DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYWILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS

RO. BOX 1890WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890

IN REPLY REFER TO May ̂ ^93

Planning Divisiont

Honorable Eva M. ClaytonHouse of RepresentativesWashington, DC 20515-3301

Dear Ms. Clayton:

This is response to your letter of May 6, 1993, concerningformer Camp Battle, New Bern, North Carolina. The propertycurrently owned by the city of New Bern, the former CampBattle, New Bern, North Carolina, has been evaluated by theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the purview of the DefenseEnvironmental Restoration Program (DERP). The DERP is acongressionally mandated program to provide restoration onproperties where former use by the Department of Defense (DOD)may have caused environmental problems.

On June 3, 1991, we completed an Inventory Project Reporton the former Camp Battle, New Bern, North Carolina. Basedon the results of that inventory, the DOD has determined thatthere is evidence of environmental hazards on this propertydue to DOD use. For your information, enclosed is the "DefenseEnvironmental Restoration Program - Formerly Used Defense Sites(DERP-FUDS) Findings and Determination of Eligibility and ProjectSummary Sheet for Site No. I04NC070900, Camp Battle, New Bern,North Carolina," which documents this decision.

It has been reported that ordnance (small arms) was disposedof in the Neuse River during World War II. The ordnance in theriver is still there, and there are no recent reports of anyproblems from this ordnance. As long as no intrusive activitytakes place at this site, the potential risk to the owner and thepublic is considered to be low. Archival search will be conductedon the site for additional information. A site investigation witha report will then be done on the site. The next phase will be acleanup, if it is considered to be needed based on the earlierphases of investigation of the site.

200.1eI04NC079000 09.01 0003

-2-

If we can be of further assistance on this or other matters,please contact us.

Sincerely,

Walter S. TullochColonel, Corps of EngineersDistrict Engineer

Enclosure

BCF (w/cy incoming corres.):,CECW-ZE*CESAD-PDCESAW-DX/Burch

May 17, 1993

Planning Division

Honorable Eva M. ClaytonHouse of RepresentativesWashington, DC 20515-3301

Dear Ms. Clayton:

This is response to your letter of May 6, 1993, concerningformer Camp Battle, New Bern, North Carolina. The propertycurrently owned by the city of New Bern, the former CampBattle, New Bern, North Carolina, has been evaluated by theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the purview of the DefenseEnvironmental Restoration Program (DERP). The DERP is acongressionally mandated program to provide restoration onproperties where former use by the Department of Defense (DOD)may have caused environmental problems.

On June 3, 1991, we completed an Inventory Project Reporton the former Camp Battle, New Bern, North Carolina. Basedon the results of that inventory, the DOD has determined thatthere is evidence of environmental hazards on this propertydue to DOD use. For your information, enclosed is the "DefenseEnvironmental Restoration Program - Formerly Used Defense Sites(DERP-FUDS) Findings and Determination of Eligibility and ProjectSummary Sheet for Site No. I04NC070900, Camp Battle, New Bern,North Carolina," which documents this decision.

It has been reported that ordnance (small arms) was disposedof in the Neuse River during World War II. The ordnance in theriver is still there, and there are no recent reports of anyproblems from this ordnance. As long as no intrusive activitytakes place at this site, the potential risk to the owner and thepublic is considered to be low. Archival search will be conductedon the site for additional information. A site investigation witha report will then be done on the site. The next phase will be acleanup, if it is considered to be needed based on the earlierphases of investigation of the site.

-2-

If we can be of further assistance on this or other matters,please contact us.

Sincerely,

Walter S. TullochColonel, Corps of EngineersDistrict Engineer

Enclosure

BCF (w/cy incoming corres.):CECW-ZECESAD-PDCESAW-DX/Burch

CESAW-PD-E/Baden/cs/475CESAW-PD/beHfHf*C ESAW-CESAW-PA/vanDuynre-

CESAW-DE/COLMAILC ESAW- PD/ F i eFile: a:\CEC (floppy)

SUBJECT NAME

17 May 93PATE

DATE

Mav 6.

NUMBERTYPE

FROM

Hon Eva M« Clayton, HR

FILE DESIGNATION

SUMMARY

Ref letter from Walter B. Hartman, Jr., City Mgr,

formerly a military installation, Camp Battle

TODF 1320

DA' E

LQ '-fay 93

TOPD

DATE

10 Mav 93REPLIED OR INDORSED TO

TO

DATE

TO

DATE

FILED IPlKfi'

TO

DATE

OTHER ACTION

EVA M. CLAYTON1ST DISTRICT, NORTH CAROLINA

COMMITTEES:

AGRICULTURE

SUBCOMMITTEES:

SPECIAITY CROPS AND NATURAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENT, CREDIT AND1 RURALDEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS ANDNUTRITION

SMALL BUSINESS

SUBCOMMITTEES:

PROCUREMENT, TAXATION ANDTOURISM

RURAL ENTERPRISES, EXPORTS ANDTHE ENVIRONMENT

Congress of tfje Unttcb Statesof &epre*entattoe*

, 3BC 20515-3301

May 6, 1993

WASHINGTON OFFICE:

222 CANNON BUILDING

WASHINGTON, DC 20515

(202)225-3101

DISTRICT OFFICES:

134 N. MAIN STREET

WAHRENTON. NC 27589

(919) 257-4800

400 WEST STH STREET

GREENVILLE, NC 27834

(919) 758-8800

1-800-274-8672

PRESIDENTDEMOCRAT FRESHMAN MEMBERS

Colonel Walter S. TullochDistrict EngineerU.S. Army Corp. of EngineersV7ilmington District OfficePost Office Box 1890Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890

Dear Colonel Tulloch:

Attached is a copy of a letter I have received from the CityManager of New Bern, North Carolina, Walter B. Hartman, Jr. Mr.Hartman's letter pertains to a local park which was formerly amilitary installation called Camp Battle. It is suspected thatthis site was used to dispose of old military ordnance.

City officials are concerned there may be a danger to thecitizens who use this park and they are requesting thatexpeditious action be taken to deal with this possible danger. Iwill appreciate your review of this situation and, ifappropriate, your having appropriate members of your staff do anonsite investigation at this park. Certainly it is the desire ofcity officials to have this area secure for the use by the localcitizens. Please provide with a report which I can share with myconstituents about this most important matter.

Thanking you in advance for your time and consideration, I am,

Sincerely,

KEva M. Clayton .iMember of Congress

EMC : nwhAttachment

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

ditto of

ALDERMEN FII^BBl LEANDER R. MORGANMAYOR

JULIUS C. PARHAM. JR~ . _ _ ,_ .̂̂ ^^^V

ROBERTO RAYNOR.WR flpR / 1 F,' I C' 2 2 ^PA 7 WALTER B HARTMAN. JRPAT M. McCLANAHAN ' ^W^/ CITY MANAGER

VICKIE H JOHNSON

WILLIAM BALLENGER ft .» .( ffi * C'TY °LERK

Ll ^S »Y1 »TKt rt**V» *QSl t***-»»*»»¥ rtMARY A. BRATCHERCITY TREASURER

FOUNDED 1710

PHONE: 636-4000 P.O. BOX 1129

^ent, £?. C. 28563-1129

April 23, 1993

The Honorable Congresswoman Eva Clayton222 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, D. C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman Clayton:

Recently, the City of New Bern was advised that one of our city parks, a formermilitary installation called "Camp Battle", has possibly been used in the past to disposeof old military ordinance. We have used and maintained this park for a number of yearsand have never turned up any trace of ordinance of this type, however we are concernedthat any danger that might be present be located and dealt with expeditiously. We willbe glad to cooperate with the military in this matter and we would appreciate it if youroffice would monitor the situation and keep us posted as to the progress. I have includeda copy of the release for your information. Thank you for your assistance.

Best regards.

Sincerely,

Walter B. Hartman, Jr.City Manager

schCC: Mayor

Board of Aldermen

L.

L-

L.

L.

i A P v 0 0 3 a r n 0 n c ••- n N C •••• H i d d e n E x p 1 o s i v e s 0 4 ~ 2 0 6 s<-:' 7 ai

ftp Review: Dozens Of U-S Sites May He Hitting Un Ordnance

(Washington) ---- The government has an explosive problem withold hand grenades, artillery rounds and other munitions believedburied in more than LT50 former military sites across America. Nineof the sites are in North Carolina.

And hundreds more? sites across the U--8 face a problem of poisonst h e y *• r e believed to con t a i n t o x i c c h e m i c a 1 s.

An Associated Press review of documents from the (Vrmy Corps ofEngineers covered more than 75-hundred military Bites abandoned andin most cases resold since World War Two. .

Officials have proposed more than 17-hundred projects forimmediate cleanup, but work has begun on only 40 projects. Morethan 200 are on the drawing boards for the next five years.

An Army official says about two-thousand sites may eventuallyneed cleanup work, including maybe 300 where explosives are buried.The cost is expected to hit four (B) billion dollars.

The North Carolina sites'Ridge, Wilmington, Charlotte,

a r e n e a r Hew B e r n, 1) u r h a m, D u c k, I I o 11 yLaurinbury and Edenton.

Here7s the North Carolina listsNew Bern --- Camp Battle.Durham Camp Hutner Training Cmp.D u c I:. -- D u c k large t I ••" a c i 1 i t y.Holly Kidge -- Camp-Fort Davis.Wilmington --•- Fort Fisher.Charlotte —- Fort tireon.Charlotte -— Naval Ammunition Post.Laurinburg — Laur in burg-Max tort ftir Base,

— NOOS Ed en ton.

r

EVA M.CLAYTON1ST DISTRICT, NORTH CAROLINA

COMMITTEES:AGRICULTURE

SUBCOMMITTEES:

SPECIALTY CROPS AND NATURAL RESOURCESENVIRONMENT. CREDIT ANO RURAL

DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT OPERATIONS AND

NUTRITIONSMALL BUSINESS

SUBCOMMITTEES:

PROCUREMENT. TAXATION ANDTOURISM

RURAL ENTERPRISES, EXPORTS ANDTHE ENVIRONMENT

Congress of tfje ®nfteb StatesSoutfe of &epre$entattoe*Wlasrtjtnffton, JBC 20515-3301

May 6, 1993

WASHINGTON OFFICE:222 CANNON BUILDING

WASHINGTON, DC 2OS15(202)225-3101

DISTRICT OFFICES:134 N. MAIN STREET

WARRENTON, NC 27589(919)257-4800

400 WEST STH STREETGREENVILLE, NC 27834

(919) 758-8800

1-8OO-274-8672

PRESIDENTDEMOCRAT FRESHMAN MEMBERS

Colonel Walter S. TullochDistrict EngineerU.S. Army Corp. of EngineersWilmington District OfficePost Office Box 1890Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890

Dear Colonel Tulloch:

Attached is a copy of a letter I have received from the CityManager of New Bern, North Carolina, Walter B. Hartman, Jr. Mr.Hartman's letter pertains to a local park which was formerly amilitary installation called Camp Battle. It is suspected thatthis site was used to dispose of old military ordnance.

City officials are concerned there may be a danger to thecitizens who use this park and they are requesting thatexpeditious action be taken to deal with this possible danger. Iwill appreciate your review of this situation and, ifappropriate, your having appropriate members of your staff do anonsite investigation at this park. Certainly it is the desire ofcity officials to have this area secure for the use by the localcitizens. Please provide with a report which I can share with myconstituents about this most important matter.

Thanking you in advance for your time and consideration, I am,

Sincerely,

Eva M. Clayton \JMember of Congress

EMC:nwhAttachment

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

ffltt of

ALDERMEN LEANOER R. MORGAN

JULIUS C PARHAM. J!):~ . _ _ _ _ _

flOBERTG.RAYNOR.«8 APR 2"? F M>22 mrS/ WALTER B HARTMAN. JHPATM.McCLANAHAN-^'' A C J ' ^ ^ ̂ CITY MANAGER

VICK,EH. JOHNSON_

WILLIAM BALLENGER 3V XJ iL 55 *

MARY A. BHATCHERCITY TREASURER

FOUNDED 1710

PHONE: 636-4000 P.O. BOX 1129

;Bmt, JI. C 28563-1129

April 23, 1993

The Honorable Congresswoman Eva Clayton222 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, D. C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman Clayton:

Recently, the City of New Bern was advised that one of our city parks, a formermilitary installation called "Camp Battle", has possibly been used in the past to disposeof old military ordinance. We have used and maintained this park for a number of yearsand have never turned up any trace of ordinance of this type, however we are concernedthat any danger that might be present be located and dealt with expeditiously. We willbe glad to cooperate with the military in this matter and we would appreciate it if youroffice would monitor the situation and keep us posted as to the progress. I have includeda copy of the release for your information. Thank you for your assistance.

Best regards.

Sincerely,

Walter B. Hartman, Jr.City Manager

schCC: Mayor

Board of Aldermen

L.

L.

L- ,

I A P v 0 0 3 H r n ('J n c - n N (J •-• H i d <Je n E x p 1 o s i. v e s

OP file view: Dozens Of U--S Bites Nay Be Bitting Un Ordnance

(Washington) The government has an explosive problem withold hand grenades, artillery rounds and other munitions believedburied in more than 250 former in.ilitary sites across America. Nineof the sites are in North Carolina.

And hundreds more sites .ACT-OBIS the U ••-$•> face a problem of poiuon!they^re believed to contain toxic chemicals.

An Associated Press review of documents from the Army 'Corps ofEngineers covered; m o r e t h a n 7 5-hun d r e d m i1i t a ry si t e s a b a ndoned a n din most cases resold since World War Two. .-..

Officials have proposed more than 17-hundred projects forimmediate cleanup, but Work has begun on only 40 projects. Morethan 200 are on the drawing boards for the next five years.

ttn Army official says about two-thousand sites may eventuallyneed cleanup work, including maybe 300 where explosives are buried.The cost is expected to hit four (CO billion dollars.

I The North Carolina sites'Ridge, Wilmington, Charlotte,

are near New Bern, Durham, Duck, HollyLaurinburg and Eden ton.

Here's the North Carolina listsNew Bern -- Camp Battle.Durham -- Camp Butner Training Cmp.Duck --- Duck Target Facility.Holly Ridge — Camp-Fort Davis.WilmingtonCharlotte •Charlotte -LaurinburgEdenton —

-•- Fort Fisher.— Fort tiretnt.•- Naval Ammunition Post.•-- Laurinburg-Maxton Air Base.NAAS Edenton. J

a1-1"!

r

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYSOUTH ATLANTIC DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS

ROOM 313, 77 FOftSYTH ST., S.W.

ATLANTA, GEORGIA swas-ewi

REPLY TOATTENTION OF;

CESAD-PD-R (200)

MEMCRANDIM FOR COMMANDER, USAGE, Aim- CEMP-ZA, MASH, DC 20314-1000COMMANDER, MISSOURI RIVER DIVISION, P.O. BOX 103 DOWNTCWN STAOSON, OMAHA.,NE 68101-0103

COMMANDER, HUMtSVTTiT.K DIVISION, P.O. BOX 1600, HOMTSVUUS, AL 35807-4301

SUBJECT: Defense Environmental Restoration Program for Formerly UsedDefense Sites (DERP-FUDS), Inventory Project Report (INPR) for Site No.I04NC070900, Canp Battle, New Bern, NC

1. I am forwarding the INPR for Catqp Battle for appropriate action. Thesite and the proposed Ordnance Explosive Waste (OEW) project are eligiblefor DERP-FUDS. She Risk Assessment Code score is 3.

2. I reoowmend that CEHND determine if further study and remedial actionare required at this site.

3. Division focal point for this effort is Mr. Gary Mauldin, CESAD-PD-R, atOCMM 404-331-6043 or FTS 841-6043. Ihe Division focal point for actionsbeyond the preliminary assessment phase is Richard Cornell, CESAD-PM-H, atCOMM 404-331-7045 OT BTS 841-7045.

End JOHN F. SOBKEMajor General/ USA.Oouaanding

CF (w/encl):CESftW-PD-ECEMP-RF

05-13-93 11:08 AM P08

MRY-14-19SJ lj:4b KKUfl ChbHiJ PU KE I LI yyiy^>14bbJ

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYWILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS

RO. BOX 1890WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890

(NREPLYR6P6RTO

CESAW-PD-B (200) 25 March 1991

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, South Atlantic Division, ATTN: CESAD-PD-R

SUBJECT: Defense Environmental Restoration Program - Formerly Used DefenseSites (DBRP-FUDS) Inventory Project Report (INPR) for Site No. I04NC079000,Camp Battle, New Bern, North Carolina

1. This INPR reports on the DBRP-FUDS preliminary assessment of formerCamp Battle, New Bern, North Carolina. A site visit was conducted on5 March 1991* The site survey summary sheet and site map are atenclosure 1.

2. We determined that the site was formerly used by the Department ofDefense. A recommended Findings and Determination of Eligibility is atenclosure 2*

3. We also determined that there Is hazardous waste at the site eligiblefor cleanup under DERP-FUDS. The category of hazardous waste at the siteis OEW. The project summary sheet is at enclosure 3 for the potential OEWproject.

4. I recommend that you:

a. Approve and sign the Findings and Determination of Eligibility; and

b. Forward a copy of this INPR to HND for the PA file and for adetermination of the need for further study of the ordnance disposal area.

3 Enols +** THOMAS C. SUBRMANNLTC, Corps of EngineersCommanding

0. S. SHDFORD, JR., p.B.Deputy District Eogijieer

TOTfiL P.02

SITE SURVEY SUM4AFY SHEETFOR

DERP-FUDS SITE NO. I04NC079000CAMP BATTLE, NORTH CAROLINA

11 March 1991

SITE NAME; Camp Battle.

lOCATION: New Bern, Craven County, North Carolina (see attached map).

SITE HISTORY: The site, comprising 70 acres of land, was acquired by leasein 1941 for the United States Array. The site served as a small Army basewhose personnel acted as guards and security patrols for the numerousmilitary installations in the surrounding area. Improvements to the siteconsisted of approximately 85 wood-framed buildings which were temporary innature. In March 1944, Camp Battle was rpefitablished for operation as aprisoner-of-war camp, housing German prisoners. In 1946, the site wasdeclared surplus to the needs of the War Department and the lease wascancelled. The site is presently part of Glenburnie Park and wastewatertreatment plant. New Bern*

SITE VISIT: On 5 March 1991, John A. Baden (CESMH-O-E) visited the site.He spotoe with Ms. Nancy Bottorf, Director of Barks and Recreation for thecity of New Bern. Names of all persons contacted are in the project file.

CATEGORY OF HAZARD: OEW.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: There is one potential project at this site.

OEW. ordnance was disposed of in the Neuse River during World War II.It may require investigation beyond the scope of this FA.

AVAILABLE STUDIES AND REPORTS: The information available for the siteincludes real estate information.

PA FOG: John A. Baden, 919/251-4754, is the district BOG.

05-13-93 11:08 AM P09

ORDNANCEDISPOSAL INNEUSE RIVER

\ •CAMP BATTLE

NEW BERN

CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEETSCALE U24000

0 .5 1

DERP-FUDSSITE NO. 104 N CO 79000CAMP BATTLE

NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA

MAP TAKEN FROM USGS QUAD SHEETSNEW BERN, N.C. 1950— ASK IN, N.C. 1983

(PR 1983) (PR 1983)DATE: 11 MARCH 1991

DEFENSE ENVZRCfMENTftL RESTORATION PROGRAMFORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITES PROGRAM

FINDINGS AND DBTEZ91CNMTCN OF ELIGIBIIJTY

Camp Battle, North Carolina

Sit© NO. I04NC079000

FINDINGS OF EftCT

1. The site, comprising 70 acres of land, was acquired by lease in 1941 forthe United States Army.

2. Camp Battle, also known as New Bern Camp, was utilized as an Army campunder the command of Headquarters, Army Service Forces, Fourth ServiceCommand. The site served as a small Army base whose personnel acted asguards and security patrols for the numerous military installations in thesurrounding area. These installations were Cherry Point Marine Corps AirStation, Camp Lejeune Marine Base, Camp Davis, and various industrial plantswhich produced equipment for the Navy. Records reflect that less than 1,000personnel were assigned to Camp Battle. Improvements to the site consistedof approximately 85 wood-framed buildings which were temporary in nature, inMarch 1944, Camp Battle was reestablished for operation as a prisoner-of-warcamp, housing German prisoners. The site remained solely under Department ofDefense (DOD) control during the period of DCO lease and use.

3. In 1946, the site was declared surplus to the needs of the War Departmentand the lease was cancelled. The real estate instrument does not contain anyrecapture clauses, restrictions, restoration conditions, warranties, orsimilar provisions* The site is presently part of Glenburnie Park andwastewater treatment plant, New Bern.

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the site has been determined to beformerly used by Department of Defense. It is therefore eligible for theDefense Environmental Restoration Program - Formerly Used Defense Sitesestablished under 10 USC 2701, et seg.

DATE JCf8? F. SOBKEMajor General, USA

05-13-93 11:08 AM P10

PROJECT SUMHRR5f SHEETFOR

DERP-R3DS OEW PROJECT NO. IO4NO079001carap Battle, NORm CftROiLiNA

SHE NO. I04NC07900012 March 1991

PROJECT DESCRIPTION. Ordnance was disposed of in the Neuse River duringWorld War II. Die ordnance in the river is still there/ and there are norecent reports of any problems from this ordnance.

PROJECT ELIGIBlLriY. There are no records or site maps available toindicate where the dl̂ osal area was in the Neuse River, mforroation onthe disposal area is based on a site visit. !B>e disposal area was used bythe War Department, she ordnance disposal area would be eligible forDERP-nJDS. The project has been evaluated in accordance with Appendix A ofthe CEMP-KT memorandum dated 5 April 1990.

POLICY ODNSIDERftznONS. There is concern about danger to humans frcm theordnance left in the area. The project was evaluated for the criteriadescribed in paragraph 6 of the CEMMO? raeanorandma dated 5 April 1990. Iheordnance disposal area would be eligible for DERP-FUDS if it poses ahazard.

PROPOSED ACTIVITIES: Ihe JKER should be referred to HND for adetermination of further action.

RAC: Attached.

POC: John A. Baden, CESN -̂PD-E, Wilmington District, 919/251-4754.

TOTAL P.11

-Camp Battle, North Carolina, DERP-FUDS OEWV.J Project No. I04NC079001

APPENDIX ARISK ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES FOR

EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE (EXO)

Site Name Camp Battle Rater's Name John A. BadenSite Location New Bern. NC Organization CESAW-pp-EDERP Project f I04NC079001 RAC 3

EXO RISK ASSESSMENT:

This risk assessment procedure was developed in accordancewith MIL-STD 882B and AR 385-10.

The EXO risk assessment is based upon documented evidenceconsisting of records searches, reports of Explosive OrdnanceDisposal (EOD) detachment actions, and field observations, inter-views, and measurements. These data are used to assess the riskinvolved based upon the hazards identified at the site. The riskassessment is composed of two factors, hazard severity and hazardprobability.

Any field activities should be made with the assistance ofqualified EOD personnel.

Part I. Hazard Severity. Hazard severity categories are definedto provide a qualitative measure of the worst credible mishapresulting from personnel exposure to various types and quantitiesof unexploded ordnance items.

TYPE OF ORDNANCE

A. Conventional Ordnance and Ammunition

YES NOVALUE VALUE VALUE

Small Arms (.22 cal - .50 cal) 2 0 2

Medium/Large Caliber (20 mm and 10 0 0larger)

Bombs, Explosive 10 0 0

Bombs, Practice .(w/spotting charges) 6 0 0

Grenades. Hand and Rifle, Explosive 10 0 0

Grenades, Practice (w/spotting 6 0charges)

-Camp Battle, North CarolinaDERP-FUDS OEWProject No. I04NC079001

Landmines, Explosive

Landmines, Practice (w/spottingcharges}

Rockets. Guided Missiles, Explosive

Detonators, Blasting Caps

Demolition Charges

Conventional Ordnance and Ammunition Value (Maximum of 10).

YESVALUE

10

6

10

10

10

NOVALUE

0

0

0

0

0

VALUE

0

0

0

0

0

B. Pyrotechnics

Any Munition ContainingWhite Phosphorus or otherPyrophoric Material (i.e..Spontaneously Flammable)

Any Munition Containing a Flameor Incendiary Material (i.e..Napalm, Triethlaluminum MetalIncendiaries)

Military Flares

Pyrotechnics Value (Maximum of 10).

YESVALUE

10

NOVALUE VALUE

0

0

C. Bulk High Explosives (Bulk explosives not an integral part ofconventional ordnance).

YESVALUE

10

NOVALUE

Primary or Initiating Explosives(Lead Styphnate, Lead Azide,Nitroglycerin, Mercury Azide,Mercury Fulminate, etc.)

Booster, Bursting or Fuse Explosives 10(PETN, Compositions A, B, C,Tetryl, TNT. RDX, HMX, HBX.Black Powder, etc.)

VALUE

0

~~ Camp Battle, North. CarolinaDERP-FUDS OEW

.̂./Project No. 104NC079001

Military Dynamite

Less Sensitive Explosives(Ammonium Nitrate, FavierExplosives, etc.)

High Explosives Value(Maximum value of 10).

D. Propel1ants

Solid or Liquid Propellants

Radiological

Toxic Chemical Agents(Choking, Nerve, Blood, Blister)

Incapacitating Agent (BZ)

Riot Control and Miscellaneous(Vomiting, Tear, Chlorine, MustardSimulant)

Any Munition Containing"Smoke, 4 0 _0Illumination, Signal Charge

Chemical Agents/Radiological Materials/Munitions Value (Maximum 25).0

YESVALUE

10

3

YESVALUE

6

.als/Mun:

YESVALUE

25

25

10

5

NOVALUE VALUE

0 _JQ_

o o

0

NOVALUE VALUE

0 0 . 0

itions

NOVALUE VALUE

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

Total Ordnance and Explosive Waste Characteristics Value (Total =A 4 B + C + D 4 E with a Maximum value of 61). 2

.̂Carnp Battle, North Carolina^DERP-FUDS OEW

l.'Project No. I04NC079001

TABLE 1

HAZARD SEVERITY

Description

CATASTROPHIC

CRITICAL

MARGINAL

NEGLIGIBLE

Category

I

II

III

IV

Value

2:21

>13 <21

>. 5 <13

< 5 vX

* Apply Hazard Severity to Table 3.

-Camp Battle, North CarolinaDERP-FUDS OEW

\_j*Project No. I04NC079001

Part II. Hazard Probability. The probability that a hazard has been orwill be created due to the presence and other rated factors of explosiveordnance (EXO) on a formerly used DOD site.

- AREA, EXTENT, ACCESSIBILITY OF CONTAMINATION

A. Locations of Contamination

YES NOVALUE VALUE VALUE

Within Tanks, Pipes, Vessels 5 0 0or Other confined locations.

On the surface or within 3 feet. 5 0

Inside walls, ceilings, or other 4 0parts of Buildings or Structures.

Subsurface, greater than 3 feet 3 0in depth.

Value for location of EXO (MaximumValue of 5).

B. Distance to nearest inhabited locations or structures likely to be atrisk from EXO site (roads, parks, playgrounds, and buildings).

Distance to Nearest Target VALUE

Less than 1250 feet 5

1250 feet to 0.5 miles 4

0.5 miles to 1.0 mile 3

1.0 mile to 2.0 miles 2

2.0 miles to 5.0 miles 1

Over 5.0 miles 0

Distance to Persons Value (Maximum Value of 5). 5

\J

_.Camp Battle, North CarolinaDERP-FUDS OEW

• Project No. I04NC079001

C. Numbers and types of Buildings within a 2 mile radius measured from thehazardous area, not the installation boundary.

Number of Buildings VALUE

0 . - ' • 0 •

1 to 10 1

11 to 50 2

51 to 100 3

101 to 250 4

251 or Over 5

Number of Buildings Value (Maximum Value of 5). _5

D. Types of Buildings• • • VALUE

Educational, Child Care, etc. 5

Residential, Hospitals, Hotels, etc. 5

Commercial, Shopping Centers, etc. 5

Industrial Warehouse, etc. • 4

Agricultural, Forestry, etc. 3

Detention, Correctional 2

Military 1

No Buildings 0

Types of Buildings Value (Maximum Value of 5). 5

E. Accessibility to site refers to the measures taken to limit access byhumans or animals to ordnance and explosive wastes. Use the followingguidance:

Barrier Assigned ValueA 24-hour surveillance system (e.g., 0television monitoring or surveillanceby guards or facility personnel) whichcontinuously monitors and controls entryonto the facility;

Camp Battle, North Carolina1)ERP-FUDS OEWiProject No. I04NC079001

orBarrier Assigned Value

An artificial or natural barrier (e.g., 0a fence combined with a cliff), whichcompletely surrounds the facility; anda means to control entry, at all times,through the gates or other entrances tothe facility (e.g., an attendant, televisionmonitors, locked entrances, or controlledroadway access to the facility).

Security guard, but no barrier 1

A barrier, (any kind of fence) but no 2separate means to control entry

Barriers do not completely 3surround the facility

No barrier or security system . .. . 5

Accessibility Value (Maximum Value of 5).

F. Site Dynamics - This deals with site conditions that are subject tochange in the future, but may be stable at the present. Examples would beexcessive soil errosion by beaches or streams, increasing land developmentthat could reduce distances from the site to inhabitated areas or otherwiseincrease accessability. • • -

VALUE

None Anticipated 0Expected 5

(Maximum Value of 5) 5̂

Total value for hazard probability.Sum of Values A through F. 30(Not to exceed 30). Apply this valueto Hazard Probability Table 2 to determineHazard Level.

-*Camp Battle, North CarolinaDERP-FUDS OEW

V JProject No. I04NC079001

TABLE 2

HAZARD PROBABILITY

Description

FREQUENT

PROBABLE

OCCASIONAL

REMOTE

IMPROBABLE

* Apply Hazard Probability to

Level

A

B

C

D

E

Table 3.

Value

2.27

2.21

2.15

> 8

<8

V

<21

<21

<15

Part III. Risk Assessment. The risk assessment value for this site isdetermined using the following Table 3. Enter with the results of the -hazard probability and hazard severity values.

TABLES 1 AND 2

HAZARD SEVERITY - IV(from.Table 1)

HAZARD PROBABILITY -(from Table 2)

>rCamp Battle, North CarolinaDERP-FUDS OEW

'Project No. I04NC079001

TABLE 3

Probability -Level

SeverityCategory:

CATASTROPHIC I

CRITICAL II

MARGINAL III

NEGLIGIBLE IV

FREQUENTA'

1

1

2

(3)

PROBABLEB

1

2

3

4

OCCASIONALC

2

3

4

4

REMOTED

3

4

4

5

IMPROBABLEE

4

5

5

5

Note: The risk assessment code for EXO is not equivalent to the risk as-sessment code prescribed in AR 385-10; • • • • •

RISK ASSESSMENT CODE (RAC)

RAC 1 Imminent Hazard - Emergency action required to mitigate thehazard or protect personnel (i.e.. Fencing, physical barrier,guards, etc.).

RAC 2 Action required to mitigate hazard or protect personnel. 'Feasibility study is appropriate.

Action required to evaluate potential threat to personnel.High priority Site Inspection is appropriate.

RAC 4 Action required to evaluate potential threat to personnel.Site Inspection is appropriate.

RAC 5 No action required.

Justification. In narrative form, summarize the documented evidencethat supports this risk assessment.