FINAL SITE INSPECTION REPORT

8128138148158168178188198208218228238248258268278288298308318328338348358368378388398408418428438448458464.3 MEC EvaluationThe ASR Supplement identified the likely range munitions used at this AOC as being AN-Mk 5,AN-Mk 23, and AN-Mk 43 practice bombs. These practice bombs contained a black powderspotting charges which are relatively insensitive explosive components.No MEC or MD were identified during the ASR site visit in 1997. However, the contractor thatconducted the INPR for the USACE identified several small items and according to the ASR,the description matched that of a 31-lb practice bomb. This MD is thought to be from aMK-76 25-lb practice bomb.4.3.1 Field Observations and Historical Evidence of MECA visual reconnaissance of Target No. 1 was conducted prior to collection of samples to identifyevidence of former range activities (e.g., surface debris, or stressed vegetation). The visualreconnaissance was supplemented with a Fisher all-metal detector in order to identify anymetallic items that may be present. The Fisher all-metal detector was used due to the high ironcontent in the bedrock. The path walked during the visual reconnaissance was recorded using ahand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) unit (Figure 4-1). During the reconnaissance, MDlikely from a M38A2 practice bomb was identified. No other evidence of military activity wasobserved.4.3.2 MEC Risk AssessmentThe following section presents a qualitative assessment of the risk associated with potentialMEC at the Target No. 1 AOC. This assessment is based on historical documentation, priorinvestigation, and visual inspection conducted during this SI. A MEC assessment is provided toconvey relative risk on a scale from low to high and is not intended to be a thorough riskassessment as would be conducted for an RI/FS.Shaw completed an all-metal detector assisted visual reconnaissance of the Target No. 1 AOCthe week of February 26, 2007. During the reconnaissance MD likely from a M38A2 practicebomb was identified. No other MD was identified. Figure 4-1 shows the reconnaissancepathways for this AOC.Access to portions of Target No. 1 is restricted by locked gates and fences. Access is allowedonly with an escort from PGE management. Other portions of the AOC are used for irrigatedagriculture and access is not controlled.MEC has not been reported historically at Target No. 1. MD was reported in the INPR andobserved during the SI field reconnaissance. The ASR nor the PA/SI (Weston, 2004) did notidentify any MEC or MD from this AOC. The MEC risk for this area is considered to be lowbased on the following: Only MD has been reported for this AOC;Boardman AFR Final SI Report.doc 4-2 Contract No. W912DY-04-D-0010 Delivery Order No. 003September 2007