Pontiac Bombing Range - WorldNow

FINAL
Site Inspection Report
Pontiac Bombing Range
Pontiac, South Carolina
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Southeast and Pacific IMA Region
FUDS Project No. I04SC003700
Contract: W912DY-04-D-0005
Task Order: 0008
Prepared For:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District
69-A Hagood Avenue
Charleston, South Carolina 29403-5102
and
U.S. Army Engineering & Support Center, Huntsville
4820 University Square
Huntsville, Alabama 35816-1822
Prepared By:
5390 Triangle Parkway, Suite 100
Norcross, Georgia 30092
September 2007
The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this report are those of the
author(s) and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army
position, policy, or decision, unless so designated by other documentation.

CONTRACTOR STATEMENT OF INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL REVIEW
Parsons has completed the Final Site Inspection report for the Pontiac Bombing Range,
Richland County, SC. Notice is hereby given that an independent technical review has
been conducted that is appropriate to the level of risk and complexity inherent in the
project, as defined in the Quality Control Plan. During the independent technical review,
compliance with established policy principles and procedures, utilizing justified and valid
assumptions was verified. This included review of assumptions; methods, procedures,
and material used in analyses; alternatives evaluated; the appropriateness of data used and
level of data obtained; and reasonableness of the results, including whether the product
meets the customer's needs consistent with law and existing Corps policy.
Study/Design Team Leader and Team Members September 19, 2007
Independent Technical Review Team Leader September 19, 2007
Significant concerns and the explanation of the resolution are as follows:
None
As noted above, all concerns resulting from independent technical review of the project
have been considered.
Parsons Program Manager(s)
September 19, 2007

Parsons
Parsons Infrastructure & Technology Group, Inc.
5390 Triangle Parkway • Suite 100 • Norcross, Georgia 30092 • (770) 446-4900 • Fax: (770) 446-4910 • www.parsons.com
U.S. Army Engineering & Support Center
ATTN: CEHNC-OE-DC (Mr. Doug Garretson)
4820 University Square
Huntsville, Alabama 35816-1822
256-895-1696
{
September 19, 2007
Subject: Contract W912DY-04-D-0005, Delivery Order 0008
MMRP SI for SE and Pacific IMA Region – Final SI Report
Pontiac Bombing Range, Pontiac, SC
Dear Mr. Garretson:
Parsons has prepared this Final Site Inspection (SI) Report for Pontiac Bombing Range,
Pontiac, SC in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) to include the
completed Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol (MRSPP). Two copies have been
provided for your review and comment.
We have simultaneously forwarded five copies of the document to Mr. Dennis McKinley of
the USACE Charleston District for his review and comment. We have also submitted single
copies of this Draft document to HTRW CX and MM CX. Electronic copies have also been
provided.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at (678) 969-2384 or
(404) 606-0346 (cell) or the Co Program Manager (Ms. Laura Kelley) at (678) 969-2437.
Sincerely,
Parsons
Don Silkebakken, P.E.
MMRP SI Program Manager
cc: Dennis McKinley (CESAC PM) – 5 copies/ 5 CDs
Betina Johnson / Deborah Walker (USACE MM CX) – 1 copy/1 CD
Heidi Novotny (HTRW CX) - 1 CD
Laura Kelley/Project File (744647.36000)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Southeast and Pacific IMA Region
FINAL
Site Inspection Report
Pontiac Bombing Range
Richland County, South Carolina
FUDS Project No. I04SC003700
September 2007
In Support of
FUDS MMRP Site Inspections Project
Prepared By:
Parsons
5390 Triangle Parkway, Suite 100
Norcross, Georgia 30092
Prepared For:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District
69-A Hagood Ave., Charleston, SC 29403-5102
and
U.S. Army Engineering & Support Center, Huntsville
4820 University Square
Huntsville, Alabama 35816-1822
Contract: W912DY-04-D-0005
Task Order: 0008

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FINAL
ES.1 The objective of the site inspection (SI) for the Pontiac Bombing Range
was to discern the presence or absence of munitions and explosives of concern (MEC)
and munitions constituents (MC) within the three designated Munitions Response Sites
(MRS) – Target No. 2, Target No. 5, and Target No. 6. The SI was conducted from
March 20 through 23, 2007. The SI work involved the gathering of quantitative (i.e. MC
sampling) data within these three MRSs by the site visit team (SVT). The SVT also
conducted a qualitative reconnaissance (QR) by traversing the MRSs to gather general
information about potential surficial presence of MEC/munitions debris (MD) and to
assess the overall site conditions with regards to the implementation of a potential
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS). The work was performed under
Contract No. W912DY-04-D-0005, Task Order No. 0008 from the United States Army
Corps of Engineers, Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville (USAESCH).
ES.2 The Pontiac Bombing Range is located in Richland County, South
Carolina. The three MRSs within this formerly used defense site (FUDS) are located
within a residential development outside of the City of Pontiac, a suburb of Columbia,
South Carolina. The MRSs are located along a surface water divide with surface water
runoff going to either the Wateree River Basin or the Congaree River Basin. The
property (approximately 1,980 total land acres for the FUDS) was acquired through lease
agreements during 1943 and 1944 (there is confusion on actual dates in the Archive
Search Report [ASR] references) with six private landowners and three right-of-way
(ROW) owners. The property was acquired for the purposes of training Army Air Force
squadrons in practice bombing routines. The range was officially closed in October of
1945, declared surplus in December 1945, and subsequently declared a FUDS and
assigned number #I04SC003700. Figure ES.1 shows the overall site map for the Pontiac
Bombing Range.
ES.3 The SI involved the collection of 8 surface soil samples from the Pontiac
Bombing Gunnery Range. Three of the 8 soils samples were designated as “ambient”
samples (i.e. collected from areas in the FUDS property boundary un-impacted by prior
training activities) with the balance designated as “biased” samples. No surface water or
sediment samples were collected. No explosive compounds were detected in any of the
soil samples. No metals were detected above background levels in any of the soils. No
parameters exceeded their respective comparison screening levels.
ES.4 An MEC Screening Level Risk Assessment was conducted based on the
QR conducted in the field and historical data regarding previous site visits (Chapter 6).
Only MD, and no MEC, were observed during the SI field work in March 2007 for the
three MRSs. No substantiated documented findings of MEC are known for this site;
however, historic documentation as well as recent (March 2007 SI) identification of
practice bombs that commonly employed the use of explosive spotting charges indicate
ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

FINAL
the potential for MEC receptor interaction at the MRSs. Several non-World War II
munitions (Hand Grenade, practice, M69; rocket, practice, 2.25-inch; and 5-inch rockets;
and light anti-tank, 66mm) are mentioned in the ASR. It is unlikely these munitions were
used at the Pontiac Bombing Range and may be war-time souvenirs or ordnance removed
from nearby Ft. Jackson Military Reservation.
ES.5 No explosives were detected in any of the surface soil samples collected,
and no CERCLA-hazardous MC metals were detected above background concentrations
in soil at the three MRSs. Based on these findings, it is concluded that there is no source
of MC contamination at Target No. 2, Target No. 5, or Target No. 6; therefore, no
increased risk to human or ecological receptors is expected.
ES.6 With regards to MEC, the confirmed findings of various MD indicative of
MEC within the three MRSs support a recommendation for further study in the form of
an RI/FS to characterize and delineate any MEC/MD that might be present onsite and
subsequent response actions. This recommendation is made in light of the fact that the
risk of MEC exposure to receptors on site is considered low. RI/FS is recommended for
all three of these MRSs. However, based on the results of the biased MC sampling,
additional environmental sampling is not recommended for the three MRSs. Table ES.1
presents a summary of recommendations.
ES-2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

MRS Recommendation
MRS-01
Target No. 2
MRS-02
Target No.5
MRS-02
Target No.6
RI/FS
(additional MC
sampling not
recommended)
RI/FS
(additional MC
sampling not
recommended)
RI/FS
(additional MC
sampling not
recommended)
Table ES.1
Recommendation Summary
Basis for Recommendation
MEC/MD MC
Several pieces of
MD indicative of
MEC found in
MRS during March
2007 SI. No MEC
found in MRS
during March 2007
SI.
Several pieces of
MD indicative of
MEC found in
MRS during March
2007 SI. No MEC
found in MRS
during March 2007
SI.
Several pieces of
MD indicative of
MEC found in
MRS during March
2007 SI. No MEC
found in MRS
during March 2007
SI.
FINAL
No explosives or metals
detected above applicable
regulatory criteria in soils.
No explosives or metals
detected above applicable
regulatory criteria in soils.
No explosives or metals
detected above applicable
regulatory criteria in soils.
ES-3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

3780000
3778000
508000
508000
HARD HARD SCRABBLE SCRABBLE RD RD
!
!( !(
CLEMSON CLEMSON RD RD
!
Target 6
(Skip Bombing
Range)
!
!( !(
!
! ! !
!
!
510000
!
!
!( !(
!( !(
!
Target 2
!( !(
510000
!
!
!( !(
!
!
!
!
!( !(
Target 5
(Skip Bombing
Range)
!
!( !(
512000
512000
3780000
3778000
General Site Overview
Former Pontiac Bombing Range
FUDS Project No. I04SC003701
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
Legend
!
!.
CHECKED BY:
BT
BT
SC
SUBMITTED BY:
DS
PARSONS
SCALE:
DATE:
Figure ES.1
Richland County, South Carolina
Field Observation Location
Soil Sample Location
Approximate Bombing Range Boundary
Approximate Property Boundary
Qualitative Reconnaissance Track
Site Location in South Carolina
Image: 2005 Orthophotos
Projection: UTM Zone 17 NAD83, Map Units in Meters
1,200 600 0
Feet
1,200
As Shown
August 2007
FILE: X:\GIS\Site_inspections_ne\Maps\
pontiac_SC\FigES_1.mxd
U.S. ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS
HUNTSVILLE CENTER
General Site Overview
PROJECT NUMBER:
PAGE
NUMBER:
³
744647.36000

1.1 BACKGROUND
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
FINAL
1.1.1 Parsons Corporation (Parsons) received Contract No. W912DY-04-D-
0005, Task Order No. 0008, from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),
Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville (USAESCH) to perform a Site Inspection
(SI) at the Pontiac Bombing Range site located in Richland County, South Carolina. The
Pontiac Bombing Range was used from 1942 to 1945 as a practice bombing range. The
range was officially closed on October 11, 1945 and declared as surplus on December 17,
1945.
1.1.2 As such, the Pontiac Bombing Range was declared a Formerly Used
Defense Site ([FUDS] #I04SC003700) and is comprised of approximately 1,980 land
acres with three target areas within the range. For the purposes of this SI report, the
target areas within the Pontiac bombing Range are defined as three Munitions Response
Site (MRSs); Target No. 2, Target No. 5, and Target No. 6. Figure 1.1 depicts the FUDS
boundary for the overall site. The coordinates for the center point in each MRS are listed
in Table 1.1. The coordinates are in meters (Universal Transverse Mercator [UTM] Zone
17 North American Datum [NAD] 83).
Table 1.1
Pontiac Bombing Range Munitions Response Sites Coordinates
Parcel X-Coordinate (meters) Y-Coordinate (meters)
Target 2 510012.00 3779493.00
Target 5 510866.00 3780093.00
Target 6 508930.00 3779412.00
1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
1.2.1 The Department of Defense (DoD) has established the Military Munitions
Response Program (MMRP) to address DoD sites suspected of containing munitions and
explosives of concern (MEC) or munitions constituents (MC). Under the MMRP, the
USACE is conducting environmental response activities at FUDS for the Army, DoD’s
Executive Agent for the FUDS program.
1.2.2 Pursuant to USACE’s Engineer Regulation (ER) 200-3-1 (USACE, 2004)
and the Management Guidance for the Defense Environmental Response Program
(DERP); (Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Installations and
1-1
CHAPTER 1.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

FINAL
Environment, September 2001), USACE is conducting FUDS response activities in
accordance with the DERP statute (10 United States Code [USC] 2701 et seq.), the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
(42 USC §9620), Executive Orders 12580 and 13016, and the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR Part 300). As such,
USACE is conducting remedial SIs, as set forth in the NCP, to evaluate hazardous
substance releases or threatened releases from eligible FUDS.
1.2.3 While not all MEC/MC constitute CERCLA hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants, the DERP statute provides DoD the authority to respond to
releases of MEC/MC, and DoD policy states that such responses shall be conducted in
accordance with CERCLA and the NCP.
1.2.4 The primary objective of the MMRP SI is to determine whether a FUDS
project warrants further response action under CERCLA. The SI collects the minimum
amount of information necessary to make this determination. Additionally, the SI: (i)
determines the potential need for a removal action; (ii) collects or develops additional
data, as appropriate, for Hazard Ranking System (HRS) scoring by U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA); and, (iii) collects data, as appropriate, to characterize the
release for effective and rapid initiation of the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study (RI/FS). An additional objective of the SI is to collect the additional data
necessary to complete the Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol (MRSPP).
1.2.5 The SI was performed as a result of the MEC as well as munitions debris
(MD) findings identified in the Archives Search Report (ASR) performed by TCT-St.
Louis (formerly Envirodyne Engineers, Inc.) for the USACE – Huntsville Division (TCT-
St. Louis, 1991). All work adhered to the DERP for FUDS and relevant U.S. Army
regulations and guidance for ordnance and explosives programs. As specified in the task
order, this report is prepared to summarize the SI sampling events and presents an
accounting of MEC/MC identified on-site.
1.3 PROJECT SCOPE
1.3.1 For the Pontiac Bombing Range, the Technical Project Planning (TPP)
Team agreed the SI would proceed in a manner to support either a No DoD Action
Indicated (NDAI) or RI/FS recommendation prior to conducting the field portion of the
SI. The site use as a practice bombing range had been verified and historical presence of
MEC contamination (100-115 pond photoflash bomb found intact between 1986 and
1990) has been reported in the ASR (TCT-St. Louis, 1991). Therefore, the SI for the
Pontiac Bombing Range not only attempted to evaluate MEC presence in the known
target areas but also evaluated MEC presence in peripheral portions of the site to provide
circumstantial supporting evidence reflective of the absence of MEC in these areas.
However, the TPP Team agreed that a recommendation for subsequent MC sampling
during the RI/FS would not be made if sample data indicated the absence of MC
contamination above site-specific screening values or appropriate background levels.
1-2
CHAPTER 1.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

FINAL
1.3.2 To accomplish this objective, the TPP Team concurred that the SI data
collection efforts would focus on screening for MC contamination in soil. A total of
eight soil samples, along with the appropriate Quality Assurance/Quality Control
(QA/QC) samples were collected within the Pontiac Bombing Range site. Five of the
soil samples were collected with maximum bias to coincide with site locations most
likely to display evidence of residual MC contamination (such as the target areas or areas
displaying munitions debris presence). The remaining three ambient soil samples were
collected from anticipated “non DoD impacted” locations. Table 1.2 provides the
sampling rationale.
1-3
CHAPTER 1.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

Sample ID
Sample Coordinates
Longitude Latitude
Table 1.2
SAMPLING RATIONALE
Pontiac Bombing Range, Pontiac, South Carolina
Media Analysis Historical Use of Munitions in Area Rationale
POBR-SS-06-01 -80.89140 34.15601 Soil Metals, Explosives M38A2 100-lb Practice Bombs; M1A1 Spotting Charges Sample collected within Target #2 Range near the target center to screen for MC
presence in soil.
POBR-SS-06-02 -80.88864 34.15838 Soil Metals, Explosives M38A2 100-lb Practice Bombs; M1A1 Spotting Charges Sample collected within Target #2 Range approximately 1500 feet northeast of the target
center to screen for MC presence in soil.
POBR-SS-06-03 -80.89161 34.15329 Soil Metals, Explosives M38A2 100-lb Practice Bombs; M1A1 Spotting Charges Sample collected within Target #2 Range approximately 1000 feet south of the target
center to screen for MC presence in soil.
POBR-SS-06-04 -80.88108 34.16141 Soil Metals, Explosives M38A2 100-lb Practice Bombs; M1A1 Spotting Charges; M75 Practice
Bombs, 100-lb, hematite filled, spotting charges, bursters or fuzes not
used
Sample collected within Target #5 – Skip Bombing Range near the range center to
screen for MC presence in soil..
POBR-SS-06-05 -80.90405 34.15677 Soil Metals, Explosives M38A2 100-lb Practice Bombs; M1A1 Spotting Charges Sample collected within Target #6 – Skip Bombing Range to screen for MC presence in
soil.
POBR-SS-06-06 -80.89093 34.14263 Soil Metals, Explosives None Sample collected outside of all MRSs within an area with no known MEC activity to
estimate ambient soil quality.
POBR-SS-06-07 -80.89438 34.16809 Soil Metals, Explosives None Sample collected outside of all MRSs within an area with no known MEC activity to
estimate ambient soil quality.
POBR-SS-06-08 -80.87602 34.15893 Soil Metals, Explosives None Sample collected outside of all MRSs within an area with no known MEC activity to
estimate ambient soil quality.
1-4
CHAPTER 1.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007
FINAL

3790000
3780000
3770000
500000
500000
£¤ 21 £¤ 21
510000
510000
£¤ 1 £¤ 1
§¨¦ 20 §¨¦ 20
520000
520000
3790000
3780000
3770000
Site Location
Former Pontiac Bombing Range
FUDS Project No. I04SC003701
Legend
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
BT
BT
SC
SUBMITTED BY:
DS
PARSONS
SCALE:
DATE:
Figure 1.1
Richland County, South Carolina
Approximate Property Boundary
Site Location in South Carolina
Image Source: USGS 7.5' Topo Quadrangles, 1990
Projection: UTM Zone 17 NAD83, Map Units in Meters
2 1 0
Miles
2
As Shown
August 2007
X:\GIS\Site_inspections_ne\Maps\
FILE:
pontiac_SC\Fig1_1.mxd
U.S. ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS
HUNTSVILLE CENTER
Site Location
PROJECT NUMBER:
PAGE
NUMBER:
³
744647.36000

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
CHAPTER 2
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY
FINAL
2.1.1 The Pontiac Bombing Range is located in Richland County, South
Carolina. This practice bombing range is comprised of approximately 1,980 land acres
with three MRS target areas – Target 2, Target 5, and Target 6. The site consists
primarily of residential dwellings with additional residential development underway.
Additionally, the site has an elementary school, a middle school, and a recreational area.
2.1.2 For the purposes of this SI, the Pontiac Bombing Range FUDS site has
been divided into three MRSs, reflecting the three areas used as bombing targets:
• Target 2 MRS – 439 total acres; low, middle, and high altitude bombing
• Target 5 MRS – 22 total acres; skip bombing
• Target 6 MRS – 22 total acres; skip bombing
2.2 SITE LOCATION AND SETTING
2.2.1 Topography and Vegetation
The site elevation in the Pontiac region ranges from 450 to 300 feet above sea level.
The site is approximately two miles from the Fall Line which separates the Coastal Plain
from the Piedmont Physiographic Province. In general, lands of this area are
characterized by moderately sloped, sand hills, typified by large irregular-shaped,
rounded hills which are capped with Aeolian sand. Area vegetation, in the remaining
undeveloped land parcels, consists mainly of sparse growth of pine and hardwood trees.
2.2.2 Geology and Soil
2.2.1.1 The site is situated on the northern edge of the Upper Atlantic Coastal
Plain on a shallow sequence of unconsolidated clastic deposits which overlie older
Paleozoic rocks belonging in the Carolina Slate Group. The sedimentary formations of
the Coastal Plain range in age from Late Cretaceous to recent. It consists of
unconsolidated, coarse to medium grained sand with a kaolin matrix. At the surface the
sediments are well sorted, unconsolidated, and structureless. The thickness varies from 0
to 80 feet.
2.2.1.2 Alluvium of recent and Pleistocene Age are found at the surface along
streams and valleys and consist of sands, silts, gravels, and clays. Due to the results of
stream rejuvenation, recent alluvium is located below the Pleistocene deposits along
present rivers and flood plains. The older Pleistocene sediments are found at higher
elevations along valley slopes and upper reaches of tributaries.
2-1
CHAPTER 2.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

2.2.3 Climate
FINAL
Winters in the region are relatively mild, with a minimum average temperature of
31°F. Summer days are warmest in July and August with an average high temperature of
about 91°F. Typically, there are six days each summer that the temperature high exceeds
100°F. Precipitation is greatest in July and August average over 5 inches of rain for both
months. October and November are the driest months, averaging less than three inches
per month. The average yearly precipitation in the area is around 44 to 48 inches
annually.
2.2.4 Significant Structures and Cultural Resources
The Pontiac Bombing Range is located in Richland County. The entire bombing
range area, with the exception of a few undeveloped land parcels, has been developed
into primarily residential dwellings. Additionally, there exists an elementary school, a
middle school, and church within the bombing range. According to the NRIS, NRHP,
SCHD, NHL there are no cultural resources located on or near the proposed sampling
locations or within the boundaries of the Pontiac Bombing Range sites. According to the
SCIAA there are no known recorded archeological sites within 100 meters of any of the
proposed soil sample locations. There are two known and recorded archeological sites
within the site boundary. These two archeological sites are located in the extreme
southeastern portion of the range. The site visit team did not encounter any cultural or
archeological resources during the March 2007 visit.
2.2.5 Demographics
2.2.4.1 The demographics information for Richland County, South Carolina was
obtained from the 2000 United States Census Bureau website
(http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/45000.html).
2.2.4.2 Richland County has a population of 348,226. See Figure 2.2 for a
breakdown of population within a 4-mile buffer of the site. The population density for the
county is 424 persons per square mile. The segment of the population under the age of
18 is 23.7%, while 9.7% are over the age of 65. The median age is 35.1 years.
Approximately 49.7% of the population is White, 46.6% Black or African American,
2.1% Asian, and 0.3% American Indian and Alaska Native. There are 120,101
households within the county with an average household size of 2.44. The occupational
breakdown in the county is as follows:
• Management, professional, and related occupations – 38.0%
• Service occupations – 16.0%
• Sales and office occupations – 28.2%
• Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations – 0%
• Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations – 7.4%
• Production, transportation, and material moving occupations – 10.4%
2-2
CHAPTER 2.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

2.2.6 Current and Future Land Use
FINAL
Most of the Pontiac Bombing Range is developed as a residential subdivision with
more than 26 inhabited structures within a two-mile radius of the site. The land is
currently owned by numerous private owners. Future residential development is possible
on the small amount of undeveloped land that remains.
Range On Site
Table 2.1
Population within 4-Mile Buffer of the Site
Pontiac Bombing Range, Richland County, South Carolina
0 to ¼
Mile
¼ to ½
Mile
½ to 1
Mile
1 to 2
Miles
2 to 3
Miles
3 to 4
Miles Total
FUDS
Boundary >4,000 >4,500 >5,200 >6,500 >10,000 >8,600 >10,200 >49,000
Source: U.S. Census 2000 data. The population within the site, MRS, or within any buffer area is determined using a conservative
approach to calculate the population of an area by including the total number of people for any census block that falls within or
overlaps the site boundary, MRS boundary, or buffer line.
2.2.7 Sensitive Environments
The Pontiac Bombing Range is not located within a national wildlife refuge, national
park, national forest, or state park. There are no sensitive environments adjacent to, or in,
the FUDS.
2.3 SITE OWNERSHIP AND HISTORY
2.3.1 During June 1942, Columbia Army Air Base (CAAB) requested
acquisition of land near Pontiac, Richland County, South Carolina to use as a practice
bombing range. Army Air Force Headquarters authorized the construction of a bombing
range near Pontiac in August 1942. Property was acquired through lease agreements
during 1943 and 1944 (there is confusion on actual dates in the ASR references) with six
private landowners and three right-of-way (ROW) owners.
2.3.2 The ASR reports land leases were acquired and the practice bombing
facility (at least one target) was in use during September 1943. A September 1943 report
states that Targets 2 and 5 were completed. The Pontiac Bombing Range was used
between 1943 and 1945 as a bombing range.
2.3.3 On September 21, 1945 the bombing range was requested to be declared
excess. According to records referenced in the ASR, the bombing range was declared
surplus, effective December 17, 1945. All leases were cancelled effective February 28,
1947, and the ROW easements were restored to the previous owners on September 24,
1947. The cancelled leases returned the property to its original owners or their heirs
2.3.4 Most of the bombing range property went through several ownership
changes over the next thirty years with the exception of the Lorick Land Company land
parcel. A majority of the Pontiac Bombing Range property (approximately 1,279 acres)
became owned by the American Newland Association (now known as Newland Carolina)
which began the residential development at the site during the early 1990s. Currently, the
Pontiac Bombing Range property is almost completed developed into residential
neighborhoods.
2-3
CHAPTER 2.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

2.4 SITE OPERATIONS AND WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
2.4.1 MRS-Specific Descriptions/Operations
FINAL
2.4.1.1 The descriptions of the MRSs at the Pontiac Bombing Range are obtained
from the 2004 ASR Supplement.
2.4.1.2 Target 2 MRS (439 acres) consisted of a standard annular-ring bombing
target used for individual scoring at low, medium, and high altitudes during day and night
practice missions. This area is currently fully developed into a single-family residential
neighborhood (Pinebrook subdivision). Reportedly, only M38A2, 100-lb sand-filled,
practice bombs with and without spotting charges were used on this target. Numerous
MD were found during the site qualitative reconnaissance (QR) and have been
historically found during construction activity in the area.
2.4.1.3 Target 5 MRS (22 acres) consisted of a narrow strip of land with upright
targets across the midway point. Airplanes would approach at low angle and low altitude
to skip bombs into the targets. This area is currently fully developed into a residential
neighborhood (Abington subdivision). Reportedly, sand-filled M38A2 100-lb practice
bombs, with and without spotting charges, and 100-lb hematite-filled M75 practice
bombs without bursters or fuzes were used on this target range. Some MD were noted in
the area during the QR.
2.4.1.4 Target 6 MRS (22 acres), another skip-bombing target, consisted of a
narrow strip of land with upright targets across the midway point. As mentioned, planes
would approach this target at a low angle and low altitude to skip bombs into the targets.
According to the ASR Supplement, this target replaced Target 5 and was only used in
early 1945. This area is substantially developed into a residential neighborhood. As with
the other MRSs within this bombing range, MD was found during the QR for the site.
2.4.2 Regulatory Compliance
The USACE is conducting the SI at the Pontiac Bombing Range site as part of FUDS
response activities pursuant to and in accordance with the guidance, regulations, and
legislation listed in Chapter 1.
2.5 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
2.5.1 1991 Archives Search Report
The ASR was completed by TCT - St. Louis in March 1991 for USAESCH. The
ASR was prepared after reviewing available records, interviews, site inspection, analysis
and reports that documented the history of the site. The ASR is the source of most of the
historical information pertaining to site operations and identifies the key areas of focus
for the SI. As part of the ASR, a site visit and residential/community interviews were
conducted. MEC has historically been found on the site from 1982 through 1990
especially during the construction and development of the subdivisions. Complete
records concerning the specific types and quantity of ordnance used at the Pontiac
Bombing Range were not found in the ASR records search.
2-4
CHAPTER 2.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

2.5.2 1994 Inventory Project Report
FINAL
An Inventory Project Report (INPR) of Pontiac Bombing Range was conducted in
December 1993 under the provisions of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program,
Formerly Used Defense Sites (DERP FUDS) by USACE Charleston District (CESAC).
From the INPR it was confirmed that the Columbia Army Air Base was acquired in 1940
and the Pontiac Bombing Range was built in 1942 and 1943. Bombing practice was
conducted at the target range sites between 1943 and 1945, the base was declared excess
in 1946.
2.5.3 2004 Archives Search Report Supplement
The ASR Supplement was prepared by USACE, St. Louis District as a supplement to
the 1991 ASR. This document identified three range areas and types of munitions that
may have been used.
• Target No.2: Target 2 - 439 acres. Target 2 was used for low, medium
and high altitude bombing practice in day or night. Munitions used include:
M38A2 100-lbs, Practice Bombs with or without M1A1 Spotting Charges.
• Target No.5: Target 5 – 22 acres. Target 5 was used for skip bombing
practice. Munitions used include: M38A2 100 lbs, Practice Bombs with or
without M1A1 Spotting Charges and 100 lbs, hematite-filled M75 practice
bombs without bursters or fuzes.
• Target No.6: Target 6 - 22 acres. Target 6 was used for skip bombing
practice. It replaced Target 5 and was believed to have been used only in
1945. Munitions used include: M38A2 100-lbs, Practice Bombs with or
without M1A1 Spotting Charges.
2-5
CHAPTER 2.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

3782000
3780000
3778000
3776000
STATE STATE HWY HWY 555 555
N N BRICKYARD BRICKYARD RD RD
506000
506000
508000
508000
HARD HARD SCRABBLE SCRABBLE RD RD
Target 6
(Skip Bombing
Range)
CLEMSON CLEMSON RD RD
510000
Target 2
510000
Target 5
(Skip Bombing
Range)
CLEMSON CLEMSON RD RD
512000
512000
£¤ 1 £¤ 1
514000
3782000
3780000
3778000
3776000
514000
Site Setting
Former Pontiac Bombing Range
FUDS Project No. I04SC003701
Legend
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
BT
BT
SC
SUBMITTED BY:
DS
PARSONS
SCALE:
DATE:
Figure 2.1
Richland County, South Carolina
Approximate Bombing Range Boundary
Approximate Property Boundary
Site Location in South Carolina
Image Source: USGS 7.5' Topo Quadrangles, 1990
Projection: UTM Zone 17 NAD83, Map Units in Meters, Distance Units in Feet
2,500 1,250 0
Feet
2,500
As Shown
August 2007
X:\GIS\Site_inspections_ne\Maps\
FILE:
pontiac_SC\ Fig2_1.mxd
U.S. ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS
HUNTSVILLE CENTER
Site Setting
PROJECT NUMBER:
PAGE
NUMBER:
³
744647.36000

CLEMSON RD
HARD SCRABBLE RD
£¤ 1
CLEMSON RD
STATE HWY 555
§¨¦ 77
KILLIAN RD
N BRICKYARD RD
SLOAN RD
STATE HWY 555
§¨¦ 20
STATE HWY 12
SPARKLEBERRY LN
£¤ 21
Target 2
Target 6
(Skip Bombing
Range)
Target 5
(Skip Bombing
Range)
0.25
3
2
1
0.5
4
0
0
0
0
1
0
9
8
0
0
0
9
6
0
5
0
3
7
0
5
4
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0
6
0
0
2
0
0
2 0
9
8
4
5
4
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0 0
0
5 3
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
3
1 0
0
7
0
0 7
0
0
7
9
0
5
0
2
0
1
5
0
6 7
0
0
0
1
0
0
6
0
0
0
0 0
0
1
1 0
0
9
0
2
0
0
0 10
0
7
3
0 0
0
0
0
6
8
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
5
9
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
9
8
0
0
5
7
8
0
1
0
3
0 0
1
0
0
8
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
4
2
0
5
8 8
6
0
04 0
0
0
0
8
0
9
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
3
0
2
0
0
0
4
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
4
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0 0
0
2
0
0
9
0
4
0
0
8
0
0
0
2
6 9
9
8
2
3
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
5
0
1
8
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2 3
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
7
0
0
0
2
0
4
0
1
0
0
8 7 0
5
0
0
6
0
9
3
0
7
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
8
0
3
2
2
0
8
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
8
9
0
0
0
0
0
3
7
5
3
0
0
8
0
0
5
5
4
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
8
7
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
3
0
2
0
0 0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
6
0
3
0
0
6
3
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
2
2
2
0
0
0
0 2
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
7
3
0
0
0
9
0
6
8
4
0
6
0
0
0
6
4
0 0
8
1
4
7
4
7
0
9
6
4
4
13
55
47
25
10
18
97
91 90
23
48
56 63
48
68
45 40
51
73
69
36
16
19
11
18
12
93
14
34
71
41
60
17
27
38
59
16
40
43
61
23
18
16
34
12
60
41
43
85
43
67
22
15
17
76
10
11
14
26
62
12
14
32
15
93
38
15
13
23
29
86
14
25
19
40
54
10
18
51
51
25
39
58
25
32
36
33
35
25 1218
34
18
15
60
38
16
17
36
91
60
67
66
39
36
60
34
30
18
32
66
22
30
15
52
58
59 22
61
27
97
13
34
25
39
37
37
56 71
37
20
18
29
61
65
34
51
37
13
52
99
51
39
39
38
20
35
32 61
51
69
39
89
57
36
41
59
70
99
40
66
38
60
56
81
28
78
28
41
12
53
49
58 60
42 52
14
16
13
68
94
17
33
65
60
30
46
31 26
47
65
50
20
43
44 70
32
14
30
27
27
72
22
31
69
43
32
46
53
51
40
61
88 32
32 46
99
33
32
69
92
11 37
31
47
17
76
35
27 48
68
46
29
10
85
51
33
53
48
78
98
62 62
96
21
55
53
42
25 74
67 72
67
19
67
94
37
58
59 3029
24
85
88
33
23 78
40
21
91
46
57
49
71
67
14
15
93
63
64
62
37 34
44
17
67
59
30 47 41
91
53
47
50
21
47
27 52
29
28
53
25
68
50
23
57
40
23
1668 27
66
38 40
25
38
30
25
14
21
46
24
53
46
29
45
70 98
19
22
18
33
32
50
41
50
36
22
40
53
77
17
15
3112
82
36
46
18
32
58
26
16
50 73 36
97
2629
85
43
85
42
79
96
88
43
14
24
38
35
32
44
12
19
53
15
22 19
50
47 22
46
46
11
68
26
25
63
72
22
98
26
88 30
17
2326
54
97
38
24
13 87
80
56
70
1924 64
71
37
43
51
83
49
10
34
28
63
40
39
59
11
51
81
98
86
75
12
15
17
19
73
59
51
31
42
21
12
76
92
61
22
32
15
19
81
42
46
43
20
25
36
13
26
36
10
16
19
41
22
60
30
11
13
10
14
19
37
75
19
43
19
10
15
24
63 60
62
17
22
12
11
31
10
37
26
15
17
28
38
77
12
58
69
99
13
96
23
65
87
18
29
16
33
10
18
12
43
89
41
53
97
21
13
95
11
60
44
40
36
32
72
14
60
59
78
43
45
10
30
26
111
388
776
362
116
123
152
122
157
166
309
266
313
788
128
132 116
376
140
207
106
153
550
768
236
398
134
744
620
851
178
286
191
569
129
570
114
119
179
191
241
108
234
108
245
128
489
657
116
227
235
126
152
207
554
292
143
218
139
563
249
910
314
474
248 224
116
115
216
304
150
149
899
148
434
509
299
150
104
164
147
161
238
217
392
640
141
303
182
309
225
154
241
132
172
195
147
212
184
164
340
269
262
145
157
374 509
510
210
284
103
228
213
259
102
288
236
232
810
136
158
165
197
143
120
125
118
127
2414
1104
1043
1336
0
0
0
0 00
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
13
27 13
11
19
27
11
26
26
47
30
27
95
22
94
33
76
73
14
20
22
24
51
107
156
136
102
121
104
112
176
137
500000
500000
502000
502000
504000
504000
506000
506000
508000
508000
510000
510000
512000
512000
514000
514000
516000
516000
518000
518000
3772000
3772000
3774000
3774000
3776000
3776000
3778000
3778000
3780000
3780000
3782000
3782000
3784000
3784000
3786000
3786000
3788000
3788000
CLEMSON RD
HARD SCRABBLE RD
£¤ 1
CLEMSON RD
STATE HWY 555
§¨¦ 77
KILLIAN RD
N BRICKYARD RD
SLOAN RD
STATE HWY 555
§¨¦ 20
STATE HWY 12
SPARKLEBERRY LN
£¤ 21
Target 2
Target 6
(Skip Bombing
Range)
Target 5
(Skip Bombing
Range)
0.25
3
2
1
0.5
4
0
0
0
0
1
0
9
8
0
0
0
9
6
0
5
0
3
7
0
5
4
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0
6
0
0
2
0
0
2 0
9
8
4
5
4
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0 0
0
5 3
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
3
1 0
0
7
0
0 7
0
0
7
9
0
5
0
2
0
1
5
0
6 7
0
0
0
1
0
0
6
0
0
0
0 0
0
1
1 0
0
9
0
2
0
0
0 10
0
7
3
0 0
0
0
0
6
8
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
5
9
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
9
8
0
0
5
7
8
0
1
0
3
0 0
1
0
0
8
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
4
2
0
5
8 8
6
0
04 0
0
0
0
8
0
9
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
3
0
2
0
0
0
4
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
4
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0 0
0
2
0
0
9
0
4
0
0
8
0
0
0
2
6 9
9
8
2
3
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
5
0
1
8
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2 3
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
7
0
0
0
2
0
4
0
1
0
0
8 7 0
5
0
0
6
0
9
3
0
7
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
8
0
3
2
2
0
8
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
8
9
0
0
0
0
0
3
7
5
3
0
0
8
0
0
5
5
4
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
8
7
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
3
0
2
0
0 0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
6
0
3
0
0
6
3
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
2
2
2
0
0
0
0 2
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
7
3
0
0
0
9
0
6
8
4
0
6
0
0
0
6
4
0 0
8
1
4
7
4
7
0
9
6
4
4
13
55
47
25
10
18
97
91 90
23
48
56 63
48
68
45 40
51
73
69
36
16
19
11
18
12
93
14
34
71
41
60
17
27
38
59
16
40
43
61
23
18
16
34
12
60
41
43
85
43
67
22
15
17
76
10
11
14
26
62
12
14
32
15
93
38
15
13
23
29
86
14
25
19
40
54
10
18
51
51
25
39
58
25
32
36
33
35
25 1218
34
18
15
60
38
16
17
36
91
60
67
66
39
36
60
34
30
18
32
66
22
30
15
52
58
59 22
61
27
97
13
34
25
39
37
37
56 71
37
20
18
29
61
65
34
51
37
13
52
99
51
39
39
38
20
35
32 61
51
69
39
89
57
36
41
59
70
99
40
66
38
60
56
81
28
78
28
41
12
53
49
58 60
42 52
14
16
13
68
94
17
33
65
60
30
46
31 26
47
65
50
20
43
44 70
32
14
30
27
27
72
22
31
69
43
32
46
53
51
40
61
88 32
32 46
99
33
32
69
92
11 37
31
47
17
76
35
27 48
68
46
29
10
85
51
33
53
48
78
98
62 62
96
21
55
53
42
25 74
67 72
67
19
67
94
37
58
59 3029
24
85
88
33
23 78
40
21
91
46
57
49
71
67
14
15
93
63
64
62
37 34
44
17
67
59
30 47 41
91
53
47
50
21
47
27 52
29
28
53
25
68
50
23
57
40
23
1668 27
66
38 40
25
38
30
25
14
21
46
24
53
46
29
45
70 98
19
22
18
33
32
50
41
50
36
22
40
53
77
17
15
3112
82
36
46
18
32
58
26
16
50 73 36
97
2629
85
43
85
42
79
96
88
43
14
24
38
35
32
44
12
19
53
15
22 19
50
47 22
46
46
11
68
26
25
63
72
22
98
26
88 30
17
2326
54
97
38
24
13 87
80
56
70
1924 64
71
37
43
51
83
49
10
34
28
63
40
39
59
11
51
81
98
86
75
12
15
17
19
73
59
51
31
42
21
12
76
92
61
22
32
15
19
81
42
46
43
20
25
36
13
26
36
10
16
19
41
22
60
30
11
13
10
14
19
37
75
19
43
19
10
15
24
63 60
62
17
22
12
11
31
10
37
26
15
17
28
38
77
12
58
69
99
13
96
23
65
87
18
29
16
33
10
18
12
43
89
41
53
97
21
13
95
11
60
44
40
36
32
72
14
60
59
78
43
45
10
30
26
111
388
776
362
116
123
152
122
157
166
309
266
313
788
128
132 116
376
140
207
106
153
550
768
236
398
134
744
620
851
178
286
191
569
129
570
114
119
179
191
241
108
234
108
245
128
489
657
116
227
235
126
152
207
554
292
143
218
139
563
249
910
314
474
248 224
116
115
216
304
150
149
899
148
434
509
299
150
104
164
147
161
238
217
392
640
141
303
182
309
225
154
241
132
172
195
147
212
184
164
340
269
262
145
157
374 509
510
210
284
103
228
213
259
102
288
236
232
810
136
158
165
197
143
120
125
118
127
2414
1104
1043
1336
0
0
0
0 00
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
13
27 13
11
19
27
11
26
26
47
30
27
95
22
94
33
76
73
14
20
22
24
51
107
156
136
102
121
104
112
176
137
500000
500000
502000
502000
504000
504000
506000
506000
508000
508000
510000
510000
512000
512000
514000
514000
516000
516000
518000
518000
3772000
3772000
3774000
3774000
3776000
3776000
3778000
3778000
3780000
3780000
3782000
3782000
3784000
3784000
3786000
3786000
3788000
3788000
PARSONS
U.S. ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS
HUNTSVILLE CENTER
PROJECT NUMBER:
PAGE
NUMBER:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SUBMITTED BY:
SCALE:
DATE:
FILE:
Former Pontiac Bombing Range
FUDS Project No. I04SC003701
Figure 2.2
X:\GIS\Site_inspections_ne\Maps\
pontiac_SC\ Fig2_2.mxd
744647.36000
BT
BT
SC
DS
As Shown
1 0 1
0.5
Miles
³
rojection: UTM Zone 17 NAD83, Map Units in Meters, Distance Units in Feet
Richland County, South Carolina
Site Location in South Carolina
Legend
Approximate Bombing Range Boundary
Approximate Property Boundary
August 2007
2000 Census Data
2000 Census Data
2000 Census Block Boundary with
Total Population
6
Buffer (Mile)

3.1 HISTORICAL RECORD REVIEW
CHAPTER 3
SI TASKS
FINAL
The existing body of information pertinent to the Pontiac Bombing Range site was
thoroughly reviewed in advance of the TPP Project Meeting on May 11, 2006, and
summarized to the TPP Project Team as part of the development and concurrence of the
selected Technical Approach for the site. Sampling locations and QR planning, as
presented in the Site Specific Work Plan (SS-WP) Addendum and implemented during
the SI were the direct result of this review process. This information has been augmented
with institutional knowledge and additional documentation provided by CESAC or
obtained by Parsons during coordination of the field effort. As part of mobilization
preparation, the Field Team became re-familiarized with all existing site information.
3.2 TECHNICAL PROJECT PLANNING SUMMARY
The Pontiac Bombing Range, falls under the purview of CESAC. A TPP meeting
was facilitated by CESAC on May 11, 2006, and included representatives of CESAC,
USAESCH, Parsons, and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control (SC DHEC). Unanimous TPP Project Team concurrence with the Technical
Approach presented in the Final TPP Memorandum issued on August 3, 2006 was
achieved (see Appendix B). Key TPP facts and decisions are summarized below:
• The Project Team concurred with the Technical Approach that no obvious
recommendation as to an appropriate action of an NDAI or an RI/FS is clear at
this time. The Project Team was in agreement as to the number, type, and
location of samples, as well as sampling methodology and laboratory analyses.
Sample locations were selected based on known range activity, topographic
expression and the assumption that the areas are relatively undisturbed since DoD
use. Sample locations could have been modified during the SI by the SVT within
reason (up to 150 feet) or following discussion with other project team members
(CESAC, SC DHEC, etc.). Sample locations were not modified. In addition to the
number of samples proposed to complete the SI, discretionary samples could have
been added as determined by the SVT. No discretionary samples were collected.
• The Project Team noted the sensitivity of this site as a potential chemical warfare
material (CWM) site. Reportedly, a worker at the residential development
encountered a substance that gave him a rash during work in 2001. Soil samples
were collected by the Army Technical Escort Unit and South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control and analyzed for various
chemical constituents. No chemical-related hazards were found. The project
3-1
CHAPTER 3.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

FINAL
field team was familiarized with the details of the previous CWM study and
results but did not discuss the details in any way with the local citizens. The
purpose of this SI was to determine if there is a potential for conventional MEC at
the Pontiac Bombing Range site. No CWM sampling or analysis was conducted
as part of this SI.
• Bombing Targets (Target #2 and Skip Bombing Targets #5 and #6) were
investigated and soil samples were collected from these areas to determine if MC
contamination exists. Five soil samples were used to screen for MC contaminants
in ranges listed and further identified in the sampling rationale table (included
here as Table 1.2).
• The Project Team agreed to follow the SC DHEC requirement of compositing
surface soil samples from a depth of 0-6 inches instead of the 0-2 inches described
in the PWP. The SS-WP Addendum documented this procedural modification.
• At SC DHEC’s request, Parsons included a sample table and associated rationale
in the SS-WP Addendum and herein as Table 1.2.
• The Project Team did not identify any site specific issues requiring an expedited
project schedule or document reviews for this site.
3.3 NON-MEASUREMENT DATA COLLECTION
The following sources were consulted for identifying environmental and cultural
resources at the Pontiac Bombing Range site:
• Topographic Map – U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
• Wetlands Online Mapper – National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
• Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS) – Endangered Species
Program (South Carolina), USFWS
• National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) – USFWS
• South Carolina’s Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species (Newberry and
Lexington Counties) – South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
(SCDNR)
• South Carolina Heritage Trust Program - SCDNR
• National Register Information System (NRIS) (Newberry and Lexington
Counties) – National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service
• List of National Historic Landmarks (NHL) – National Historic Landmarks
Program (Newberry and Lexington Counties) , National Park Service
• South Carolina Historic Districts (SCHD) (Newberry and Lexington
Counties)
• List of National Heritage Areas (NHA) – National Heritage Areas Program,
National Park Service
3-2
CHAPTER 3.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

FINAL
• South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SC SHPO)
• South Carolina Department of Archives and History (SCDAH)
• South Carolina Institute of Archeology and Anthropology (SCIAA)
• South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G)
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – Coastal Zone
Management Program (CZMP)
• June 1994 ASR Findings for the Columbia Army Air Base and Associated
Sites
3.4 DEPARTURES FROM PLANNING DOCUMENTS
3.4.1 To evaluate MC contamination and risk, the Final TPP Memorandum and
Final SS-WP Addendum state the sample results will first be screened against USEPA
Region 9 PRGs for Residential Soil criteria, then regional metals background data, and
finally, twice the maximum ambient soil sample metal concentrations. However, the
order in which the results were evaluated has been programmatically revised since the
Final SS-WP Addendum was approved. Analysis of results is as discussed in Chapters 5
and 6 herein. In Chapter 5, sample results are screened against established background
values and assessed as to whether or not they are CERCLA-hazardous analytes and
related to munitions used on site. In this case, the established background values include
USGS county average concentrations of elements in Richland County and the results of
the three ambient surface soil samples collected during this SI. In Chapter 6, sample
results of MC-related CERCLA-hazardous metals exceeding the established background
values are screened against USEPA Region 9 PRGs for Residential Soil to evaluate
potential human health and ecological risk.
3.4.2 No other departures from the approved planning documents (i.e. SS-WP)
occurred during the SI.
3-3
CHAPTER 3.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

4.1 GENERAL INFORMATION
CHAPTER 4
MEC FINDINGS
FINAL
4.1.1 Based on a preliminary assessment of the FUDS eligible targets within the
Pontiac Bombing Range, it was determined that the three bombing targets potentially had
MEC/MD on the surface soils or directly under the surface soils. As a result, QR was
conducted on each of the MRSs. This chapter details the overall Data Quality Objectives
(DQOs), MEC history, and inspection activities for the MRSs.
4.1.2 The primary task of the SI was to assess the presence of MEC, MD, and
MC. The mobilization for the field visit to the Pontiac Bombing Range site began on
March 20, 2007. The QR of the site began on the morning of March 21, 2007. To assess
the presence of MEC/MD, the field team conducted QR throughout the MRSs for a
cumulative 61,640 feet. The QR consisted of visual reconnaissance of the site surface to
identify indicators of suspect areas, including earthen berms, distressed vegetation,
stained soil, ground scars or craters, target remnants, and visible metallic debris.
4.1.3 QR involved using a Schonstedt GA-92XTi magnetometer, for safety
purposes. The SVT walked to the sampling locations and collected soil samples. The
field team recorded observations when collecting samples including if they observed
munitions debris, munitions-related features, terrain changes, if roads were encountered,
or if any variations since the last observation were encountered. MEC was not observed
within the QR track, nor were any other indicators of suspect areas with the exception of
MD. Extensive development of this area likely moved or covered most visual evidence
of a suspect area.
4.1.4 MC sampling was completed at each of the target MRSs. While the five
biased soil samples were collected within the approximate original range boundaries of
the MRSs, the three ambient soil samples were collected outside these MRS boundaries
but inside the FUDS property boundary. Soil sample results are presented in Chapter 5.
4.1.5 Figure 4.1 shows the QR paths and Appendix E contains the photodocumentation
log that shows the observation locations from which digital photos were
taken. As discussed in the SS-WP, the QR route was not limited to the proposed path,
but was determined in the field by the field team leader based on considerations such as
location, site size and complexity, vegetation, professional judgment, and areas of
predetermined focus (Parsons, 2005). Table 4.1 presents the potential MEC anticipated
to be present at the site based on the ASR and ASR Supplement. The potential
constituents of the supposed MEC are also listed in this table. The MEC conceptual site
model (CSM) and conceptual site exposure model (CSEM) are included in Appendix J.
4-1
CHAPTER 4.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

4.2 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES (DQO)
4.2.1 Introduction
FINAL
4.2.1.1 DQOs are qualitative and quantitative statements that clarify study
objectives and specify the type and quality of the data necessary to support decisions.
The development of DQOs for a specific site takes into account factors that determine
whether the quality and quantity of data area adequate for project needs, such as data
collection, uses, types, and needs. While developing these DQOs in accordance with the
process presented in Chapter 3, paragraph 3.1.2 of the Programmatic Work Plan (PWP)
(Parsons, 2005), Parsons followed the Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data
Quality Objectives Process, EPA QA/G-4, EPA/240/B-06/001 (USEPA, 2006).
4.2.1.2 The goal of the TPP process is to achieve stakeholder, USACE, and
applicable state and federal regulatory concurrence with the DQOs for a given site. The
TPP Project Team approved the Pontiac Bombing Range DQOs at the TPP meeting on
May 11, 2006. Tables 4.2 through 4.5 present the DQO worksheets. All the DQOs for
the MRSs have been met.
4.2.1.3 As stated in Sub-Chapter 1.1, Paragraph 1.1.4 of this SI Report, data must
be sufficient to do the following: 1) determine the potential need for a removal action; 2)
enable HRS scoring by USEPA; 3) characterize the release for effective and rapid
initiation of RI/FS; and 4) complete the MRSPP.
4.2.1.4 DQOs cover four project objectives that SI data must satisfy: 1) evaluate
potential presence of MEC; 2) evaluate potential presence of MC; 3) collect data needed
to complete MRSPP scoring sheets; and 4) collect information for HRS scoring.
4.2.2 Munitions and Explosives of Concern DQO
The MEC DQO was achieved by evaluating potential presence of MEC at the three
MRSs in the Pontiac Bombing Range site. The QR team searched for visual evidence of
MEC/MD at the MRSs. Appendix D contains the field notes that detail the specific MD
observations by the SVT.
4.2.3 Munitions Constituents DQO
The MC DQO was achieved by evaluating potential presence of MC at all the MRSs.
The Parsons SI Project Chemist evaluated the composition of the munitions (and fillers)
used on the site and developed the list of compounds/analytes for sample analysis. A
summary of the MC known to occur in the MEC documented or suspected at the Pontiac
Bombing Range site is provided in Table 4.1. Chapter 5 presents the MC results.
4.2.4 Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol DQO
The MRSPP DQO was achieved by obtaining sufficient information to complete the
MRSPP scoring sheets. Specific input data were collected, and the three modules for the
MRSPP were populated as part of the SI. The scoring sheets for the MRSPP are included
in Appendix K.
4-2
CHAPTER 4.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

4.2.5 Hazard Ranking System DQO
FINAL
The HRS DQO was achieved by including information in the SI report necessary for
the USEPA to populate the HRS score sheets. Source documents for the HRS
information include the INPR, ASR, and ASR Supplement documents, as well as the MC
sampling results reported in Chapter 5 and information from local and state agencies
regarding population, groundwater well users, and drinking water well use.
4.3 TARGET NO. 2 MRS
4.3.1 Historical MEC Information
Target No. 2 was used for low-, medium-, and high-altitude precision bombing
practice by training squadrons primarily from Columbia Army Air Base, but also other
air corps bases in South Carolina. The MRS consists of 439 land acres. Remnants of
practice bombs were found by property owners in 1982, 1986, 1989, and 1990 during
various activities related to development of the land into residential subdivisions. Table
4.1 lists the various MEC thought to have been used on the site. The associated fillers
and constituents are also included to provide a more complete picture of the potential
contamination on site.
4.3.2 Inspection Activities
The SI effort for Target No. 2 MRS was conducted on March 21, 2007. The SVT
collected biased samples POBR-SS-06-01, POBR-SS-06-02, and POBR-SS-06-03 from
the range area. Due to the presence of residential dwellings and fenced property, the QR
was slightly modified in an effort to maintain the focus on the proper area of concern.
Numerous pieces of munitions debris were observed in Target No. 2. MEC were not
observed by the SVT.
4.4 TARGET NO. 5 MRS
4.4.1 Historical MEC Information
Target No. 5 was used for low-angle, low-altitude skip bombing practice by training
squadrons primarily from Columbia Army Air Base, but also other air corps bases in
South Carolina. The MRS consists of approximately 22 land acres in a rectangular shape
running along a northeast-southwest axis east of Target No. 2 in the Pontiac Bombing
Range. Remnants of practice bombs were found by property owners in the 1980s and
1990s during various activities related to development of the land into residential
subdivisions. Table 4.1 lists the various MEC thought to have been used on the site. The
associated fillers and constituents are also included to provide a more complete picture of
the potential contamination on site.
4.4.2 Inspection Activities
The SI effort for Target No. 5 MRS was conducted on March 21, 2007. The SVT
collected biased sample POBR-SS-06-04 from the range area. Numerous pieces of
munitions debris were observed within Target No. 5. Due to the presence of residential
dwellings and fenced property, the QR was slightly modified in an effort to maintain the
focus on the proper area of concern. MEC were not observed by the SVT.
4-3
CHAPTER 4.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

4.5 TARGET NO. 6 MRS
4.5.1 Historical MEC Information
FINAL
Target No. 6 was used for low-angle, low-altitude skip bombing practice by training
squadrons primarily from Columbia Army Air Base, but also other air corps bases in
South Carolina. Target No. 6 replaced the use of Target No. 5 during early 1945. The
MRS consists of approximately 22 land acres in a rectangular shape running along a
north-south axis between the western side of the Pontiac Bombing Range and Target No.
2. Remnants of practice bombs were found by property owners in the 1980s and 1990s
during various activities related to development of the land into residential subdivisions.
Table 4.1 lists the various MEC thought to have been used on the site. The associated
fillers and constituents are also included to provide a more complete picture of the
potential contamination on site.
4.5.2 Inspection Activities
The SI effort for Target No. 6 MRS was conducted on March 21, 2007. The SVT
collected biased sample POBR-SS-06-05 along with corresponding quality assurance
samples from the range area. Numerous pieces of munitions debris were observed in
Target NO. 6, MEC were not observed by the SVT.
4-4
CHAPTER 4.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

Table 4.1
Chemical Composition of MEC and Potential Munitions Constituents
Pontiac Bombing Range
Pontiac County, SC
General Munition Type Type/Model
Case
Composition Filler Potential Constituent
Bomb, Practice, 100 lbs M38A2
Sheet Metal Sand, wet sand, or water; spotting
w/spotting charge
M1A1
Black powder
Sheet Steel
charge contains black powder Iron, potassium
Bomb, Practice, 100 lbs M75
(inert) Hematite-filled Iron
Grenade, Hand
Cast iron, sheet
TNT, iron, potassium chloride,
Fragmentation MKII, MKIIA1 metal TNT, flaked or granular;
magnesium
Table information from ASR Supplement, CEMVR 2004.
FINAL
4-5
CHAPTER 4.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

TABLE 4.2
MEC DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVE WORKSHEET
SITE: Pontiac Bombing Range, South Carolina
PROJECT: MMRP Site Inspection / FUDS Project No. I04SC003700
DQO Element
Number *
DQO Element
Description *
Intended Data Use(s):
1 Project Objective(s)
Satisfied
Intended Need Requirements:
2 Data User
Perspective(s)
Site-Specific DQO
Statement
Evaluate presence/lack
thereof of MEC along with
physical signs (Section 4.1.2)
FINAL
Objective Met?
Yes (Y)/No (N)
Y
Risk, Remedy Y
3 Contaminant or
Characteristic of
Interest
MEC, Munitions debris Y
4 Media of Interest N/A
5 Required Locations or Targets No.2, 5 and 6 and Y
Areas
6 Number of Samples
Required
7 Reference
Concentration of
Interest or Other
Performance Criteria
Remaining Lands
QR path (total length) =
61,640 feet (approximate)
QR on Targets No.2, 5 and 6
and Remaining Lands
Appropriate Sampling and Analysis Methods:
8 Sampling Method QR with magnetometer
(Schonstedt GA-92-XTi)
9 Analytical Method N/A
* Refer to EM 200-1-2, Paragraph 4.2.1
4-6
CHAPTER 4.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007
Y
Y
Y
Y

TABLE 4.3
MC DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVE WORKSHEET
SITE: Pontiac Bombing Range, South Carolina
PROJECT: MMRP Site Inspection / FUDS Project No. I04SC003700
DQO Element
Number *
DQO Element
Description *
Intended Data Use(s):
1 Project Objective(s)
Satisfied
Intended Need Requirements:
2 Data User
FINAL
Site-Specific DQO Statement Objective
Met? Yes
(Y)/No (N)
Evaluate presence/lack thereof of
MC
Risk, Remedy Y
3
Perspective(s)
Contaminant or
Characteristic of
Interest
See Table 4.1 Y
4 Media of Interest Surface Soil Y
5 Required Sampling As determined by the Project Y
Locations or Areas Team, see Figure 4.1. Biased
and Depths
locations based on areas of
concern. Soil depth to 6-inches
per request by SCDHEC.
6 Number of Samples 8 surface soil samples plus Y
Required
associated QA/QC samples.
7 Reference
USEPA Region 9 Industrial and Y
Concentration of Residential PRGs, Ecological
Interest or Other Screening Values, regional
Performance Criteria background data (if available),
ambient metal concentration
(soil)
Appropriate Sampling and Analysis Methods:
8 Sampling Method Composite samples in
accordance with the PSAP and
PSAP Addendum
Y
9 Analytical Method Explosives - SW8321A;
Metals (except Mercury)
SW6010B or SW6020; Mercury
– SW7470A/7471A
Y
* Refer to EM 200-1-2, Paragraph 4.2.1
4-7
CHAPTER 4.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007
Y

TABLE 4.4
MRSPP DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVE WORKSHEET
SITE: Pontiac Bombing Range, South Carolina
PROJECT: MMRP Site Inspection / FUDS Project No. I04SC003700
DQO Element
Number *
DQO Element
Description *
Intended Data Use(s):
1 Project Objective(s)
Satisfied
Intended Need Requirements:
Site-Specific DQO
Statement
Completion of MRSPP
Scoring sheets
2 Data User Perspective(s) Risk and remedy Y
3 Contaminant or Explosives, chemical, and Y
Characteristic of Interest health hazards, if any,
associated with SVT
findings.
4 Media of Interest Surface Soil Y
5 Required Sampling In accordance with (IAW) Y
Locations or Areas and
Depths
MC DQO
6 Number of Samples
Required
IAW MC DQO Y
7 Reference Concentration Completion of Explosive Y
of Interest or Other Hazard Evaluation (EHE)
Performance Criteria Tables 1 - 10, Chemical
Hazard Evaluation (CHE)
Tables 11 – 20, and Health
Hazard Evaluation (HHE)
Tables 21 – 25.
Appropriate Sampling and Analysis Methods:
8 Sampling Method N/A
9 Analytical Method N/A
* Refer to EM 200-1-2, Paragraph 4.2.1
FINAL
Objective Met?
Yes (Y)/No (N)
4-8
CHAPTER 4.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007
Y

TABLE 4.5
HRS DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVE WORKSHEET
SITE: Pontiac Bombing Range, South Carolina
PROJECT: MMRP Site Inspection / FUDS Project No. I04SC003700
DQO Element
Number *
DQO Element
Description *
Intended Data Use(s):
1 Project Objective(s)
Satisfied
Intended Need Requirements:
2 Data User
Site-Specific
DQO Statement
Collection of
USEPA HRS MCrelated
information
Risk, compliance, Y
Perspective(s) and remedy
3 Contaminant or
Characteristic of
Interest
IAW MC DQO Y
4 Media of Interest Surface Soil, Y
5 Required Sampling
Locations or Areas and
Depths
6 Number of Samples
Required
7 Reference
Concentration of
Interest or Other
Performance Criteria
Objective Met?
Yes (Y)/No (N)
Y
IAW MC DQO Y
IAW MC DQO Y
Results of the MC
findings in order
for USEPA to
complete the MCrelated
HRS
scoring.
Appropriate Sampling and Analysis Methods:
8 Sampling Method IAW MC DQO Y
9 Analytical Method IAW MC DQO Y
* Refer to EM 200-1-2, Paragraph 4.2.1
Y
FINAL
4-9
CHAPTER 4.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

3780000
3778000
508000
508000
HARD HARD SCRABBLE SCRABBLE RD RD
!
3
!( !(
CLEMSON CLEMSON RD RD
!
2
Target 6
(Skip Bombing
Range)
!
17
!( !(
15
!
! ! 16
! !
!
!
6
26
7
29
510000
!
27
!
!( !(
!( !(
!
5
Target 2
!( !(
510000
13
!
9
!
14
!( !(
28
4
!
!
!
12
!
8
!( !(
Target 5
(Skip Bombing
Range)
!
11
!( !(
512000
512000
3780000
3778000
Qualitative Reconnaissance and
Field Observation Locations
Former Pontiac Bombing Range
FUDS Project No. I04SC003701
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
Legend
11
!
!.
CHECKED BY:
BT
BT
SC
SUBMITTED BY:
DS
Site Location in South Carolina
Image: 2005 Orthophotos
Projection: UTM Zone 17 NAD83, Map Units in Meters
1,200 600 0
Feet
1,200
PARSONS
SCALE:
DATE:
Figure 4.1
Richland County, South Carolina
Field Observation Location
Soil Sample Location
Approximate Bombing Range Boundary
Approximate Property Boundary
Qualitative Reconnaissance Track
As Shown
August 2007
FILE: X:\GIS\Site_inspections_ne\Maps\
pontiac_SC\Fig4_1.mxd
U.S. ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS
HUNTSVILLE CENTER
Qualitative Reconnaissance and
Field Observation Locations
PROJECT NUMBER:
PAGE
NUMBER:
³
744647.36000

CHAPTER 5
MIGRATION/EXPOSURE PATHWAYS AND TARGETS
FINAL
5.1 This section of the SI report evaluates the potential for release of MC to
the environment based on site-specific conditions. It is necessary to evaluate site-specific
conditions and land use to evaluate risks posed to potential receptors under current and
future land use scenarios. This section of the SI Report evaluates exposure pathways for
groundwater, surface water and sediment, soil, and air. The CSEM for the Pontiac
Bombing Range site (Appendix J) summarizes which potential receptor exposure
pathways are (or may be) completed and which are (and are likely to remain) incomplete.
An exposure pathway is not considered to be completed unless all four of the following
elements are present (USEPA, 1989), as in the examples below for each element:
• A source and mechanism for contaminant release: for example, a site has
known MEC from which MC have leached and contaminated surface soil.
• An environmental transport and/or exposure medium: for example, the MC
in soil is mobile and can contaminate groundwater.
• A point of exposure at which the contaminant can interact with a receptor:
for example, a drinking water well drawing from the contaminated aquifer is
located at the site.
• A receptor and a likely route of exposure at the exposure point: for example,
the resident lives onsite and drinks water from the well.
5.2 In the above scenario, each of the four conditions is present; therefore, the
groundwater exposure pathway is complete. If any single factor was absent (for example,
MC contamination was not present in soil, or the resident obtained drinking water from
another source), the pathway would not be complete.
5.1 GENERAL INFORMATION
5.1.1 Regional Geologic Setting
5.1.1.1 The site is situated on the northern edge of the Upper Atlantic Coastal
Plain on a shallow sequence of unconsolidated clastic deposits which overlie older
Paleozoic rocks belonging in the Carolina Slate Group. The sedimentary formations of
the Coastal Plain range in age from Late Cretaceous to recent. It consists of
unconsolidated, coarse to medium grained sand with a kaolin matrix. At the surface the
sediments are well sorted, unconsolidated, and structureless. The thickness varies from 0
to 80 feet.
5.1.1.2 Alluvium of recent and Pleistocene Age are found at the surface along
streams and valleys and consist of sands, silts, gravels, and clays. Due to the results of
5-1
CHAPTER 5.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

FINAL
stream rejuvenation, recent alluvium is located below the Pleistocene deposits along
present rivers and flood plains. The older Pleistocene sediments are found at higher
elevations along valley slopes and upper reaches of tributaries.
5.1.2 Regional Hydrogeologic Setting
Groundwater is provided by two water-bearing zones which include the fractured
bedrock of the Paleozoic basement complex and the Cretaceous Middendorf Formation.
The Paleozoic basement complex groundwater zones are generally discontinuous and
isolated and yields are relatively low. Groundwater flow is generally south-southeast
along the slope of the erosional surface. The Middendorf Aquifer provides a shallow
water source to the area; although, yields are generally low. Regional groundwater flow
is south-southeast toward the Atlantic Ocean. There was no indication of groundwater
wells at the former Pontiac Bombing Range site, with drinking water supplied for the
county by the City of Columbia which processes 62 million gallons per day from the
Broad River at Columbia and Lake Murray on the Saluda River just west of the city.
5.1.3 Regional Groundwater Use
5.1.3.1 Ground-water availability and quality in the two water-bearing zones
beneath Richland County is greatly different. In the bedrock area, water wells generally
are several hundred feet deep and have low yields, commonly less than 10 gallons per
minute. The water is usually alkaline; moderate in total mineralization, and hard. In
contrast, wells in the Coastal Plain aquifers are capable of much larger yields-depending
on location, as much as 2,000 gallons per minute. The water is acidic, extremely low in
mineral content, and has almost no hardness; it frequently is within the range of
rainwater's chemical quality. Wells in the bedrock are widely used for domestic water
supplies in the northwestern part of Richland County. Of more than 900 wells drilled in
the county in the years 2001-02, one-third are bedrock wells.
5.1.3.2 Wells in the Coastal Plain sediments are used for domestic and smallirrigation
supplies and, in the southern end of the county, for industrial supplies. In the
Eastover area, several large industrial and farm-irrigation wells pump 2,000 gallons per
minute or more. The county, below the Fall Line, has considerable additional groundwater
supply potential. Its development is somewhat restricted, in places, by exceedingly
deep water levels that reduce the drawdown available to wells in certain aquifer zones.
5.1.4 Regional Hydrologic Setting
The high ground running from northeast to southeast the Pontiac Bombing Range
and Richland County defines the major watershed divide in Richland County. From this
ridge water either flows south and west into the Broad and Congaree Rivers or north and
east into the Wateree River. The entire district is part of the Santee River Basin.
5.1.5 Regional Sensitive Ecological Resources
5.1.5.1 The Pontiac Bombing Range is not located within a national wildlife
refuge, national park, national forest, or state park. Although USFWS wetlands were
identified in the SS-WP Addendum, it is likely that the mapped wetlands have changed
due to the nature of the recent and extensive development of land at the Pontiac Bombing
5-2
CHAPTER 5.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

FINAL
Range. The USFWS Wetlands Online Mapper through the National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) was used to identify the wetlands within the Pontiac Bombing Range sites. There
are three basic types of wetlands onsite:
• PFO1B - Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, saturated
• PSS1/4B - Palustrine, scrub-shrub, broad-leaved deciduous/needle-leaved
evergreen, saturated
• PEM1B - Palustrine, emergent, broad-leaved deciduous, saturated
The sampling process avoided the collection of samples from any remaining wetland
within the Pontiac Bombing Range.
5.1.5.2 According to the USFWS the state of South Carolina supports
approximately 42 threatened and endangered (T&E) species consisting of 23 animals and
19 plants. In Richland County, there is one federally-listed endangered species of bird
(red-cockaded woodpecker) and one federally-listed threatened species of bird (bald
eagle, which is listed as endangered by South Carolina). There are three species of plants
listed as endangered by both the federal system and South Carolina. The plant species
are the smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), rough-leaved loosestrife (lysimachia
asperulifolia), and Canby’s dropwort (oxypolis canbyi). These five T&E species are or
may be present on the Pontiac Bombing Range site, and are described in Table 5.1.
5.1.5.3 Based on the above information, a review of the Army Checklist for
Important Ecological Places (USACE, 2006) has demonstrated that the Pontiac Bombing
Range site is an important ecological place. Although the former Pontiac Bombing
Range is substantially developed into residential housing, there is enough remaining
undeveloped land to keep ecological consideration in place. Therefore, ecological
receptors are potential receptors for migration pathways at this site.
5.1.6 Sample Locations/Methods
5.1.6.1 Soil samples were collected from eight locations within the Pontiac
Bombing Range (Figure 4.1); including three locations within the Target No. 2 MRS, a
single location each for Target No. 5 and Target No. 6 (for a total of five biased samples),
and three ambient samples. The biased samples were selected to represent areas with the
highest likelihood for the presence of MEC or MC contamination (per the SS-WP
Addendum, Parsons, 2007). One duplicate sample was also collected. Soil samples were
collected from 0 to 6 inches below ground surface (bgs) (TPP Memorandum, Parsons,
2006), and each of the sampling locations was recorded with a global positioning system
(GPS) unit for later reference.
5.1.6.2 The sample locations were screened for potential subsurface anomalies
and approved by the Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Technician III prior to final location
selection and sample collection. In accordance with the PWP, the CRREL “seven points
wheel” sampling technique was employed for the soil samples. The actual GPS
coordinates for each sample location were recorded and updated in the geographic
information system (GIS) database.
5-3
CHAPTER 5.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

FINAL
5.1.6.3 Soil samples were analyzed by TestAmerica (formerly Severn Trent
Laboratories) in Arvada, Colorado for explosives and total metals. The analytical
methods used are listed in Table 5.2.
5.1.7 Background Concentrations
5.1.7.1 No site-specific statistical evaluation of background metals concentrations
is available. Due to the limited scope of the SI, conducting a site-specific statistical
background evaluation of metals concentrations (which typically requires collection of at
least 10 background samples) was not considered practical or warranted at this stage of
investigation. Two sources of information, each described in detail in the following
paragraphs, were used to roughly determine soil background metals concentrations at the
site:
• Average concentrations of elements in Richland County, South Carolina,
identified by the USGS (USGS, 2006); and
• Analytical results of three ambient samples collected during the 2007 SI field
activities within the FUDS boundary in areas outside the MRS that are not
expected to be affected by munitions activities, used in the absence of a
Richland County average concentration.
5.1.7.2 The nationwide Mineral Resources Data System (MRDS) database of
concentrations of elements provides county-specific background concentrations for
selected metals. The MRDS includes mineral resource occurrence data covering the
world, most thoroughly within the United States. This database contains the records
previously provided in the MRDS of USGS and the Mineral Availability System/Mineral
Industry Locator System originated by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, which is now part of
the USGS. According to the USGS, the MRDS is a large and complex relational
database developed over several decades by hundreds of researchers and reporters
(USGS, 2006). This dataset is considered to likely be more representative of conditions
within Richland County; however, the data available are limited to a select group of
metals.
5.1.7.3 To provide an indication of the level of metals naturally present at the site,
three ambient soil samples were collected during the SI. Owing to this small number of
samples, calculation of a more statistically robust site-specific background value is not
possible. However, these ambient samples provide an indication of naturally occurring
metals concentrations in the soil. At the Pontiac Bombing Range, samples POBR-SS-06-
06, POBR-SS-06-07, and POBR-SS-06-08 were the ambient soil samples. The ambient
soil samples were collected outside the MRSs, and no MEC or MD was observed in the
vicinity of the ambient sample locations, suggesting that the sample locations are likely
representative of the naturally occurring soils in the area. Subsequent analysis of all
ambient samples did not detect any explosives.
5.1.7.4 The USGS Background Concentrations for Richland County and the
maximum concentrations detected in the collected ambient soil samples are summarized
in Table 5.3. These concentrations are used to determine the Background Concentrations
5-4
CHAPTER 5.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

FINAL
for the site that is one of the criteria used to evaluate whether or not a source of
contamination is present (Subchapter 5.1.8).
5.1.8 Source Evaluation
5.1.8.1 As explained earlier in this chapter, an exposure pathway is not considered
to be complete unless there is a source of contamination present. To make this
determination, analytical results for MCs are screened against the highest of several
criteria to evaluate whether or not a source of MC contamination is present. In order for
a chemical to be considered as a source of contamination that is potentially related to a
release from munitions-related activities at the site, it is necessary for the following
conditions to be true:
• The chemical is detected in the sample medium, AND
• The chemical is present above the background concentration (see Subchapter
5.1.7), AND
• The chemical is a potential constituent of the munitions formerly used at the
site (see Table 4.1), AND
• The chemical is CERCLA hazardous (per 40 CFR Part 302).
5.1.8.2 Each of the MCs analyzed at the site were evaluated against these criteria
to determine whether or not a source of MC contamination was present at the MRS.
Only detections of metals that meet the conditions above are evaluated further in the
Screening Level Risk Assessment (SLRA) in Chapter 6. Any detection of explosives at
the site is considered to be a source of MC contamination and is evaluated in the SLRA.
5.2 TARGET NO. 2 MUNITIONS RESPONSE SITE
5.2.1 Historical MC Information
To date, aside from the various MD discovered in the range, no data exists to
indicate that MC related to these remnants have or have not impacted the MRS site. Most
of the former Pontiac Bombing Range is developed with residential subdivisions. The
land is currently owned by numerous private owners. Future residential development is
possible on the small amount of undeveloped land.
5.2.2 Groundwater Migration Pathway
The TPP Team agreed that the water migration pathway was potentially incomplete
for this MRS. This consensus was reached because there has been no indication, thus far,
that MC within the MRSs impacted any of the exposure media, including groundwater.
Groundwater is considered a secondary exposure medium since it can only be impacted
through the migration of contaminants from sub-surface soil media. The SI performed in
March 2007 did not include groundwater sampling as part of the SS-WP.
5.2.2.1 Local Geology and Hydrologic Setting
5.2.2.1.1 The site is situated on the northern edge of the Upper Atlantic Coastal
Plain on a shallow sequence of unconsolidated clastic deposits which overlie older
Paleozoic rocks belonging in the Carolina Slate Group. The sedimentary formations of
the Coastal Plain range in age from Late Cretaceous to recent. It consists of
5-5
CHAPTER 5.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

FINAL
unconsolidated, coarse to medium grained sand with a kaolin matrix. At the surface the
sediments are well sorted, unconsolidated, and structureless. The thickness varies from 0
to 80 feet. Alluvium of recent and Pleistocene Age are found at the surface along streams
and valleys and consist of sands, silts, gravels, and clays. Due to the results of stream
rejuvenation, recent alluvium is located below the Pleistocene deposits along present
rivers and flood plains. The older Pleistocene sediments are found at higher elevations
along valley slopes and upper reaches of tributaries.
5.2.2.1.2 Pontiac Bombing Range lies on a surface water divide within both the
Wateree River and the Congaree River watersheds. Groundwater is provided by two
water-bearing zones which include the fractured bedrock of the Paleozoic basement
complex and the Cretaceous Middendorf Formation. The Paleozoic basement complex
groundwater zones are generally discontinuous and isolated and yields are relatively low.
Groundwater flow is generally south-southeast along the slope of the erosional surface.
The Middendorf Aquifer provides a shallow water source to the area; although, yields are
generally low. Regional groundwater flow is south-southeast toward the Atlantic Ocean.
There was no indication of groundwater wells at the former Pontiac Bombing Range site.
Drinking water is supplied by the City of Columbia. At the time of the ASR an estimated
150 wells were located within a four-mile radius of the site.
5.2.2.2 Releases and Potential Releases to Groundwater
There are no known releases of MC to groundwater at the Practice Bombing Range
MRS.
5.2.2.3 Groundwater Migration Pathway Receptors
5.2.2.3.1 A groundwater well report was completed for the entire former Pontiac
Bombing Range site (Appendix L). The breakdown of wells within a four-mile radius of
all of the MRSs is as follows:
• Domestic use – 27
• Irrigation use – 40
• Public supply use – 19
• Test/Observation use – 8
• Industrial/abandoned/other use - 16
5.2.2.3.2 There is only a single irrigation well located within the FUDS boundary.
Potential receptors for exposure to MC-contaminated groundwater would include current
or future onsite residents using domestic wells, current or future onsite or offsite residents
using water from affected public water wells, and current or future commercial and
industrial workers.
5.2.2.4 Sample Locations/Methodologies
Groundwater samples were not collected during the SI at the Pontiac Bombing
Range.
5-6
CHAPTER 5.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

5.2.2.5 Groundwater Migration Pathway Analytical Results
Not applicable.
5.2.2.6 Groundwater Migration Pathway Conclusions
FINAL
As indicated in Subchapter 5.2.2, the groundwater migration pathway is incomplete
and unlikely to adversely impact human or ecological receptors. This conclusion is based
on the presence of a limited transport mechanism and the absence of a source of MC
contamination.
5.2.3 Surface Water/Sediment Migration Pathway
5.2.3.1 Hydrologic Setting
5.2.3.1.1 The site (pre-development) is situated in an area of a watershed divide
with surface runoff draining into streams (Rice Creek, Crane Creek, and Bridge
Creek/Legion Lake) and intermittent streams toward the north-northeast or toward the
southwest from the area of Target No. 2. The surface water drainage toward the
southwest contributes to the Congaree River basin, while the area of surface water
draining toward the north-northeast contributes to the Wateree River basin. Ultimately,
both surface water drainage areas contribute their volume into the Santee River Basin.
With the extensive land disturbance activities at the Pontiac Bombing Range (e.g.,
construction of detention ponds, irrigation ponds/lakes, broad leveling of land for roads
and houses, and placement of street drainage and sewer lines) during development of the
current residential areas, the surface water runoff patterns may be substantially different
than those described previously.
5.2.3.1.2 The MRS is located within the area of a surface water divide that directs
runoff into either the drainage basin of the Congaree River or the Wateree River, both of
which flow into the Santee River Basin. The land use pattern in the Santee River Basin is
60% forested land, 30% agricultural land and 6% urban land, with the remaining lands as
water-covered, barren, or scrub/shrub land. According to the USGS, the Santee River
Basin includes 24,000 square miles in South and North Carolina. Approximately 85% of
the surface water in the Santee River Basin is used for the production of electricity and
the remainder is used for public water supplies, commercial and industrial uses,
recreation, irrigation of crops and watering livestock. The Congaree River, the Wateree
River, and the Santee River are Class B waterways suitable for recreation and drinking
water supply. Lake Marion, downstream from the Congaree and Wateree Rivers is a
major water source for recreation, fishing, drinking water, and hydroelectric power in
South Carolina.
5.2.3.2 Releases and Potential Releases to Surface Water/Sediment
Based on the lack of munitions related MC in the soil (Subchapter 5.2.4), the
potential for releases to surface water and sediment in the MRSs is low. Even if MC
contaminants’ release did occur, the overall impact to the area surface waters and
sediment would be minimal due to both the level of MC found in the soil and also the
volume of water flow through the river basin drainage system.
5-7
CHAPTER 5.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

5.2.3.3 Surface Water/Sediment Migration Pathway Receptors
FINAL
Potential receptors for exposure to MC in surface water and sediment would include
current or future residents, current or future construction workers, current or future
commercial and industrial workers, current or future visitors and recreational visitors, and
ecological receptors.
5.2.3.4 Sample Locations/Methodologies
Surface water/sediment samples were not part of the sampling plan for the Pontiac
Bombing Range.
5.2.3.5 Surface Water/Sediment Migration Pathway Analytical Results
Not applicable.
5.2.3.6 Surface Water/Sediment Migration Pathway Conclusions
The potential for surface water or sediment contamination is low due to the absence
of detected MC in soil (Subchapter 5.2.4). The surface water migration pathway is not a
complete pathway that will adversely affect human or environmental receptors. This
conclusion is based on the following factors:
• Absence of sources of MC;
• Absence of on-going MC-generating site activities.
As a result, further evaluation of surface water and sediment at this MRS is not
warranted.
5.2.4 Soil Exposure Pathway
5.2.4.1 Physical Source Access Conditions
The former Pontiac Bombing Range MRSs are located within a largely residential
development located near Pontiac (a suburb of Columbia), South Carolina. Access to the
MRS areas is uncontrolled due to the residences built on the site. Obvious persons
accessing the former bombing range are those persons living in the residences, persons
conducting digging or construction activities, commercial and industrial workers at local
retail establishments, and those persons visiting area playground and recreational fields.
5.2.4.2 Actual or Potential Contamination Areas
The site is a former bombing range and substantial MD have been discovered during
site visits and development activities. As a result, the potential for munitions-related
contamination on the MRSs exists.
5.2.4.3 Soil Exposure Receptors
5.2.4.3.1 The CSM and CSEM are presented in Appendix J. The target distance
limit for soil exposure, per SI guidance, is 200 feet to the nearest resident population and
residents within one-mile driving distance. The soil exposure pathway accounts for the
potential threat to people and ecology on or near the Pontiac Bombing Range MRS who
may come into contact with contaminated soil. Specific exposure pathways include inplace
ingestion and dermal exposure.
5-8
CHAPTER 5.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

FINAL
5.2.4.3.2 There are several thousand residential housing units (occupied and under
construction) within the FUDS boundary. For the purposes of the MRSPP scoring, there
are at least 26 inhabited structures within four miles of the boundary of the MRS. The
breakdown of the population around the MRS is as follows:
• Population within 0.25 mile – >2,000
• Population within 0.5 mile – >3,500
• Population within 1 mile – >5,000
5.2.4.3.3 Potential receptors for exposure to MC in surface soil would include
current or future residents, current or future construction workers, current or future
commercial and industrial workers, current or future visitors and recreational visitors, and
ecological receptors.
5.2.4.4 Sample Locations/Methodologies
5.2.4.4.1 The duration of the SI field effort was four days; March 20 through 23,
2007. The SI field activities at the former Pontiac Bombing Range included both MC
sampling and QR. No intrusive MEC investigations, explosives handling, or MEC
detonation was conducted. The MC sampling targeted confirmed impact areas where
MD had previously been observed. Extensive QR of the parcels was not conducted
beyond a visual assessment to further evaluate the condition of the site. Preliminary QR
routes were identified by the TPP Project Team with the understanding that the SVT may
determine alternate routes to accommodate conditions on the ground. Sensitive
environments and culturally significant areas identified in the SS-WP were avoided.
5.2.4.4.2 During the May 11, 2006 TPP meeting, the Project Team agreed to
establish the sample scheme with five biased, surface soil samples, and three ambient,
surface soil samples. Table 1.2 shows the sampling rationale for all the collected
samples. Figure 4.1 illustrates the actual QR paths and sample locations for the entire
former Pontiac Bombing Range site.
5.2.4.4.3 The eight surface soil sample locations were screened and approved by the
UXO Technician III (with regards to potential subsurface anomalies) prior to final
location selection and sample collection. In accordance with the PWP, the Cold Regions
Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) “Seven-Points Wheel” composite
sampling technique was employed. Each of the seven discrete sampling locations was
approved by the UXO Technician prior to collection. The actual GPS coordinate for each
sample location was recorded and updated in the GIS database. The process was
repeated for all soil sample locations.
5.2.4.4.4 The sample collection procedures presented in the Sampling and Analysis
Plan (CEHNC, 2005), the Parsons Final PSAP Addendum (Parsons, 2006a), and in the
PWP (Parsons, 2005) were followed.
5.2.4.4.5 Target No. 2 MRS was sampled on March 21, 2007 with samples POBR-
SS-06-01, POBR-SS-06-02, and POBR-SS-06-03 being collected. During the sampling
activities conducted on March 21, 2007, numerous MD were observed on the MRS. No
5-9
CHAPTER 5.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

FINAL
deviations from the approved planning documents (i.e. SS-WP Addendum) occurred
during the SI.
5.2.4.4.6 The laboratory methods used to analyze for metals for all MRSs were
USEPA 6010B and USEPA 6020 (with the exception of mercury which is analyzed using
USEPA method 7471A).
5.2.4.5 Soil Exposure Analytical Results
5.2.4.5.1 The collected samples were packaged and shipped to TestAmerica
(formerly Severn Trent Laboratories) on March 22, 2007, for analysis. The list of MC for
analysis was based on the munitions suspected at the former Pontiac Bombing Range.
Munitions were broken down by case/cartridge and filler composition and those
constituents were included in the analysis list. Table 4.1 presents the potential MEC for
the site as well as the fillers and case composition. These are further broken down into
specific explosives and metals that would be indicative of the fillers. This table of
constituents was used to develop the metals list for samples collected from the former
Pontiac Bombing Range MRSs. The samples were also analyzed for the full list of
explosives as presented in the PSAP. Table 5.2 shows the list of parameters that were
identified for analysis.
5.2.4.5.2 The analytical results are presented in Table 5.4. There were no detections
of explosive MCs in any of the five biased MRS samples (plus one field duplicate) or the
three ambient samples. The laboratory method used to analyze for explosives for all
MRSs was SW8321A.
5.2.4.5.3 Neither antimony nor sodium was detected in any of the samples collected
in the MRS. Manganese was detected above the South Carolina inferred background
concentration in sample POBR-SS-06-01 (160 mg/kg) and at the inferred background
concentration in sample POBR-SS-06-01 (22 mg/kg). Aluminum was detected above the
South Carolina inferred background level in ambient sample POBR-SS-06-07. Although
manganese and aluminum were detected above established background levels, these
analytes are not MCs. Based on the type of munitions used at the site (Table 4.1), only
antimony, calcium, iron, lead, magnesium, molybdenum, potassium, and strontium are
MCs. The analytical data for this MRS are shown in Table 5.4.
5.2.4.5.4 Table 5.5 shows the source evaluation for soil in this MRS. Because no
MC metals were detected at concentrations above background, the soil exposure pathway
is incomplete in this MRS, and further evaluation in the SLRA is not warranted.
5.2.5 Air Migration Pathway
5.2.5.1 Climate
In general, winters in the region are relatively mild, with a minimum average
temperature of 31°F. Summer days are warmest in July and August with an average high
temperature of about 91°F. Typically, there are six days each summer that the
temperature high exceeds 100°F. Precipitation is greatest in July and August average
over 5 inches of rain for both months. October and November are the driest months,
5-10
CHAPTER 5.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

FINAL
averaging less than three inches per month. The average yearly precipitation in the area
is around 44 to 48 inches annually.
5.2.5.2 Releases and Potential Releases to Air
The potential for contaminant release to the atmosphere is low because there are no
known current sources of MC contamination at the MRS site. Therefore, releases and
potential releases of contaminants to air are not expected.
5.2.5.3 Air Migration Pathway Receptors
Based on the lack of significant munitions-related soil components found on the site,
adverse effects associated with contaminated windblown particulates is considered low
for targets. However, potential receptors for windblown particulates would include
current or future residents, current or future construction workers, current or future
commercial and industrial workers, current or future visitors and recreational visitors, and
ecological receptors.
5.2.5.4 Sample/Monitoring Locations/Methodologies
No known air sampling has been previously performed at the former Pontiac
Bombing Range MRS. Air sampling was not conducted as part of this SI.
5.2.5.5 Air Migration Pathway Analytical Results
Not applicable.
5.2.5.6 Air Migration Pathway Conclusions
Based on the current information available for the site, exposure of human or
ecological receptors to MC via the air migration pathway is incomplete. No munitionsrelated
MC contamination was detected in the soil; therefore, the pathway for exposure to
windblown exposure to contaminated particulates is incomplete, and further evaluation is
not warranted.
5.3 TARGET NO. 5 MUNITIONS RESPONSE SITE
5.3.1 Historical MC Information
To date, aside from the various MD discovered in the range, no data exists to
indicate that MC related to these remnants have or have not impacted the MRS site.
5.3.2 Ground Water Migration Pathway
The discussion in Subchapter 5.2.2 on the Target No. 2 MRS is pertinent for the
Target No. 5 MRS.
5.3.2.1 Local Geology and Hydrologic Setting
See Subchapter 5.2.2.1.
5.3.2.2 Releases and Potential Releases to Groundwater
There are no known releases or potential releases of MC to groundwater at Target
No. 5 MRS site.
5-11
CHAPTER 5.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

5.3.2.3 Groundwater Migration Pathway Receptors
See Subchapter 5.2.2.3
5.3.2.4 Sample Locations/Methodologies
See Subchapter 5.2.2.4.
5.3.2.5 Groundwater Migration Pathway Analytical Results
Not applicable.
5.3.2.6 Groundwater Migration Pathway Conclusions
See Subchapter 5.2.2.6.
5.3.3 Surface Water Migration Pathway
5.3.3.1 Hydrologic Setting
See Subchapter 5.2.3.1.
5.3.3.2 Releases and Potential Releases to Surface Water
See Subchapter 5.2.3.2.
5.3.3.3 Surface Water/Sediment Migration Pathway Receptors
See Subchapter 5.2.3.
5.3.3.4 Sample Locations/Methodologies
See Subchapter 5.2.3.4.
5.3.3.5 Surface Water/Sediment Migration Pathway Analytical Results
Not applicable.
5.3.3.6 Surface Water/Sediment Migration Pathway Conclusions
See Subchapter 5.2.3.6.
5.3.4 Soil Exposure Pathway
5.3.4.1 Physical Source Access Conditions
See Subchapter 5.2.4.1.
5.3.4.2 Actual or Potential Contamination Areas
See Subchapter 5.2.4.2.
5.3.4.3 Soil Exposure Receptors
FINAL
5.3.4.3.1 The CSM and CSEM are presented in Appendix J. The target distance
limit for soil exposure, per SI guidance, is 200 feet to the nearest resident population and
residents within one-mile driving distance. The soil exposure pathway accounts for the
potential threat to people and ecology on or near the MRS who may come into contact
with contaminated soil. Specific exposure pathways include in-place ingestion and
dermal exposure. The likelihood of exposure is determined by the amount of
contaminated soil exposed at the ground surface.
5-12
CHAPTER 5.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

FINAL
5.3.4.3.2 There are at least 26 inhabited structures within four miles of the boundary
of the MRS. The breakdown of the population around the MRS is as follows:
• Population within 0.25 mile – >1,000
• Population within 0.5 mile – >2,000
• Population within 1.0 mile – >4,000
5.3.4.3.3 Potential receptors for exposure to MC in surface soil would include
current or future residents, current or future construction workers, current or future
commercial and industrial workers, current or future visitors and recreational visitors, and
ecological receptors.
5.3.4.4 Sample Locations/Methodologies
5.3.4.4.1 See Subchapter 5.2.4.4.1.
5.3.4.4.2 See Subchapter 5.2.4.4.2.
5.3.4.4.3 See Subchapter 5.2.4.4.3.
5.3.4.4.4 See Subchapter 5.2.4.4.4.
5.3.4.4.5 On March 21, 2007, Target No. 5 was sampled, with soil sample POBR-
SS-06-04 collected. No deviations from the approved planning documents (i.e., SS-WP
Addendum) occurred during the SI.
5.3.4.5 Soil Exposure Analytical Results
5.3.4.5.1 The analysis results for the soil samples collected on the MRS are
presented in Table 5.4. There were no detections of explosive MC in any of the samples
collected on the MRS. The laboratory method used to analyze for explosives for all
MRSs was SW8321A.
5.3.4.5.2 Antimony, Silver, and Sodium were not detected in sample POBR-SS-06-
04. Each of the remaining 23 metals were detected, but at levels well below the South
Carolina inferred background concentration. Based on the type of munitions used at the
site (Table 4.1), only antimony, calcium, iron, lead, magnesium, molybdenum,
potassium, and strontium are MC constituents. The analytical data for this MRS are
shown in Table 5.4.
5.3.4.5.3 Table 5.6 shows the source evaluation for soil in this MRS. Because no
MC metals were detected at concentrations above background, the soil exposure pathway
is incomplete in this MRS, and further evaluation in the SLRA is not warranted.
5.3.5 Air Migration Pathway
The air migration pathway discussion is identical to Subchapter 5.2.5.
5.4 TARGET NO. 6 MUNITIONS RESPONSE SITE
5.4.1 Historical MC Information
To date, aside from the various MD discovered in the range, no data exists to
indicate that MC related to these remnants have or have not impacted the MRS site.
5-13
CHAPTER 5.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

5.4.2 Ground Water Migration Pathway
FINAL
The discussion in Subchapter 5.2.2 on the Target No. 2 MRS is pertinent for the
Target No. 6 MRS.
5.4.2.1 Local Geology and Hydrologic Setting
See Subchapter 5.2.2.1.
5.4.2.2 Releases and Potential Releases to Groundwater
There are no known releases or potential releases of MC to groundwater at Target
No. 5 MRS site.
5.4.2.3 Groundwater Migration Pathway Receptors
See Subchapter 5.2.2.3.
5.4.2.4 Sample Locations/Methodologies
See Subchapter 5.2.2.4.
5.4.2.5 Groundwater Migration Pathway Analytical Results
Not applicable.
5.4.2.6 Groundwater Migration Pathway Conclusions
See Subchapter 5.2.2.6.
5.4.3 Surface Water Migration Pathway
5.4.3.1 Hydrologic Setting
See Subchapter 5.2.3.1.
5.4.3.2 Releases and Potential Releases to Surface Water
See Subchapter 5.2.3.2.
5.4.3.3 Surface Water/Sediment Migration Pathway Receptors
See Subchapter 5.2.3.
5.4.3.4 Sample Locations/Methodologies
See Subchapter 5.2.3.4.
5.4.3.5 Surface Water/Sediment Migration Pathway Analytical Results
Not applicable.
5.4.3.6 Surface Water/Sediment Migration Pathway Conclusions
See Subchapter 5.2.3.6.
5.4.4 Soil Exposure Pathway
5.4.4.1 Physical Source Access Conditions
See Subchapter 5.2.4.1.
5-14
CHAPTER 5.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

5.4.4.2 Actual or Potential Contamination Areas
See Subchapter 5.2.4.2.
5.4.4.3 Soil Exposure Receptors
FINAL
5.4.4.3.1 The CSM and CSEM are presented in Appendix J. The target distance
limit for soil exposure, per SI guidance, is 200 feet to the nearest resident population and
residents within one-mile driving distance. The soil exposure pathway accounts for the
potential threat to people and ecology on or near the MRS who may come into contact
with contaminated soil. Specific exposure pathways include in-place ingestion and
dermal exposure. The likelihood of exposure is determined by the amount of
contaminated soil exposed at the ground surface.
5.4.4.3.2 There are at least 26 inhabited structures within four miles of the boundary
of the MRS. The breakdown of the population around the MRS is as follows:
• Population within 0.25 mile – >2,000
• Population within 0.5 mile – >3,500
• Population within 1.0 mile – >5,000
5.4.4.3.3 Potential receptors for exposure to MC in surface soil would include
current or future residents, current or future construction workers, current or future
commercial and industrial workers, current or future visitors and recreational visitors, and
ecological receptors.
5.4.4.4 Sample Locations/Methodologies
5.4.4.4.1 See Subchapter 5.2.4.4.1.
5.4.4.4.2 See Subchapter 5.2.4.4.2.
5.4.4.4.3 See Subchapter 5.2.4.4.3.
5.4.4.4.4 See Subchapter 5.2.4.4.4.
5.4.4.4.5 On March 21, 2007, Target No. 6 was sampled with soil sample POBR-
SS-06-05 collected along with a field duplicate POBR-SS-06-09. No deviations from the
approved planning documents (i.e., SS-WP Addendum) occurred during the SI.
5.4.4.5 Soil Exposure Analytical Results
5.4.4.5.1 The analysis results for the soil samples collected on the MRS are
presented in Table 5.4. There were no detections of explosive MC in any of the samples
collected on the MRS. The laboratory method used to analyze for explosives for all
MRSs was SW8321A.
5.4.4.5.2 Antimony, silver, sodium and strontium were not detected in sample
POBR-SS-06-05 or field duplicate POBR-SS-06-09. Each of the remaining 22 metals
was detected at levels well below the South Carolina inferred background. Only
antimony, calcium, iron, lead, magnesium, molybdenum, potassium, and strontium are
MCs, based on the type of munitions used at the site (Table 4.1).
5-15
CHAPTER 5.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

FINAL
5.4.4.5.3 Table 5.7 shows the source evaluation for soil in this MRS. Because no
MC metals were detected at concentrations above background, the soil exposure pathway
is incomplete in this MRS, and further evaluation in the SLRA is not warranted.
5.4.5 Air Migration Pathway
The air migration pathway discussion is identical to Subchapter 5.2.5.
5-16
CHAPTER 5.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

Common
Name
Bald Eagle
Red –Cockaded
Woodpecker
Smooth
Coneflower
Table 5.1
Federally and State-Listed Species Potentially Within the Pontiac Bombing Range Site
Scientific
Name
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Picoides
borealis
Echinacea
laevigata
Federal
Status
Removed
from Federal
listing in July
2007
FINAL
State Status Preferred Habitat Habitat
Present at
Site?
Imperiled Preferentially roosts in conifers or other sheltered
sites in winter in some areas; typically selects the
larger, more accessible trees. Perching in
deciduous and coniferous trees is equally
common in other areas. 1
Endangered Imperiled Requires mature longleaf pine ecosystems for
breeding. Year-round resident. 1
Endangered Critically
Imperiled
The habitat of smooth coneflower is open woods,
cedar barrens, roadsides, clearcuts, dry limestone
bluffs, and power line rights-of-way, usually on
magnesium- and calcium-rich soils associated
with limestone, gabbro, diabase, and marble.
Optimal sites are characterized by abundant
sunlight and little competition in the herbaceous
layer. 2
5-17
CHAPTER 5.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007
No
No
Yes

Common
Name
Rough-Leaved
Loosestrife
Canby’s
Dropwort
Table 5.1
Federally and State-Listed Species Potentially Within the Pontiac Bombing Range Site
Scientific
Name
Lysimachia
asperulaefolia
Oxypolis
canbyi
1 www.NatureServe.org
2 http://www.fws.gov/endangered/
3 http://www.ncnhp.org/Images/79.pdf
Federal
Status
Endangered Critically
Imperiled
Endangered Critically
Imperiled
FINAL
State Status Preferred Habitat Habitat
Present at
Site?
This species is endemic to the coastal plain and
sandhills of North Carolina and South Carolina. It
species generally occurs in the ecotones or edges
between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine
pocosins, on moist to seasonally saturated sands
and on shallow organic soils overlaying sand.
Rough-leaved loosestrife has also been found on
deep peat in the low shrub community of large
Carolina bays. 2
Moist areas in the coastal plain and sandhills such
as Carolina bays, wet meadows, wet pineland
savannas, ditches, sloughs, and edges of
cypress/pine ponds. Best occurrences are in open
bays and ponds with minimal cover that are wet
for most of the year. It typically occurs on soils
that are deep, acidic, with medium to high
organic content and a high water table. 3
5-18
CHAPTER 5.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007
Yes
Yes

EXPLOSIVES
Table 5.2
Analytical Parameters and Methods
Parameter Method
Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine SW8321A
Octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine SW8321A
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene SW8321A
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene SW8321A
1,3-Dinitrobenzene SW8321A
2,4-Dinitrotoluene SW8321A
2,6-Dinitrotoluene SW8321A
2-Amino-4,6-dinitrotoluene SW8321A
2-Nitrotoluene SW8321A
3-Nitrotoluene SW8321A
4-Amino-2,6-dinitrotoluene SW8321A
4-Nitrotoluene SW8321A
Nitrobenzene SW8321A
Nitroglycerin SW8321A
Methyl-2,4,6-trinitrophenylnitramine SW8321A
Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate (PETN) SW8321A
TOTAL METALS
Aluminum SW6010B
Antimony SW6020
Arsenic SW6020
Barium SW6020
Beryllium SW6020
Cadmium SW6020
Calcium SW6010B
Chromium SW6020
Cobalt SW6020
Copper SW6020
Iron SW6010B
Lead SW6020
Magnesium SW6010B
FINAL
5-19
CHAPTER 5.DOC REV 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

Table 5.2
Analytical Parameters and Methods
Parameter Method
Manganese SW6020
Mercury SW7471A
Molybdenum SW6020
Nickel SW6020
Potassium SW6010B
Selenium SW6020
Silver SW6020
Sodium SW6010B
Strontium SW6010B
Thallium SW6020
Vanadium SW6020
Zinc SW6020
*Preparation methods are included in all of the analytical methods except for SW6010B and SW6020
which use preparation methods SW3050B.
FINAL
5-20
CHAPTER 5.DOC REV 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

Table 5.3
Pontiac Bombing Range
Soil Background Concentrations
Pontiac Bombing Range, Pontiac, South Carolina
Analyte Richland County USGS
Background
Concentration a
Maximum
Ambient Concentration
FINAL
Selected Background
Concentration b
Metals
Aluminum 43,618 ND 43,618
Antimony NA 0.27 0.27
Arsenic 6.67 0.82 6.67
Barium NA 9.1 9.1
Beryllium NA 0.11 0.11
Cadmium NA 0.012 0.012
Calcium 13,360 98 13,360
Chromium NA 5 5
Cobalt NA 0.54 0.54
Copper 11.1 3 11.1
Iron 32,238 3,900 32,238
Lead 30.600 3.6 30.6
Magnesium 2354 170 2,354
Manganese 1,195 31 1195
Mercury 0.105 0.017 0.105
Molybdenum NA 0.18 0.18
Nickel NA 2.3 2.3
Potassium NA 120 120
Selenium 0.465 0.2 0.465
Silver NA 0.024 0.024
Sodium 8,009 ND 8009
Strontium NA 1.1 1.1
Thallium NA 0.058 0.058
Titanium 7,625 82 7,625
Vanadium NA 9.5 9.5
Zinc 41.2 7.7 41.2
Concentrations expressed as mg/kg
a - USGS derived background concentration for Richland County. Value equals the mean + 2xSD
(http://tin.er.usgs.gov/geochem/doc/averages/countydata.htm)
b - The background concentrations are selected from those available in the column order shown (i.e., the
USGS value is used if there is one; if there is no USGS value, then the site-specific value is used).
ND – Analyte not detected
NA - Background concentration not available.
5-21
CHAPTER 5.DOC REV 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

Table 5.4
MRS Soil Sample Analytical Results
Pontiac Bombing Range, Richland County, South Carolina
SAMPLE ID:
POBR-SS-06-
06* POBR-SS-06-07* POBR-SS-06-08* POBR-SS-06-01 POBR-SS-06-02 POBR-SS-06-03 POBR-SS-06-04 POBR-SS-06-05 POBR-SS-06-09**
DATE SAMPLED: 03/22/2007 03/22/2007 03/22/2007 03/21/2007 03/21/2007 03/21/2007 03/21/2007 03/21/2007 03/21/2007
LAB SAMPLE ID: D7C230240007 D7C230240009 D7C230240008 D7C230240004 D7C230240003 D7C230240005 D7C230240006 D7C230240001 D7C230240002
Explosives - SW8321A Units
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene ug/kg 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U
1,3-Dinitrobenzene ug/kg 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) ug/kg 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U
2,4-Dinitrotoluene ug/kg 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U
2,6-Dinitrotoluene ug/kg 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U
2-Amino-4, 6-dinitrotouene ug/kg 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U
2-Nitrotoluene ug/kg 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U
3-Nitrotoluene ug/kg 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U
4-Amino-2,6-Dinitrotoluene ug/kg 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U
4-Nitrotoluene ug/kg 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U
Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) ug/kg 180 U 180 U 180 U 180 U 180 U 180 U 180 U 180 U 180 U
Methyl-2,4,6-trinitrophenylnitramine (Tetryl) ug/kg 300 U 300 U 300 U 300 U 300 U 300 U 300 U 300 U 300 U
Nitrobenzene ug/kg 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U
Nitroglycerin
Octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine
ug/kg 500 U 500 U 500 U 500 U 500 U 500 U 500 U 500 U 500 U
(HMX) ug/kg 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U 120 U
Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate (PETN)
Total Metals - SW6010B/6020/7471A
ug/kg 500 U 500 U 500 U 500 U 500 U 500 U 500 U 500 U 500 U
Aluminum mg/kg 2800 6500 3900 4500 2800 2600 4400 2300 J 2300
Antimony mg/kg 0.27 U 0.26 U 0.25 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.27 U 0.27 U 0.26 UJ 0.26 U
Arsenic mg/kg 0.35 J 0.82 0.56 J 0.75 0.49 J 0.55 J 0.57 J 0.50 J 0.46 J
Barium mg/kg 5.1 9.1 7.6 9.7 3.9 3.9 8.4 4.9 4.9
Beryllium mg/kg 0.033 J 0.11 0.076 J 0.089 J 0.033 J 0.029 J 0.056 J 0.026 J 0.029 J
Cadmium mg/kg 0.012 J 0.0084 J 0.10 U 0.021 J 0.0096 J 0.0079 J 0.010 J 0.020 J 0.018 J
Calcium mg/kg 64 J 98 J 34 J 65 J 80 J 64 J 53 J 25 J 30 J
Chromium mg/kg 2.0 5.0 3.1 3.0 2.3 2.7 3.2 2.0 2.1
Cobalt mg/kg 0.18 0.54 0.50 0.67 0.17 0.14 0.34 0.15 0.14
Copper mg/kg 0.95 3.0 1.4 1.9 0.93 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.1
Iron mg/kg 1500 3900 2400 2600 1800 1600 2500 1500 J 1500
Lead mg/kg 3.6 2.3 2.1 4.3 3.6 3.9 3.0 3.7 4.1
Magnesium mg/kg 84 170 110 140 82 62 140 76 74
Manganese mg/kg 6.2 31 27 160 22 7.0 18 6.6 6.9
Mercury mg/kg 0.014 J 0.017 J 0.0082 J 0.021 J 0.0095 J 0.013 J 0.012 J 0.0083 J 0.011 J
Molybdenum mg/kg 0.12 J 0.18 J 0.13 J 0.13 J 0.12 J 0.13 J 0.15 J 0.16 J 0.16 J
Nickel mg/kg 0.90 2.3 1.7 2.0 1.0 0.84 1.5 0.86 0.80
Potassium mg/kg 58 J 120 J 72 J 86 J 46 J 320 U 75 J 320 U 48 J
Selenium mg/kg 0.20 J 0.18 J 0.15 J 0.18 J 0.20 J 0.17 J 0.20 J 0.20 J 0.17 J
Silver mg/kg 0.11 U 0.024 J 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.10 U
Sodium mg/kg 630 U 600 U 580 U 600 U 600 U 610 U 610 U 600 U 590 U
Strontium mg/kg 0.65 U 1.1 J 0.61 U 1.2 J 0.68 J 0.63 U 0.81 J 0.51 U 0.51 U
Thallium mg/kg 0.035 J 0.058 J 0.043 J 0.050 J 0.024 J 0.032 J 0.045 J 0.035 J 0.034 J
Titanium mg/kg 59 82 57 57 57 39 66 37 40
Vanadium mg/kg 4.7 9.5 6.3 6.6 5.0 5.7 6.4 4.8 4.7
Zinc
QA NOTES AND DATA QUALIFIERS:
(NO CODE) - Confirmed identification.
mg/kg 4.6 7.7 6.0 8.7 4.3 3.2 5.9 4.0 3.8
U - Analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the adjusted practical quantitation limit (PQL).
UJ - Analyte not detected, reported PQL may be inaccurate or imprecise.
J - Analyte detected, estimated concentration.
* - Ambient sample. ** - FD of sample on left.
Detections are bolded.
5-22
CHAPTER 5.DOC REV 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007
FINAL

Analyte
Metals
Maximum
Detected Conc.
Table 5.5
Target 2 Soil Source Evaluation
Pontiac Bombing Range, Pontiac, South Carolina
Background
Conc. a
Exceeds
Background
Conc.?
Potential
MC? b
CERCLA
Hazardous? c
SLRA
Required?
FINAL
Primary reason for exclusion from
SLRA
Aluminum 4,500 43,618 No No No No Not detected above background
Antimony < 0.27 0.27 No Yes Yes No Not detected at MRS
Arsenic 0.75 6.67 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Barium 9.7 9.1 Yes No Yes No Not a potential MC
Beryllium 0.089 0.11 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Cadmium 0.021 0.012 Yes No Yes No Not a potential MC
Calcium 80 13,360 No Yes No No Not detected above background
Chromium 3 5 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Cobalt 0.67 0.54 Yes No Yes No Not a potential MC
Copper 1.9 11.1 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Iron 2,600 32,238 No Yes No No Not detected above background
Lead 4.3 30.6 No Yes Yes No Not detected above background
Magnesium 140 2,354 No Yes No No Not detected above background
Manganese 160 1195 No No No No Not detected above background
Mercury 0.021 0.105 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Molybdenum 0.13 0.18 No Yes No No Not detected above background
Nickel 2 2.3 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Potassium 320 120 Yes Yes No No Not CERCLA hazardous
Selenium 0.2 0.465 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Silver < 0.11 0.024 No No Yes No Not detected at MRS
Sodium < 610 8,009 No No No No Not detected at MRS
Strontium 1.2 1.1 Yes Yes No No Not CERCLA hazardous
Thallium 0.05 0.058 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Titanium 57 7,625 No No No No Not detected above background
Vanadium 6.6 9.5 No No No No Not detected above background
Zinc 8.7 41.2 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Concentrations expressed as mg/kg
a - Background Concentrations as established in Table 5.5
b - Potential MCs as listed in Table 4.1
c - Source: 40 CFR Part 302, Table 302.4--List of Hazardous Substances
NA - Background concentration not available.
5-23
CHAPTER 5.DOC REV 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

Analyte
Metals
Maximum
Detected
Conc.
Table 5.6
Target 5 Soil Source Evaluation
Pontiac Bombing Range, Pontiac, South Carolina
Background
Conc. a
Exceeds
Background
Conc.?
Potential
MC? b
CERCLA
Hazardous? c
SLRA
Required?
FINAL
Primary reason for exclusion
from SLRA
Aluminum 4,400 43,618 No No No No Not detected above background
Antimony < 0.27 0.27 No Yes Yes No Not detected at MRS
Arsenic 0.57 6.67 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Barium 8.4 9.1 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Beryllium 0.056 0.11 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Cadmium 0.01 0.012 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Calcium 53 13,360 No Yes No No Not detected above background
Chromium 3.2 5 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Cobalt 0.34 0.54 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Copper 1.4 11.1 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Iron 2,500 32,238 No Yes No No Not detected above background
Lead 3 30.6 No Yes Yes No Not detected above background
Magnesium 140 2,354 No Yes No No Not detected above background
Manganese 18 1195 No No No No Not detected above background
Mercury 0.012 0.105 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Molybdenum 0.15 0.18 No Yes No No Not detected above background
Nickel 1.5 2.3 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Potassium 75 120 No Yes No No Not detected above background
Selenium 0.2 0.465 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Silver < 0.11 0.024 No No Yes No Not detected at MRS
Sodium < 610 8,009 No No No No Not detected at MRS
Strontium 0.81 1.1 No Yes No No Not detected above background
Thallium 0.045 0.058 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Titanium 66 7,625 No No No No Not detected above background
Vanadium 6.4 9.5 No No No No Not detected above background
Zinc 5.9 41.2 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Concentrations expressed as mg/kg
a - Background Concentrations as established in Table 5.5
b - Potential MCs as listed in Table 4.1
c - Source: 40 CFR Part 302, Table 302.4--List of Hazardous Substances
NA - Background concentration not available.
5-24
CHAPTER 5.DOC REV 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

Analyte
Metals
Maximum
Detected
Conc.
Table 5.7
Target 6 Soil Source Evaluation
Pontiac Bombing Range, Pontiac, South Carolina
Background
Conc. a
Exceeds
Background
Conc.?
Potential
MC? b
CERCLA
Hazardous? c
SLRA
Required?
FINAL
Primary reason for exclusion
from SLRA
Aluminum 2,300 43,618 No No No No Not detected above background
Antimony < 0.26 0.27 No Yes Yes No Not detected at MRS
Arsenic 0.5 6.67 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Barium 4.9 9.1 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Beryllium 0.029 0.11 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Cadmium 0.02 0.012 Yes No Yes No Not a potential MC
Calcium 30 13,360 No Yes No No Not detected above background
Chromium 2.1 5 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Cobalt 0.15 0.54 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Copper 1.1 11.1 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Iron 1,500 32,238 No Yes No No Not detected above background
Lead 4.1 30.6 No Yes Yes No Not detected above background
Magnesium 76 2,354 No Yes No No Not detected above background
Manganese 6.9 1195 No No No No Not detected above background
Mercury 0.011 0.105 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Molybdenum 0.16 0.18 No Yes No No Not detected above background
Nickel 0.86 2.3 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Potassium 320 120 Yes Yes No No Not CERCLA hazardous
Selenium 0.2 0.465 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Silver < 0.11 0.024 No No Yes No Not detected at MRS
Sodium < 600 8,009 No No No No Not detected at MRS
Strontium < 0.51 1.1 No Yes No No Not detected at MRS
Thallium 0.035 0.058 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Titanium 40 7,625 No No No No Not detected above background
Vanadium 4.8 9.5 No No No No Not detected above background
Zinc 4 41.2 No No Yes No Not detected above background
Concentrations expressed as mg/kg
a - Background Concentrations as established in Table 5.5
b - Potential MCs as listed in Table 4.1
c - Source: 40 CFR Part 302, Table 302.4--List of Hazardous Substances
NA - Background concentration not available.
5-25
CHAPTER 5.DOC REV 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

3780000
3778000
508000
508000
HARD HARD SCRABBLE SCRABBLE RD RD
!
!( !(
CLEMSON CLEMSON RD RD
!
POBR-SS-06-05
Target 6
(Skip Bombing
Range)
!
!( !(
POBR-SS-06-07
!
! ! !
!
!
510000
!
!
!( !(
!( !(
!
Target 2
!( !(
!
!
!( !(
!
!
POBR-SS-06-01
510000
POBR-SS-06-03
!
POBR-SS-06-06
POBR-SS-06-02
!
!( !(
POBR-SS-06-04
Target 5
(Skip Bombing
Range)
!
!( !(
POBR-SS-06-08
512000
512000
3780000
3778000
Sample Locations
Former Pontiac Bombing Range
FUDS Project No. I04SC003701
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
Legend
!
!.
CHECKED BY:
BT
BT
SC
SUBMITTED BY:
DS
PARSONS
SCALE:
DATE:
Figure 5.1
Richland County, South Carolina
Field Observation Location
Soil Sample Location
Approximate Bombing Range Boundary
Approximate Property Boundary
Qualitative Reconnaissance Track
Site Location in South Carolina
Image: 2005 Orthophotos
Projection: UTM Zone 17 NAD83, Map Units in Meters
1,200 600 0
Feet
1,200
As Shown
August 2007
FILE: X:\GIS\Site_inspections_ne\Maps\
pontiac_SC\Fig4_1.mxd
U.S. ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS
HUNTSVILLE CENTER
Sample Locations
PROJECT NUMBER:
PAGE
NUMBER:
³
744647.36000

3788000
3786000
3784000
3782000
3780000
3778000
3776000
3774000
3772000
500000
500000
502000
£¤ 21 £¤ 21
502000
§¨¦ 77 §¨¦ 77
504000
STATE STATE HWY HWY 555 555
KILLIAN KILLIAN RD RD
504000
STATE STATE HWY HWY 555 555
N N BRICKYARD BRICKYARD RD RD
506000
506000
SLOAN SLOAN RD RD
508000
HARD HARD SCRABBLE SCRABBLE RD RD
508000
Target 6
(Skip Bombing
Range)
CLEMSON CLEMSON RD RD
510000
4
3
2
1
0.5
0.25
Target 2
510000
Target 5
(Skip Bombing
Range)
§¨¦ 20 §¨¦ 20
CLEMSON CLEMSON RD RD
512000
SPARKLEBERRY SPARKLEBERRY LN LN
STATE STATE HWY HWY 12 12
£¤ 1 £¤ 1
512000
514000
514000
516000
516000
518000
518000
3788000
3786000
3784000
3782000
3780000
3778000
3776000
3774000
3772000
Water Wells within 4-Mile Buffer
Former Pontiac Bombing Range
FUDS Project No. I04SC003701
Legend
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
!>
CHECKED BY:
BT
BT
SC
SUBMITTED BY:
DS
PARSONS
SCALE:
DATE:
Figure 5.2
Richland County, South Carolina
Water Well Location
Approximate Bombing Range Boundary
Approximate Property Boundary
Buffer (Mile)
Site Location in South Carolina
rojection: UTM Zone 17 NAD83, Map Units in Meters, Distance Units in Feet
1 0.5 0
Miles
1
As Shown
August 2007
X:\GIS\Site_inspections_ne\Maps\
FILE:
pontiac_SC\ Fig5_2.mxd
U.S. ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS
HUNTSVILLE CENTER
Water Wells within 4-Mile Buffer
PROJECT NUMBER:
PAGE
NUMBER:
³
744647.36000

CHAPTER 6
SCREENING-LEVEL RISK ASSESSMENT
6.1 MEC SCREENING LEVEL RISK ASSESSMENT
FINAL
6.1.1 A qualitative risk evaluation was conducted to assess the explosive safety
risk to the public at the Pontiac Bombing Range site. The purpose of the risk evaluation
is to qualitatively communicate the magnitude of the risk at the site and the primary
causes of that risk. The risk evaluation presented herein is based on historical
information presented in prior studies (INPR, ASR, and ASR Supplement) and the SI QR
observances for the MRSs.
6.1.2 An explosive safety risk is the probability for an MEC item to detonate
and potentially cause harm as a result of human activities. An explosive safety risk exists
if a person can come near or into contact with an MEC item and act on it to cause a
detonation. The potential for an explosive safety risk depends upon the presence of three
critical elements: a source (presence of MEC), a receptor or person, and interaction
between the source and receptor (such as picking up the item or disturbing the item).
There is no risk if any one element is missing. Each of the three elements provides a
basis for implementing effective risk-management response actions.
6.1.3 The exposure route for an MEC receptor is primarily direct contact as a
result of some human activity. Agricultural or construction activities involving
subsurface intrusion are examples of human activities that will increase the likelihood for
direct contact with buried MEC. An MEC item will tend to remain in place unless
disturbed by human or natural forces, such as erosion. Movement of the MEC may
increase the probability for direct human contact but not necessarily result in a direct
contact or exposure.
6.1.1 Conceptual Site Model
CSMs can help identify risks to human health and the environment by identifying
complete exposure pathways between physical media affected by site-related
contamination (e.g., soil, water, air) and potential human or ecological receptors. The
CSM for MEC at the Pontiac Bombing Range site is included in Appendix J.
6.1.2 Definition of Risk Evaluation Factors, Categories, and Subcategories
6.1.2.1 The potential risk posed by MEC was characterized qualitatively by
evaluating three primary risk factors. The three primary risk factors include: 1) presence
of an MEC source, 2) site characteristics that affect the accessibility or pathway between
the source and human receptor, and 3) human factors that define the receptors and type of
activities that may result in direct contact between a receptor and an MEC source. By
6-1
CHAPTER 6.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

FINAL
performing a qualitative assessment of these three factors, an overall assessment of the
safety risk posed by MEC was evaluated.
6.1.2.2 Target No. 2, Target No. 5, and Target No. 6 were used as bombing targets
by the Army Air Corps. Target No. 2 was used as a precision target for low, medium,
and high altitude bombing. Target No. 5 was used as a skip-bombing target. Target No.
6 was also used as a skip-bombing target and it replaced Target No. 5 sometime during
early 1945. The following paragraphs describe the components of each of the primary
risk factors to be used in the assessment of all MRSs in the Pontiac Bombing Range.
Presence of MEC Factors
6.1.2.3 There are four categories that can be used to evaluate the presence of MEC
risk. These include the MEC type, MEC sensitivity, MEC density, and MEC depth
distribution. At the SI stage, MEC density and MEC depth are generally unknown and
are evaluated during the RI/FS stage, therefore are not included in this report.
6.1.2.4 Type. The MEC type affects the likelihood of injury and the severity of
exposure. If multiple MEC items are identified in an area, that item which poses the
greatest risk to public health is selected for risk evaluation. There are four subcategories
of MEC type, as shown in Table 6.1. These subcategories are presented in order of
severity from highest to lowest risk.
Table 6.1
MEC Type Subcategories
Subcategory MEC Type Description
Most severe
Moderate severity
Least severity
MEC that may be lethal if detonated by an
individual’s activities
MEC that may cause major injury to an
individual if detonated by an individual’s
activities
MEC that may cause minor injury to an
individual if detonated by an individual’s
activities
No injury Munitions debris (inert), will cause no injury
6.1.2.5 Sensitivity. MEC sensitivity affects the likelihood of detonation and the
severity of exposure. Factors considered in evaluating sensitivity include fuzing and
environmental factors such as weathering. There are four potential subcategories of
MEC sensitivity. The category of sensitivity is based on the results of the SI field QR as
well as the results of archival studies. When multiple subcategories of MEC types are
discovered in an area, the highest risk subcategory is used in the risk evaluation. The
subcategories of sensitivity are defined and presented in order from highest to lowest in
Table 6.2.
6-2
CHAPTER 6.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

Table 6.2
MEC Sensitivity Subcategories
Subcategory MEC Sensitivity
Very Sensitive
MEC that is very sensitive, i.e., electronic
fuzing, land mines, booby traps
Less sensitive MEC that has standard fuzing
Insensitive
MEC that may have functioned correctly, or is
unfuzed, but has a residual risk
Inert Munitions debris (inert), will cause no injury
FINAL
6.1.2.6 Density. MEC density affects the likelihood that an individual will be
exposed to MEC. A direct relationship exists between density and potential for harm.
For example, the more munitions per acre, the greater the likelihood of exposure to an
MEC item and thereby an opportunity to create an incident. Given the absence of reliable
and confirmed subsurface data at the SI stage, MEC density will not be evaluated during
the SI.
6.1.2.7 Depth Distribution. The MEC depth distribution refers to where the MEC
is located vertically in the subsurface. The MEC depth distribution affects the likelihood
that an individual will be exposed to MEC. An inverse relationship exists between the
depth at which MEC are found and the likelihood of exposure to the MEC. That is, the
greater the depth of the MEC, the lower the risk of exposure. There are two
subcategories within the MEC depth distribution category: surface and subsurface. The
surface subcategory includes those items recovered either on the ground surface,
protruding from the ground surface, or beneath the leaf litter. Given the absence of
reliable and confirmed subsurface data at the SI stage, the subsurface category will not be
evaluated during the SI.
Site Characteristics Factors
6.1.2.8 There are two categories that are evaluated in the site characteristics risk
factor. These are site accessibility and site stability.
6.1.2.9 Site Accessibility. The accessibility of an MRS affects the likelihood of
encountering MEC. Natural or physical barriers can limit the accessibility. Natural
barriers can include the terrain or topography of the site as well as water barriers and
vegetation. Physical barriers can include walls and fences that limit the public’s
accessibility to the site. Both the physical and natural barriers found at a site are
considered when evaluating this category. Site accessibility has three subcategories.
These subcategories are presented in Table 6.3.
6-3
CHAPTER 6.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

Table 6.3
Site Accessibility Subcategories
Subcategory Accessibility Description
No Restriction to Site
Limited Restriction to Access
No man-made barriers, gently
sloping terrain, no vegetation
that restricts access, no water
that restricts access
Man-made barriers, vegetation
that restricts access, water, snow
or ice cover, and/or terrain
restricts access
Complete Restriction to Access All points of entry are controlled
FINAL
6.1.2.10 Site Stability. This category relates to the probability of being exposed to
MEC by natural processes. These natural processes include recurring natural events (e.g.
erosion and frost heave) or extreme natural events (e.g., severe wind and flooding). The
local soil type, topography, climate, and vegetation affect stability of the site. The soil
type and climate primarily affects the depth of penetration of the MEC. Over time, the
soil type and climate will also affect the degree of erosion that takes place. Topography
and vegetation in the area will also affect the rate of erosion that takes place. Site
stability has three subcategories. Table 6.4 describes these subcategories.
Table 6.4
Site Stability Subcategories
Subcategory Stability Description
Site Stable MEC should not be exposed by natural events
Moderately Stable Site MEC may be exposed by natural events
Site Unstable MEC most likely will be exposed by natural events
Human Factors
6.1.2.11 There are two categories that are evaluated in the primary human risk
factor. These include activities and population.
6.1.2.12 Site Activity. The types of activities conducted at a site affect the
likelihood of encountering MEC. The types of activities may be generally classified as
recreational and occupational. This category examines whether the impact from an
activity on MEC is significant, moderate or low. In order to assign such a score, the
general guidelines presented in Table 6.5 were considered. First, the type of activity is
identified. Then, the depth of the activity is considered. For example, at a site where
MEC is at the surface, all activities that can impact MEC at the surface are considered
6-4
CHAPTER 6.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

FINAL
activities that have significant impact or contact level. Conversely, if all MEC is located
at depths greater than 1 foot and only surface impact activities are being performed then
the activities are considered as moderate or low impact. After the type of activity and
depth of MEC are identified, then a score of significant, moderate or low may be
assigned. Given the absence of reliable and confirmed subsurface data at the SI stage, the
subsurface category cannot be evaluated during the SI.
Table 6.5
MEC Contact Probability Levels
Examples of Activities Actual Depth of MEC Contact Level
Child Play, Picnic, Short Cuts, Hunting,
Hiking, Jogging, Ranching, Surveying,
Off-Road Driving,
Camping, Metal Detecting
Construction, Archaeology
Surface
Below Surface -12”
>12”
Surface
Below Surface -12”
>12”
Surface
Below Surface -12”
>12”
Significant
Low
Low
Significant
Moderate
Low
Significant
Significant
Moderate
6.1.2.13 Population. This category refers to the number of people that potentially
access the site on a daily basis. The number of people using the site affects the likelihood
of encountering MEC. A direct relationship exists between the number of people and the
risk of exposure. An estimate of the number of people accessing the site on a daily basis
was made using best professional judgment based on knowledge of the type of site, land
use, and site accessibility.
Presence of MEC Factor
6.1.2.14 Type-all MRSs: Although several pieces of MD were observed on each of
the MRSs during the SI, no MEC were discovered. However, the ASR indicates that at
least one MEC was found on the former bombing ranges by a hunter. A photographic list
of potential MEC used on the Pontiac Bombing Range is included in Table 6.6. The
main types of MEC used/found are:
• Bombs, 100 lb, Practice - M38A2
• Bombs, 100 lb, Practice – M75, hematite filled
• Spotting Charges - M1A1
• Small Arms Ammunition - 0.50 caliber machine-gun
Other ordnance items described as being found in Columbia, South Carolina include the
following:
• Rocket – 2.75-inch
6-5
CHAPTER 6.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

• Rocket – Practice, 5- inch
• Hand Grenade – fragmentation MkII
• Hand Grenade – Practice M69
• Rocket – 66mm-M72 Light Antitank Weapon (LAW)
FINAL
While these “other” munitions are reported in the ASR to have been found in Columbia,
South Carolina; there is no evidence reviewed by Parsons that directly links these “other”
munitions to historic DoD activity at the former Pontiac Bombing Range. Specifically,
the M72 LAW is a Vietnam War era weapon. No visual evidence of these “other”
munitions was noted during the QR.
Table 6.6
Suspected or Known Munitions
Pontiac Bombing Range, Richland County, SC
Munitions Photograph/Diagram
Bomb, 100-lb,
Practice, M75
Bomb, 100 lb,
Practice, M38A2,
with spotting
charge
6-6
CHAPTER 6.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

Table 6.6
Suspected or Known Munitions
Pontiac Bombing Range, Richland County, SC
Munitions Photograph/Diagram
M1A1, M3 and
M5 Spotting
Charges (shown as
examples, M3 &
M5 not listed in
ASR for Pontiac).
Rocket, 2.75-inch
(recovered from an
unspecified site in
Columbia, SC;
likely is not related
to the Pontiac BR)
Rocket, 5-inch,
Practice
(recovered from an
unspecified site in
Columbia, SC,
likely is not related
to the Pontiac BR)
FINAL
6-7
CHAPTER 6.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

Table 6.6
Suspected or Known Munitions
Pontiac Bombing Range, Richland County, SC
Munitions Photograph/Diagram
Grenade, Hand,
Fragmentation,
MK II (recovered
from an
unspecified site in
Columbia, SC,
likely is not related
to the Pontiac BR)
Grenade, Hand,
Practice, M69
(recovered from an
unspecified site in
Columbia, SC,
likely is not related
to the Pontiac BR)
Rocket, 66mm,
LAW, M72
(Vietnam War Era,
recovered from an
unspecified site in
Columbia, SC,
likely is not related
to the Pontiac BR)
FINAL
6-8
CHAPTER 6.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

FINAL
6.1.2.15 The ASR reported several munitions including the 66mm LAW
launcher/rocket, a cannonball, small arms, hand grenades, practice rockets, and flaked
TNT recovered in Columbia, SC. The actual location where the munitions were
found/recovered is not reported. Therefore the relation of these other munitions to the
Pontiac Bombing Range is unclear. In addition, the 66mm LAW is from the Viet Nam
War era and is more than likely a discarded souvenir unrelated to the site.
6.1.2.16 Based on the type of munitions used on the site, a subcategory of “Most
Severe” is assigned to all the MRSs within the Pontiac Bombing Range.
6.1.2.17 Sensitivity-all MRSs: Sensitivity affects the likelihood of detonation. The
sensitivity subcategories used were defined in Table 6.2. A subcategory of “Very
Sensitive” is assigned to all the MRSs based on the fact that the MK II, hand grenade
used on the site contains sensitive fuzing.
6.1.2.18 Density. MEC density cannot be evaluated during the SI although no
MEC items have been confirmed onsite to date.
6.1.2.19 Depth. Given the absence of reliable and confirmed subsurface data at the
SI stage, the subsurface category will not be evaluated during the SI.
Site Characteristics Factors
6.1.2.20 Site Accessibility-Target No. 2 MRS Target No. 2 MRS is now a
developed residential area of single-family homes. While much of the land has been
covered by concrete slabs for housing and improved roadways, there are small pockets of
undeveloped land along right-of-ways and between housing areas that have no access
control. Additionally, there are parks and recreational areas adjacent to the housing areas
that have no access control. There is a high concentration of people living within the
residential development. Target No. 2 MRS is assigned a subcategory “No restriction to
site”.
6.1.2.21 Site Accessibility-Target No. 5 MRS Target No. 5 MRS, located eastnortheast
from Target No. 2 is a residential development similar to Target No. 2. There
is no restriction to access to the area, other than yard fencing. Target No. 5 MRS is
assigned a subcategory “No restriction to site”.
6.1.2.22 Site Accessibility-Target No. 6 MRS Target No. 6 MRS, located west
from Target No. 2 is also covered by residential development similar to Target No. 2.
This area also abuts one of the main roadways into the residential development. There is
no restriction to access to the area, other than yard fencing. Target No. 6 MRS is
assigned a subcategory “No restriction to site”.
6.1.2.23 Site Stability-All MRSs. The site elevation in the Pontiac region ranges
from 300 to 450 feet above sea level. The site is approximately two miles east from the
Fall Line which separates the Coastal Plain from the Piedmont Physiographic Province.
The former Pontiac Bombing Range actually lies within the Coastal Plain Physiographic
Province. In general, lands of this area are characterized by moderately sloped, sand
hills, typified by large irregular-shaped, rounded hills which are capped with Aeolian
sand. Area vegetation, in the remaining undeveloped land parcels, consists mainly of
6-9
CHAPTER 6.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

FINAL
sparse growth of pine and hardwood trees. However, the Pontiac Bombing Range site
has been substantially developed over the past ten years into a residential housing area.
The extensive land disturbance activities at the Pontiac Bombing Range (e.g.,
construction of detention ponds, irrigation ponds/lakes, broad leveling of land for roads
and houses, and placement of street drainage and sewer lines) during development of the
current residential areas has likely made an overall improvement to land stability.
Therefore, the MRSs are assigned a “Site Stable” designation for the site stability
category.
Human Factors
6.1.2.24 Site Activities-Target No. 2 MRS. The type of activities conducted on the
MRS in combination with the potential presence of MEC helps to determine the
likelihood of receptor-munitions interactions. Currently, Target No. 2 MRS is part of a
heavily developed residential area, so activities that may occur are typical to such areas
as gardening, children’s play, recreational sports, and continuing development. During
the March 2007 SI, no MEC were found on the surface (although substantial MD were
found). The potential for receptors to interact with MEC on the surface is not significant
so a contact level rating of “Moderate” is assigned to the MRS.
6.1.2.25 Site Activities-Target No. 5 MRS. Target No. 5 MRS has the same
concerns as Target No. 2 in 6.1.2.24. A contact level rating of “Moderate” is assigned to
the MRS.
6.1.2.26 Site Activities-Target No. 6 MRS. Target No. 6 MRS has the same
concerns as Target No. 2 in 6.1.2.24. A contact level rating of “Moderate” is assigned to
the MRS.
6.1.2.28 Population: Population densities based on 2000 Census Data for Richland
County is 434 persons per square mile. The MRSs are located in an area of high density
residential neighborhoods that is likely equivalent to, or higher than, the county average.
As such, the low likelihood of occurrence for MEC in combination with the relatively
high number of potential visitors (on a per acre basis) results in an overall “Moderate
Contact Level” rating for the MRSs.
6.1.3 Hazards Assessment
Each of the primary risk factors identified above was evaluated using the data
collected during the SI field investigation and the historical data available from other
studies. The risk evaluation for the MRSs is presented in Table 6.7.
6.1.4 MEC Risk Summary
6.1.4.1 The risk to public safety associated with the presence of MEC was evaluated
jointly for the three targets; Target No. 2, Target No. 5, and Target No. 6. The explosive
safety risk is due to a combination of each of the primary risk factors that are presented
above.
6.1.4.2 Only MD, and no MEC, were observed during the SI field work in March
2007 for each of the three MRSs. As a result, there is very little potential risk of MECreceptor
interaction within the MRS.
6-10
CHAPTER 6.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

MRS
Target No. 2
Target No. 5
Target No. 6
Potential: M38A2, 100 lb,
M1A1, M3 & M5 spotting
charges
Potential: M38A2, 100-lb
practice bomb; M75
practice bombs, 100-lb
hematite filled; M1A1
spotting charges.
Potential: M38A2, 100 lb,
M1A1, M3 & M5 spotting
charges
Table 6.7
SI MEC Risk Evaluation
Pontiac Bombing Range, Richland County, South Carolina
FINAL
Presence of MEC Factors Site Characteristics Factors Human Factors
Type Sensitivity
Most
Severe
Most
Severe
Most
Severe
Note: MEC – Munitions and Explosives of Concern
MD – Munitions Debris
Very
Sensitive
Very
Sensitive
Very
Sensitive
Number of
MEC Found
No MEC
found during
SI
No MEC
found during
SI
No MEC
found during
SI
Number of
MEC by Depth Accessibility Stability
Not Applicable No
Restriction to
Site Access
Not Applicable No
Restriction to
Site Access
Not applicable No
Restriction to
Site Access
Contact Level
/ Activities
Stable Current:
Moderate
Future:
Moderate
Stable Current:
Moderate
Future:
Moderate
Stable Current:
Moderate
Future:
Moderate
6-11
CHAPTER 6.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007
Population
>434/sq. mi.
>434/sq. mi.
>434/sq. mi.

6.2 MC HUMAN HEALTH SCREENING LEVEL RISK ASSESSMENT
6.2.1 Conceptual Site Model
FINAL
Potential human receptors for the Pontiac Bombing Range include current or future
residents, current or future construction workers, current or future commercial and
industrial workers, and current or future visitors and recreational users. The MC CSEM
identified impacted media, transport mechanisms, exposure routes, and potential
receptors. A CSEM has been developed for each MRS and is included in Appendix J.
6.2.2 Affected Media
Direct release of MC from munitions activities at the site would have been to surface
soil. Based on decisions made at the TPP meeting, only surface soil samples were
collected during the SI. Surface soil is expected to act as an indicator of potential
contamination. Since activities at the site would be expected to release MC directly to
surface soil and result in the highest concentrations in the surface soil, the potential
absence of MC in surface soil would be indicative of the absence of contamination in
other media. No other media (groundwater, surface water, sediment, or air) were
sampled at the site.
6.2.3 Risk Characterization
Based on currently available data, the source evaluations for all three MRSs
identified at the Pontiac Bombing Range suggest that no source of MC contamination
exists there. Therefore, unacceptable risk to human receptors is not expected and further
evaluation of MCs in this SLRA was not required.
6.3 MC SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
6.3.1 Conceptual Site Model
According to the NWRS, the Pontiac Bombing Range is not located within a national
wildlife refuge. South Carolina supports 23 federally-listed threatened and endangered
(T&E) animal species and 19 federally-listed T&E plant species. Among this diverse
group of fauna and flora are species that are both federally and state-listed T&E species.
They are known to exist within Richland County and, potentially, within the Pontiac
Bombing Range site.
6.3.2 Affected Media
Direct release of MC from munitions activities at the site would have been to surface
soil. Based on decisions made at the TPP meeting, only surface soil samples were
collected during the SI. Surface soil is expected to act as an indicator of potential
contamination. Since activities at the site would be expected to release MC directly to
surface soil and result in the highest concentrations in the surface soil, the potential
absence of MC in surface soil would be indicative of the absence of contamination in
other media. No other media (groundwater, surface water, sediment, or air) were
sampled at the site.
6-12
CHAPTER 6.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

6.3.3 Risk Characterization
FINAL
6.3.3.1 In order to complete the risk characterization for this site, the maximum
detected concentration of each analyte for each MRS was evaluated against three separate
criteria. First the chemical was compared to the maximum detected concentration found
in the ambient samples. The maximum detected concentration was also compared to the
screening levels selected during the TPP process, in this case the USEPA Region 4 ESVs.
This comparison resulted in the calculation of a hazard quotient for each analyte. A
hazard quotient is calculated by determining the ratio of the maximum detected site
concentration to the screening value (the Region 4 ESV). If the HQ is equal or less than
one, the potential for ecological risk for that receptor group is negligible. If the HQ is
greater than one and on-site concentrations are above background, there is reason to
believe that ecological risks are possible. Finally, if necessary, the chemical was
evaluated for its potential to be a constituent of the munitions used at the site. In order
for a chemical to be a potential ecological concern due to a release from munitions
activities at the site, it would be necessary for the following conditions to be true:
• The chemical is present above the ambient concentration, AND
• The chemical present has a HQ greater than one, AND
• The chemical is a potential constituent of the formerly used munitions.
6.3.3.2 Because no soil source of MC contamination was detected at the three
MRSs, further evaluation of soil exposures for ecological receptors in this SLERA was
not required. No unacceptable ecological risks are expected for those receptors exposed
to the reported MC concentrations in soil. The same conclusions apply to exposures of
ecological receptors to surface water and sediment at the site, since contamination of
those media would likely be a result of MC migration from soil.
6.3.4 Management Goals
6.3.4.1 Management goals are defined as general statements about the desired
condition of ecological values of concern. The goals will vary based on the objectives of
the property owner, current and reasonable future land use, regulatory requirements, the
ecosystem, and the environmental needs of the community or other stakeholders
(USACE, 2006). The Army has an over-arching management goal for Ecological Risk
Assessments (ERA):
Protect valuable biological resources from unreasonable adverse effects due to
the release of hazardous substances associated with Army operations, including
past Department of Defense operations for FUDS (BTAG, 2005).
6.3.4.2 All site-specific management goals should be consistent with this overarching
goal, especially regarding the five T&E flora & fauna species potentially present
at the Pontiac Bombing Range property.
6-13
CHAPTER 6.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

7.1 SUMMARY
CHAPTER 7
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
FINAL
7.1.1 Three MRSs were identified and evaluated to determine their potential to
cause significant contamination to the environment or to adversely affect human and
ecological receptors. The evaluation included the collection of eight surface soil samples
and the implementation of a QR within each MRS.
7.1.2 During the QR and sampling conducted from March 20 through March 23,
2007, several MD were discovered on each of the MRSs.
7.1.3 The soil sampling results indicated no significant impact of explosive or
metal MCs. No explosives were detected in the surface soil on any of the MRSs. Of the
metals associated with munitions used on site, potassium and strontium were the only
analytes that were detected above established background levels. However, since these
metals are designated “non-CERCLA” hazardous substances, a human or ecological
health risk is not anticipated based on these conditions.
7.2 CONCLUSIONS REGARDING POTENTIAL ORDNANCE
During the SI, several MD items were identified on all three MRSs. Also, there are
reports that several types of MEC (see Chapter 6.1) discovered in the vicinity over the
history of the Pontiac Bombing Range. Observations were noted by the SVT and
described in the field notes (Appendix E). Based on the findings of MD during the
March 2007 SI as well as MEC/MD observations made during previous site visits, it is
possible that MD, and more importantly, MEC exist on or below the surface of the
Pontiac Bombing Range.
7.3 CONCLUSIONS REGARDING POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Soil is the primary exposure pathway at the Pontiac Bombing Range. Groundwater,
surface water, sediment, and air pathways are considered incomplete for the Pontiac
Bombing Range.
7.3.1 Surface Soil Pathway
The soil sampling analysis data show that there is no significant impact of MC in the
soil within the three MRSs found at the former Pontiac Bombing Range. Therefore, the
surface soil exposure pathway is incomplete for all three MRSs.
7.3.2 Overall Conclusions
During various site visits there have been several discoveries of MEC/MD on the
former Pontiac Bombing Range. The reported MEC occurrences and the presence of MD
at the former Pontiac Bombing Range support the assumption of continued presence of
MEC/MD. Although the anticipated RI/FS will not need to involve additional sampling,
further investigation is required to evaluate the potential presence of additional
MEC/MD.
7-1
CHAPTER 7.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

CHAPTER 8
RECOMMENDATIONS
FINAL
Based on the March 2007 SI field effort, the analysis results, and the QR conducted,
the following recommendations are made for the Pontiac Bombing Range:
• Target No. 2 MRS – an RI/FS is recommended based on the previous
observations of MEC/MD on the MRS and recent observations of MD
including M38A2 Practice Bombs some with attached (but detonated)
spotting charges. No Removal Action is recommended at this time.
• Target No. 5 MRS – an RI/FS is recommended based on the observations of
MEC/MD on the MRS and recent observations of MD including M38A2
Practice Bombs some with attached (but detonated) spotting charges. No
Removal Action is recommended at this time
• Target No. 6 MRS – an RI/FS is recommended based on the observations of
MEC/MD on the MRS and recent observations of MD including M38A2
Practice Bombs some with attached (but detonated) spotting charges. No
Removal Action is recommended at this time.
8-1
CHAPTER 8.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

CHAPTER 9
REFERENCES
BTAG 2005. Technical Document for Ecological Risk Assessment: Process for Developing
Management Goals. Department of the Army. U.S. Army Biological Technical
Assistance Group. August 2005.
CEHNC, 2005. Sampling and Analysis Plan Military Munitions Response Program Site
Inspections, September 2005.
CEMVS, 2004, Archives Search Report Supplement for the Pontiac Bombing Range Site
No.I04SC003700, November 2004.
FINAL
EPA, 2006. Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process, EPA
QA/G-4, EPA/240/B-06/001. 2006.
National Park Service, 2005. National Register Information System, National Register of
Historic Places. http://www.nr.nps.gov/ Database refreshed on June 7, 2005. Accessed
December 16, 2005.
National Park Service, 2005. List of National Historic Landmarks, National Historic Landmarks
Program. http://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/designations/listsofNHLs.htm List as of 2005.
Accessed December 16, 2005.
NAVSEA OP 1664 Volume 2, U.S. Explosive Ordnance, February 1954, Complete Round Chart
#5981, October 1944.
South Carolina Office of Archives and History, 2005. South Carolina Historic Sites (SHPO).
http://www.ah.dcr.state.sc.us/sections/hs/sites.htm Accessed December 16, 2005.
ORDATA Naval EOD Technology Division, Indian Head MD.
Parsons, 2004. Basis Munitions Response Contract W912DY-04-D-0005, 27 February 2004.
Parsons, 2005. Final Programmatic Work Plan for Southeast and Pacific IMA Region Military
Munitions Response Program for Site Inspections at Multiple Sites. October 2005.
Parsons. 2006a. Final Addendum to the Programmatic Sampling and Analysis Plan: Military
Munitions Response Program Site Inspections. August.
Parsons, 2006b. Final Technical Project Planning Memorandum and Associated Documentation
Pontiac Bombing Range, Pontiac, South Carolina. August 2006.
Parsons. 2007. Final Site-Specific Work Plan Addendum to the Programmatic Work Plan:
Pontiac Bombing Range, Pontiac, South Carolina. January 2007.
9-1
CHAPTER 9.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007

FINAL
Seiple, G.E., 1946. Progress Report on Groundwater Investigations in South Carolina. Bulletin
15, Research Planning and Development Board, State of South Carolina.
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, 2005. South Carolina Rare, Threatened &
Endangered Species Inventory. Species Found in Lexington County. Last updated June
9, 2003. http://www.dnr.sc.gov/pls/heritage/county_species.list
TCT-St. Louis, 1991. Archives Search Report Preliminary Assessment of Ordnance
Contamination at the Former Pontiac Bombing Range, South Carolina March 1991.
Topographic Map – U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS).
TM9-1904, Ammunition Inspection Guide, March 1944.
USACE, 1998. Technical Project Planning (TPP) Process Engineer Manual, 31 August 1998.
USACE, 2004. ER-200-3-1, Engineer Regulations – Environmental Quality – Formerly Used
Defense Sites (FUDS) Program Policy. 10 May 2004.
http://www.usace.army.mil/publications/eng-regs/er200-3-1/toc.htm. Accessed April 17,
2007.
USACE, 2006. Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessments for FUDS MMRP Site Inspections.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2005a. Wetlands Online Mapper, National Wetlands
Inventory.(NWI) http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/wtlnds/launch.html> Last modified
September 27, 2005. Accessed December 21, 2005.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in South
Carolina. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) htth//www.fws.gov/endangered. Last
updated December 18, 2005. Accessed December 20, 2005.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in South
Carolina. Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) htth//www.fws.gov/endangered. Last
updated December 18, 2005. Accessed December 20, 2005.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in South
Carolina. Eastern Coral Snake (Micrurus fulvius) htth//www.fws.gov/endangered. Last
updated December 18, 2005. Accessed December 20, 2005.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in South
Carolina. Crayfish (Distocambarus youngineri) htth//www.fws.gov/endangered. Last
updated December 18, 2005. Accessed December 20, 2005.
USGS, 2006. USGS Mineral Resources On-Line Spatial Data, Average Concentration of
Elements in Richland County, South Carolina,
http://tin.er.usgs.gov/geochem/doc/averages/countydata.htm Accessed May 2007.
University of Georgia, Snakes of Georgia and South Carolina.
http://www.uga.edu/srelherp/snakes/agkcon.htm. Accessed August 16, 2006.
9-2
CHAPTER 9.DOC REV. 2
CONTRACT W912DY-04-D-0005, DELIVERY ORDER 0008 9/19/2007