas or MRS boundaries
(NPS, 2014a; NPS, 2014b). HGL searched the websites of the South Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office and the South Carolina Department of Archives and History (SCDAH) and
identified no significant historic structures or areas within the investigation areas or MRS
boundaries (SCDAH, 2014).
4.2.2 Geophysical Investigation
4.2.2.1 Site Preparation: Vegetation Clearance and Surface Clearance
4.2.2.1.1 The HGL team removed vegetation, as needed, in the areas of transects and grids that
were surveyed during RI activities. Flags and survey stakes were placed or GPS coordinates
were collected to mark transect paths and obstacles to collection of DGM data. No trees greater
than 4-inches in diameter were removed. While conducting vegetation clearance, MPPEH

avoidance procedures were used to identify potential surface hazards. A visual inspection was
performed by a qualified UXO technician to identify potential MPPEH. If possible, surface
metallic debris encountered was removed from the survey area; otherwise, any targets or
obstacles were clearly marked with flags. The location of these target features or obstacles were
mapped with a GPS and incorporated into the GIS for data evaluation. No MEC items were
located during surface clearance or brush cutting; however, an MD item was removed during
preparation for transect brush cutting (MD from a 2.25 inch MK4 MOD 0 Subcaliber Practice
Rocket) found along transect T10110.
4.2.2.2 Location Surveys and Transect / Grid System Development
4.2.2.2.1 A Professional Land Surveyor established three control points at MRS-R01,

MRS-R02, and MRS-R03. The HGL Site Geophysicist utilized a Trimble RTK GPS to verify
the accuracy of the existing site control points and monuments and establish the IVS. Wide area
augmentation system (WAAS)-capable handheld GPS units were uploaded with the start and end
points of each proposed transect and the data collection field teams used the GPS to navigate
along the transects and digitally record the tracks.
4.2.2.2.2 The WAAS-capable GPS systems were also used to scout the general area for each
proposed full coverage grid and provide the approximate coordinates of the grid corners.
Fiberglass measuring tapes were used to construct each grid to specified dimensions (e.g., 50-ft
by 50-ft or 100-ft by 100-ft or an equivalent size for the intended acreage) and metallic survey
nails were placed at all grid corners. Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) GPS was used to establish the
corners for two grids in MRS-R01. Some grids were rectangular instead of square as a result of
localized site characteristics. The UXOQCS placed a blind seed in each grid as required prior
to DGM or analog data collection.
4.2.2.3 DGM and Analog Geophysics
4.2.2.3.0.1 A combination of historical removal action and investigation data, DGM transects
and full coverage grids, analog intrusive transect segments and grids were utilized to characterize
the nature and extent of MEC and MD in all four MRSs. The actual transect paths and grid
locations completed during the RI are shown on Figure 4.5 through Figure 4.8.
4.2.2.3.0.2 DGM data were collected for 49 miles of transects and 152 grids from September
2015 through April of 2016. DGM data were collected within the grids using wheel mode or
line-and-fiducial positioning. The RTK GPS was used in conjunction with the EM61 in several
grids at the beginning of the project. Four grids were investigated using analog intrusive
investigation (“mag and dig”) due to the extensive number of obstacles present. Grids were
assigned alphanumeric IDs and all production tracking was tied to grid IDs.
4.2.2.3.0.3 The extent of the bombing target in MRS-R01 was not well defined by past
investigations. To adequately characterize MRS-R01 target selections from the DGM transect
data were transferred to the Visual Sampling Plan (VSP) software and a color-coded image of
the anomaly density was generated. The anomaly density information was used in conjunction
with previous investigation data to select the optimum locations for placement of the full

coverage DGM grids in high, medium, and low anomaly density regions. An email summarizing
the grid selection process for each MRS and recommended grid locations was delivered to the
USACE technical team for review and acceptance during the field work activities. Based on
feedback from USACE, locations were modified, if requested.
4.2.2.3.0.4 The extent of the bombing target in MRS-R01 was estimated after analysis of the
initial intrusive results and additional DGM grids were distributed throughout the MRS in
presumptively clean areas based on UXO Estimator guidelines. A portion of MRS-R01 is
occupied by an operational golf course, and golf course management requested the RI activities
be performed with minimal disturbance to operations. To comply, HGL substituted mag and dig
transects for the DGM grids on the golf course properties.
4.2.2.3.0.5 Within MRS-R02 and MRS-R03, extensive historical investigation and removal
action data exists that defines the central region of the bombing targets, and the primary RI
objective was to better define the target boundary in these MRSs. A limited amount of DGM
and analog “mag and count” transects were initially performed in MRS-R02 to define the target
area boundary. A VSP evaluation and creation of anomaly density maps were not appropriate
for MRS-R02 and MRS-R03. The main target areas for MRS R02 and R03 were defined during
previous characterization efforts. Additional analysis of anomaly density was not practical based
on insufficient ROE and extensive vegetation that prevented adequate transect coverage in large
regions of MRS R02 and R03. Based on analysis of transect data, HGL placed DGM grids
throughout the remainder MRS-R02 in accessible areas and analyzed the initial intrusive data.
Additional DGM grids were placed in accessible areas based on UXO Estimator guidelines. Mag
and dig transects replaced DGM grids where site conditions were not suitable for DGM in MRS-
R02. The expansive wetlands and very dense vegetation in most areas surrounding MRS-R03
limited the number of DGM and analog grids that could be completed. The primary method
used to refine the historical bombing target boundary was mag and dig transects.
4.2.2.3.0.6 A region of the firing point, in the southwestern portion of MRS-R09 was accessible
for the RI, based on ROE granted. A VSP evaluation and creation of anomaly density map was
not appropriate for MRS-R09 based on low density and lack of ROE. Sampling grids were
evenly distributed in MRS R09 based on the small percentage of ROE and very limited number
of DGM transect targets. The characterization methodology was similar to that performed for
MRS-R01. A golf course landowner granted ROE in the central area of the MRS; however, no
intrusive activities were permitted on the golf course property, though the landowner allowed
DGM transect data to be collected. The anomaly density along the DGM transects was evaluated
and DGM grids were placed in areas where ROE were granted. The intrusive information was
analyzed, and additional grids were placed based on UXO Estimator guidelines.
4.2.2.3.0.7 The DGM QC program consisted of the geophysical system verification (GSV)
approach, which included an IVS and blind seeding of the full coverage DGM and analog grids.
Additional elements of the QC program included a battery of instrument functional tests
performed in the morning prior to production DGM and at the end of each day, as well as
implementation of the geophysical feedback process and acceptance sampling.

4.2.2.3.0.8 The DGM data deliverable is included in Appendix F and includes the IVS report,
Microsoft Access database, and digital versions of the geophysical data (Oasis Montaj. GDB,
.MAP, and .XYZ files) for all four MRSs. Specific tables within the Microsoft Access database
document the results of the DGM and analog QC program performed during production activities
and during the anomaly reacquire and intrusive phases of the project.
4.2.2.3.1 GSV
4.2.2.3.1.1 The IVS was used at the start of the project to ensure functionality of the DGM
systems and is the basis for the IVS Report. The initial IVS was located near the Saint Mark
Coptic Orthodox Church in MRS-R02. A second “satellite” IVS was established in MRS-R01
due to the travel time between the two MRSs. The satellite IVS was destroyed by landfill
operations and was not used after November 2015. IVS items used to verify the operation of the
EM61-MK2A consisted of several small industry standard objects (ISOs) at multiple orientations
and depths.
4.2.2.3.1.2 Throughout the project the DGM teams used the IVS locations to perform the daily
QC test regimen, which included a minimum of one pass along the IVS centerline and noise
lines. The data collected at the IVSs throughout the duration of the project are summarized in
the appropriate tables in the Microsoft Access database.
4.2.2.3.1.3 As part of the GSV process, HGL placed 152 blind seeds (1 per grid) to verify
performance of the DGM equipment and provide verifiable target detection and positioning
capabilities over the course of the DGM survey. The blind seeds were also used as a tool for
evaluating specific data collection, processing, and anomaly selection procedures and intrusive
investigation performance criteria.
4.2.2.3.1.4 Blind seed items consisted of small ISOs placed within the upper 0.25 meter (m) of
soil. The position of each blind seed item within the full coverage grids was measured with a
fiberglass measuring tape by the UXOQCS from the southwest grid corner. The DGM survey
team and data processor/analyst did not have prior knowledge of placement locations of the blind
seeds. DGM transects were not seeded.
4.2.2.3.2 Analog Verification

4.2.2.3.2.1 Multiple test pits were established for the project and used on a daily basis to validate
the personnel and detectors used for analog geophysics. The test pit design consisted of a small
ISO buried horizontally at 10-centimeter (cm) depth. The UXOQCS also placed coverage and
blind seeds in the four grids where analog investigation (“mag and dig”) of the grid was
performed. A minimum of one blind seed item was used per instrument operator. The Access
database table “Analog_Instrument_QC_Results” contains the documentation for the instrument
QC test results.
4.2.2.3.3 Data Collection
4.2.2.3.3.1 DGM data were collected along characterization transects and within full coverage
grids using two unique instrument configurations and modes of data acquisition. For transect
data collection, a WAAS GPS system was used to provide positioning data for the geophysical

measurements. EM61-MK2A data were acquired using a wheeled platform (or litter carry) at a
minimum rate of 10 hertz (Hz). The National Marine Electronics Association (NMEA)
positioning string from the WAAS GPS was updated at 1 Hz and integrated with the
EM61-MK2A measurements in real-time in the ruggedized data logger.
4.2.2.3.2.2 The acquisition system for the full coverage grids consisted of an EM61-MK2A on
a wheeled platform. Wheel mode or automatic mode (line and fiducial positioning) were used to
locate the geophysical measurements within each full coverage grid along acquisition lines
spaced 2.5 ft apart. Prior to data collection plastic tent stakes were positioned at regular intervals
within each grid using fiberglass measuring tapes to assist the field team with navigation. Wheel
mode utilized the wheel counter on the EM61 to trigger measurements at 20 cm (8 inch) intervals
along each line. For the line and fiducial method data were automatically recorded at a minimum
rate of 10 Hz along each line and fiducial marks were placed in the digital data at regular
intervals and used during data processing to determine the coordinates for the geophysical
measurements.
4.2.2.3.2.3 Mag and dig transects were performed in MRS-R01, MRS-R02, and MRS-R03.
The analog transect team used the virtual transects displayed on the WAAS GPS screen to
navigate along each transect and investigate “hits” detected with the Schonstedt or White’s
handheld detectors. The GPS track path was recorded in conjunction with each intrusive location
and the data were transferred to the HGL GIS department.
4.2.2.4 Data Transfer
4.2.2.4.0.1 The DGM data, field notes, sketches, and README files for each day were
transmitted by field personnel through a secure HGL network site on a daily basis for retrieval
by the HGL data processor / analyst. The data processor / analyst evaluated the data on a daily
basis and a data package was transmitted to USACE on a weekly basis.
4.2.2.4.1 Data Conversion and Initial Processing
4.2.2.4.1.1 The EM61-MK2A data collected over the characterization transects and full
coverage grids were converted from binary to ASCII format using the Geonics DAT61MK2
software. EM61-MK2A measurements for the transects were positioned in Universal Transverse
Mercator Zone 17 North coordinates using the position information in the GPS NMEA data
string and the sensor measurements and positions were output to an XYZ file for direct upload
into Oasis Montaj. EM61-MK2A data collected with wheel or fiducial mode required additional
processing in DAT61MK2 prior to transfer to Oasis Montaj for final data processing.
4.2.2.4.2 Review of Daily Instrument Functional Tests
4.2.2.4.2.1 The daily QC tests were analyzed using the UX-Process suite of applications in
Oasis Montaj and the results documented in the Microsoft Access database.
4.2.2.4.2.2 For the static background and spike test, the data processor used the static test tool
in the UX-Process module to assess the background level, instrument drift, and the response to
the standard test item. For the cable shake and personnel tests, the data processor reviewed the
data for data spikes and other deviations that exceeded the metrics specified in the Work Plan.

4.2.2.4.2.3 Evaluation of the IVS dynamic repeatability test included manual selection of target
locations corresponding to each IVS item utilizing the data profiles. The position and signal
intensity for each IVS item were compared to baseline values, which were established at the
start of each instrument’s use on the project.
4.2.2.4.3 Final Data Processing – Characterization Transects

4.2.2.4.3.1 The UX-Process module of Oasis Montaj was used to perform the final data
processing. The general processing sequence consisted of corrections for latency and drift, and
editing of overlapping and repeat data acquisition lines in some areas. As part of the final data
processing sequence spatial sampling statistics that included along line measurement spacing,
dynamic noise, and platform speed were calculated using UX-Process tools and documented in
the Microsoft Access database.
4.2.2.4.3.2 Individual Oasis Montaj geophysical databases (GDBs) for the DGM data and target
selections were merged into a master GDB for the entire site to facilitate evaluation of the survey
progress and assessment of the data. The final processed data and Microsoft Access database
were transferred to USACE on a weekly basis during project execution.
4.2.2.4.3.3 Targets were selected along the characterization transects using a Channel 2 signal
intensity of 4 millivolt (mV). The instrument path along transects and the coordinates for each
target selected were transferred to the VSP software and the information was used to generate a
color-coded anomaly density image for MRS-R01. The anomaly density map for MRS-R01
(Figure 4.13) was used in conjunction with historical data to select locations for the full coverage
DGM grids. Anomaly density maps were not appropriate for MRSs R02, R03, and R09.
Sampling grids were evenly distributed in MRS R09 based on the small percentage of ROE and
very limited number of DGM transect targets. The main target areas for MRS R02 and R03
were defined during previous characterization efforts. Additional analysis of anomaly density
was not practical based on insufficient ROE and extensive vegetation that prevented adequate
transect coverage in large regions of MRS R02 and R03.An email with technical descriptions of
the proposed grid locations was developed for each MRS and distributed to USACE for review
and acceptance.
4.2.2.4.4 Final Data Processing - Full Coverage Grids
4.2.2.4.4.1 Upon receiving the data, the data processor reviewed the field notes, field sketches,
and the digital EM61-MK2A data files. If any issues were identified, such as an incorrect wheel
increment value or incorrect direction of a survey line, the data processor corrected the
*.m61 file.
4.2.2.4.4.2 The corrected *.m61 file was uploaded into the DAT61MK2 software and the
processing tools were used to define the correct start and stop coordinates of each acquisition
line based on the field sketch map created by the DGM field team. The data processor checked
the start and end coordinates of each obstacle in the *.m61 file and compared the coordinates
with those documented in the field notes and grid sketch maps. The final procedure involved
adjusting the coordinates based on the locations of the plastic tent stakes placed at regular
intervals within the survey area. After the correct relative coordinates along each line or line

segment were determined, the file was exported in XYZ format for direct upload into Oasis
Montaj.
4.2.2.4.4.3 The UX-Process module of Oasis Montaj was used to perform the final data
processing. The general processing sequence consisted of corrections for lag and drift. The
parameters used for these corrections were dependent on the data characteristics for each dataset
and the parameters are documented in the Microsoft Access database. Statistics for sample
measurement (along-line) spacing, grid coverage, dynamic noise, and platform speed were
calculated using UX-Process tools and documented in the Microsoft Access database.
4.2.2.4.4.4 DGM data were interpolated (gridded) to generate color-coded images of the
EM61-MK2A data for each grid using the minimum curvature gridding routine at a 15-cm cell
size and 50 cm blanking distance. The Blakely routine in UX Process module was used to select
targets using channel 2 at a minimum signal intensity of 4 mV. A representative color scale was
selected to exhibit responses from small, isolated anomalies as well as responses from more
significant features such as potential large-scale burial areas.
4.2.2.4.4.5 The final processed data and Microsoft Access database were transferred to USACE
on a weekly basis during project execution.
4.2.2.5 Target Selection
4.2.2.5.1 A total of 1,172 targets were selected along the characterization transects in MRS-R01,
MRS-R02, and MRS-R09. Six hundred twenty-four (624) viable targets were selected in 152
DGM grids in all four MRSs. An additional 711 target selections represent the nails placed by
HGL at grid corners and blind seeds. Two (2) areas with saturated EM61 signal intensity were
identified in Grids 1004 and 1046, and the data processor / analyst used a polygon in each grid
to define the area for mag and dig operations. Section 5.1 documents the results of the intrusive
investigations performed for each MRS.
4.2.2.6 Geophysics Quality Control Results
4.2.2.6.1 The results of the geophysical QC program are documented in the Microsoft Access
database, including the results for the blind seeds and geophysical feedback process. During the
project, there were no significant issues identified with the daily QC tests and blind seed results
that would alter the overall characterization results presented in this report.
4.2.2.6.2 The geophysical feedback process was used to ensure the representativeness of the
intrusive information. Five (5) anomaly locations were revisited by the dig teams prior to
releasing the respective grids to the UXOQCS for acceptance sampling. The results for the
feedback process are presented in the Microsoft Access database.
4.2.2.6.3 The results of the DGM QC results are summarized below. The digital results are
presented in the Microsoft Access database in Appendix F.
4.2.2.6.4 Project Metric: Static Response Repeatability – The static response of each EM61
system channel to a standard test object must be within 10 percent of the reference value

established either at the start of the project or when the instrument is placed into use for the first
time. Throughout the project 334 tests were performed during production DGM (transects and
grids) and during anomaly reacquire, intrusive, and QC activities at the beginning and end of
each day. Additional static tests were performed throughout the project when the field team
assessed ambient interference from power lines or other sources of electromagnetic interference
and when they switched batteries. All 334 static spike tests (100 percent) used to validate the
production DGM data achieved the metric.
4.2.2.6.5 Project Metric: Along Line Spacing – At least 98 percent of the samples along each
line must be within 25 cm. For DGM transects and full coverage grids, 192 of the 200 datasets
achieved the metric (96.0 percent). The eight datasets that did not achieve the metric are full
coverage grids in MRS-R01 that were collected in wheel-mode. The latency correction applied
to data collected at variable speeds artificially increased the sample spacing.
4.2.2.6.6 Project Metric: Survey Speed – At least 95 percent of the data must be collected at
speeds of less than 1.6 meters per second. For DGM transects and full coverage grids, 191 of
the 200 datasets achieved the metric (95.5 percent). The nine datasets that did not achieve the
metric were collected along transects, and one of the transect segments was recollected. The
along line spacing metric was achieved for these datasets and the noise was not elevated.
4.2.2.6.7 Project Metric: Spatial Coverage of Grids – DGM data collected in each grid are
required to exceed 90 percent coverage at a 0.75-meter line spacing for all accessible areas. All
152 final datasets (100 percent) for the full coverage DGM grids achieved the metric.
4.2.2.6.8 Project Metric: Dynamic Response and Position Repeatability – Dynamic response
repeatability of each EM61 data channel for the three IVS items is required to exceed 75 percent
of the reference values established at the start of the project, and the offset will not exceed 0.90
m (dynamic positioning repeatability). One hundred fifty-three (153) tests were performed over
the three ISOs at the IVSs located in MRS R01 and R02:
• Four hundred forty-eight (448) of the 459 response packets (153 tests encountered 3 ISOs
during each test) achieved the dynamic repeatability signal metric when all data channels
were evaluated (97.6 percent). Five (5) response packets that did not achieve the metric
occurred when using the litter carry platform for the 9/28 and 12/1 AM tests. The
remaining six response packets occurred over ISO 2, which is oriented parallel to the
direction of travel of the EM61 coil. The signal trough is selected for this ISO, and the
response is diminished when the speed of the platform is slow. Eight (8) of the 9 response
packets that did not achieve the metric occurred during transect DGM. For any test where
an ISO failed to meet the metric, the other test performed that day by the same team had
all three of the ISOs achieving the metric (100 percent).
• Dynamic position repeatability was only evaluated when RTK GPS, wheel mode or line
and fiducial was used at the IVS. Three hundred thirty (330) of the 330 response packets
achieved the dynamic positioning metric (100 percent).
4.2.2.6.9 Project Metric: Blind Seeds – All blind seeds are required to achieve the dynamic
response and positioning repeatability metrics (blind seeds will have a signal intensity greater

than 75 percent of the reference value established at the start of the project and the offset will
be within 0.90 m of the known position). All blind seeds (100 percent) achieved the dynamic
response and positioning repeatability metrics. The QC geophysicist identified the following
minor issues related to blind seed items based on weekly reviews during project execution:
• Dynamic positioning metric not achieved for Grid 1026 (metric exceeded by
approximately 0.1 m). The field team used the middle and front of the coil to reference
the position of the EM61 near obstacles which resulted in inaccurate position data in
some portions of the grid. The data processor / analyst reprocessed the data using the
center of the coil as the reference and the reprocessed data achieved the metric.
• Dynamic positioning metric not achieved for seven grids based on processed DGM data.
The UXOQCS revisited the seven grids and re-measured the location of the blind seed
items and all seven grids achieved the metric.
4.2.2.6.10 Project Metric: Geodetic Equipment Functionality – Position offset of known control
point within 5 m for WAAS-enabled GPS in “open” areas. When WAAS capable GPS was used
for characterization transects the control point was either statically occupied or mapped using a
cross pattern. The maximum offset between the interpreted and known location for the control
points was 4.47 m, which achieves the performance metric of 5 meters. When RTK GPS was
used for grid DGM or anomaly reacquire, static position offsets were within 0.08 m, which
achieves the performance metric of 0.15 m.
4.2.2.6.11 Project Metric: Anomaly Resolution – 100 percent of intrusive locations will be
assessed with the EM61-MK2 post-intrusive. Residual signals greater than 4 mV (Channel 2)
will require additional verification. The UXOQCS checked 1,141 target locations and one
polygon with the EM61, including the targets selected at the grid corner nails that were
investigated by the dig teams. One thousand-one hundred-thirteen (1,113) of the hole checks
resulted in “no contact”; 27 resulted in miscellaneous findings including a utility, hot soils
caused by residual small pieces of disintegrated metal, existing metal that could not be removed
by the original dig teams, and 2 checks were not completed because the anomaly source was
under a golf cart path; and 2 checks resulted in SAA.
4.2.2.6.12 The UXOQCS observed the dig team investigate the polygon in grid 1004, which
was determined through intrusive findings and an interview with a landfill employee to be the
remnants of an old concrete ramp. The polygon is considered characterized and was not checked
by the UXOQCS with an EM61 post-intrusive.
4.2.2.6.13 Project Metric: Analog Test Pit – All items in test area detected when used for
subsurface characterization (mag and dig or mag and count - trains ear daily to items of interest.
Test item used at local area at least once per day prior to performing anomaly avoidance and
intrusive activities. Three hundred sixty-two (362) independent tests were performed during the
project for the Schonstedt and White’s detectors. All of the tests (100 percent) achieved the
metric.
4.2.2.6.14 Project Metric: Mag and dig coverage and blind seeds – Blind coverage seeds and
blind detection seeds recovered (75 percent if MEC and 90 percent if no MEC). Mag and dig

was performed over four full coverage grids, and all coverage and blind seeds (100 percent)
were detected and recovered by the dig team.
4.2.2.6.15 Project Metric: Analog Transect Dynamic Repeatability (transects used for density
estimates and transects with digging) – Repeat a segment of transect and show extra flags/digs
not greater than the greater of 20 percent or 8 flags/digs, or w/in range of adjacent segments.
The UXOQCS checked 1,244 linear meters of the 9,876 meters of mag and count transects
(12.6 percent). On one transect segment in R01 the QC counts were 8 versus 18 by the
production team, however, the counts were within the range of adjacent transect segments. The
UXOQCS checked 1,389 linear meters of the 28,559 linear meters of mag and dig transects
(4.9 percent) and no significant metal was detected other than the metal identified during the
initial digging that was left in place.
4.2.2.6.16 Project Metric: Analog Transect Hole Checks– Second party checks open holes to
determine:
• If MEC: 70 percent confidence <10 percent anomalies unresolved (lot size of 100; check
11)
4.2.2.6.17 The UXOQCS checked 18 out of 123 intrusive locations along the mag and dig
transects and no significant metal was identified.
4.2.2.7 Dig Sheet Development
4.2.2.7.1 Dig sheets and color-coded images of each grid with the target selections superimposed
were sent to the SUXOS at the site from the HGL processing center. The number of targets
within each MRS selected for investigation during the investigation is provided in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2
Number of Anomalies Identified for Investigation in Grids
# of DGM DGM Targets Mag and Dig Analog Anomalies
MRS Grids Identified* Polygons # of Analog Grids Identified
MRS-R01 63 703 2 0 0
MRS-R02 40 245 0 2 10
MRS-R03 31 225 0 2 2
MRS-R09 18 162 0 0 0
TOTAL 152 1335 2 4 12
*The total will not equal targets intrusively investigated due to refusals to evacuate or other access issues.
4.2.3 Intrusive Investigation
4.2.3.0.1 The intrusive investigation was conducted by certified UXO technicians IAW the
approved Work Plan and under the approved Explosives Site Plan (ESP) (including all
Amendments); except as noted in Chapter 4.4.2, Work Plan Variances. The results of the
intrusive investigation are summarized in Chapter 5.1 of this report and the findings of the
intrusive investigations are presented in Appendix F.

4.2.3.1 Anomaly Reacquisition and Resolution
4.2.3.1.1 Before beginning intrusive activities, field teams navigated to the location of each
target on the dig sheet. The field team then intrusively investigated by starting at the location of
the highest mV reading and extending to within a 1-meter search radius for excavation. Intrusive
operations at each target location were conducted by hand. Excavation teams dug at the location
of the highest mV reading within the search radius until the target was resolved. The dig teams
used an EM61 in real-time mode to check each excavation and the residual EM61 signal intensity
was documented on the dig sheet.
4.2.3.1.2 After all targets within each grid were resolved to the satisfaction of the dig team and
the HGL geophysical team the grid was released to the HGL UXOQCS for acceptance sampling
(final hole checks). The UXOQCS checked 100 percent of the intrusive locations with an EM61
and documented the residual EM61 signal intensity.
4.2.3.1.3 During the project the HGL geophysical team identified 5 targets through the feedback
process that were required to be reinvestigated by the dig teams. The dig teams reinvestigated
the targets prior to releasing the respective grids to the UXOQCS for acceptance sampling.
4.2.3.2 Munitions with the Greatest Fragmentation Distance
4.2.3.2.1 The munition with greatest fragmentation distance (MGFD) for the area is the item
that has the greatest fragmentation distance of any or all MEC items that are reasonably expected
to be found within that area, based on research or site characterization. As presented in the
approved ESP in the Work Plan (HGL, 2015a), the MGFD applicable to MRS-R01, MRS-R02,
and MRS-R03 were based on historical documents and previous investigations. HGL maintained
the applicable MGFD during the investigations. No MEC was located during the RI field
activities that required a change to the MGFD.
4.2.3.3 Minimum Separation Distance
4.2.3.3.1 The minimum separation distance is the protective distance based on the characteristics
of the selected MGFD. A minimum separation distance of for both intentional and unintentional
detonations was established for nonessential personnel based on the hazardous fragment distance
of the MGFD. Minimum separation distances for intentional detonations were also established
for disposal operations and these were based on the appropriate MGFD. HGL maintained the
applicable minimum separation distance during RI field activities.
4.2.3.4 Exclusion Zones
4.2.3.4.1 Exclusion zones (EZs) were established during the RI to protect the public and non-
essential personnel from both intentional and unintentional detonations. The boundary of the EZ
was established as the distance of the applicable minimum separation distance for each MRS for
unintentional detonations, and this EZ distance was enforced throughout the intrusive operations
at the project site.

4.2.4 MPPEH Management
4.2.4.1 MPPEH Identification and Removal
4.2.4.1.1 Intrusive investigations were conducted by teams of varying size (minimum three-
person teams) consisting of one UXO Technician III (team leader) and up to four qualified UXO
Technician IIs or UXO Technician Is. The team conducted reacquisition and marking and
conducted intrusive investigation of reacquired and marked anomalies. Excavation procedures
at each anomaly location were conducted IAW the Work Plan. Intrusive investigation conducted
along transects and within grids (DGM and analog) included 1,290 targets that were intrusively
investigated. Some targets contained multiple pieces of MPPEH. None of the MPPEH inspected
was confirmed to be MDEH. Of the MPPEH inspected, 169 pieces were assessed and
documented as not presenting an explosive hazard and determined to be MDAS. The 169 pieces
of MDAS consisted of 104 pieces from 100-lb M38A2 Practice bombs, 28 pieces from 2.25-
inch SCAR, 2 pieces from 20-lb M41 Fragmentation Bomb, 2 unidentifiable fragments and 33
pieces of Small Arms Ammunition (either casings or projectiles).
4.2.4.2 Explosives Storage Magazine
4.2.4.2.1 A Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) Type II magazine was established
for storage of donor explosives, IAW the approved ESP (HGL, 2015b). A double-lock system
secured the magazine; one key was controlled by the SUXOS and the other was controlled by
the UXOQCS. In addition to the locks, the magazine was enclosed in chain link fence, which
was also secured with a heavy-duty lock. The key for this lock was also controlled by the
UXOQCS. The magazine was located west of MRS-R02 and south of MRS-R01. As the field
activities began to be closer to completion, and no demolition operations were required, HGL
chose not to store any explosives in the magazine. On-call delivery of explosives was always
available as an option for the HGL team. The magazine was removed from the site without
storing any explosives.
4.2.4.3 MDEH Disposal
4.2.4.3.1 Documentation of recovered MPPEH items was maintained during the RI. Each piece
of recovered MPPEH was tracked from its identification through its final disposition. No MDEH
was encountered, so no items were required to be blown-in-place or relocated for demolition.
The SUXOS was responsible for the tracking and maintenance of all MPPEH recovered during
the project.
4.2.4.4 Inspection of MPPEH
4.2.4.4.1 Potential MPPEH items identified during intrusive operations were evaluated by the
SUXOS and the UXOSO/UXOQCS. No MDEH was located during the field activities.
4.2.4.4.2 MDAS was certified after a 100% inspection and an independent 100% re-inspection
to determine that no explosives hazards existed. The SUXOS and UXOSO/UXOQCS both
verified and signed the DD Form 13481A to certify the material as material documented as safe
(MDAS). After inspection and certification, recovered MDAS items were containerized and

stored in the secure storage area until appropriate disposition was arranged. The Records of
MDAS inspection and certification, transportation, and smelting of the 10,230 lbs of MDAS are
provided in Appendix A.
4.2.4.5 Intrusive Investigation QC
4.2.4.5.1 Following intrusive investigations, QC efforts included the UXOQCS revisiting all
anomalies classified as “no contacts” to verify the results at each investigation location.
Anomalies 4 mV or above were also independently checked by the UXOQCS/QC Team. The
Project Geophysicist also reviewed the reacquisition and dig results for all anomalies in the
intrusive results database. Documentation for each of these QC elements is provided in the
intrusive results tables in Appendix F.
4.3 MC CHARACTERIZATION
4.3.0.1 The MC characterization at the former Conway BGR was based on surface soil sampling
and analysis. RI soil sample analytical results were compared to preliminary screening values to
evaluate the presence of MC contamination. The characterization methods performed at the
project site are described in the following subchapters.
4.3.1 Purpose of MC Sampling Activities
4.3.1.1 The objective of the RI for potential MC contamination was to first determine if there
was evidence of a release of MC to the environment and then to characterize the nature and
extent of the release. The data obtained during the investigation is used to assess whether the
MC present poses a potential risk to human health and the environment and, therefore, should
be considered to be COCs. Soil characterization was conducted to determine if a remedial
response to MC-related contamination is required and, if so, to provide the required information
for the development and evaluation of any necessary response alternatives. To achieve these
objectives, soil samples were collected from locations that were selected based on historical
information, the confirmed presence of MEC, or high concentrations of MD during RI field
activities.
4.3.2 Field Sampling Activities Summary
4.3.2.0.1 The MC sampling and analysis was performed at MRS-R01, MRS-R02, MRS-R03,
and MRS-R09 within the former Conway BGR where MEC investigation activities were
conducted and ROE had been granted. Because only limited previous sampling had been
conducted, the objective of sampling was to determine if a MC release has occurred at the project
site as a result of munitions-related activities, resulting in the confirmed presence of MC
contamination. The samples collected were biased to areas where MEC and/or large quantities
of MD were found during previous investigations or during the MEC investigation at each MRS.
4.3.2.1 Surface Soil Sampling
4.3.2.1.1 Ten ISM soil samples and 10 discrete soil samples were collected from MRS-R01,
MRS-R02, MRS-R03, and MRS-R09 at biased locations to determine the potential presence or

absence of MC contamination. Locations were selected based on an evaluation of the anomaly

density data and the intrusive results, where MEC and/or large quantities of MD were found
during previous investigations, and in areas with accepted ROE. Discrete surface soil samples
were collected within each of the SUs in areas that were judged most likely to have MC
contamination based on MEC/MD presence.
4.3.2.1.2 Prior to the collection of samples, the sampling personnel prepared the sample kit.
Samples were placed into either a polyethylene bag (ISM samples) or an 8-ounce sample jar
(discrete samples). Sample containers were marked with pre-printed sample labels which were
filled out in the field with a unique sample identifier and adhered to the container with waterproof
tape. Samples were logged into a field log book (Appendix H-5), which included sample
identification numbers, times, samplers, and location data. Sample locations were recorded and
incorporated into the GIS database.
4.3.2.1.3 All ISM grids were 100-ft by 100-ft in size, and consisted of 32 increments which
yielded sample weights between the 1 or 2 kilograms. The sampling was conducted IAW the
approved work plan, including the QAPP, the guidance document titled Implementation of
Incremental Sampling (IS) of Soil for the MMRP (USACE, 2009) and SOP-002 Multi-
Incremental Sampling Method (April, 2014).
4.3.2.1.4 Discrete soil samples were also collected from the ground surface to 0.5 ft bgs using
decontaminated stainless-steel equipment. These samples were collected IAW the approved work
plan, including the QAPP (worksheet #27) and SOP-2.13 Surface and Shallow Depth Soil
Sampling (December, 2010).
4.3.2.1.5 Information regarding background metals concentrations present in the surface soils
at the Former Conway BGR does not exist; therefore, an additional ten discrete soil samples per
MRS were collected to be representative of background soil conditions. The background soil
samples were collected at depths of 0 to 0.5 ft bgs from outside suspected MEC contaminated
portions of the MRSs, and in areas of low anomaly density or where no MEC/MD was known
to be located.
4.3.2.1.6 Based on ordnance found at the site and contents of these munitions, the primary MC
potentially associated with the former Conway BGR were identified as explosives, Pb, and Zn.
These constituents were established by the Final Work Plan (HGL, 2015a) as the analyses
planned for soil samples collected during the RI. The soil samples were analyzed for the
following metals using USEPA Method SW6020A:
• Pb
• Zn
4.3.2.1.7 Soil samples were also analyzed for the following explosives using USEPA Method
SW8330B:
• 1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene (TNB) • 4-Amino-2,6-DNT • Tetryl
• 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) • HMX • m-Dinitrobenzene
• 2,4- dinitrotoluene (DNT) • Nitrobenzene • m-Nitrotoluene

• 2,6-DNT • Nitroglycerin • o-Nitrotoluene

• 2-Amino-4,6-DNT • PETN • p-Nitrotoluene
• RDX
4.3.2.1.8 The sample identification and the rationale for the specific location selected for each
sample are listed in Table 4.3, Table 4.4, Table 4.5, and Table 4.6 below. The sample locations
are illustrated on Figure 4.9 through Figure 4.12. The results of the ISM, discrete, and
background sampling are summarized in Appendix B-1.
Table 4.3
Sampling Locations and Rationale - MRS-R01
Sample Collocated
Identification Discrete Sample
(ID) Sample ID Date Rationale for sample location
MRS01-IS-01 MRS01-SS-01 5/9/2016 Collected near grid 1002, which had high concentrations of MD
and SAA, representative of the central portion of the MRS.
MRS01-IS-03 MRS01-SS-03 5/10/2016 Collected near grid 1008, where MD was found.
MRS01-IS-04 MRS01-SS-04 5/10/2016 Collected from grid 1011, which had high concentrations of
MD.
MRS01-IS-05 MRS01-SS-05 5/10/2016 Collected near grid 1025, where SAA was found.
Representative of the northwestern portion of the expanded
investigation area.
MRS01-IS-06 MRS01-SS-06 5/10/2016 Collected near grid 1032, where MD was found. Representative
of the western portion of the expanded investigation area.
MRS01-IS-07 MRS01-SS-07 5/9/2016 Collected near grid 1049, where SAA was found,
representative of the central portion of the MRS.
SAA, representative of the central portion of the MRS.
MD and SAA, representative of the central portion of the MRS.
MRS01-IS-10 MRS01-SS-10 5/10/2016 Near a possible historical impact area, within an accessible
sample location, representative of the northeast portion of the
expanded investigation area.

Table 4.4
Collocated
Discrete Sample
Sample ID Sample ID Date Rationale for sample location:
MRS02-IS-01 MRS02-SS-01 5/11/2016 High concentrations of historical MD, representative of the central
portion of the MRS.
MRS02-IS-02 MRS02-SS-02 5/11/2016 Near high concentrations of historical MD and MEC items found
during previous investigations, representative of the central portion
of the MRS.
MRS02-IS-03 MRS02-SS-03 5/11/2016 Near a high concentration of historical MD, within an accessible
sample location.
MRS02-IS-04 MRS02-SS-04 5/11/2016 Near a high concentration of historical MD, on the edge of the
ROE boundary.
MRS02-IS-05 MRS02-SS-05 5/11/2016 Near a historical small arms MD, within accessible sample
location.
MRS02-IS-06 MRS02-SS-06 5/11/2016 Representative of the western portion of the MRS, within an
accessible sample location.
MRS02-IS-07 MRS02-SS-07 5/11/2016 Near a high concentration of historical MD, on the edge of the
ROE boundary, and within an accessible sample location.
MRS02-IS-08 MRS02-SS-08 5/11/2016 Near MEC items found during previous investigations, on the edge
of the ROE boundary, and within an accessible sample location.
Table 4.5
Collocated
Discrete Sample
Sample ID Sample ID Date Rationale for ISM location:
MRS03-IS-01 MRS03-SS-01 5/11/2016 Near locations of historical MD, on the edge of the ROE
boundary, and within an accessible sample location.
MRS03-IS-02 MRS03-SS-02 5/12/2016 Collected near grid 3015, where MD was found.
MRS03-IS-04 MRS03-SS-04 5/12/2016 Near a location of historical MD, and within an accessible sample
location.
MRS03-IS-06 MRS03-SS-06 5/12/2016 Near locations of historical MD, near a possible historical crater
location, on the edge of the ROE boundary, and within an

Table 4.6
Collocated
Discrete Sample
Sample ID Sample ID Date Rationale for ISM location:
MRS09-IS-01 MRS09-SS-01 5/12/2016 Representative of the western portion of the MRS near potential
firing points, within an accessible sample location.
MRS09-IS-02 MRS09-SS-02 5/12/2016 Collected near grid 9503, where SAA was found.
firing points or target areas, within an accessible sample
location.
firing points or target areas, within an accessible sample
location.
MRS09-IS-07 MRS09-SS-07 5/12/2016 Collected near grid 9002, where SAA was found. Representative
of the western portion of the MRS near potential firing points or
target areas.
target areas.
target areas.
target areas.
4.3.2.2 Sample Handling and Packaging
4.3.2.2.1 Soil sampling, handling, packaging, and shipping, were conducted IAW the approved
Work Plan (HGL, 2015a). Immediately after collection, samples were packaged with ice IAW
the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) worksheet #27 and shipped to the contracted
laboratory. Chains-of-custody were created for each sample shipment/cooler; copies of the
chains-of-custody are included in the laboratory data package in Appendix B.
4.3.2.3 QC and QA
4.3.2.3.1 The soil sampling activities were conducted IAW the approved QAPP (Appendix E of
the Work Plan). The QAPP submitted with the Work Plan addressed the DQOs, analytical
methods, specific QA and QC activities, laboratory requirements, and data assessment activities
designed to achieve the data quality goals of the project.
4.3.2.3.2 The sampling team collected QC (field triplicates) and QA samples. For ISM samples,
triplicate QC sampling was conducted at a rate of one per MRS at three of the MRSs. One ISM
SU collected in triplicate equated to three field samples. Discrete QC samples were collected at
a rate of one per ten (duplicates) and one per 20 (matrix spike [MS]/matrix spike duplicates

[MSD]), and QA samples collected at a rate of one per ten. QA samples were shipped to GEL
Laboratories.
4.3.3 Analytical Laboratory and Analyses
4.3.3.1 All samples were shipped to TestAmerica Denver for analysis. All coolers—except for
two—were delivered to the laboratory the next day and processed in within the correct
temperature range, as noted in the laboratory reports (Appendix B). Two coolers containing
ISM samples on 12 May 2016 were inadvertently routed to a laboratory at another location and
once received, all ice was melted and the samples were at an ambient temperature. These coolers
were immediately repacked on ice and received at the TestAmerica-Denver laboratory on 18
May 2016. These coolers contained ISM samples only and data validation was completed without
any rejected results (see Appendix B).
4.3.3.2 Laboratory extraction, analysis methods, and target analytes were conducted IAW the
approved Work Plan (HGL, 2015a). TestAmerica Denver is accredited by the DoD
Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program for all analyses performed in support of this
project. Analytical Data Reports are provided in Appendix B.
4.3.4 Analytical Data Validation
4.3.4.1 Analytical data generated during the sampling effort were validated by the HGL project
chemist IAW the requirements identified in the Sampling and Analysis Plan included in the Work
Plan. The validation included requirements in DoD Quality Systems Manual for Environmental
Laboratories, (latest version) for USEPA Method 8330B, and USEPA Method 6020A.
4.3.4.2 Data validation reviews for laboratory data were performed by the HGL’s data validator
subcontractor, Laboratory Data Consultants, Inc. (LDC) for all sample results IAW the
requirements contained in the QAPP. Laboratory results were assessed for compliance with
required precision, accuracy, completeness, and representativeness. Field QC results were
evaluated for compliance with required precision, accuracy, and representativeness. Data
validation reports generated by the project chemist and the data validator subcontractor are
provided in Appendix B. The validation reports note there were discrepancies with some sample
labels, which were corrected after shipment of samples; however, all data are acceptable and
usable as reported.
4.4 DEPARTURES FROM PLANNING DOCUMENTS
4.4.1 ROE Limitations
4.4.1.1 Areas where landowners refused to grant ROE to their property could not be investigated
as proposed in the Work Plan. Certain landowners granted ROE; however, when contacted by
HGL to schedule work on their property, landowners refused to cooperate with certain aspects
of the field activities (limited brush clearance or limited intrusive investigation).

4.4.2 Expanded Investigation Areas
4.4.2.1 Based on historical information, previous investigations conducted at each MRS, and
PDT input, the investigation areas associated with three of the four MRSs (R01, R02, and R03)
were expanded from those originally proposed and described in the Final Work Plan, section
1.9 (HGL, 2015). The investigation areas were expanded from the historical MRS boundaries
as an effort to include potential source areas located outside of the original MRS boundaries.
Investigation boundaries were also modified to exclude areas characterized during previous
investigations.
4.4.2.2 Based on the preliminary evaluation of findings from data collected during the RI field
activities, and in consultation with the PDT, the investigation boundaries identified in the work
plan were expanded further. Early RI investigations near the MRS boundaries did not identify
MEC, even though MEC were found in these areas during previous investigations by privately-
funded contractors (EODT, 2012). Additional acreage was needed to adequately delineate these
areas, however the presence of extended wetlands (which remained flooded) and large tracts of
land where ROE were refused required the PDT to expand these investigation areas out further
to obtain the acreage needed to delineate potential MEC and MC hazards and to statistically
support a background area characterization to meet PWS requirements. The background area
characterization data collected supports the conclusions of this RI for each MRS. The MRS
acreage, expanded investigation acreage as recorded in the Work Plan, and RI-field expanded
investigation acreage are presented in Table 4.7. The Work Plan Variances are documented in
the Section 4.4.3.
Table 4.7
MRS vs. Expanded Investigation Acreage
MRS RI Work Plan Expanded RI – Field Expanded
MRS Acreage Investigation Acreage Investigation Acreage
MRS-R01, Range II 649 1,561 2,629
MRS-R02, Range III 1,961 4,153 5,823
MRS-R03, Range IV 888 1,170 2,812
MRS-R09, MG/RR 2,056 1,755 2,366
Total 5,554 8,639 13,630
4.4.3 Work Plan Variances
4.4.3.1 MRS-R01, MRS-R02, MRS-R03, and MRS-R09 at the former Conway BGR were
investigated IAW the final RI Work Plan (HGL, 2015a) with the following deviations,
documented in the following FWV:
• FWV-001 – This variance proposed a change from the proposed method for geophysical
investigation previously planned in golf course and residential areas. Data collection in
these areas was performed by person-portable single sensor methods rather than multi-
sensor towed-array methods.
• FWV-002 – Wetlands were added to the investigation area after SCDHEC approval was
received on November 2, 2015. The investigation under this variance included minimal
vegetation clearance and intrusive investigation to collect sufficient characterization data.

• FWV-003 – Due to a lack of ROE and inaccessibility of transect distances sufficient to

support an overall density analysis HGL requested a variance on “completion of DGM
density transects”. An alternate approach to DGM grid placement was proposed based
on historical removal action and RI data to accomplish the MEC characterization.
• FWV-004 – This variance impacted DGM locations affected by nearby electrical utilities,
allowing for mag and dig where DGM data collection was impacted by the utilities.
4.4.3.2 The documentation of FWVs are included in Appendix G.

FIGURES
2,610,000 2,615,000 2,620,000 2,625,000 HGL— RIRe port
Form e
r Co
n w a yBom bi
n ga n dGu n n e
r yRa n ge
,SC
Figure 4.1
MRS-R01
ROE Status by Parcel
Legend
(649.2 acres)
725,000
725,000
(2,629 acres)
ROE Status
Accepted
Refused
Mailed
Not Mailed
R01
720,000
720,000
d
R oa
cy Notes:
La
³
r
ne
rd
Ga MRS=munitions response site
\
\Gst-
sr v-
01\HGLGI S\ Conw a y
\_MSI W\
RI\
(
4-01)R01 _ROESta tu s.
m xd
4
/14/20 17J AR
S
ArcGISOn lin eWorl dI m a ge
ry
0 800 1,600 3,200
715,000
715,000
Feet
2,610,000 2,615,000 2,620,000 2,625,000

2,625,000 2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000 2,650,000 2,655,000 HGL—RI Report
Former Conway Bombing and Gunnery Range, SC
720,000
720,000
Figure 4.2
oa
d MRS-R02
yR ROE Status by Parcel
Legend
715,000
715,000
(1,961 acres)
(8,189 acres)
ROE Status
710,000
710,000
Accepted
Refused
Mailed
Not Mailed
R02
705,000
705,000
700,000
700,000
Notes:
The U.S. Government has been relieved of liability through multiple federal
³
settlement agreements with private landowners. (see Figure 1.3)

695,000
695,000
\\Gst-srv-01\HGLGIS\Conway\_MSIW\RI\
(4-02)R02_ROEStatus.mxd
10/19/2017 JAR
Source: HGL, USGS, USACE
ArcGIS Online World Imagery
0 1,500 3,000 6,000
Feet
2,625,000 2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000 2,650,000 2,655,000

2,675,000 2,680,000 2,685,000 HGL—RIRe p ort
Form e
r Co
nw ay Bom bi
ngandGun ne
ry Range
,SC
Figure 4.3
MRS-R03
ROE Status by Parcel
Legend
(886 acres)
735,000
735,000
(2,812 acres)
ROE Status
Accepted
Refused
Mailed
Not Mailed
R03
730,000
730,000
Notes:
³

\
\Gs t-
s rv-01 \HGLGI S\ Conway\
_ MSIW\RI
\
(
4-03) R03 _ ROEStatus .
m xd
1
0/1 1/2 016J AR
S
Arc GISOnlineWorldI ma ge
ry
0 750 1,500 3,000
725,000
725,000
Feet
2,675,000 2,680,000 2,685,000

2,625,000 2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000 2,650,000 2,655,000 HGL—RI Report
720,000
720,000
Figure 4.4
oa
d MRS-R09
yR ROE Status by Parcel
Legend
715,000
715,000
(2,503 acres)
(8,189 acres)
ROE Status
710,000
710,000
Accepted
Refused
Mailed
Not Mailed
705,000
705,000
R09
700,000
700,000
Notes:
³

695,000
695,000
(4-04)R09_ROEStatus.mxd
4/14/2017 JAR
0 1,500 3,000 6,000
Feet
2,625,000 2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000 2,650,000 2,655,000

2,610,000 2,615,000 2,620,000 2,625,000 HGL—RI Report
Figure 4.5
" "
) ))
")" MRS-R01
Actual Transect Paths
and Grid Locations
"
)
"
)
Legend
"
)
! MD Anomaly
"
) ! CD Anomaly
"
)
"
)
"
) DGM Golf Transect
725,000
725,000
!
!
"
) "
)
"
) "
) DGM Overland Transect
" "
)
) "
) "
) "
)
! !!
!! !
" " )
) " DGM Wetland Transect
! !
" ) "
)
)
"
) Mag & Dig Transect
"
) "
) "
) "
) "
) "
)
"
) Overland Mag & Count Transect
"
) !
"
) "
)
!
! !!
!
! !!!! ! Residental Transect
"
) "
) " !!
) "
) !
!
! Vegetation Removal Transect
R01 !
!
! !
!! !!
!!
! "
) Wetland Mag & Count Transect
"
) Former Conway Bombing
!
!
!! "
) and Gunnery Range Boundary
"
) !
!
"
) "
)
!
! Munitions Response Site
! !
"
) !
720,000
720,000
"
)
!
"
)
! "
) Instrusively Investigated Grids
"
) !!
!
!
!!
"
) Grid Containing MD
! !
!
!
"
) "
) Grid Containing SAA
!! !!! !
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
"
) Grid Containing CD
!
! !
"
) "!
) ! "
) Grid- Corner Nail or No Contact
"
)
Notes:
! ! Coordinates in South Carolina State Plane, NAD83, feet.
"
) !
!
o ad
yR
! CD=cultural debris
³
c DGM=Digital Geophysical Mapping
!
r La MD=munitions debris
rd ne
"
) "
) Ga
"
) "
) SAA=small arms ammunition
(4-05)R01_ActualTransectGrids.mxd
4/14/2017 JAR
715,000
715,000
0 800 1,600 3,200
Feet
2,610,000 2,615,000 2,620,000 2,625,000

2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000 2,650,000 HGL— RIRe po rt
Fo r me
r Co nwayBo mbingandGun ne
r yRange
,SC
720,000
720,000
Figure 4.6
MRS-R02
"
) "
) Actual Transect Paths
and Grid Locations
"
)
Legend
"
)
DGM Overland Transect
"
) "
)
"
) "
) DGM Wetland Transect
"
) "
) "
)
Mag & Dig Transect
715,000
715,000
"
) Overland Mag & Count Transect
Vegetation Removal Transect

"
)
"
)
" )
) " Wetland Mag & Count Transect
"
) Wetland Vegetation Removal Transect
"
) Former Conway Bombing
"
)
"
) Munitions Response Site
710,000
710,000
"
"
) "
)
"
) "
"
"
)
"
) "
"
)
" "
)
" )
) "
)
R02
Notes:
705,000
705,000
"
) CD=cultural debris
³
"
) DGM=Digital Geophysical Mapping
SAA=small arms ammunition
"
) \\Gs t-s r v-
01\HGLGI S\Co nwa y
\_MSIW\RI
\
(4- 06) R02 _ActualT
ra nse
ctGr ids.
mxd
4 /14 /
20 17J AR
"
) S o urce :HGL,USGS ,USACE
ArcGISOnlin eWo r ldImage
ry
0 1,050 2,100 4,200
Feet
2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 "

) 2,645,000 2,650,000
2,675,000 2,680,000 2,685,000 HGL—RI Report
Figure 4.7
"
) MRS-R03
"
and Grid Locations
"
)
Legend
"
) "
) "
)
"
) ! MD Anomaly
! CD Anomaly
735,000
735,000
"
) "
)
"
) "
) DGM Overland Transect
"
) "
) DGM Wetland Transect
"
) Mag & Dig Transect
"
) "
)
!!
Overland Mag & Count Transect
!
"
) Vegetation Removal Transect
"
) "
) !
!
!
! Wetland Mag & Count Transect
!!
!!
Wetland Vegetation Removal Transect
!
!
!
R03 ! and Gunnery Range Boundary
!
!
!
!
!
!
"
) "
) Expanded Investigation Area
! "
)
730,000
730,000
"
)
"
) "
) "
"
) "
) Grid Containing MD
"
)
"
) "
"
"
) "
)
Notes:
"
) Coordinates in South Carolina State Plane, NAD83, feet.
"
) CD=cultural debris
³
DGM=Digital Geophysical Mapping
MD=munitions debris
(4-07)R03_ActualTransectGrids.mxd
5/21/2018 JAR
! Source: HGL, USGS, USACE
! ArcGIS Online World Imagery
0 750 1,500 3,000
725,000
725,000
Feet
2,675,000 2,680,000 2,685,000

2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000 HGL— RIRe p o rt
Fo r me
r Co n w ayBo mbin g andGun n e
r yRang e
,SC
"
) "
)
Figure 4.8
"
) MRS-R09
"
) "
and Grid Locations
"
) "
)
Legend
705,000
705,000
"
) DGM Golf Transect
"
)
DGM Wetland Transect
"
)
Overland Mag & Count Transect
"
) Vegetation Removal Transect
Wetland Mag & Count Transect

"
) and Gunnery Range Boundary

700,000
700,000
"
) R09 Expanded Investigation Area
"
)
Instrusively Investigated Grids
"
) "
) "
"
) "
)
"
"
"
" ) "
) )
"
) "
)
"
) "
)
695,000
695,000
"
) " "
) )
"
)
"
) Notes:
CD=cultural debris
³
DGM=Digital Geophysical Mapping
SAA=small arms ammunitions
\
\Gst-sr v-
01\HGLGI S\ Co n w ay\_MSIW \
RI\
(
4-08) R09 _Actual
Tra n se
c tGr ids.
mxd
4
/14 /
20 17J AR
S
o urce:HGL,USGS ,US ACE
ArcGISOn lin eW o r ldI mage
ry
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet
690,000
690,000
2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000
2,610,000 2,615,000 2,620,000 2,625,000 HGL—RIRe p ort
Form e
r Co
nw ay Bom bi
ngandGun ne
ry Range
,SC
R01-BKGD03
Figure 4.9
*
#
MRS-R01
Sample Locations
Legend
R01-BKGD02
*
#
Background Sample
*
#
S
" Soil Sample*
725,000
725,000
MRS01-IS-10
MRS01-SS-10
MRS01-IS-05 Munitions Response Site
MRS01-SS-05
S
"

S
"
MRS01-IS-03 MRS01-IS-04
S
" R01-BKGD04
*
#
MRS01-SS-03 S
" MRS01-SS-04
MRS01-IS-08
MRS01-SS-08
R01-BKGD01
*
#
S
" R01
R01-BKGD05
*
#
MRS01-IS-09
MRS01-SS-09 S
"
MRS01-IS-01
MRS01-SS-01
S
"
MRS01-IS-07
R01-BKGD10 MRS01-SS-07
S
"
*
#
720,000
720,000
MRS01-IS-06
MRS01-SS-06
S
"
R01-BKGD06 Notes:
*
#
d
R01-BKGD09 R oa Coordinates in South Carolina State Plane, NAD83, feet.
*
#
a cy
³
e rL *=Discrete surface soil samples were collected at the center of
n
ar d
the incremental sample.
G *
#
R01-BKGD07 MRS=munitions response site
\
\Gs t-
s rv-
01\HGLGI S\
Conwa y\
_ MSIW\RI
\
(
4-09) R01 _Sam p le
Lo c
s.mxd
4
/14 /20 17JAR
S
ArcGISOnli neWorldIma ge
ry
0 800 1,600 3,200
715,000
715,000
Feet R01-BKGD08
*
#
2,610,000 2,615,000 2,620,000 2,625,000

2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000 2,650,000 HGL— RIRe port
Form e
r Co
n w a yBom bi
n ga n dGu n n e
r yRa n ge
,SC
720,000
720,000
Figure 4.10
MRS-R02
Sample Locations
Legend
R02-BKGD08
Background Sample
*
#
R02-BKGD07
*
#
Soil Sample*
*
#
S
"

715,000
715,000

R02-BKGD09
*
#
R02-BKGD06
*
#
MRS02-SS-05 S
" MRS02-SS-04
R02-BKGD10 S
"
*
#
R02-BKGD05
*
#
MRS02-IS-09
710,000
710,000
MRS02-IS-06 MRS02-SS-09
MRS02-SS-06
S
"
R02 MRS02-IS-10 S
"
MRS02-SS-10 R02-BKGD04
"
S *
#
MRS02-IS-08
S
" MRS02-SS-08
R02-BKGD01 MRS02-SS-07 MRS02-SS-01
*
# S
" S
"
S
"
MRS02-IS-02
MRS02-SS-02
MRS02-IS-03
MRS02-SS-03
S
"
705,000
705,000
Notes:
³
*=Discrete surface soil samples were collected at the center of
R02-BKGD02 MRS=munitions response site
*
#
\
\Gst-
sr v-
01\HGLGI S\Conw a y
\_MSI W\
RI\
R02-BKGD03
*
#
(
4-10)R02 _Sam p
leLocs.
m xd
4
/14/20 17JAR
*
#
S
ArcGISOn li
n eWorldI m a ge
ry
0 1,050 2,100 4,200 R09-BKGD10
Feet
2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000 2,650,000

2,675,000 2,680,000 2,685,000 HGL—RIRe p ort
Form e
r Co
nw ay Bom bi
ngandGun ne
ry Range
,SC
Figure 4.11
R03-BKGD06
MRS-R03
*
#
Sample Locations
R03-BKGD07
*
#
Legend
Background Sample
*
#
R03-BKGD08
*
#
S
" Soil Sample*
735,000
735,000
R03-BKGD05
*
#
MRS03-IS-01 Munitions Response Site
MRS03-SS-01 S
"
R03-BKGD04 MRS03-IS-09
*
#
MRS03-SS-09
MRS03-IS-08
MRS03-SS-08
S
"
MRS03-IS-10 S
"
MRS03-SS-10
R03 MRS03-IS-03
S
"
MRS03-IS-02
MRS03-SS-02
MRS03-SS-03
MRS03-IS-07 S
"
MRS03-SS-07 S
" S
"
R03-BKGD03
MRS03-IS-06
MRS03-IS-05 S
"
MRS03-SS-06
730,000
730,000
MRS03-SS-05
*
# S
"
R03-BKGD09
*
#
S
"
MRS03-IS-04
R03-BKGD02 MRS03-SS-04
*
#
Notes:
³
R03-BKGD01 \
\Gs t-
s rv-01\HGLGI S\
Con way\
_ MSIW\RI
\
(
4-11 )R0 3_ Sam p le
Locs.
m xd
4
/14 /20 17J AR
S
*
#
Arc GISOnli neWorldIma ge
ry
0 750 1,500 3,000
725,000
725,000
Feet
2,675,000 2,680,000 2,685,000

2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000 S
" HGL—RIRe p ort
Form e
r Co
nw ay Bom bi
ngandGun ne
ry Range
,SC
Figure 4.12
MRS-R09
Sample Locations
Legend
705,000
705,000
Background Sample
*
#
S
" Soil Sample*
R09-BKGD10 and Gunnery Range Boundary
*
# Munitions Response Site
R09-BKGD09 R09
*
#
700,000
700,000
R09-BKGD08
*
#
MRS09-IS-04
MRS09-SS-04
R09-BKGD07 R09-BKGD06
*
#
S
"
*
#
MRS09-IS-03
MRS09-SS-03
R09-BKGD04
*
#
S
" MRS09-IS-02
MRS09-SS-02
R09-BKGD05
*
#
R09-BKGD03
*
# S
" S
"
MRS09-SS-06 MRS09-SS-07
S
"
MRS09-IS-09
MRS09-IS-05 MRS09-SS-09
MRS09-SS-05
695,000
695,000
MRS09-IS-08
MRS09-SS-01
S
"
MRS09-IS-10 S
" MRS09-SS-08
MRS09-IS-01 MRS09-SS-10 S
"
S
" S
"
R09-BKGD02
*
#
*
# Notes:
R09-BKGD01
³
\
\Gs t-
s rv-
01\HGLGI S\
Conwa y\
_ MSIW\RI
\
(
4-12) R09 _Sam p le
Lo c
s.mxd
4
/14 /20 17JAR
S
ArcGISOnli neWorldIma ge
ry
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet
690,000
690,000
2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000
2,610,000 2,615,000 2,620,000 2,625,000 HGL— RIRe p o rt
Fo r me
r Co n w ay Bo mbin g andGun n e
r y Rang e
,SC
Figure 4.13
MRS-R01
Digital Geophysical Mapping
Anomaly Density
Legend
DGM Golf Transect

DGM Wetland Transect
725,000
725,000
Landfill

0 600
R01
720,000
720,000
Notes:
o ad Coordinates in South Carolina State Plane, NAD83, feet.
yR
ac
³
e rL DGM=digital geophysical mapping
r dn MRS=munitions response site
Ga RI=Remedial Investigation
VSP=Visual Sample Plan
\
\Gst-
sr v-
01 \
HGLGI S\Co n w ay\
_MSIW \
RI\
(
4-13)R01 _DGM.mx d
6
/6/201 7J AR
S
o urc
e:HGL,USGS ,US ACE
ArcGISOn l
in eW o r l
dImage
ry
0 800 1,600 3,200
715,000
715,000
Feet
2,610,000 2,615,000 2,620,000 2,625,000

5.0 REVISED CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL AND RI RESULTS

5.0.1 This chapter describes the results of the MEC and MC investigations, the estimated extent
of MEC and MC contamination at the project site, and the revised CSM based on site
characterization. The following subchapters detail the results of the field investigation completed
for each MRS.
5.1 MEC INVESTIGATION
5.1.1 Introduction
5.1.1.1 As described in Chapter 4.2, to meet the project DQOs for MEC characterization, a
combination of DGM transects and intrusively investigated grids and analog mag and dig transect
segments were used for RI investigations within the former Conway BGR. All DGM grids were
reviewed by the project geophysicist IAW the Work Plan. The disposal documentation for all
MDAS recovered in the MRSs during this RI, including the signed DD Forms 13481A, is
included in Appendix A. The subchapters below include a summary of the MEC characterization
developed for each MRS during the RI field activities. Figure 5.1, Figure 5.2a, Figure 5.2b,
and Figure 5.3 show the MEC contamination boundaries. The following subchapters discuss the
field activities completed in each MRS and results of the investigation for MEC.
5.1.2 MRS-R01, Range II MEC Investigation
5.1.2.1 MRS-R01 encompasses approximately 649 acres, and the expanded investigation area
is 2,629 acres (See Section 4.4.2). Analog and DGM transects and grid DGM surveys were
completed within MRS-R01 and the surrounding expanded investigation area, and based on the
DGM data, anomaly densities were mapped as shown in Figure 4.13. One large area of high
anomaly density was discovered in the north of the investigation area. Based on discussions with
the county, this was discovered to be an abandoned modern county landfill and thus was ignored
for the purposes of the RI. In addition, analog mag and dig transects were completed near areas
of identified MEC contamination to provide additional delineation data. The quantities of data
collected within the MRS-R01 investigation areas are summarized in Table 5.1. A total of 631
targets or polygons potentially representing subsurface MEC were intrusively investigated. As
shown in Table 5.2, approximately 13 percent of these records were associated with MD (no
MEC was identified). Investigation of targets or polygons resulted in 84 targets that contained
MD items, 33 targets that contained SAA (.50 caliber) and 286 anomalies associated with other
debris (metals from items other than munitions, such as bolts, cans, rebar, metal wire, hinges,
and metal plates). The remaining 14 targets were described by the field teams as follows:
• Shared targets that resulted from another nearby target, where anomalies were resolved
as nearby anomalies were investigated and removed
• “no contact” locations where an anomaly source could not be identified due to
topography or of magnetic rocks),
• blind seed items, or
• grid corner nails.

5.1.2.2 Table 5.1 summarizes the RI field activities completed, Table 5.2 provides details on
1T 1T
the results of the RI field investigation and Table 5.3 summarizes the MD located. No MEC
items were found; however, MEC contamination has been confirmed in the past. MDAS (MD)
identified were as follows:
• 0.50 caliber projectiles;
• 2.25-inch Rocket;
• M38A2 practice bomb; and
• M41 Fragmentation bomb.
Table 5.1
Summary of RI Field Activities Completed – MRS-R01
Activity Description Unit Quantity
Brush Clearance (all Transect types) Miles 7.74
Overland Mag and Count Transects Miles 0.64
Wetland Mag and Count Transects Miles 1.89
Residential Mag and Count Transects Miles 0.25
Overland DGM Transects Miles 8.71
Wetland DGM Transects Miles 5.82
Golf Course DGM Transects Miles 16.2
DGM Grids Grids 50
Equivalent Acres 2.48
DGM Grids Intrusively Investigated Grids 47
Characterization DGM Grids in Background Areas Grids 38
Intrusively Investigated Equivalent Acres 1.79
Miles 7.34
Background Mag and Dig Transects (4.5-ft) Acres 4.00
QC Transects Miles 0.94
Grids 12
Background DGM Grids Equivalent Acres 2.54
Grids 12
Background Grids Intrusively Investigated* Equivalent Acres 2.54
EE/CA DGM Grids Intrusively Investigated in Grids 9
Background Areas Equivalent Acres 0.52
Intrusively Investigated Anomalies (within Grids) Each 688
Table 5.2
Summary of Intrusive Investigation Results – MRS-R01
Anomaly Type Number of Records*
MEC 0
MD 84
SAA 33
Other Debris (non-munitions-related metal and other cultural debris) 286
Shared Targets 44
No Contacts 14
Blind Seed Items and Grid Corner Nails 283
*Sum will not match total Intrusively Investigated Anomalies in Table 5.1 due to multiple items found within the same hole.

Table 5.3
Summary of MD Recovered – MRS-R01
MD Item Pieces
100-lb M38A2 Practice bomb 48
2.25-inch SCAR 28
20-lb M41 Fragmentation Bomb 2
Unidentified fragments 2
Small Arms Ammunition (casings or projectiles) 33
5.1.3 MRS-R02, Range III MEC Investigation
5.1.3.1 MRS-R02 encompasses a total of 1,961 acres, and the expanded investigation area is
5,823 acres (See Section 4.4.2). Analog and DGM transects and grid DGM surveys were
completed within MRS-R02 and the surrounding expanded investigation area. In addition, analog
mag and dig transects were completed near areas of identified MEC contamination or where
needed due to refusal of residents to evacuate, for additional delineation data. The quantities of
data collected within MRS-R02 are summarized in Table 5.4. A total of 192 targets or polygons
potentially representing subsurface MEC were intrusively investigated. As shown in Table 5.5,
none of these records were associated with either MEC or MD (no MEC was identified).
Investigation of targets or polygons resulted in 3 targets that contained SAA (.50 caliber) and 2
anomalies associated with other debris (metals from items other than munitions, such as chain
links, bolts, banding, spacers, pins, and nails). The remaining 169 targets were described by the
field teams as follows:
as nearby anomalies were investigated and removed,
5.1.3.2 Table 5.4 summarizes the RI field activities completed and Table 5.5 provides details
1T 1T
on the results of the RI field investigation. No MEC items were found during the RI field
activities. Only SAA items were located during these RI field activities. However, numerous
privately funded (non-USACE) removal actions have been conducted in the past that confirmed
MEC present within the MRS. USACE also conducted a previous RI (EODT, 2012). The 2012
RI documented MEC items present at the boundaries of the MRS, without reaching a conclusion
on the extent of MEC. See Section 5.3.1.2 for additional information.

Table 5.4
Residential Mag and Count Transects Miles 0
Golf Course DGM Transects Miles 0
Grids 36
Grids 30
Characterization DGM Grids Intrusively Investigated
Miles 4.5
Background Mag and Dig Transects (4.5-ft)
Acres 2.45
Grids 4
Grids 6
Background Grids Intrusively Investigated*
EE/CA DGM Grids Intrusively Investigated in Background Grids 32
Areas Equivalent Acres 1.84

Table 5.5
MEC 0
MD 0
SAA 3
Shared Targets 4
No Contacts 1
5.1.4 MRS-R03, Range IV MEC Investigation
5.1.4.1 MRS-R03 is comprised of approximately 888 acres, and the expanded investigation area
is 2,812 acres (see section 4.4.2). Analog and DGM transects and grid DGM surveys were
completed within the MRS-R03 and surrounding expanded investigation area. In addition, analog
mag and dig transects were completed near areas of identified MEC contamination or refusal of
residents to evacuate to provide additional delineation data. The quantities of data collected with
MRS-R03 are summarized in Table 5.6. A total of 225 targets or polygons potentially
representing subsurface MEC were intrusively investigated. As shown in Table 5.7, the
investigation of targets or polygons resulted in no MEC, 56 anomalies that contained MD items,
and 15 anomalies associated with other debris (metals from items other than munitions, such as
rods, springs, grounding rods, t-posts, and wire bundles). The remaining 158 targets were
described by the field teams as follows:
5.1.4.2 Table 5.6 summarizes the RI field activities completed, Table 5.7 provides details on
1T 1T
the results of the RI field investigation and Table 5.8 summarizes the MD located. No MEC
items were found during the RI field activities. However, numerous privately funded (non-
USACE) removal actions have been conducted in the past that confirmed MEC present within
the MRS. USACE also conducted a previous RI (EODT, 2012). The 2012 RI documented MD
from 100-lb practice bombs and recommended further investigation, without reaching a
conclusion on the extent of MEC. See Section 5.3.1.2 for additional information. Pieces of
munitions that were classified as MD were from the M38A2 practice bomb.

Table 5.6
Golf Course DGM Transects Miles 0
Grids 28
Grids 28
Grids 26
Characterization DGM Grids in Background Areas Intrusively Investigated
Miles 4.17
Acres 2.28
Grids 3
Grids 5
Grids 59
EE/CA DGM Grids Intrusively Investigated in Background Areas
Table 5.7
MEC 0
MD 56
SAA 0
Shared Targets 4
No Contacts 3
Table 5.8
Summary of MD Recovered – MRS-R03
MD Item Pieces
M38A2 practice bomb 56

5.1.5 MRS-R09, Machine Gun/Rifle Range MEC Investigation
5.1.5.1 MRS-R09 encompasses approximately 2,056 acres and the expanded investigation area
is 2,366 acres. The area of the range fan that extend into MRS-R02 were investigated under
MRS-R02. DGM transects and grid DGM surveys were completed within the southern portion
of MRS-R09 that does not overlap with MRS-R02. In addition, analog mag and dig transects
were completed near areas of identified MEC contamination or refusal of residents to evacuate
to provide additional delineation data. The quantities of data collected within MRS-R09 are
summarized in Table 5.9. A total of 162 targets or polygons potentially representing subsurface
MEC were intrusively investigated. As shown in Table 5.10, none of these records were
associated with either MEC or MD (no MEC was identified). Investigation of targets or polygons
resulted in 8 targets that contained SAA (.50 caliber) and 26 anomalies associated with other
debris (metals from items other than munitions, such as cans, railroad nails, wire, scrap metal,
wire baskets, metal spikes, latches, and metal debris). The remaining 92 targets were described
by the field teams as follows:
5.1.5.2 Table 5.9 summarizes the RI field activities completed and Table 5.10 provides details
1T 1T
on the results of the RI field investigation. No MEC items were found, no MD items were found,
and only SAA was located.

Table 5.9
Golf Course DGM Transects Miles 4.82
Grids 10
Grids 10
Miles 0
Acres 0.00
QC Transects Miles 0
Grids 8
Grids 8
EE/CA DGM Grids Intrusively Investigated in Background Grids 0
Areas Equivalent Acres 0.00
Table 5.10
MEC 0
MD 0
SAA 8
Shared Targets 8
No Contacts 3

5.2 MC INVESTIGATION
5.2.1 Overview
5.2.1.1 The sampling strategy and methods used for the RI are presented in Chapter 4.3. The
following subchapters describe the analytical results. Any MC detected at concentrations above
its screening value was considered to be a COPC or COPEC, and was retained for further
evaluation in the Chapter 7.2 risk assessment.
5.2.2 Quality Control and Quality Assurance
5.2.2.1 The soil sampling activities were conducted IAW the Work Plan for the RI within the
former Conway BGR. In addition, the Work Plan and the included QAPP addressed the DQOs,
analytical methods, specific QA, and QC activities, laboratory requirements, and data
assessment activities designed to achieve the data quality goals of the project.
5.2.3 Analytical Data Validation
5.2.3.1 Data validation reviews for laboratory data were performed by the HGL’s subcontracted
data validator, LDC, for all sample results IAW the requirements contained in the QAPP. The
data validation was conducted as Stage 2B evaluation of QC summary results for sample holding
times, initial and continuing calibrations, initial and continuing calibration blanks, surrogates,
internal standards, interference check samples, MS/MSD, laboratory duplicates, laboratory
triplicates, laboratory control sample/laboratory control sample duplicates, serial dilutions,
laboratory blanks, equipment blanks, and field triplicate samples. A summary of the analytical
data and copies of the data validation reports are included as Appendix B.
5.2.4 Analytical Results for Remedial Investigation Munitions Constituents Samples
5.2.4.1 The analytical results of soil samples collected during the RI from MRS-R01, MRS-R02,
MRS-R03, and MRS-R09 are presented in Table 5.11, (presented at the end of this chapter due
to the number of pages). The human health COPC screening for each of the MRSs is presented
in various tables in Appendix B, and discussed in Chapter 7.2.3. No COPCs were identified for
MRS-R01, MRS-R02, and MRS-R09 from the RI data. One COPC: Cd, was identified in MRS-
R02 (see Chapter 7.2.3).
5.2.4.2 COPEC screening for the RI data from each of the MRSs is presented in Table B5.2 of
Appendix B, and discussed in Chapter 7.2.5. In summary, the initial screening identified Cd,
Hg, and Zn as COPECs for MRS-R02; and Pb and Zn as COPECs for MRS-R09. No COPECs
were identified for MRS-R01 and MRS-R03.
5.2.5 Analytical Results for Historical Munitions Constituents Soil Sampling
5.2.5.1 As stated in Chapter 2.4, limited surface soil sampling was conducted at former Conway
BGR during previous investigations. Results from the previous investigations were combined
with the data from this RI for a more complete evaluation of the presence or absence of MC
contamination at the MRSs.

5.2.5.2 Both historical data and data collected for this RI were included in the BLRA (see
Chapter 7.2). As stated in Section 2.4, an MC investigation of soil and surface water was
conducted at the Goodson site, located within MRS-R02 (Parsons, 2006). A total of 16 composite
samples (including one duplicate sample and one background sample) were collected in August
of 2005 in areas identified by field crews as containing bomb craters. The soil samples were
collected from 0 to 6 inches bgs, and analyzed for explosives, barium, Cd, Pb, Hg, and Zn.
5.2.5.3 Three samples were collected from one location in both MRS-R01 and MRS-R02 during
the 2012 RI. Six samples were collected from two locations in MRS-R03. Samples were
collected in August of 2010, and analyzed for explosives, barium, Cd, Pb, Hg, and Zn. Due to
lack of ROE, MRS-R09 was not characterized for MC during the 2012 RI.
5.2.5.4 The COPC screening of historical data for MRS-R01, MRS-R02, and MRS-R03, is
presented in various tables in Appendix B, and discussed in Chapter 7.2.3. No historical data
was available for MRS-R09.
5.2.5.5 Based on the historical composite sample results, as reported in the 2012 RI
(EODT, 2012), and the historical composite sample results reported in the 2006 MC Sampling,
Analysis, and Evaluation of FUDS (Parsons, 2006) COPECs were evaluated (see Section 7.2.5).
5.3 EXTENT OF MEC AND MC CONTAMINATION
5.3.1 Extent of MEC Contamination
5.3.1.0.1 Using the data from the current RI and previous characterization and removal action
efforts, an evaluation was performed to estimate the extent of any MEC contamination identified.
The two primary objectives of this process are: (1) to achieve the RI objective to characterize
the extent of contamination, and (2) to define areas that will be evaluated in the subsequent FS.
5.3.1.0.2 The sources of data used to estimate the MEC contamination boundary in each MRS
included the following:
• Intrusive results for the DGM grids collected by HGL;
• Anomaly density from the DGM and analog transects collected by HGL;
• Anomaly density from DGM, analog, and visual reconnaissance transects performed in
previous characterization efforts;
• MEC and MD results from previously completed removal actions (see Section 2.4); and
• ROE.
5.3.1.0.3 No MEC contamination was identified in MRS-09, and no MEC contaminated area is
recommended to be established. The contamination boundary for each of the remaining MRSs
was located within 250-ft of known data. After the initial boundary was drawn, the information
from previous investigations, including available historical data, was used to adjust the
boundary. Boundaries are shown on Figures 5.1 through 5.3, and all data used to establish those
boundaries are shown on the historical figures (Figures 2.4 through 2.6). Where current and

previous data extend near large, contiguous parcels where no ROE was granted, all surrounding
data was evaluated to interpolate the boundary.
5.3.1.1 MRS-R01, Range II MEC Contamination Delineation
5.3.1.1.1 The MEC contaminated area within MRS-R01 is exhibited on Figure 5.1. The
placement of the MEC contamination boundary was designed to have an accuracy of at least
250 ft; for example, at all times the boundary was drawn to be plus or minus 250 ft from a
known RI data point or historical data point, whether from transect density data, grid intrusive
results, or mag and dig transect segment data. Historical investigation data was also considered.
The MEC contamination boundary was extrapolated where ROE was not granted or was
withdrawn before sufficient data could be collected. Areas with refused or withdrawn ROE were
not assessed in the RI.
5.3.1.1.2 There is a large parcel of land in the eastern portion of MRS-R01 where ROE was not
granted (Figure 4.1). In this region, geophysical and intrusive information from the previous
Parsons EE/CA was evaluated to determine a reasonable approximation for the boundary (Figure
2.4a and Figure 2.4b). Additionally, historical investigations and removal actions located
evidence of MEC (M38A2 practice bomb spotting charges and 20lb bomb fragments) on the
west and southwest areas of MRS-R01. Additional data was gathered during the RI field
activities in both areas (Figure 4.5) to strengthen the confidence of the MEC contamination
boundary on the west side.
5.3.1.1.3 An estimate of the vertical extent of MEC was provided by an evaluation of all
intrusive results. MD was encountered from 0-5 ft bgs. MD was found on the ground surface.
The deepest MD found was at 5-ft bgs, where teams encountered an area where M38A2 practice
bombs were buried (possibly by workers during golf course construction, though this is
unknown). At most of the locations where MD was found, the item was located within 0 to 4-ft
bgs. The munitions found during the RI were consistent with historically reported finds: MD
from M38 practice bombs, minor amounts of MD from M41 Fragmentation Bomb, and MD
from 2.25 inch MK4 MOD 0 Subcaliber Practice Rocket. The area within the MEC
contamination boundary is approximately 296 acres. The area outside this MEC contamination
boundary may still contain MEC; however, the potential for encountering MEC in these areas
is low. Areas with refused or withdrawn ROE were not investigated during the RI. The
surrounding area is found to be not MEC contaminated according to the RI data and all previous
investigations. This MEC contaminated area is recommended to be separated from
uncontaminated areas delineation IAW MRS delineation under FUDS (see further discussion in
Chapter 5.3.1.5) and is recommended for evaluation in the FS. The MEC contaminated portion
of 296 acres is recommended to proceed to the FS phase and the remaining 353 acres of the
MRS is recommended for no further action.
5.3.1.2 MRS-R02, Range III MEC Contamination Delineation
5.3.1.2.1 The MEC contaminated area within MRS-R02 is exhibited on Figure 5.2a and Figure
5.2b. The placement of the MEC contamination boundary was designed to have an accuracy of
at least 250 ft; for example, at all times the boundary was drawn to be plus or minus 250 ft from

a known RI data point or historical data point, whether from transect density data, grid intrusive
results, or mag and dig transect segment data. Historical investigation data was also considered
(See Section 2.4.3). The privately funded (non-USACE) removal actions conducted in the past
confirmed MEC present within the MRS. MEC has been identified (post-removal actions) by
workers during construction activities within the MRS. USACE also conducted a previous RI
(EODT, 2012). The 2012 RI documented MEC items present at the boundaries of the MRS,
without reaching a conclusion on the extent of MEC. The 2016 RI data gathered supplemented
existing data to define the extent and resolve the MEC contamination boundary. The MEC
contamination boundary was extrapolated where ROE was not granted or was withdrawn before
sufficient data could be collected. Areas with refused or withdrawn ROE were not assessed in
the RI.
5.3.1.2.2 There are parcels of land in MRS-R02 that are excluded from this investigation as a
result of multiple federal settlement agreements between the landowner and the U.S.
Government (Figure 5.2a and Figure 5.2b). RI data was used to extrapolate the MEC-
contaminated area across these parcels; however, the U.S. Government has been relieved of
liability at these properties. There was also refusal of ROE on the southeast portion of the MRS,
where MRS-R09 occurs (Figure 4.2). In all areas, geophysical and intrusive information from
previous investigations was evaluated to determine a reasonable approximation for the boundary
(Figure 2.5a and Figure 2.5b). The MEC contamination boundary was revised to exclude grids
and historical locations where single pieces of MD or SAA only were detected. Additionally,
historical investigations and removal actions previously located evidence of MEC, up to the
MRS-R02 boundary. Additional data was gathered during the RI field activities surrounding
MRS-R02 to verify that MEC contamination did not extend further outward (Figure 4.6) and to
strengthen the confidence of the MEC contamination boundary.
5.3.1.2.3 An estimate of the vertical extent of MEC in historical investigations was difficult to
evaluate, based on the varied and non-USACE compliant data sets available from the historical
information. No MEC was encountered during the RI. MEC and MD were encountered,
historically, from 0-7 ft bgs and on the surface. The MEC and MD found within the MRS-R02
include:
• 1.1-inch Mark 2 projectile;
• 100-lb M38A2 Practice Bomb;
• M48 20-lb Practice Bomb;
• 4-lb Incendiary AN-M54;
• 6-lb Incendiary AN-M69X;
• 250-lb M57 Bomb;
• 2.25-inch SCAR;
• 2.36-inch rocket
• 5-inch HVAR, Mk 1;
• 2.75-inch Mk4 FFAR;
• M63 37mm projectile; and
• SAA.

5.3.1.2.4 The area within the MEC contamination boundary is approximately 1,525 acres. The
area outside this MEC contamination boundary may still contain MEC; however, the potential
for encountering MEC in these areas is low. Areas with refused or withdrawn ROE were not
investigated during the RI. The surrounding area is found to be not MEC contaminated according
to the RI data and all previous investigations. This MEC contaminated area is recommended to
be separated from uncontaminated areas delineation IAW MRS delineation under FUDS (see
further discussion in Chapter 5.3.1.5) and is recommended for evaluation in the FS. The MEC
contaminated acreage of 1,525 acres is recommended to proceed to the FS phase and the
remaining 436 acres of the MRS is recommended for no further action.
5.3.1.3 MRS-R03, Range IV MEC Contamination Delineation
5.3.1.3.1 The MEC contaminated area within MRS-R03 is exhibited on Figure 5.3. The
placement of the MEC contamination boundary was designed to have an accuracy of at least
250 ft; for example, at all times the boundary was drawn to be plus or minus 250 ft from a
known RI data point or historical data point, whether from transect density data, grid intrusive
results, or mag and dig transect segment data. Historical investigation data was also considered
(See Section 2.4.3). The privately funded (non-USACE) removal actions conducted in the past
confirmed MD from 100-lb practice bombs present within the MRS. USACE also conducted a
previous RI (EODT, 2012). The 2012 RI recommended further investigation at this MRS. The
2016 RI data gathered supplemented existing data to define the extent and resolve the MEC
contamination boundary. The MEC contamination boundary was extrapolated where ROE was
not granted or was withdrawn before sufficient data could be collected. Areas with refused or
withdrawn ROE were not assessed in the RI.
5.3.1.3.2 There is a large parcel of land in the southern portion of MRS-R03 where ROE was
not granted (Figure 4.3). In this region, geophysical and intrusive information from the previous
investigations was evaluated to determine a reasonable approximation for the boundary
(Figure 2.6a). Historical investigations were conducted mainly in the central portion of MRS-
R03 and MEC had been located at the boundary of those investigations. Additional data was
gathered during the RI field activities (Figure 4.6) to verify that MEC contamination did not
extend further outward from the previous investigation extents and to strengthen the confidence
of the MEC contamination boundary. Extremely low density of MD fragments was identified in
grid 3005 to the south, but was surrounded by other investigation (transects and grids) which
showed no MD present and the grid was not included in the MEC contamination boundary.
Where required due to flooded wetlands, data was gathered surrounding the wetlands, to
interpolate the boundary across flooded areas.
5.3.1.3.3 An estimate of the vertical extent of MEC was provided by an evaluation of all
intrusive results. MD was encountered from 0-3.5 ft bgs. MD was found on the ground surface.
The deepest MD found was at 3.5-ft bgs. The munitions found during the RI were consistent
with historically reported finds: 4-lb incendiary bombs; 20-lb fragmentation bombs; and 100-lb
practice bombs. The area within the MEC contamination boundary is approximately 495 acres.
The area outside this MEC contamination boundary may still contain MEC; however, the
potential for encountering MEC in these areas is low. Areas with refused or withdrawn ROE
were not investigated during the RI. The surrounding area is found to be not MEC contaminated

according to the RI data and all previous investigations. This MEC contaminated area is
recommended to be separated from uncontaminated areas delineation IAW MRS delineation
under FUDS (see further discussion in Chapter 5.3.1.5) and is recommended for evaluation in
the FS. The MEC contaminated acreage of 495 acres is recommended to proceed to the FS phase
and the remaining 393 acres of the MRS is recommended for no further action.
5.3.1.4 MRS-R09, MG/RR MEC Contamination Delineation
5.3.1.4.1 No MEC was identified in MRS-R09. Only SAA (.50caliber projectiles) were
identified during the RI field activities. The acreage of MRS-R09 that is not part of the MRS-
R02 MEC contaminated area, should be recommended for no further action.
5.3.1.5 MRS Realignment/Delineation in FUDSMIS
5.3.1.5.1 MRS realignment is the process of restructuring the data in the FUDSMIS for FUDS
properties with MMRP projects that were in FUDSMIS before October 1, 2008. Realignment
ensures that each MRS will be part of an MRA and will be equivalent to an MMRP project at
FUDS properties. Delineation refers to the process of revising MMRP projects/MRSs by further
defining MRSs at previously identified MRAs as necessary for more efficient project
management. Further defining of MRSs can occur numerous times over the life of an MMRP
project as new information becomes available. At the time of RI reporting, FUDMIS lists the
MRA (Project I04SC0025) with a size of 55,854 acres, of which these MRSs are a portion.
5.3.1.5.2 As described in Section 4.2, characterization data was collected from inside the current
FUDSMIS MRS boundaries and in expanded investigation areas as required to meet statistical
requirements for evaluation of background. All current RI data and all historical investigation
data were compiled for development of the MEC contamination boundary. All acreage which is
outside the MEC contaminated areas summarized below is recommended for No Further Action.
Based on MEC contamination boundaries determined during the RI, the following delineation
for MRSs in FUDMIS is proposed:
• MRS-01: 296 acres, the MEC-contaminated area of the former MRS-R01.
• MRS-02: 1,525 acres, the MEC-contaminated area of the former MRS-R02.
part of MRS-R02 MEC contaminated area should be recommended for no further action.
5.3.1.5.3 The proposed MRS-01, MRS-02 and MRS-03 are recommended for further evaluation
in the FS. The area of MRS-R09 that is not part of the MRS-R02 MEC contaminated area is
recommended for no further action.
5.3.2 Extent of MC Contamination
5.3.2.1 The evaluation of MC contamination was completed for each MRS. MC contamination
was assessed in surface soil collected from 0 to 0.5 ft bgs. As discussed in Chapters 5.2, 7.2.3,
and 7.2.5, COPCs and COPECs were identified only in MRS-R01, MRS-R02, and MRS-R03,

based on samples collected during this RI and during multiple historical investigations. The
screening of the analytical results against background concentrations and health-based screening
values identified one COPC: Cd in MRS-R02; however, after evaluation the Cd was determined
to be no threat to human health under unrestricted land use. The initial screening identified Cd,
Hg, and Zn as COPECs for MRS-R02; and Pb and Zn as COPECs for MRS-R09. No COPECs
were identified for MRS-R01 and MRS-R03. The SLERA evaluated the exposure of plants, soil
invertebrates, mammals, and birds to contaminants at MRS-R01, MRS-R02, MRS-R03, and
MRS-R09. No threats were identified for exposure of ecological receptors to soil in all four
MRSs. Although Cd and Hg have been identified as COPECs for MRS-R02, the constituents
are not components of the munitions used or found within MRS-R02 and are therefore not MC.
5.3.2.2 All COPCs and COPECs were retained for further evaluation in the Chapter 7.2 BLRA
and SLERA. Based on the information provided in Chapter 7.2, it was concluded that no MC is
present on site at levels that present a risk to human health or the environment. Therefore, MC
sampling performed during this RI, and during previous investigations, does not indicate a
release of MC.
5.4 STATUS OF DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES
5.4.0.1 The RI DQOs are described in Subchapter 3.5. The overall project DQOs are structured
to obtain data to sufficiently characterize the nature and extent of any MEC and/or MC
contamination present at the project sites. Specific DQOs were established for both the MEC
and MC investigations and are presented in Table 3.4a through Table 3.4e. This subchapter
addresses the status of each of these DQOs at the completion of the RI.
5.4.1 MEC Characterization
5.4.1.1 As shown in Table 3.4a through Table 3.4e, the MEC DQOs for the MRSs included
conducting DGM surveys (of transects and grids), intrusive investigation of grids, and mag and
dig transect segments. The DGM grid surveys were followed by an intrusive investigation of
individual anomalies to fully characterize the nature and extent of identified anomalies. Mag and
dig transect segments were also performed to delineate the MEC contamination boundary. The
MEC characterization activities were conducted IAW the performance requirements for RI
reports as provided in the Work Plan. To achieve these MEC DQOs, DGM surveys and intrusive
investigations were conducted across the project site, with the exception of parcels where ROE
was refused or withdrawn, or where areas were flooded with water and investigation could not
be conducted. Based on the summary provided above and other information presented in Chapter
5.1 and 5.3, in this report, the data obtained during this RI is considered sufficient to characterize
the nature and extent of MEC contamination at the project site and the MEC DQOs for this RI
are determined to have been achieved where ROE was available.
5.4.2 MC Characterization
5.4.2.1 As shown in Table 3.4a through 3.4e, the MC DQOs for evaluating the presence or
absence of MC contamination included the collection and analysis of ISM soil samples and
discrete soil samples from each MRS and development of background concentrations for metals.

These samples were analyzed for MC as defined in the approved Work Plan (HGL, 2015a) and
the results were compared to screening values to evaluate the presence or absence of MC.
Conclusions regarding the presence or absence of MC were to be made based on the comparison
of detected concentrations to screening values. The analytes detected were compared to
screening values and COPCs were developed. The BLRA is presented in Chapter 7.2. The data
obtained during this RI are sufficient to evaluate the presence or absence of MC contamination
at the project site and the MC DQOs for this RI have been achieved.
5.5 REVISED CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
5.5.1 Summary
5.5.1.1 Based on the results of the MEC and MC characterizations conducted and as presented
in Subchapters 5.1 and 5.2, the preliminary CSM described in Subchapter 3.1 was reviewed and
updated to reflect any new applicable information. The revised CSMs (represented in Figures
5.4 and 5.5) are completed for the proposed delineated MRSs and summarize the most current
information for the site. The MEC and MC exposure pathways described in this revised CSM
are discussed further in the following subchapters.
5.5.2 MEC Exposure Pathways
5.5.2.1 MRS-R01: The RI data gathered along with existing historical data was evaluated for
MRS-R01. The preliminary MEC CSM for the project site indicated potentially complete MEC
exposure pathways at MRS-R01 for residents, construction workers, trespassers, and authorized
land users. The RI data gathered did not identify any changes necessary for the land uses or
receptors previously identified. The post-RI MEC CSM for MRS-R01 is shown in Figure 5.4a.
receptors previously identified. The post-RI MEC CSM for MRS-R02 is shown in Figure 5.4b.
receptors previously identified. The post-RI MEC CSM for MRS-R03 is shown in Figure 5.4c.
receptors previously identified. The post-RI MEC CSM for MRS-R09 is shown in Figure 5.4d.

5.5.3 MC Exposure Pathways
5.5.3.1 An exposure assessment for MC includes identification of potential exposure pathways,

receptors, and exposure scenarios, as well as quantification of exposure to MC. In order for MC
exposure pathways to be complete, the following must be present:
• A source for contamination
• An environmental transport and/or exposure medium
• A point of exposure where contaminants contact a receptor
• A likely route of exposure at the point of exposure
Based on the determination of the BLRA (Chapter 7.2) there is no unacceptable risk to human
health or ecological receptors, a source of MC is not present. In absence of a source of MC
contamination, there are no complete exposure pathways for MC. The revised CSMs for MC
within the proposed delineated MRSs are included in Figures 5.5a through 5.5d.

Table 5.11
Laboratory Analytical Results
280-83117-1 280-83117-10 280-83117-11 280-83117-12 280-83117-13 280-83117-14 280-83117-15 280-83117-16 280-83117-17 280-83117-18 280-83117-19 280-83117-2 280-83117-20
Analyte Units MRS02-IS-01 MRS02-SS-01 MRS02-SS-02 MRS02-SS-03 MRS02-SS-04 MRS02-SS-05 MRS02-SS-06 MRS02-SS-07 MRS02-SS-08 MRS02-SS-09 MRS02-SS-10 MRS02-IS-02 MRS03-IS-01
1,3,5-
Trinitrobenzene µg/kg 40 U 37 U 40 U
1,3-Dinitrobenzene µg/kg 40 U 37 U 40 U
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene µg/kg 99 U 93 U 100 U
2,4-Dinitrotoluene µg/kg 40 U 37 U 40 U
2,6-Dinitrotoluene µg/kg 40 U 37 U 40 U
2-Amino-4,6-
dinitrotoluene µg/kg 99 U 93 U 100 U
2-Nitrotoluene µg/kg 99 U 93 U 100 U
4-Amino-2,6-
dinitrotoluene µg/kg 99 U 93 U 100 U
HMX µg/kg 40 U 37 U 40 U
Lead mg/kg 0.42 7.5 0.5 1.8 1.8 3.2 2.6 2.9 2.2 1.4
Nitrobenzene µg/kg 99 U 93 U 100 U
Nitroglycerin µg/kg 400 U 370 U 400 U
PETN µg/kg 990 U 930 U 1000 U
RDX µg/kg 99 U 93 U 100 U
Tetryl µg/kg 99 U 93 U 100 U
Zinc mg/kg 0.88 U 0.95 J 0.94 U 1.3 J 0.58 J 3.2 2.1 J 1.2 J 0.86 J 0.71 J
Notes:
U – Analyte undetected at the Limit of Detection.
J – Analyte was positively identified. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
Four equipment blanks were collected (EB-MRS01, EB-MRS-02, EB-MRS-03, and EB-MRS09) with resulting non-detect lead concentrations of 0.7 µg/L.

Table 5.11 (continued)
280-83117-21 280-83117-22 280-83117-23 280-83117-24 280-83117-25 280-83117-26 280-83117-27 280-83117-28 280-83117-29 280-83117-3 280-83117-30 280-83117-31 280-83117-32
Analyte Units MRS03-IS-09 MRS03-SS-01 MRS03-SS-09 R03-BKGD02 R03-BKGD03 R03-BKGD04 R03-BKGD05 R03-BKGD06 R03-BKGD07 MRS02-IS-03 R03-BKGD08 R02-BKGD01 R02-BKGD02
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene µg/kg 37 U 40 U
1,3-Dinitrobenzene µg/kg 37 U 40 U
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene µg/kg 93 U 100 U
2,4-Dinitrotoluene µg/kg 37 U 40 U
2-Amino-4,6-
dinitrotoluene µg/kg 93 U 100 U
2-Nitrotoluene µg/kg 93 U 100 U
4-Amino-2,6-
HMX µg/kg 37 U 40 U
Lead mg/kg 2.7 1.9 2.0 0.71 0.93 0.82 1.2 1.5 1.2 5.6 2.4
Nitrobenzene µg/kg 93 U 100 U
Nitroglycerin µg/kg 370 U 400 U
PETN µg/kg 930 U 1000 U
RDX µg/kg 93 U 100 U
Tetryl µg/kg 93 U 100 U
Zinc mg/kg 0.68 J 0.4 J 5.0 1.9 0.3 J 0.37 J 0.44 J 0.66 J 0.61 J 8.4 1.8 J
Notes:



280-83117-33 280-83117-34 280-83117-35 280-83117-36 280-83117-37 280-83117-38 280-83117-4 280-83117-40 280-83117-41 280-83117-42 280-83117-44 280-83117-45 280-83117-46 280-83117-47
Analyte Units R02-BKGD03 R02-BKGD04 R02-BKGD05 R02-BKGD06 R02-BKGD07 R02-BKGD08 MRS02-IS-04 R02-BKGD10 MRS01-IS-01 MRS01-IS-02 MRS01-IS-04 MRS01-IS-05 MRS01-IS-06 MRS01-IS-07
1,3,5-
Trinitrobenzene µg/kg 40 U 40 U 37 U 40 U 37 U 38 U 38 U
1,3-Dinitrobenzene µg/kg 40 U 40 U 37 U 40 U 37 U 38 U 38 U
2,4,6-
Trinitrotoluene µg/kg 99 U 100 U 93 U 99 U 92 U 94 U 95 U
2,4-Dinitrotoluene µg/kg 40 U 40 U 37 U 40 U 37 U 38 U 38 U
2,6-Dinitrotoluene µg/kg 40 U 40 U 37 U 40 U 37 U 38 U 38 U
2-Amino-4,6-
dinitrotoluene µg/kg 99 U 100 U 93 U 99 U 92 U 94 U 95 U
2-Nitrotoluene µg/kg 99 U 100 U 93 U 99 U 92 U 94 U 95 U
4-Amino-2,6-
dinitrotoluene µg/kg 99 U 100 U 93 U 99 U 92 U 94 U 95 U
HMX µg/kg 40 U 40 U 37 U 40 U 37 U 38 U 38 U
Lead mg/kg 2.6 2.4 2.4 18.0 0.88 1.4 1.3
Nitrobenzene µg/kg 99 U 100 U 93 U 99 U 92 U 94 U 95 U
Nitroglycerin µg/kg 400 U 400 U 370 U 400 U 370 U 380 U 380 U
PETN µg/kg 990 U 1000 U 930 U 990 U 920 U 940 U 950 U
RDX µg/kg 99 U 100 U 93 U 99 U 92 U 94 U 95 U
Tetryl µg/kg 99 U 100 U 93 U 99 U 92 U 94 U 95 U
Zinc mg/kg 0.58 J 5.0 0.88 J 1.4 J 1.2 J 0.54 J 1.5 J
Notes:

280-83117-48 280-83117-49 280-83117-5 280-83117-50 280-83117-51 280-83117-52 280-83117-53 280-83117-54 280-83117-55 280-83117-56 280-83117-57 280-83117-58 280-83117-59 280-83117-6
Analyte Units MRS01-IS-08 MRS01-IS-09 MRS02-IS-05 MRS01-IS-10 R01-BKGD01 R01-BKGD02 R01-BKGD03 R01-BKGD04 R01-BKGD05 R01-BKGD06 R01-BKGD07 R01-BKGD08 R01-BKGD09 MRS02-IS-06
1,3,5-
Trinitrobenzene µg/kg 38 U 38 U 40 U 40 U 37 U
1,3-Dinitrobenzene µg/kg 38 U 38 U 40 U 40 U 37 U
2,4,6-
Trinitrotoluene µg/kg 95 U 96 U 99 U 100 U 92 U
2,4-Dinitrotoluene µg/kg 38 U 38 U 40 U 40 U 37 U
2,6-Dinitrotoluene µg/kg 38 U 38 U 40 U 40 U 37 U
2-Amino-4,6-
dinitrotoluene µg/kg 95 U 96 U 99 U 100 U 92 U
2-Nitrotoluene µg/kg 95 U 96 U 99 U 100 U 92 U
4-Amino-2,6-
dinitrotoluene µg/kg 95 U 96 U 99 U 100 U 92 U
HMX µg/kg 38 U 38 U 40 U 40 U 130
Lead mg/kg 2.8 5.2 7.4 4.2 2.9 5.1 1.4 16.0 2.7
Nitrobenzene µg/kg 95 U 96 U 99 U 100 U 92 U
Nitroglycerin µg/kg 380 U 380 U 400 U 400 U 370 U
PETN µg/kg 950 U 960 U 990 U 1000 U 920 U
RDX µg/kg 95 U 96 U 99 U 100 U 92 U
Tetryl µg/kg 95 U 96 U 99 U 100 U 92 U
Zinc mg/kg 6.1 2.6 67.0 4.0 1.2 J 3.4 0.33 J 9.6 0.84 U
Notes:

280-83117-60 280-83117-61 280-83117-62 280-83117-63 280-83117-64 280-83117-65 280-83117-66 280-83117-67 280-83117-68 280-83117-69 280-83117-7 280-83117-70 280-83117-8
Analyte Units R01-BKGD10 MRS01-SS-01 MRS01-SS-02 MRS01-SS-03 MRS01-SS-04 MRS01-SS-05 MRS01-SS-06 MRS01-SS-07 MRS01-SS-08 MRS01-SS-09 MRS02-IS-07 MRS01-SS-10 MRS02-IS-08
2-Amino-4,6-
4-Amino-2,6-
Lead mg/kg 2.1 7.6 3.1 2.4 10.0 2.8 8.7 2.1 4.4 2.8 3.9
Zinc mg/kg 5.2 6.6 6.2 2.2 J 9.5 3.8 1.3 J 1.3 J 15.0 8.6 0.94 J
Notes:


280-83117-9 280-83168-1 280-83168-10 280-83168-11 280-83168-12 280-83168-13 280-83168-14 280-83168-15 280-83168-16 280-83168-17 280-83168-18 280-83168-19 280-83168-2
Analyte Units MRS02-IS-10 MRS09-SS-01 MRS09-SS-10 R09-BKGD01 R09-BKGD02 R09-BKGD03 R09-BKGD04 R09-BKGD05 R09-BKGD06 R09-BKGD07 R09-BKGD08 R09-BKGD09 MRS09-SS-02
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene µg/kg 40 U
1,3-Dinitrobenzene µg/kg 40 U
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene µg/kg 99 U
2,4-Dinitrotoluene µg/kg 40 U
2,6-Dinitrotoluene µg/kg 40 U
2-Amino-4,6-
dinitrotoluene µg/kg 99 U
2-Nitrotoluene µg/kg 99 U
4-Amino-2,6-
dinitrotoluene µg/kg 99 U
HMX µg/kg 40 U
Lead mg/kg 11.0 J 25.0 J 11.0 J 10.0 J 15.0 J 19.0 J 13.0 J 3.5 J 3.1 J 3.3 J 2.6 J 19.0 J
Nitrobenzene µg/kg 99 U
Nitroglycerin µg/kg 400 U
PETN µg/kg 990 U
RDX µg/kg 99 U
Tetryl µg/kg 99 U
Zinc mg/kg 7.6 J 23.0 J 5.6 J 13.0 J 7.9 J 7.7 J 10.0 J 3.1 J 3.3 J 2.2 J 2.0 J 5.8 J
Notes:


280-83168-20 280-83168-21 280-83168-22 280-83168-23 280-83168-24 280-83168-25 280-83168-26 280-83168-27 280-83168-28 280-83168-29 280-83168-3 280-83168-30 280-83168-31
Analyte Units R09-BKGD10 MRS03-SS-02 MRS03-SS-03 MRS03-IS-02 MRS03-IS-03 MRS03-IS-04 MRS03-IS-05 MRS03-IS-06 MRS03-IS-07 MRS03-IS-08 MRS09-SS-03 MRS03-IS-10 MRS03-IS-02T1
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene µg/kg 36 U 39 U 37 U 37 U 39 U 39 U 39 U 39 U 40 U
1,3-Dinitrobenzene µg/kg 36 U 39 U 37 U 37 U 39 U 39 U 39 U 39 U 40 U
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene µg/kg 91 U 96 U 94 U 92 U 98 U 98 U 97 U 97 U 100 U
2,4-Dinitrotoluene µg/kg 36 U 39 U 37 U 37 U 39 U 39 U 39 U 39 U 40 U
2,6-Dinitrotoluene µg/kg 36 U 39 U 37 U 37 U 39 U 39 U 39 U 39 U 40 U
2-Amino-4,6-
dinitrotoluene µg/kg 91 U 96 U 94 U 92 U 98 U 98 U 97 U 97 U 100 U
2-Nitrotoluene µg/kg 91 U 96 U 94 U 92 U 98 U 98 U 97 U 97 U 100 U
4-Amino-2,6-
dinitrotoluene µg/kg 91 U 96 U 94 U 92 U 98 U 98 U 97 U 97 U 100 U
HMX µg/kg 36 U 39 U 37 U 37 U 39 U 39 U 39 U 39 U 40 U
Lead mg/kg 7.3 J 0.82 7.2 19.0 J
Nitrobenzene µg/kg 91 U 96 U 94 U 92 U 98 U 98 U 97 U 97 U 100 U
Nitroglycerin µg/kg 360 U 390 U 370 U 370 U 390 U 390 U 390 U 390 U 400 U
PETN µg/kg 910 U 960 U 940 U 920 U 980 U 980 U 970 U 970 U 1000 U
RDX µg/kg 91 U 96 U 94 U 92 U 98 U 98 U 97 U 97 U 100 U
Tetryl µg/kg 91 U 96 U 94 U 92 U 98 U 98 U 97 U 97 U 100 U
Zinc mg/kg 1.9 J 0.37 J 10.0 20.0 J
Notes:


280-83168-32 280-83168-33 280-83168-34 280-83168-35 280-83168-36 280-83168-37 280-83168-38 280-83168-39 280-83168-4 280-83168-40 280-83168-41 280-83168-42 280-83168-43
Analyte Units MRS03-IS-02T2 MRS09-IS-01 MRS09-IS-02 MRS09-IS-03 MRS09-IS-04 MRS09-IS-05 MRS09-IS-06 MRS09-IS-07 MRS09-SS-04 MRS09-IS-08 MRS09-IS-09 MRS09-IS-10 MRS09-IS-05T1
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene µg/kg 36 U 40 U 39 U 39 U 39 U 40 U 37 U 40 U 40 U 37 U 39 U 38 U
1,3-Dinitrobenzene µg/kg 36 U 40 U 39 U 39 U 39 U 40 U 37 U 40 U 40 U 37 U 39 U 38 U
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene µg/kg 91 U 100 U 98 U 97 U 97 U 99 U 92 U 99 U 100 U 93 U 97 U 96 U
2,4-Dinitrotoluene µg/kg 36 U 40 U 39 U 39 U 39 U 40 U 37 U 40 U 40 U 37 U 39 U 38 U
2,6-Dinitrotoluene µg/kg 36 U 40 U 39 U 39 U 39 U 40 U 37 U 40 U 40 U 37 U 39 U 38 U
2-Amino-4,6-dinitrotoluene µg/kg 91 U 100 U 98 U 97 U 97 U 99 U 92 U 99 U 100 U 93 U 97 U 96 U
2-Nitrotoluene µg/kg 91 U 100 U 98 U 97 U 97 U 99 U 92 U 99 U 100 U 93 U 97 U 96 U
4-Amino-2,6-dinitrotoluene µg/kg 91 U 100 U 98 U 97 U 97 U 99 U 92 U 99 U 100 U 93 U 97 U 96 U
HMX µg/kg 36 U 40 U 39 U 39 U 39 U 40 U 37 U 40 U 40 U 37 U 39 U 38 U
Lead mg/kg 8.0 J
Nitrobenzene µg/kg 91 U 100 U 98 U 97 U 97 U 99 U 92 U 99 U 100 U 93 U 97 U 96 U
Nitroglycerin µg/kg 360 U 400 U 390 U 390 U 390 U 400 U 370 U 400 U 400 U 370 U 390 U 380 U
PETN µg/kg 910 U 1000 U 980 U 970 U 970 U 990 U 920 U 990 U 1000 U 930 U 970 U 960 U
RDX µg/kg 91 U 100 U 98 U 97 U 97 U 99 U 92 U 99 U 100 U 93 U 97 U 96 U
Tetryl µg/kg 91 U 100 U 98 U 97 U 97 U 99 U 92 U 99 U 100 U 93 U 97 U 96 U
Zinc mg/kg 3.7 J
Notes:


280-83168-44 280-83168-45 280-83168-46 280-83168-47 280-83168-48 280-83168-49 280-83168-5 280-83168-50 280-83168-51 280-83168-52 280-83168-53 280-83168-54 280-83168-55
Analyte Units MRS09-IS-05T2 R03-BKGD09 R03-BKGD10 MRS03-SS-04 MRS03-SS-05 MRS03-SS-06 MRS09-SS-05 MRS03-SS-07 MRS03-SS-08 MRS03-SS-10 R02-BKGD09 R03-BKGD01 MRS02-IS-09
2-Amino-4,6-
4-Amino-2,6-
Lead mg/kg 0.86 3.8 2.7 4.3 1.2 19.0 J 3.3 2.5 8.5 21.0 3.8
Zinc mg/kg 2.6 17.0 5.6 8.1 1.1 J 7.2 J 1.9 J 5.6 11.0 4.2 J 1.3 J
Notes:


280-83168-56 280-83168-57 280-83168-6 280-83168-7 280-83168-8 280-83168-9
Analyte Units MRS02-IS-09T1 MRS02-IS-09T2 MRS09-SS-06 MRS09-SS-07 MRS09-SS-08 MRS09-SS-09
2-Amino-4,6-dinitrotoluene µg/kg 94 U 93 U
4-Amino-2,6-dinitrotoluene µg/kg 94 U 93 U
Lead mg/kg 18000 J 6800 J 30000 J 21000 J
Zinc mg/kg 7100 J 2700 J 69000 J 40000 J
Notes:


FIGURES
2,610,000 2,615,000 2,620,000 2,625,000 HGL—RI Report
Figure 5.1
MRS-R01
Remedial Investigation
MEC Delineation
Legend


725,000
725,000
Northeastern
ROE Status
Accepted
Refused
Mailed
Not Mailed
R01
Western
720,000
720,000
Notes:
a d Coordinates in South Carolina State Plane, NAD83, feet.
Ro
cy
³
r La MEC=munitions and explosives of concern
rd ne MRS=munitions response site
Ga RI=Remedial Investigation
ROE=right of entry
(5-1)R01_MECDelineation.mxd
4/14/2017 JAR
715,000
715,000
0 800 1,600 3,200
Feet
2,610,000 2,615,000 2,620,000 2,625,000

2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000 2,650,000 HGL— RIRep ort
720,000
720,000
Form e
r Co
nw ayBom bi
ngandGun ne
ryRange
,SC
Figure 5.2a
MRS-R02
MEC Delineation
Legend

715,000
715,000
ROE Status
Accepted
Refused
Mailed
Not Mailed
710,000
710,000
R02
705,000
705,000
Notes:
³
y
Pa rkwa ROE=right of entry
Bays \
\Gs t-
s rv-01 \HGLGIS\Conway\_ MSI
W\RI
\
lina
Caro (
5-2a) R02 _ MECDelineati
on.
mx d
1
0/1 8/2 017J AR
S
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet
2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000 2,650,000

2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000 2,650,000 HGL—RIRe po rt
Fo r me
r Co nway Bo mbingandGun ne
r y Range
,SC
Figure 5.2b
MRS-R02
MEC Delineation
715,000
715,000
and Agreement Areas
Legend


Federal Settlement Agreement Area
SCDHEC Consent Agreement Area
SCDHEC Consent
and Federal Settlement
710,000
710,000
Agreement Areas
R02
705,000
705,000
Notes:
ay
s P arkw Coordinates in South Carolina State Plane, NAD83, feet.
B ay Other SCDHEC Consent Agreement Areas may overlap
lina
Caro
with Federal Settlement Agreement Areas.
The SCDHEC Consent Agreement Areas shown are
those not also within a Federal Settlement Agreement.
DOD=Department of Defense
³
SCDHEC=South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
\\Gs t-
s r v-
01 \HGLGI S\Co n wa y\_MSI
W\RI \
700,000
700,000
(5- 2b)R02 _MECDe lineatio nAgreements .
mx d
5 /9/201 8J AR
S o urc
e :HGL,USGS ,US ACE
ArcGI SOnlin eImag ery
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet
2,630,000 2,635,000 2,640,000 2,645,000 2,650,000

2,675,000 2,680,000 2,685,000 HGL—RIRe po rt
Fo r me
r Co nw ay Bo mbingandGun ne
r y Range
,SC
Figure 5.3
MRS-R03
MEC Delineation
Legend


735,000
735,000
ROE Status
Accepted
Refused
Mailed
Not Mailed
730,000
730,000
R03
Notes:
kw ay
s P ar Coordinates in South Carolina State Plane, NAD83, feet.
n a B ay
Caroli
³
ROE=right of entry
\\Gs t-s r v-
01\HGLGIS\Co n way\_MSI
W\RI
\
(5- 3)R03_ MECDelineatio n.
mxd
4 /14 /
20 17J AR
0 750 1,500 3,000

725,000
725,000
Feet
2,675,000 2,680,000 2,685,000

Current/Future
Outdoor Worker
Indoor Worker
Utility Worker
Construction
Recreational
Trespasser
Resident
Worker
Biota
User
Secondary
Mechanism
MEC

Figure 5.4a
Contamination
Post RI Site Conditions
Current/Future
Outdoor Worker
Indoor Worker
Utility Worker
Construction
Recreational
Trespasser
Resident
Worker
Biota
User
Secondary
Mechanism
MEC

Figure 5.4b
Contamination
Current/Future
Outdoor Worker
Indoor Worker
Utility Worker
Construction
Recreational
Trespasser
Resident
Worker
Biota
User
Secondary
Mechanism
MEC

Figure 5.4c
Contamination
Current/Future
Outdoor Worker
Indoor Worker
Utility Worker
Construction
Recreational
Trespasser
Resident
Worker
Biota
User
Secondary
Mechanism
Surface Soil Surface Soil Direct Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
MEC
Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil Direct Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
• Potentially Complete Exposure Route Figure 5.4d

Conceptual Site Model - MEC
Contamination
Conway RI; MRS-R09, Machine
Gun/Rifle Range
Current/Future
Outdoor Worker
Indoor Worker
Utility Worker
Construction
Recreational
Trespasser
Resident
Worker
Biota
User
Primary Primary Release Secondary Secondary Release Contaminated
Exposure Route
Source Mechanism Source Mechanism Medium
MC (from Erosion and

Incidental Ingestion -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
MEC Stormwater Runoff Surface Soil
presence) Dermal Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Sediment
Dermal Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Surface Soil Bioaccumulation Vegetation/Prey Ingestion -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Surface Soil Dust Emissions Ambient Air Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Subsurface Soil Incidental Ingestion -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Subsurface Soil
Dermal Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Leaching
Ingestion -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Groundwater
Dermal Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Inhalation while
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Showering
Direct Contact1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- Incomplete Exposure Route Figure 5.5a

Note: No release of MC has been identified in surface soil. No source is present for migration to other media. Conway RI; MRS-R01, Range II
1
Current/Future
Outdoor Worker
Indoor Worker
Utility Worker
Construction
Recreational
Trespasser
Resident
Worker
Biota
User
Exposure Route

Sediment
Dermal Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Subsurface Soil
Dermal Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Leaching
Ingestion -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Groundwater
Dermal Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Inhalation while
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Showering
Direct Contact1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- Incomplete Exposure Route Figure 5.5b

Note: No release of MC has been identified in surface soil. No source is present for migration to other media. Conway RI; MRS-R02, Range III
1
Current/Future
Outdoor Worker
Indoor Worker
Utility Worker
Construction
Recreational
Trespasser
Resident
Worker
Biota
User
Exposure Route

Sediment
Dermal Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Subsurface Soil
Dermal Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Leaching
Ingestion -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Groundwater
Dermal Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Inhalation while
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Showering
Direct Contact1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- Incomplete Exposure Route Figure 5.5c

Note: No release of MC has been identified in surface soil. No source is present for migration to other media. Conway RI; MRS-R03, Range IV
1
Current/Future
Outdoor Worker
Indoor Worker
Utility Worker
Construction
Recreational
Trespasser
Resident
Worker
Biota
User
Exposure Route

Sediment
Dermal Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Subsurface Soil
Dermal Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Leaching
Ingestion -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Groundwater
Dermal Contact -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Inhalation while
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Showering
Direct Contact1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Figure 5.5d
Note: No release of MC has been identified in surface soil. No source is present for migration to other media. Conway RI; MRS-R09, Machine Gune/Rifle
1
If the shallow groundwater is sampled, potential effects to the transition zone community will be evaluated. Range
6.0 MUNITIONS CONSTITUENTS

6.0.1 Contaminant release and migration is evaluated for MC contamination, if present, due to
the risk posed to receptors from exposure to contaminated media and the migration of chemicals
through environmental media. The presence of MEC may result in a release of MC to a site and
migration of MC may occur due to releases by normal detonation, low order detonations,
demolition, or where deterioration of the MEC item exposes MC to climate. MC may include
the filler, secondary explosives, propellants of the munitions, or components of the munitions
cases. If a release of MC is documented, the fate and transport of MC contaminants present in
or released to the environment must be evaluated to support the overall evaluation of human
health and/or the environment risks. As described in Chapter 7.2, no MC were identified within
the MRSs at concentrations posing a risk to human health or ecological receptors. For this
reason, the fate and transport of MC is not evaluated for the site.

7.0 BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT FOR MC AND EXPLOSIVE

HAZARDS RISK ASSESSMENT FOR UXO/DMM/MC
7.0.1 The risk assessment assesses both chemical hazards and explosive hazards. The BLRA
was performed to evaluate potential risks to human health and the environment from potential
chemical releases associated with historical use of the four MRSs included in this RI Report. In
addition, the MEC HA is used to evaluate the magnitude and primary causes of the explosive
hazards at the site. The results of the MEC HA and BLRA are used to aid in the development,
evaluation, and selection of appropriate response alternatives.
7.1 MEC RISK ASSESSMENT
7.1.1 Risk Matrices
7.1.1.1 For the evaluation of MEC explosive hazards, a baseline risk assessment was performed
utilizing Risk Matrices (Appendix K) developed for the proposed delineated MRSs, in
accordance with the interim guidance document Trial Period for Risk Management Methodology
at Formerly Used Defense Sites Military Munitions Response Program Projects (USACE, 2017).
This methodology determines if unacceptable risk exists for MEC and aides the development of
Remedial Action Objectives to identify remedial action alternatives to be evaluated in the FS.
The existing (i.e., baseline) conditions at the three recommended MRSs and the no further action
MRS, using the risk matrices are presented in Appendix K. This information will provide the
baseline for the assessment of response alternatives to be conducted in the FS. Three of the four
MRSs (MRS-R01, MRS-R02, and MRS-R03) have an unacceptable risk due to explosive
hazards. Based on the MEC contamination present, an unacceptable risk exists for human
receptors to be exposed to explosive hazards at these three MRSs.
7.2 RISK ASSESSMENT FOR MC
7.2.0.1 This BLRA was conducted to evaluate potential risks to human health and the
environment from chemical releases associated with historical use of four MRSs investigated in
this RI Report. The BLRA includes a quantitative HHRA and SLERA. The HHRA and SLERA
were prepared IAW USACE and USEPA guidance, as well as the Final RI/FS Work Plan for the
Former Conway BGR (HGL, 2015a).
7.2.0.2 As described in Section 7.2.2, the BLRA included an evaluation of site data relative to
naturally occurring (background) concentrations. Chemicals exceeding background concentrations
are referred to in the BLRA as contaminants. Contaminants were further evaluated by comparing
detected concentrations to applicable screening values. Contaminants that exceed screening values
are referred to as COPCs (for human receptors) or COPECs (for ecological receptors) and were
further evaluated in the BLRA. The approach and results of the BLRA are described in the
subsections below.

7.2.1 Data used in the BLRA
7.2.1.1 The analytical results used in this BLRA were obtained from all current and historical
datasets. The analytical results collected for the 2016 RI are composed of ISM soil samples
(explosive analysis) and discrete soil samples (Pb and Zn analyses) collected from MRS-R01,
MRS-R02, MRS-R03, and MRS-R09. The historical datasets consist of soil samples identified
in the 2012 EODT RI Report (EODT, 2012) and MC Sampling, Analysis, and Evaluation Report
(Parson 2006). The historical datasets include ISM soil samples (explosives and metals) collected
in MRS-R01, MRS-R02 and MRS-R03 in addition to composite soil samples (explosives and
metals) collected in MRS-R02. In addition, the 2012 EODT RI Report identified seven ISM
samples (7063-MIS-001 through 7063-MIS-007) with limited sampling information, such as
replicate sample results. The 2012 EODT RI Report used the sampling identification acronym
“MIS” to indicated ISM samples. To ensure that all historical results were considered, these
samples were included in the ISM sample dataset.
7.2.1.2 As described in the work plan, soil is the principal medium of concern. No other media
were sampled. The soil datasets used in the BLRA consist of:
• MRS-R01, Range II:
○ Pb and Zn: 10 discrete soil samples collected during the 2016 field investigation.
○ Select metals: 1 ISM sample collected in triplicate during the 2012 RI.
○ Explosives: 9 ISM soil samples collected during the 2016 field investigation
(10 samples) and 2012 RI (1 sample).
• MRS-R02, Range II:
○ Select metals: 14 composite soil samples collected during the 2006 MC Evaluation
Report.
○ Select metals: 8 ISM soil samples collected in triplicate from the 2012 RI, which
includes the 7 samples with limited sampling information as noted above.
○ Explosives: 14 composite soil samples collected during the 2006 MC Evaluation
Report.
○ Explosives: 18 ISM soil samples collected from the 2012 RI (8 samples) and ISM
samples from the 2016 field investigation (10 samples).
• MRS-R03, Range IV:
○ Select metals: 2 ISM soil samples collected in triplicate identified in the 2012 RI.
○ Explosives: 10 ISM soil samples collected (one in triplicate) during the 2016 field
investigation (10 samples) and 2012 RI (2 samples).
• MRS-R09, MG/RR:
○ Pb and Zn:10 discrete soil samples collected during the 2016 field investigation.

○ Explosives: 10 ISM soil samples (one collected in triplicate) during the 2016 field
investigation.
7.2.2 Evaluation of Background Data
7.2.2.1 Prior to identification of COPCs for each MRS, the analytical results were compared to
the background data. The background samples include:
• One ISM sample analyzed for barium, Cd, Pb, Hg, and Zn. This sample was used for
comparison of ISM data from all MRSs.
• One composite sample analyzed for barium, Cd, Pb, Hg, and Zn. This sample was used
for comparison of composite data from MRS-R02.
• 40 discrete soil samples analyzed for Pb and Zn with ten samples collected at each of the
four MRSs. The background results for the individual MRSs were treated as separate
datasets and were not pooled. Thus, the Pb and Zn results for the individual MRSs were
compared to the MRS-specific background data.
7.2.2.2 For the discrete samples, both the background and site datasets had sufficient Pb and Zn
detections to support statistical comparisons using hypothesis testing. The following approach
was used for these comparisons. All calculations were performed with the USEPA software
ProUCL, version 5.0.00.
• An outlier analysis to a 5 percent significance level was performed on the site datasets.
• The upper tolerance limits (UTLs) were calculated for the background datasets.
• The distributions of the site data and background data were identified. For the site data,
outliers were removed from the datasets prior to evaluating the data’s distribution.
• If both datasets were normally distributed and had all detect results, the site and
background data were compared using the student’s t-test. If one or both datasets were
not normally distributed or if a dataset had a non-detect result, then the data were
compared using the Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test. For non-detect results, the reporting
limit was entered into the ProUCL program. ProUCL is capable of performing statistical
analyses on datasets with non-detect results.
• For samples with field duplicate results, the maximum detection was used as the
concentration for that location. If an analyte was positively detected in only one sample,
the positive detection was used. If an analyte was not detected in either the parent sample
or field duplicate, the lower of the reporting limits was used. If the result was qualified as
“B”, which indicates the analyte was detected in the blank sample, the result was
considered to be a non-detect result.
• Outliers were compared to the UTLs. Outliers greater than the UTL were identified as
contamination.
• Box-and-whisker plots were prepared to support the statistical comparisons.
7.2.2.3 The results of the background comparisons for the discrete data are presented in
Appendix B, Table B-1. The ProUCL outputs and box-and-whisker plots are presented in

Appendix B, Table B-2. As presented in Table B-1, Pb and Zn in discrete soil samples from
MRS-R01 and MRS-R02 were identified as naturally occurring. The Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney
test for Zn at MRS-R09 concluded that site concentrations are equal to or less than background
values. Inspection of the box-and-whisker plots, however, suggests that Zn is a contaminant.
Accordingly, Zn was identified as a contaminant for MRS-R09.
7.2.2.4 Because only one ISM background sample was collected, a qualitative comparison of
the site ISM data to the background data was performed. This comparison is summarized in
Tables B-5. Detections of Cd at MRS-R02, barium at MRS-R03, and Zn at MRS-R03 are less
than the ISM background result. These three metals are identified as naturally occurring in the
ISM samples. For the remaining metals detected in the MRSs, one or more detections exceed
the ISM background result. These metals are evaluated below. To provide additional
information, Pb and Zn ISM results were also compared to mean detections of the discrete
background samples. Mean detections were used because the ISM results represent a composite
sample.
• Barium at MRS-R01: The maximum detection of 8.88 mg/kg for the triplicate sample is
only slightly greater than the background result of 7.5 mg/kg. Barium at MRS-R01 is
identified as naturally occurring.
• Pb at MRS-R01: The maximum detection of 4.88 mg/kg for the triplicate sample is only
slightly greater than the ISM background result of 2 mg/kg, and is less than the discrete
mean concentration of 4.98 mg/kg. Pb at MRS-R01 is identified as naturally occurring.
• Hg at MRS-R01: The maximum detection of 0.0252 mg/kg for the triplicate sample is
approximately 3 times the ISM background result. Hg is identified as a contaminant at
MRS-R01.
• Zn at MRS-R01: The detection of 3.46 mg/kg is approximately equal to the background
ISM result of 3.3 mg/kg. Zn in the ISM sample at MRS-R01 is identified as naturally
occurring.
• Barium at MRS-R02: As shown in the box-and-whisker plot, most of the barium
detections are greater than the ISM background result. Barium is identified as a
contaminant for MRS-R02.
• Pb at MRS-R02: Although the Pb detections are greater than the ISM background value
of 2 mg/kg, the maximum site detection of 5.9 mg/kg is only slightly greater than the
mean background concentration of 5.8 mg/kg for the discrete samples. This comparison
suggests that the concentrations in the ISM samples reflect background conditions. Pb at
MRS-R02 is identified as naturally occurring.
• Hg at MRS-R02: All Hg detections are greater than the ISM background result. Hg is
identified as a contaminant for MRS-R02.
• Zn at MRS-R02: As shown on the box-and-whisker plots, most of the Zn detections are
greater than the ISM background value. Zn detections in the ISM samples are also greater
than the mean concentration of the discrete background samples. Zn is identified as a

• Pb at MRS-R03: The maximum ISM detection is greater than both the background ISM
result and mean concentration for the discrete background samples. Pb is identified as a
• Hg at MRS-R03: The two ISM samples from MRS-R03 were analyzed in triplicate. Of
the six triplicate results, only the maximum is greater than the background ISM result of
0.008 mg/kg. Hg at MRS-R03 is identified as naturally occurring.
7.2.2.5 Similar to the ISM dataset, only one composite background sample was collected.
Accordingly, a qualitative comparison of the site composite data to the background data was
performed as presented in Table B-5. Based on the box-and-whisker plots and the comparison
of maximum detections to background values, all metal composite samples are greater than the
associated composite background result. Accordingly, barium, Cd, Pb, Hg, and Zn at MRS-
R02 are identified as a contaminant.
7.2.3 Human Health Evaluation
7.2.3.1 Exposure Assessment
7.2.3.1.1 Exposure Setting and Conceptual Site Model

7.2.3.1.1.1 The human health evaluation is based on the current and future land use at each
MRS. Current land use within the Former Conway BGR includes timber harvesting as well as
agricultural, residential, and recreational uses. Portions of the area have been converted into a
golf course and residential housing. The current land use for each MRS is listed below.
• MRS-R01, Range II: residential, recreational, and commercial/industrial (forestry);
• MRS-R02, Range III: residential, commercial/industrial, and recreational;
• MRS-R03, Range IV: residential, commercial/industrial (forestry, hunting), and minor
agricultural; and
• MRS-R09, MG/RR: residential, commercial/industrial (forestry, hunting) and, and
minor agricultural.
7.2.3.1.1.2 Limited farmland remains in MRS-R03 and MRS-R09. It is expected that residential
development will continue to expand at the former Conway BGR. In addition, the former
Conway BGR is located in Game Zone 5. Under this zone, deer hunting is allowed from
August 15 through August 31 (hunting with bow and arrow), and September 1 through January 1
(hunting with gun). Turkey hunting is allowed from April 1 through May 1.
7.2.3.1.1.3 Potential sources of contamination consist of historical use of impact ranges that
were associated with the former Conway BGR. Potential exposure media and associated
exposure routes are listed below:
• Soil: direct contact with surface soil (ingestion, dermal contact);
• Soil: inhalation of fugitive dust emissions from surface soil;
• Soil: food consumption via soil uptake of chemicals in prey animals; and

• Soil: food consumption via soil uptake of chemicals in foraged plants or crops grown on
the site.
7.2.3.1.1.4 The potential migration pathways are presented in the CSM (Figure 3.2). Based on
historical site activities at the former Conway BGR, it is unlikely that volatile organic compounds
are present in soil. Volatile organic compounds are not constituents of the munitions used or
found at the Conway BGR and therefore would not be considered MC. Accordingly, the
inhalation of volatile compounds is not considered a complete pathway, and will not be included
in the HHRA.
7.2.3.1.2 Receptors
7.2.3.1.2.1 The HHRA evaluated the health effects associated with potential exposures to
contamination in soil under an unrestricted land use scenario. The following receptors could be
present at the former Conway BGR under the current and potential future land use scenarios:
• Construction Worker,
• Outdoor Worker,
• Maintenance/Utility Worker,
• Trespasser,
• Recreational User/Hunter,
• Indoor Worker, and
• Resident.
7.2.3.1.2.2 The different receptors and potential exposure routes are summarized in Table B-3
of Appendix B.
7.2.4 Exposure Quantification
7.2.4.1 Screening to Identify Chemicals of Potential Concern
7.2.4.1.1 For each MRS, the metals determined to be naturally occurring were not identified as
COPCs. In addition, analytes not detected in any of the surface soil samples were not identified
as COPCs. The potential uncertainty associated with this approach was evaluated in the section
below. COPCs were identified through the comparison of the maximum detected value of ISM,
composite, or discrete soil samples to risk-based screening levels. Screening levels are the May
2016 USEPA residential soil RSLs (cancer risk = 1E-06, non-cancer hazard quotient
[HQ] = 0.1).
7.2.4.1.2 The COPC screening for each MRS is presented in Table B-4.1 through Table B-4.4.
No COPCs were identified for MRS-R01, MRS-R03, and MRS-R09. Only the maximum Cd
detection of 7.9 mg/kg for the MRS-R02 composite sample exceeds the screening value. The
screening value corresponds to a HQ of 0.1. Based on the ratio of the detection to the screening
value, the maximum detection corresponds to an HQ of 0.11, which poses no threat to human
health. Potential site contaminants at the MRSs pose no threat to human health.

7.2.4.2 Uncertainty Analysis
7.2.4.2.1 A number of assumptions are required in a risk assessment that introduce uncertainty
to the risk and hazard estimates. These uncertainties associated with this assumption are
evaluated below.
7.2.4.2.2 Because the BLRA only evaluated select metals and explosives, there is a potential
that more chemicals are present at the MRSs than identified in the sampling and analysis effort.
In order to minimize this uncertainty, the analytical suites were identified based on all potential
contaminants associated with historical operations. Sample locations were also biased to those
areas with the greatest potential for contamination as indicated by historical information and
previous field investigations. For these reasons, it is unlikely that significant chemical
contamination associated with historical site use went undetected. Further, the validation of all
results reduces uncertainty in the results. Based on this information, the analytical results used
in the risk assessment do not appear to have introduced substantial uncertainty.
7.2.4.2.3 Another potential uncertainty is associated with the sensitivity of each analytical
method. Specifically, the analytical method may not be sensitive enough to detect potential site
contaminants at concentrations that pose a threat to human health. In order to evaluate this
potential uncertainty, the reporting limits for non-detect analytes are compared to the health-
based screening values in Table B-6.1 through Table B-6.5.
7.2.4.2.4 For each MRS, the reporting limits are less than the May 2016 residential soil RSLs
(cancer risk = 1E-06; non-cancer HQ = 0.1). Based on this comparison, analytical sensitivity
is not a significant source of uncertainty at the former Conway BGR.
7.2.4.3 Human Health Risk Assessment Summary and Conclusions
7.2.4.3.1 In summary, screening of the analytical results against background concentrations and
health-based screening values identified one COPC: Cd in MRS-R02. The maximum Cd
detection corresponds to an HQ of 0.11 for a resident receptor, which indicates no threat to
human health. In conclusion, site contaminants do not pose a threat to human health under an
unrestricted land use.
7.2.5 Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
7.2.5.0.1 A SLERA for MRS-R01, MRS-R02, MRS-R03, and MRS-R09 was completed IAW
the approach described in the Final RI/FS Work Plan (HGL, 2015a). The SLERA is presented
in the subsections below.
7.2.5.1 Problem Formulation
7.2.5.1.0.1 The following problem formulation defines the potentially affected environment and
preliminary constituents of concern of the former Conway BGR. The ecological setting, CSM,
and endpoints are described below.

7.2.5.1.1 Ecological Setting and Conceptual Site Model

7.2.5.1.1.1 The former Conway BGR, located in Horry County, is within the Lower Atlantic
Coastal Plain physiographic province. Topographically, the former Conway BGR slopes
generally to the southeast with elevations ranging from nearly sea level to about 40 ft above sea
level. The area is generally wooded with pine trees and thick underbrush. Several Carolina Bays
(or swamps), wetlands, and small tributaries occur within the boundaries of the former Conway
BGR. Along the southern edge of the former Conway BGR and parallel to the coastline lies the
Intercoastal Waterway. Numerous rivers drain Horry County, including the Pee Dee, Little Pee
Dee, and Waccamaw.
7.2.5.1.1.2 No biological survey has been completed for the sites. A species list provided by
the SCDNR indicated that no state or federally listed threatened or endangered species are
documented as existing within the former Conway BGR. However, it is possible that threatened
or endangered species could prefer habitats present at the Former BGR. In order to evaluate the
potential for these species to occur onsite, a list of threatened or endangered species occurring
in Horry County was identified using the USFWS ESA list for Horry County as provided by the
USFWS South Carolina Field Office and the SCDNR list of species potentially occurring in
Horry County and summarized in the approved work plan (HGL, 2015b). Species identified
from these documents that could be supported by habitats similar to those found at the former
Conway BGR are:
• Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus),
• Wood stork (Mycteria Americana),
• Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis),
• Least tern (Sterna antillarum),
• Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii),
• American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana),
• Canby’s dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi), and
• Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia).
7.2.5.1.1.3 Per the work plan, soil is the principal medium of concern in each MRS. Terrestrial
ecological receptors, including plants, terrestrial invertebrates, and animals, can be exposed to
soil in the ecologically active zone, which consists of the top two feet of soil. The SLERA
evaluated both direct contact and, for birds and mammals, exposure to contaminants through
uptake in the food chain.
7.2.5.1.2 Preliminary Assessment and Measurement Endpoints

7.2.5.1.2.1 PA and measurement endpoints for the MRSs are presented in Table B-7. An
assessment endpoint represents a particular ecological value to be protected at each site.
Measurement endpoints allow the quantification of potential ecological risk of the assessment
endpoint. Terrestrial plants, invertebrates, avian and mammalian herbivores, avian and
mammalian insectivores, and avian and mammalian carnivores were identified as assessment
endpoints. For each assessment and measurement endpoint pair, a key ecological receptor (e.g.,
Eastern cottontail) that represents a specific trophic level in the ecosystem (e.g., terrestrial
plants) is identified.

7.2.5.2 Technical Approach
7.2.5.2.1 A SLERA is performed on a two-step process. The first step is a preliminary

evaluation that incorporates conservative assumptions. For example, maximum concentrations
in soil are compared to benchmark values for the target community (e.g., terrestrial plants) and
chemical consumption rates are compared to no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) for
wildlife receptors (e.g., mammalian insectivore). As a conservative measure, the home range
factor was set as one for initial food web. Based on this analysis, contaminants either were
identified as not posing a risk or were retained for additional evaluation in the second step.
7.2.5.2.2 The second step of the SLERA provides a more realistic evaluation of potential risks.
This step includes assessment of the spatial extent to which the dataset exceeds the benchmarks
and the potential magnitude of impacts to the overall community. For wildlife receptors, central
tendency food ingestion rates were used instead of maximum food ingestion rates, and chemical
intakes were compared to lowest observed adverse effects levels (LOAELs) in addition to
NOAELs. For the initial and refined food webs, the dietary composition of each species is
assumed to be 100 percent of its associated representative trophic level. For the refined food
web, a home range factor was applied if the size of the MRS was less than the home range of a
given ecological receptor. The complete description of the SLERA approach is presented below.
7.2.5.3 Initial Screening
7.2.5.3.1 As with the HHRA, metals identified as naturally occurring were not identified as
COPECs. For contaminants, the maximum detected concentration of discrete samples,
maximum detected concentration of composite samples, or maximum detected concentration of
ISM samples was compared to its ecological benchmarks. Metal results were screened against
the USEPA Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs) for each ecological receptor (plants,
soil invertebrates, birds, and mammals). For metals that lacked Eco-SSLs for plants and/or
terrestrial invertebrates, benchmarks were obtained from the following sources.
• Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten, 1997a. Toxicological
Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial
Plants: 1997 Revision.
• Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, and G.W. Suter II, 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for
Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and
Heterotrophic Process: 1997 Revision.
7.2.5.3.2 Explosive compounds lack Eco-SSLs. For these analytes, ecological benchmarks were
obtained from the Los Alamos National Laboratory ECORISK Database, version 3.2.
Contaminants with detections greater than their benchmarks were retained for further analysis.
Bioaccumulative chemicals that lack Eco-SSLs are included in the initial food web analysis
presented below. The initial screening of the analytical results is described above.
7.2.5.3.1 MRS-R01, Range II
7.2.5.3.1.1 The discrete and ISM results from MRS-R01 are compared to the ecological
benchmarks in Table B-5. No COPECs were identified for either the discrete nor ISM sample

results. Although barium has an Eco-SSL for mammals, it lacks an Eco-SSL for birds. Because
barium is not considered an important bioaccumulative chemical, it is unlikely to pose a threat
via the food web. For this reason, barium is not retained as a COPEC for birds. Soil
contaminants at MRS-R01 do not pose a threat to ecological receptors.
7.2.5.3.2 MRS-R02, Range III
7.2.5.3.2.1 As presented in Table B-5, no COPECs were identified based on the discrete or
ISM data. The following analytes for the composite samples were identified as COPECs for
MRS-R02.
• Cd – birds and mammals;
• Pb – birds;
• Hg – plants and invertebrates; and
• Zn – plants, soil invertebrates, bird and mammals
7.2.5.3.2.2 Similar to MRS-R01, although barium has no screening value for birds, this metal
was not identified as a COPEC because it is not an important bioaccumulative chemicals. Cd,
Pb, Hg, and Zn are retained for further evaluation with respect to the receptors listed above.
7.2.5.3.3 MRS-R03, Range IV
7.2.5.3.3.1 As shown in Table B-5, all contaminant detections are less than the ecological
screening values. No COPECs were identified for MRS-R03. Soil contaminants at this MRS
do not pose an ecological threat.
7.2.5.3.4 MRS-R09, Machine Gun/Rifle Range
7.2.5.3.4.1 Only discrete samples were collected at MRS-R09. The maximum detections for Pb
and Zn exceed the Eco-SSL for birds. Both metals are retained for further evaluation with respect
to birds.
7.2.5.3.4.2 In summary, the initial screening identified Cd, Hg, and Zn as COPECs for MRS-
R02; and Pb and Zn as COPECs for MRS-R09. No COPECs were identified for MRS-R01 and
MRS-R03.
7.2.5.4 Initial Food Web Analysis for Terrestrial Wildlife
7.2.5.4.1 Hg is the only bioaccumulative chemical that lacks a screening value for birds and
mammals. Bioaccumulative chemicals are listed in Table 4-2 of Bioaccumulation Testing and
Interpretation for the Purpose of Sediment Quality Assessment: Status and Needs
(USEPA, 2000). Hg was identified as a contaminant for MRS-R01 and MRS-R02. Accordingly,
an initial food web analysis was conducted for Hg to evaluate potential threats to upper trophic
level receptors in these two MRSs.
7.2.5.4.2 The potential effects to terrestrial wildlife receptors were assessed by comparing the
estimated chemical intake for each receptor to the associated NOAEL. There are no equations
or methods available to estimate intake by dermal contact and inhalation. Therefore, the
estimation of chemical intake considered only the ingestion route, which includes incidental

ingestion of contaminated soil and ingestion of chemicals accumulated in the tissue of the wildlife
receptor’s diet (plants, terrestrial invertebrates, mammals). The Hg bioaccumulation factors for
plants, earthworms, and mammals were obtained from Bechtel Jacobs (1998), Sample, et al.
(1998a), and Sample, et al. (1998b), respectively. The exposure assumptions (food ingestion
rate, dietary components, etc.) used for each wildlife receptor is presented in Table B-8. The
daily dose was calculated using the following equation:

(Frij  FIRij  C j ) 
n


SIRi  C s + 
j =1 
ADDi = AUFi  SUFi  
BWi
 
 
Where:
ADDi = Average daily dose (ADD) for wildlife receptor species i (mg/kg-day)
AUFi = Area use factor (AUF) for wildlife receptor species i (unitless)
SUFi = Seasonal use factor (SUF) for wildlife receptor species i (unitless)
SIRi = Daily incidental soil ingestion rate (SIR) wildlife receptor species i
(kilogram / dry weight / day [kg dw/day])
Cs = Concentration of COPEC in soil (mg/kg dw)
Frij = Fraction of diet of wildlife receptor species i composed of food item j
(unitless)
FIRij = Daily food ingestion rate (FIR) of wildlife receptor species i (kg
dw/day)
Cj = Concentration of COPEC in food item j (mg/kg dw)
n = The number of food items in the diet of wildlife receptor species i
BW = Body weight (kg fresh weight)
7.2.5.4.3 As shown in the initial food web (Table B-9), the NOAEL ecological quotient exceeds
1 for the American woodcock exposed to the maximum composite soil detection at MRS-R02.
All NOAEL ecological quotients for the other receptors at MRS-R02 are less than 1. Hg is
retained as a COPEC for the American woodcock in MRS-R02 and included in the refined food
web evaluation. The ecological quotients for MRS-R01 are less than or equal to 1, indicating
that Hg in MRS-R01 soil does not pose a threat to wildlife receptors.
7.2.5.5 Refined Analysis for Plants and Terrestrial Invertebrates
7.2.5.5.1 Mercury at MRS-R02

7.2.5.5.1.1 The maximum Hg detection reported for the composite soil samples from MRS-R02
is greater than both the plant benchmark of 0.3 mg/kg and invertebrate benchmark of 0.1 mg/kg.
The 95 percent upper confidence limit (UCL) of the composite data for MRS-R02 is 0.193

mg/kg. This concentration is less than the plant benchmark, indicating that Hg does not pose a
threat to the plant community at MRS-R02.
7.2.5.5.1.2 The 95 percent UCL is greater than the invertebrate benchmark of 0.1 mg/kg. The
earthworm benchmark was based on a single study completed in 1983 (Efroymson, et al,
1997b). In a more recent study, earthworms were exposed to 22 mg/kg Hg in soil (described
as a non-lethal dose) in order to assess the effect of pre-exposure to Hg on toxic response. The
50 percent lethal concentration (LC50) for pre-exposed worms was 545 mg/kg, as compared to
a LC50 of 170 mg/kg for non-pre-exposed worms. These results differ substantially from the
findings of the 1983 study, in which there was a 65 percent decrease in survival of the test
species at a concentration of 0.5 mg/kg (the benchmark value was obtained by dividing the 0.5
mg/kg concentration by 5). This comparison highlights the uncertainty associated with the
benchmark value. The LC50 values from the 2007 study are 2-3 orders of magnitude greater than
the Hg concentrations observed in the MRS-R02 soil samples. Based on the recent study, Hg
in the MRS-R02 soil does not pose a threat to the terrestrial invertebrate community. Hg is not
retained as a COPEC for this receptor.
7.2.5.5.2 Zinc at MRS-R02
7.2.5.5.2.1 Zn detections exceed both the plant and terrestrial invertebrate Eco-SSLs. As shown
below, the Zn concentrations only slightly exceed the benchmarks:
• Plant benchmark:
○ Maximum detection of 420 mg/kg is 2.6 times the benchmark of 160 mg/kg.
○ 95 percent UCL of 161 mg/kg is slightly greater than the benchmark.
• Invertebrate benchmark:
○ Maximum detection of 420 mg/kg is 3.5 times the benchmark of 120 mg/kg.
○ 95 percent UCL of 161 mg/kg is 1.3 times the benchmark.
7.2.5.5.2.2 Of the 14 composite soil samples analyzed for Zn, only two had Zn concentrations
greater than the benchmarks. In addition, all ISM results are less than the benchmarks. Based
on the limited frequency and low ratios by which the benchmarks were exceeded, Zn in the
MRS-R02 soil poses minimal threat to the plant and invertebrate communities. Zn is not retained
as a COPEC for these receptors.
7.2.5.6 Refined Food Web Analysis for Terrestrial Wildlife
7.2.5.6.1 As described above, the following chemicals were retained for further evaluation with
respect to upper trophic level receptors:
• MRS-R02 (composite samples):
○ Cd – birds and mammals,
○ Pb – birds,
○ Hg – avian insectivore,
○ Zn – birds and mammals.
• MRS-R09 (discrete samples): Pb and Zn – avian receptors

7.2.5.6.2 The initial screening and food web analysis were based on the comparison of the
maximum detected value to Eco-SSLs or, in the case of Hg, maximum daily doses to NOAELs.
This initial screening is a conservative approach that may overestimate potential exposure at the
community level. The refined food web analysis incorporates the following components to better
reflect site conditions.
• 95 percent UCL of the mean as determined by the ProUCL version 5.0.00.
• Comparison of the daily dose to the LOAEL as well as the NOAEL.
7.2.5.6.3 The size of each MRS included in the refined food web analysis is greater than the
home range of each ecological receptor. Accordingly, the home range factor remained as one
for the refined food web. As shown in the refined food web presented in Table B-10, the
MRS-R02 NOAEL ecological quotients exceeded 1 for the Southern short-tailed shrew exposed
to Cd (NOAEL ecological quotient of 5). NOAEL ecological quotients exceeded 1 for the
American woodcock in MRS-R02 exposed to Cd (ecological quotient of 3), Pb (ecological
quotient of 2), and Zn (ecological quotient of 2). In the MRS-R09, NOAEL ecological quotients
exceeded 1 for the American woodcock exposed to Pb (ecological quotient of 2). All LOAEL
ecological quotients were less than 1, indicating that the average daily dose for these receptors
was greater than the dose associated with no effects but less than the dose associated with
observed effects. Accordingly, no COPECs were retained for the mammalian insectivore
community of MRS-R02 or the avian insectivore community of MRS-R02 and MRS-R09.
7.2.5.7 Uncertainty Analysis
7.2.5.7.1 Similar to the HHRA, the ecological risk assessment requires a number of assumptions
that may introduce uncertainty to the risk estimates. These uncertainties are evaluated below.
7.2.5.7.2 As noted in above, there is limited uncertainty associated with the analytical data suite
based on the review of historical information and previous investigations. However, the
sensitivity of the analytical methods may not be sufficient to detect potential contaminants at
concentrations that could pose a threat to ecological receptors. Similar to the HHRA, this
uncertainty is assessed by comparing reporting limits for non-detect analytes to ecological
screening values. As presented on Tables B-6.1 through B-6.2, the only reporting limit greater
than an ecological benchmark is the maximum reporting limit for 1,3-dinitrobenzene. The
maximum reporting limit for this explosive is less than twice the benchmark. Thus, it is unlikely
that 1,3-dinitrobenzene is present in the MRS soils at concentrations that would pose a threat to
ecological receptors. Analytical sensitivity does not contribute to the SLERA’s uncertainty.
7.2.6 Ecological Risk Assessment Summary and Conclusions
7.2.6.1 The SLERA evaluated the exposure of plants, soil invertebrates, mammals, and birds to
contaminants at MRS-R01, MRS-R02, MRS-R03, and MRS-R09. The SLERA considered
terrestrial plants, soil invertebrates, birds, and mammals. Food web modeling was conducted to
assess potential exposure of birds and mammals to bioaccumulative chemicals. No threats were
identified for exposure of ecological receptors to soil in all four MRSs.

This page is intentionally left blank.

8.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

8.1 SUMMARY
8.1.1 MEC and MC Nature and Extent
8.1.1.1 MEC
8.1.1.1.1 The extent of MEC contamination at the four MRSs was determined based on the RI
field investigation and evaluation of previous investigation results. As described in Subchapters
5.2.1, 5.2.3, and 5.2.4, MEC contamination was identified in MRS-R01, MRS-R02, and
MRS-R03. The RI was conducted IAW the approved Work Plan and to meet the established
DQOs. MEC contamination boundaries were determined within the MRSs and the types of
munitions and depths that items may be found were determined. Based on MEC contamination
boundaries determined during the RI, the following MRS delineation is proposed:
• MRS-02: 1,525 acres, the MEC-contaminated area of the former MRS-R02.
part of the MRS-R02 MEC contaminated area should be recommended for no further
action.
8.1.1.1.2 The proposed MRS-01, MRS-02 and MRS-03 are recommended for further evaluation
in the FS. The area of MRS-R09 that is not part of the MRS-R02 MEC contaminated area is
recommended for no further action.
8.1.1.2 Munitions Constituents
8.1.1.2.1 During the RI/FS activities, ISM surface soil samples were collected within the all
four MRSs and in background areas and analyzed for explosives and metals. The RI results as
well as historical MC sampling investigation were evaluated as part of this RI. No MC was
detected at levels constituting a risk to human health or the environment, indicating there is no
MC contamination. The results of the BLRA for MC are summarized below.
8.1.2 BLRA for MC
8.1.2.1 MC contamination was assessed in surface soil collected from 0 to 0.5 ft bgs. As
discussed in Chapters 5.2, 7.2.3, and 7.2.5. The screening of the analytical results against
background concentrations and health-based screening values identified one COPC: Cd in MRS-
R02; however, after evaluation the Cd was determined to be no threat to human health under
unrestricted land use. The initial screening identified Cd, Hg, and Zn as COPECs for MRS-
R02; and Pb and Zn as COPECs for MRS-R09. No COPECs were identified for MRS-R01 and
MRS-R03. The SLERA showed that no threats were identified for exposure of ecological
receptors to soil in all four MRSs. Based on the information provided in Chapter 7.2, it was
concluded that no MC is present on site at levels that present a risk to human health or the

environment. Therefore, MC sampling performed during this RI, and during previous
investigations, does not indicate a release of MC.
8.1.3 MEC Risk Assessment
8.1.3.1 For the evaluation of MEC explosive hazards, a baseline risk assessment was performed
utilizing Risk Matrices. The existing (i.e., baseline) conditions at the three recommended MRSs
(MRS-01, MRS-02, and MRS-03) and the no further action MRS were evaluated. Based on the
MEC contamination present, an unacceptable risk exists for human receptors to be exposed to
explosive hazards at the three recommended MRSs.
8.2 CONCLUSIONS
8.2.1 Recommendations for FS
8.2.1.1 The conclusions of this RI and the MEC HA show that MEC contamination was
identified within MRS-R01, MRS-R02 and MRS-R03 and does pose an unacceptable risk due to
explosive hazards to current and future receptors. No MEC contamination was identified in
MRS-R09. The BLRA for MC identified no actionable risk to human or ecological receptors at
any of the MRSs.
• The RAOs for the 296 acres of MRS-R01 recommended for evaluation in an FS is to
reduce the unacceptable risk due to the presence of 100-pound (lb) M38A2 Practice
bomb; 20-lb M41 Fragmentation Bomb; 2.25-inch Sub-Caliber Aircraft Rocket (SCAR);
and MK1 50-lb Practice Bombs, within the MEC contamination boundary shown on
Figure 5.1 to a depth of 5-ft bgs to address likelihood of exposure to construction
workers, indoor/outdoor workers, maintenance/utility workers, trespassers, recreational
users, and residents via direct contact such that a negligible risk scenario is achieved.
• The RAOs for the 1,525 acres of MRS-R02 recommended for evaluation in an FS is to
reduce the unacceptable risk due to the presence of ·1.1-inch Mark 2 projectiles; 100-lb
M38A2 Practice Bombs; M48 20-lb Practice Bomb; 5-inch high velocity aircraft rocket
(HVAR) Mk 1; 4-lb Incendiary AN-M54; 6-lb Incendiary AN-M69X; 250-lb M57
Bomb; practice 2.5-inch rocket; 2.36-inch rockets; 5-inch HVAR, Mk 1; 5-inch Mk 24
Mod 0 Zuni Rocket; Mk4 2.75-inch Folding-Fin Aircraft Rocket (FFAR); M16 Smoke
Grenade; AN-M110 A1 Bomb Fuze and M63 37mm Projectiles within the MEC
contamination boundary shown on Figure 5.2a and Figure 5.2b to a depth of 6-ft bgs to
address likelihood of exposure to construction workers, indoor/outdoor workers,
maintenance/utility workers, trespassers, recreational users, and residents via direct
contact such that a negligible risk scenario is achieved.
• The RAOs for the 495 acres of MRS-R03 recommended for evaluation in an FS is to
reduce the unacceptable risk due to the presence of 4-lb Incendiary AN-M54; M48 20-
lb Practice Bomb; 100-lb M38A2 Practice bomb; and Mk4 2.75-inch FFAR within the
MEC contamination boundary shown on Figure 5.3 to a depth of 3.5-ft bgs to address
likelihood of exposure to construction workers, indoor/outdoor workers,

maintenance/utility workers, trespassers, recreational users, and residents via direct

contact such that a negligible risk scenario is achieved.
8.2.1.2 The site was recommended for future FUDSMIS delineation as proposed for MRS-R01,
MRS-R02 and MRS-R03. An unacceptable risk for MEC has been identified at these MRSs and
the MRSs are recommended for inclusion in an FS to develop potential remedial alternatives
capable of reducing MEC site hazards. No further action for MC is recommended in these
MRSs. The southern portion of MRS-R09 that does not overlap with MRS-R02 is an
uncontaminated area recommended for no further action for MEC and MC. The collected data
and the associated characterization described in this report are considered sufficient to
characterize the project site, to identify and evaluate associated potential MEC hazards or MC
risks, and to support the recommended FS.

This page is intentionally left blank.

9.0 REFERENCES
Arcadis, 2006. Summary of Environmental Conditions, Centex Property Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina. January 18, 2006.
Bechtel Jacobs Company, 1998. Empirical Models for the Uptake of Inorganic Chemicals from
Soil by Plants. BJC/OR-133, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten, 1997a. Toxicological
Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants:
1997 Revision.
Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, and G.W. Suter II, 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for
Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic
Process: 1997 Revision.
EOD Technologies, Inc. (EODT), 2012. Final Report. Revision 01 for the Remedial
Investigation Former Conway Bombing and Gunnery Range Horry County, South Carolina.
HGL, 2015a. Final Work Plan Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Former Conway
Bombing and Gunnery Range, Horry County, South Carolina. February, 2015.
HGL, 2015b. Final Explosives Site Plan Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Former
Conway Bombing and Gunnery Range, Horry County, South Carolina.
Horry County Planning and Zoning Department (Horry County), 2015. Natural Resources
Element Horry County Comprehensive Plan – Envision 2025. March 3, 2015.
http://www.horrycounty.org/portals/0/docs/planningandzoning/envision2025/Natural%20Reso
urces%20Element%202015.pdf (accessed April 7, 2016).
National Park Service (NPS), 2014a. National Park Service, South Carolina.
http://www.nps.gov/state/sc/index.htm?program=parks. Accessed April 9, 2014.
NPS, 2014b. American Battlefield Protection Program, National Parks Service.

http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/. Accessed April 9, 2014.
Parsons Corporation (Parsons), 2002. Final Removal Report Time Critical Removal Action
Conway Bombing and Gunnery Range Conway, South Carolina. Contract Number DACA87-
95-D0018, Delivery Order 0039. December.
Parsons, 2003. Final Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) Conway Bombing and
Gunnery Range, Conway, South Carolina. Contract Number DACA87-95-D0018, Delivery
Order 0039. September.
Parsons, 2006. Final Munitions Constituents Sampling, Analysis, and Evaluation of Formerly
Used Defense Sites (FUDS). Contract Number W912DY-04-D-0005, Delivery Order 0004.
August 4, 2006.

Sample, B.E., J.J. Beauchamp, R.A. Efroymson, G.W. Suter, II, and T.L. Ashwood, 1998a.
Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Earthworms. ES/ER/TM-220, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Sample, B.E., J.J. Beauchamp, R.A. Efroymson, and G.W. Suter, II, 1998b. Development and
Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Small Mammals. ES/ER/TM-219, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
South Carolina Department of Archives and History (SCDAH), 2014, ArchSite (GIS), public
viewer, SC Department of Archives and History, State Historic Preservation Office,
http://shpo.sc.gov/research/Pages/ArchSite.aspx, accessed April 28, 2014.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), (Rock Island District), 1995. Final Defense
Environmental Restoration Program for Former Used Defense Sites Ordnance and W912DY-
01-D-0018 Final July 2012, Task Order: 0012 9-3 Revision: 01, HB# 44630. Explosives
Archives Search Report – Findings for the former Conway Bombing and Gunnery Range.
September.
USACE, 2009. Implementation of Incremental Sampling (IS) of Soil for the Military Munitions
Response Program.
USA Environmental (USAE), 2006. Final Report Conway BGR, South Carolina Phase IV
Investigations, Centex Homes.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2016. Quick Facts: Horry County, South Carolina,
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/POP060210/45051,45 (accessed May 20, 2016).
U.S. Climate Data, 2016. Climate Conway – South Carolina.

http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/conway/south-carolina/united-states/ussc0070 (accessed
May 4, 2016).
USEPA, 2000. Bioaccumulation Testing and Interpretation for the Purpose of Sediment Quality
Assessment: Status and Needs.
USFWS, 2014a. Critical Habitat Portal Database, U.S. Fish Wildlife Service,
http://crithab.fws.gov/crithab/. Accessed April 9, 2014.
USFWS, 2014b. National Wildlife Refuge System. http://www.fws.gov/refuges/

refugelocatormaps/SouthCarolina.html. Accessed April 9, 2014.
U.S. Forest Service, 2014. Map of National Forests and Grasslands;

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/map/xal_ga_fl.html. Accessed April 9, 2014.


Conway Bombing Range Investigation Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conway Bombing Range Investigation Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINAL

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................ 1

HGL Contract No.: W912DY-10-D-0023

3.0 PROJECT REMEDIAL RESPONSE OBJECTIVES ......................................... 1

HGL Contract No.: W912DY-10-D-0023

4.2.3.1 Anomaly Reacquisition and Resolution ....................... 4-15

HGL Contract No.: W912DY-10-D-0023

5.3.1.4 MRS-R09, MG/RR MEC Contamination Delineation ..... 5-14

HGL Contract No.: W912DY-10-D-0023

7.2.5.5 Refined Analysis for Plants and Terrestrial

HGL Contract No.: W912DY-10-D-0023

Table 1.1 Current and Previous MRS References .................................................... 1-1

HGL Contract No. W912DY-10-D-0023

Figure 1.1 General Location

Figure 2.1 MRS-R01, Range II Wetlands

Figure 3.1a MRS-R01 Conceptual Site Model-MEC Contamination

Figure 4.1 MRS-R01, Right of Entry (ROE) Status by Parcel

HGL Contract No.: W912DY-10-D-0023

Figure 4.8 MRS-R09, Actual Transect Paths and Grid Locations

Figure 5.1 MRS-R01 Remedial Investigation MEC Delineation

HGL Contract No.: W912DY-10-D-0023

Appendix A Documentation of Disposition of MPPEH, MD and Wastes

HGL Contract No.: W912DY-10-D-0023

AAB Army Air Base

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

DERP Defense Environmental Restoration Program

Eco-SSL ecological soil screening level

FFAR Folding-Fin Aircraft Rocket

HGL Contract No.: W912DY-10-D-0023

GDB Oasis Montaj geophysical databases

IAW in accordance with

HGL Contract No.: W912DY-10-D-0023

MMRP Military Munitions Response Program

NDAI No DoD Action Indicated

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

RAGS Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund

SAA Small Arms Ammunition

HGL Contract No.: W912DY-10-D-0023

SLERA Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment

UCL upper confidence limit

VSP Visual Sampling Plan

WAAS wide area augmentation system

HGL Contract No.: W912DY-10-D-0023

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table 1.1, Current and Previous MRS References

HGL Contract No.: W912DY-10-D-0023

investigation to delineate the munitions and explosives of concern (MEC)-contamination

1.2 MEC CHARACTERIZATION

1.2.1 MEC Explosive Hazards Risk Assessment

HGL Contract No.: W912DY-10-D-0023

1.2.2 MEC Contamination Extent

1.2.3 Land Use by MRS

• MRS-R01, Range II: residential, commercial/industrial and recreational;

HGL Contract No.: W912DY-10-D-0023

• MRS-R09, MG/RR: residential, commercial/industrial (forestry), recreational (hunting)

1.3 MC CHARACTERIZATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT

1.3.1 Munitions Constituents

HGL Contract No.: W912DY-10-D-0023

environment, indicating there is no MC contamination. The results of the Baseline Risk

1.3.2 BLRA for MC

1.4 RI RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

HGL Contract No.: W912DY-10-D-0023