Download Report

ORDNANCE DETECTION AND
DISCRIMINATION STUDY WORK PLAN
APPENDIX A
SAMPLING AND DATA COLLECTION FORMS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Form A-1: Static Test Record Form....................................................................................A-1
Form A-2: (Example) Detector Efficiency Scorecard.........................................................A-3
Form A-3: (Example) Comparison Chart for Detector Probability
of Detection and False Alarm Rates.............................................................A-4
Final Ordnance Detection and Discrimination Study Work Plan
FORM A-1
PROFILE RECORD FORM
ODDS STATIC TEST, FORT ORD
INSTRUMENT:_________________________________________________________________________________________________
MANUFACTURER
TYPE (digital, analog, audio)
MODEL
S/N
CONSOLE S/N:__________ SENSOR S/N: NO.1______________ COIL S/N: NO.1___________
NO.2______________
NO.2 ___________
BACKPACK S/N:__________ SEPARATION: ________________
TEST ITEM:
________________________________________________________________________________
CATEGORY
NOMENCLATURE, ITEM NO.:
AVERAGE
CONDITION
MARKINGS
MAG. SUSCEPTIBILITY, micro-cgs units____
________
RESISTANCE, ohms
Longitudinal__________
Transverse:________
GEOPHYSICIST IN
INSTR.
CHARGE_________________________________ OPERATOR____________________________
NAME,
COMPANY
NAME,
COMPANY
DATE____________
TEMP, F________
WIND: mph ________ R.H.,%
SOIL TYPE_______MOISTURE_______
Fort Ord magnetic declination = 15 degrees East; inclination = 61degrees North.
V. DISTANCE: ITEM TOP TO PLATFORM TOP:__________ft.
V. DISTANCE: PLATFORM TOP TO BOTTOM OF SENSOR:________ft.
INSTRUMENT READINGS
0 degrees azimuth = true north; 0 degrees inclination = horizontal, positive clockwise.
EM/
MAG
ITEM___________ AZIMUTH__________ INCLINATION_______ READING__________
(units)
BACKGROUND:
BACKGROUND:
ITEM
ITEM
ABSENT:_______
PRESENT:______
TIME:________
ITEM
ITEM
PRESENT_______
ABSENT________
END PROFILE TIME:_______
CHANGE IN BACKGROUND__________
Record Number:
START PROFILE TIME:_________
TIME:______
REPEAT THE PROFILES? Y/N?________
Profiles on Reverse?_____
A-1
Final Ordnance Detection and Discrimination Study Work Plan
PROFILE RECORD FORM (Continued)
ODDS STATIC TEST, FORT ORD
EM/
MAG
ITEM___________ AZIMUTH__________ INCLINATION_______ READING__________
(units)
BACKGROUND:
BACKGROUND:
ITEM
ITEM
ABSENT:_______
PRESENT:______
TIME:________
ITEM
ITEM
PRESENT_______
ABSENT________
END PROFILE TIME:_______
CHANGE IN BACKGROUND__________
START PROFILE TIME:_________
TIME:______
REPEAT THE PROFILES? Y/N?________
NOTES:
SUSCEPTIBILITY: KT-9 meter; RESISTIVITY, analog ohm-meter, probes.
Profile record form.xls
A-2
Final Ordnance Detection and Discrimination Study Work Plan
Form A-2 (Example)
Detector Efficiency Scorecard
Probability of Detection and False Alarm Rate
Instrument Type and Serial #:
Search Radius:
Name/Position of Person Assembling Data:
Category
Group A1
Total of All Groups
Actual Detected Missed
False
Scores
Actual Detected Missed
Scores
Alarms
PD2
FA Rate3
PD2
FA Rate3
I
20
16
4
10
80%
5/Acre
20
16
4
80%
5/Acre
II
22
16
5
20
73%
3/Acre
22
16
5
73%
3/Acre
III
16
14
2
6
88%
3/Acre
16
14
2
88%
3/Acre
IV
26
20
6
4
77%
1/Acre
26
20
6
77%
1/Acre
1
2
3
Additional columns will be added for subsequent groups (Groups B through E) as needed.
The PD rate is calculated as the number detected/ actual number
The FA Rate is calculated as the number of false alarms per acre (43, 265 square feet).
(e.g. 2 false alarms in a 100’ by 100’ grid would equate to a FA Rate of 8.6/Acre)
Note: A separate form will be used for each search radius of 1.6 feet and 3.3 feet.
A-3
Final Ordnance Detection and Discrimination Study Work Plan
Form A-3 (Example)
Comparison Chart for Detector
Probability of Detection and False Alarm Rates
Category
Composite
Search Radius
EM61
1.6 feet
PD
G-858
FA
Group A
GA-52
PS
FA
PD
FA
MK-26
PD
EM61
G-858 GA-52 MK-26
FA
I
80% 2/acre
92%
2/acre
76%
2/acre
76% 2/acre
80%
92%
76%
76%
II
80% 5/acre
92%
5/acre
76%
5/acre
76% 5/acre
80%
92%
76%
76%
III
80% 3/acre
92%
3/acre
76%
3/acre
76% 3/acre
80%
92%
76%
76%
IV
80% 1/acre
92%
1/acre
76%
1/acre
76% 1/acre
80%
92%
76%
76%
Category
Group B
EM61
Group C
G-858 GA-52 MK-26 EM61
Group D
G-858 GA-52 MK-26 EM61 G-858 GA-52 MK-26
I
80%
92%
76%
76%
80%
92%
76%
76%
80%
92%
76%
76%
II
80%
92%
76%
76%
80%
92%
76%
76%
80%
92%
76%
76%
III
80%
92%
76%
76%
80%
92%
76%
76%
80%
92%
76%
76%
IV
80%
92%
76%
76%
80%
92%
76%
76%
80%
92%
76%
76%
Note: A separate form will be used for each search radius of 1.6 feet and 3.3 feet.
A-4
ORDNANCE DETECTION AND
DISCRIMINATION STUDY WORK PLAN
APPENDIX B
SPECIFIC OE DETECTOR PROTOCOLS
Final Ordnance Detection and Discrimination Study Work Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
B1 HAND HELD MAGNETOMETER (HHM) CLEARANCE.................................................... B-1
B1.1 SEARCH LANES....................................................................................................... B-1
B1.2 MAGNETOMETER SEARCHES.............................................................................. B-1
B2 GEOPHYSICAL SEARCHES.................................................................................................. B-2
B2.1 DATA COLLECTION............................................................................................... B-2
B2.1.1 Data Collection Lines................................................................................. B-2
B2.1.2 Data Collection with the Digital EM Detectors.......................................... B-2
B2.1.3 Data Collection with the G-858.................................................................. B-4
B2.1.4 Collection of Magnetic Background Data.................................................. B-4
B2.2 DATA PROCESSING AND INTERPRETATION.................................................... B-5
B2.2.1 Validation of Data Sets............................................................................... B-5
B2.2.2 Processing of TDEM/FDEM Data.............................................................. B-5
B2.2.3 Processing of TFM Data............................................................................. B-6
B2.2.4 Processing of Magnetic Gradient Data........................................................ B-7
Final Ordnance Detection and Discrimination Study Work Plan
APPENDIX B
SPECIFIC OE DETECTOR PROTOCOLS
B1
B1.1
HAND-HELD MAGNETOMETER (HHM) CLEARANCE
Search Lanes
The search area will be divided into search lanes and will be marked using a string or other
suitable marking material. The string will be stretched from baselines established along the
north and south boundaries of the clearance area.
B1.2
Magnetometer Searches
Each lane will be searched in turn using each of the hand held flux-gate magnetometers and coin
detectors. The detectors will be placed at their highest sensitivity setting. The operator will
slowly move forward along the longitudinal axis of the search lane and will move the
magnetometer from side to side (the MK-26 will not be swung but held steady over the
centerline of the lane). As anomalous areas are encountered the magnetometer will generate a
change in aural tone, or in the case of the MK-26 a meter deflection, that is indicative of a buried
metallic object. The operator will further refine the position of anomalous areas by observing the
peak aural tones as the magnetometer is moved over the anomalous locations. The operator will
place a pin flag in the ground at the location at which the aural tone is the highest, or in the case
of the MK-26, the meter indicates the strongest signal, along the longitudinal and lateral points
across the anomalous area. The meter readings of the MK-26 detector will be recorded for each
anomaly. At the completion of the grid with a magnetometer, the locations of the pin flags will
B-1
Final Ordnance Detection and Discrimination Study Work Plan
be recorded using precision GPS and the flags removed. The procedures will then be repeated
with the other HHM.
B2
GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS
Geophysical surveys will consist of collecting digital TDEM, FDEM, TFM and magnetic
gradient data, and interpretation and analysis of this data.
B2.1
Data Collection
The OE contractor will collect the digital data using a Geonics, Model EM61, Time Domain
Electro-Magnetic survey detector. TFM and magnetic gradient data will be collected using a
Geometrics, Model G-858 Magnetometer Cesium Vapor Magnetometer. To correct and remove
diurnal fluctuations from the TFM data, the contractor will record background magnetic field
data using a Geometrics, Model G-856 Precession Proton Magnetometer. The procedures that
the contractor will use to collect this data is described in the following subsections.
B2.1.1
Data Collection Lines
Geophysical survey data will be collected along individual data collection lines spaced at even
intervals. These lines will be marked using string or other suitable marking material. The lines
will be stretched from pre-marked baselines established along the north and south boundaries of
the survey area. In addition to the data collection lines, the OE contractor will install fiducial
control lines at twenty-five (25) foot intervals. These lines will be installed parallel to the
baselines and will be used to further refine the spatial coordinates of the geophysical data.
B2.1.2
Data Collection with the Digital EM Detectors
The OE contractor will collect the digital data using the EM61, EM61-HH, and GEM 3. The
cart-mounted configuration of the EM61 will be used with both coils to collect data and spatial
B-2
Final Ordnance Detection and Discrimination Study Work Plan
coordinates for collected samples will be generated by the detector’s on-board optical odometer.
A similar process will be used with the GEM 3. A separate digital file will be established for
each digital survey. The file name will consist of the numerical date and time at which the
survey began, and a suffix of “EM” to identify the data as being electromagnetic (EM)
(i.e., 311230EM). Within the data file a separate identifying line number will be established for
each data collection line. While keeping the detector centered over the data collection lines, the
operator will traverse the test area and collect the EM data. In addition to collecting the EM data
the operator will digitally tag the line records as the center of the detector passes over each
fiducial line.
The EM61-HH (handheld) is a high sensitivity high-resolution time-domain metal detector
capable of detecting both ferrous and nonferrous metallic objects. Unlike the cart-mounted unit
with its 1m x 1m detectors the handheld unit consists of 33 cm by 20 cm detectors. Its mode of
operation can be with or without the wheel. Without wheels the detector is used in a sweeping
mode in front of the operator where the detector collects readings at automatic time rates. With
the wheel assembly the operators pushes the detector in a more controlled in-line operation. In
the wheel mode the data collection rate can be adjusted to collect readings at every four inches or
eight inches. The HH also consist of two channels on the wheel mode, this allows responses to
be sampled at two positions along a decay curve. The two time gates allow discrimination of the
targets based on different response decay rate. The early channel detects targets with short and
long decay rate from small, medium and large targets while the late channel detects targets with
the longer time constant only (large targets). The HH provides excellent resolution for small
shallow targets but has decreased detection capabilities at greater depths as compared to the
standard EM61 unit. Due to the size of the detectors, the line spacing for the HH should be
B-3
Final Ordnance Detection and Discrimination Study Work Plan
between one to two feet intervals depending on the size of the suspected targets. The line
spacing would be the only operational change in regards to the grid layout. The functions of the
EM61-HH for data collection and data output are identical to the standard unit.
B2.1.3
Data Collection with the G-858
The OE contractor will collect both the TFM and magnetic gradient data using a G-858
Magnetometer. The OE contractor will employ the G-858 in the Magnetic Gradiometer mode
and will collect data from both the lower and upper detector as independent channels. A separate
digital file will be established for each G-858 survey. The file name will consist of the numerical
date and time at which the survey began and a suffix of “MG” to identify the data set as
magnetic gradiometer data (i.e., 311230MG). Within the data file a separate identifying line
number will be established for each data collection line. The bottom detector will be kept at a
constant height above ground level, as close to the ground surface as practicable, and centered
over the data collection lines. The top sensor will be placed 24” above the bottom sensor. The
operator will traverse the test area and collect the magnetometer data. In addition to collecting
this data the operator will digitally tag the line records as the center of the detector passes over
each fiducial line.
B2.1.4
Collection of Magnetic Background Data
During operations the OE Contractor will use a Geometrics, Model G-858 or G-856
magnetometer to collect and record fluctuations in the ambient magnetic field. Prior to the start
of the TFM and magnetic gradiometer surveys the G-858 or G-856 will be placed into operation
and will digitally record the ambient magnetic field at 1 second intervals. This data will be
logged to a digital file using the date and time that the file is opened, with a suffix of “BM” to
identify it as base reference magnetometer data (i.e., 311230BM).
B-4
Final Ordnance Detection and Discrimination Study Work Plan
B2.2
Data Processing and Interpretation
The OE contractor will use Geosoft’s Oasis Montage Software to analyze and interpret the
collected geophysical survey data.
Output from this analysis will be used to identify any
anomalous areas that require further investigation. If anomalous areas are identified, the OE
contractor will investigate them using the procedures described in Section 3.3.3 of this study.
The final geophysical data set will then be independently interpreted/evaluated by the
Government and/or a commercial firm specializing in the interpretation and analysis of EM,
TFM and magnetic gradient data. The purpose of this independent evaluation is to provide a
quality assurance analysis of the data processing and interpretation process.
To perform its analysis of the geophysical data, the OE contractor will use Geosoft Oasis
Montage Software. This software is specifically designed for interpretation of TDEM/FDEM,
TFM, and magnetic gradient digital data sets. The OE contractor will interpret the data using the
following procedures outlined in the following subparagraphs.
B2.2.1
Validation of Data Sets
The OE contractor begins data interpretation process by verifying the validity of the collected
data sets. This is accomplished by overlaying the individual data samples on a standardized grid.
The results are checked to ensure that the data is accurately positioned along the predetermined
survey lines, match the site dimensions, and properly fits within the site and fiducial marks. In
addition to these checks, TFM and BM data is checked for proper digital date/time stamping.
B2.2.2
Processing of TDEM/FDEM Data
The validated EM data is imported into the interpretative software and displayed in tabular,
survey line graphic, and color contoured formats.
The interpretation process begins by
establishing a standard background for the entire site. This is extrapolated by analyzing the
B-5
Final Ordnance Detection and Discrimination Study Work Plan
overall site data and determining the value of areas that are obviously free of metallic debris.
This background value is then removed from the data set. Following this adjustment anomalous
areas are identified using the contour drawing. Each anomalous area is then evaluated using both
the tabular listing and line graphics of the geophysical samples taken across the anomalous areas.
Using this approach individual targets and their spatial coordinates are extracted from the data.
This target data is then exported as a target listing that contains a unique anomaly number,
spatial coordinates and target classification. This process continues until all targets are identified
and the target listing is complete. For EM61 survey data this analysis is performed for samples
obtained from the lower coil, upper coil, and the differential between the readings of the upper
and lower coil. Using this approach ensures that the maximum number of anomalies is extracted
from a given data set.
B2.2.3
Processing of TFM Data
The validated TFM data sets are corrected for diurnal fluctuations using Geometrics
MAGMAPPER software. This software is designed to remove the ambient background from
each TFM sample collected by the G-858 detector. The resultant data set represents only the
magnetic field changes that are caused by anomalous objects contained within the survey area.
Following this adjustment anomalous areas are identified using the contour drawing. Each
anomalous area is then evaluated using both the tabular listing and line graphics of the
geophysical samples taken across the anomalous areas. Using this approach individual targets
and their spatial coordinates are extracted from the data. This target data is then exported as a
target listing that contains a unique anomaly number, spatial coordinates and target classification.
This process continues until all targets are identified and the target listing is complete. As the
data set was collected with the G-858 configured in the gradiometer mode an independent
B-6
Final Ordnance Detection and Discrimination Study Work Plan
evaluation will be performed for both the upper and lower detectors. Processing and evaluation
of magnetic gradient data is discussed below. Using this approach the maximum amount of data
can be extracted from the data set.
B2.2.4
Processing of Magnetic Gradient Data
Magnetic gradient data, which is calculated from the top and bottom readings of TFM data sets,
is imported into the Geosoft interpretative software and displayed in tabular, survey line graphic,
and color contoured formats. The interpretation process begins by displaying and analyzing the
magnetic gradient data in a contour drawing to identify anomalous areas. Each anomalous area
is then evaluated using both the tabular listing and line graphics of the geophysical samples taken
across the anomalous areas.
Using this approach and individual targets and their spatial
coordinates are extracted from the data. This target data is then exported as a target listing that
contains a unique anomaly number, spatial coordinates and target classification. This process
continues until all targets are identified and the target listing is complete.
B-7
ORDNANCE DETECTION AND
DISCRIMINATION STUDY WORK PLAN
APPENDIX C
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
Final Ordnance Detection and Discrimination Study Work Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
C1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... C-1
C2 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES............................................................................................... C-1
C3 QUALITY PROCEDURES......................................................................................................... C-1
C3.1 EQUIPMENT.............................................................................................................. C-1
C3.1.1 Pre-Operational Checks............................................................................... C-2
C3.1.2 Post-Operational Checks..............................................................................C-3
C-4 GEOPHYSICAL DATA........................................................................................................... C-3
C4.1 INDEPENDANT REVIEW......................................................................................... C-4
C4.2 SELECTION OF ADDITIONAL TARGETS............................................................. C-4
C5 INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORK.................................................................................. C-4
C5.1 RAMDOM SAMPLING..............................................................................................C-5
C5.2 CONFIRMATORY EXCAVATION...........................................................................C-5
C5.3 COMPARITIVE REVIEW OF RECOVERED ITEMS AND
INSTRUMENT READINGS...................................................................... C-6
C6 SUMMARY................................................................................................................................. C-7
Final Ordnance Detection and Discrimination Study Work Plan
C1
INTRODUCTION
The procedures in the section describe the controls that will be used to ensure the work is
accomplished in an effective manner. These controls are based on quality objectives and are
designed to ensure that adequate inspections and checks are conducted on the critical aspects of
the work.
C2
DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES
The data quality objectives (DQOs) associated with this work are as follows:
•
To ensure that the tools, sensors, and equipment used to accomplish the work are fully
functional and reliable
•
That the geophysical data is collected in a manner that yields high quality data sets
•
That the interpreted geophysical data yields a complete listing of potential OE items
•
That the results of this process are repeatable and verifiable.
C3
QUALITY PROCEDURES
The quality procedures for this study consist of inspection/checks of equipment, reviews and
verification of interpreted geophysical data, and inspection of completed work. The following
subsections describe these procedures in greater detail.
C3.1
Equipment
The quality of geophysical data sets is dependent on the operational capabilities of the equipment
used. To ensure that equipment is fully capable and will perform in accordance with the
C-1
Final Ordnance Detection and Discrimination Study Work Plan
manufacturer’s specifications, the OE contractor will perform pre-operational and postoperational checks. Following these checks, any equipment that is found unsuitable will be
immediately removed from service and the OE Quality Control Specialist and USACE OE
Safety Specialists will conduct an investigation to determine the impact of failure on completed
work and the need to rework previously worked areas.
C3.1.1
Pre-Operational Checks
Operators will follow the manufacturer’s published procedures for placing operating equipment.
In addition, the equipment will receive a functional check to ensure it is operating in accordance
with published standards.
C3.1.1.1
Geophysical Instruments
Upon initial receipt of the EM61s (cart mounted and hand held) and the G-858s, the instruments
will be placed into operation, in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. Following
this initial inspection the instrument will be assigned a test sample identified during Static Test
(Section 2) and the instrument reading will be compared to a reading previously recorded for that
sample. This test sample will remain with the instrument throughout its time on-site. As part of
the pre-operational check for the instrument, the instrument will be placed over a permanent test
point, the test sample will be centered under the instrument, and the digital reading will be
recorded. Should the reading deviate more than ±10% of the test sample value, the instrument
will be removed from service.
C3.1.1.2
Schonstedt Magnetometers
Prior to use all magnetometers will be checked and/or calibrated against a test item identified
during static testing. The purpose of this test/calibration is to ensure that the instruments are
operating properly and to appropriately adjust the sensitivity level of the instruments. A
C-2
Final Ordnance Detection and Discrimination Study Work Plan
checkpoint will be established by burying a 105mm inert projectile (or test item identified during
static testing) at a depth of 4 feet. Magnetometers will be checked against these sources to ensure
they are operational and capable of detecting ferrous objects at the depth specified. This test will
be performed prior to placing the instrument into operation. To ensure that instruments remain
operational during field operation, they will be checked daily during field tests.
C3.1.1.3
Precision GPS
At least twice per day, once in the morning and once in the afternoon, the operator will check the
accuracy of the GPS receiver against a known reference point. The operator will compare the
GPS coordinates against the coordinates of the reference point. The difference between these
coordinates must remain within the range of ± .25m. Instruments that fail this test will be
removed from service until such time as the malfunction is identified and corrected.
C3.1.2
Post-Operational Checks
Daily, upon completion of field operation, all equipment will be inspected to ensure it is
complete and serviceable, and is shut down in accordance with the procedures identified by the
manufacturer. Operators will report any damaged equipment, unusual wear or missing
components. Additionally, the batteries will be removed from battery powered equipment and
the batteries will be placed on charge. These procedures will ensure the equipment is serviceable
for the next day’s operation and that the batteries are fully charged.
C4
GEOPHYSICAL DATA
To ensure the quality of the geophysical data interpretation the OE contractor will perform
independent reviews of the processed data, have its OE Quality Control Specialists select
C-3
Final Ordnance Detection and Discrimination Study Work Plan
additional target anomalies, perform detailed inspections of completed grids, and post-excavation
comparisons of the recovered items against the output from the geophysical survey instruments.
C4.1
Independent Review
A second person will reanalyze a minimum of 10% of the interpreted geophysical data. The
results of this analysis will be compared to the original analysis for accuracy. The on-site
Geophysicist will resolve any conflicts between these analyses. In addition to resolving these
conflicts, the Geophysicist will review the operator’s previously processed data to determine the
extent of the problem. Any suspect data sets will be reviewed by a second person.
C4.2
Selection of Additional Targets
To ensure the target selection parameters are correct, the OE contractor’s On-Site Quality
Control Specialist will select additional anomalies that did not meet the target criteria, from the
geophysical data sets. At a minimum, the QC Specialist will select 10 anomalies per grid or 10%
of the target count for that grid, whichever is greater. These anomalous locations will be
excavated/investigated and the results will be reported back to the on-site Geophysicist. If OE
items are encountered, a complete review of the data collection and interpretation process will be
conducted by the Geophysicist. As a result of this review, the Geophysicist will document
whether the collection and interpretation process needs to be modified, if corrective actions are
necessary, or if the processes are being performed to their optimal capabilities.
C5
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORK
As work is completed on each grid the OE contractor’s QC Specialist will physically inspect the
grid and will randomly sample the grid to ensure remaining metallic items are not OE, and with
C-4
Final Ordnance Detection and Discrimination Study Work Plan
concurrence of the government will excavate selected areas to confirm the results of the
geophysical survey.
C5.1
Random Sampling
The OE QC Specialists will inspect each completed grid. This inspection will be performed
using a hand-held magnetometer. During the inspection, the OE QC Specialist will identify the
locations of metal debris using a metal detecting device. The OE QC Specialist will excavate a
portion of these items to verify that they are general debris and not OE items. At a minimum the
OE QC Specialist will excavate at least 10 items or a number equal to 10% of the target count,
whichever is greater. If an OE item is encountered, the OE QC Specialist will report his/her
findings to all pertinent project personnel, including the on-site Geophysicist. The Geophysicist
will document whether the collection and interpretation processes need to be modified, if
corrective actions are necessary, or the processes are being performed to their optimal
capabilities. If it is found that the interpretation processes need modifying, or corrective actions
are identified, all data processed previously will be re-evaluated under these new guidelines.
C5.2
Confirmatory Excavation
Selected portions of a grid will be excavated to confirm that all OE items have been identified
and excavated. The grid will be subdivided into 10’ x 10’ squares. The OE QC Specialist and the
government’s Safety Specialist will then select two or more of these squares for excavation. The
area will be excavated to a depth of at least four (4) feet and as the spoil is removed:
•
It will be laid out in layers not to exceed 6 inches in depth
•
Checked with a hand-held magnetometer
•
All metallic items detected will be visually inspected and cataloged.
C-5
Final Ordnance Detection and Discrimination Study Work Plan
If an OE item is encountered, the OE QC Specialist will report his/her findings to all pertinent
project personnel, including the on-site Geophysicist. The Geophysicist will document whether
the collection and interpretation processes need to be modified, if corrective actions are
necessary, or the processes are being performed to their optimal capabilities. If it is found that
the interpretation processes need modifying, or corrective actions are identified, all data
processed previously will be re-evaluated under these new guidelines.
C5.3
Comparative
Readings
Review
of
Recovered
Items
and
Instrument
To ensure the excavated anomalies represent the target item(s) identified during interpretation of
the geophysical data, the On-Site Geophysicist will review the description(s) of recovered items
with the sensor readings and the results of the Static Test and obtained during the geophysical
survey. This review will focus on verifying that the recovered item is appropriate in size and
shape to have generated the survey instrument reading. The OE contractor will also subcontract
to a separate geophysical firm to analyze the data and compare the results to the on-site
interpretation. Items that do not favorably match the data or vary significantly from the on-site
interpretation will be recorded and these target locations will be reinvestigated and the
discrepancy resolved.
As part of this review, the OE QC Specialist will collect, or will oversee the collection of , data
over 10% of the geomapped anomalies to verify the targets were removed. Data over these
locations will be collected using each instrument fielded at the Field Trial Site and which
detected the anomaly targeted for excavation. Instances where the OE QC Specialist believes the
target anomaly is still present (based on his or her interpretation of the data collected) will be
flagged on the ground and excavated following the protocols in Section 3.3.3 of this work plan.
C-6
Final Ordnance Detection and Discrimination Study Work Plan
The findings of the excavation, the OE QC Specialist’s data, and the original data in such areas
will be reviewed and compared by the on-site Geophysicist. The Geophysicist will document
whether the collection and interpretation processes need to be modified, if corrective actions are
necessary, or if the processes are being performed to their optimal capabilities. If it is found that
the interpretation processes need modifying, or corrective actions are identified, all data
processed previously will be re-evaluated under these new guidelines.
C6
SUMMARY
These QA/QC procedures are designed to ensure the critical components of the process are
inspected before, during and after operations are performed. Application of these procedures will
ensure the work performed is of high quality and meets the objectives of this study.
C-7
ORDNANCE DETECTION AND
DISCRIMINATION STUDY WORK PLAN
APPENDIX D
DQO WORKSHEET
August 18, 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STEP 1: STATE THE PROBLEM.......................................................................... D-1
STEP 2: IDENTIFY THE DECISION................................................................................ D-2
STEP 3: IDENTIFY THE INPUTS TO THE DECISION.................................................. D-3
STEP 4: DEFINE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE STUDY.................................................D-3
STEP 5: DEVELOP A DECISION RULE...........................................................................D-4
STEP 6: SPECIFY LIMITS ON DECISION ERRORS...................................................... D-5
STEP 7: OPTIMIZE THE DESIGN.....................................................................................D-6
August 18, 1999
Final Ordnance Detection and Discrimination Study Work Plan
APPENDIX D
DQO WORKSHEET
This appendix contains the worksheet that was used to develop DQO’s based on the EPA seven
step process.
DQO WORKSHEET
Date of Creation:
3/25/99
Revision No.:
6.0 (4/21/99)
QA Reviewer’s Initials:
Site Name:
Fort Ord
Location:
Fort Ord, CA
Project Title:
Ordnance Detection Study
STEP 1:
STATE THE PROBLEM
A. Planning Team Members: See CESPK-ED-EF/jk/25 March,
1999/c:\TEMP\OE_RIFS_Prog_02.doc.
B. Decision Maker:
Darrin Rodischen
Gail Youngblood
C. Available Resources: HNC, HLA, California State University, Sacramento, TERC I,
CRREL
D-1
August 18, 1999
Final Ordnance Detection and Discrimination Study Work Plan
D. Relevant Deadline:
4/30/99
E. Concise Description of the problem: For selected geophysical instruments, the
problem is to determine the maximum depth of detection under Fort Ord site and OE
specific conditions.
STEP 2:
IDENTIFY THE DECESION
A. Identify the Principal Study Question: Is the depth of detection equal to or greater
than the maximum depth of penetration?
B. Alternative Actions (that could result if principal study question is resolved):
B.1.
Resolutions: Yes, the 90% exceedance depth of detection is equal to or
greater than the maximum depth of penetration? NO, 90% exceedance depth
of detection is not equal to or greater than the maximum depth of
penetration?
B.2.
Possible Actions: Declare area UXO cleared; do not require deed restrictions.
Declare area not UXO cleared and place deed restrictions, conduct removal
actions.
B.3.
Decision Statement: Determine whether the maximum depth of detection
relative to the maximum depth of penetration supports declaring an area
cleared and/or having limited or no OE deed restrictions.
D-2
August 18, 1999
Final Ordnance Detection and Discrimination Study Work Plan
STEP 3:
IDENTIFY THE INPUTS TO THE DECISION
A. Identify the informational inputs needed to resolve the decision - Maximum depth of
penetration for a variety of OE items encountered at Fort Ord.
B. Identify sources for each informational input - Phase II EE/CA and revised penetration
studies.
C. Identify the information that is needed to establish the action level - The action level
is the percentage of items that can be detected for a specified OE item at a specified
depth.
D. Identify potential sampling techniques and appropriate instruments - The instruments
that will be assessed include magnetometers and Electro-magnetometers. Section 2.1
identifies instruments that will be employed to collect data.
STEP 4:
DEFINE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE STUDY
A. Define the spatial boundary of the decision statement - The boundaries of the study
will be limited to the boundaries of the seeded test site and actual OE sites.
B. Specify the characteristics that define the population of interest - Surface soils (0-6
inches) and subsurface soils (1-10 feet bgs)
C. Define the temporal boundary of the decision statement –
C.1.
Determine the time frame to which the decision statement applies - It will
D-3
August 18, 1999
Final Ordnance Detection and Discrimination Study Work Plan
be assumed that the sampling data will represent both current and future
detection capabilities.
C.2.
Determine when to collect data - Restricted access, the OE items do not
pose a immediate threat to humans or the environment. Moreover, the OE items
are not subject to change in short time periods and characteristics of the OE item
do not warrant any temporal constraints. To expedite the decision all data will be
reported within 5 working days of sampling.
C.3.
Identify practical constraints on data collection - the most practical
consideration is the ability to take instrument readings from areas of heavy
vegetation or steep slopes. Brush clearing and appropriate instrument selection is
possible solutions to these problems.
STEP 5:
DEVELOP A DECISION RULE
(1) Specify the parameter of interest - The maximum and minimum depths of detection.
(2) Specify the action level for the study - Instrument must detect 90% of buried OE
targets at specified minimum depths of detection; and must be able to locate buried
OE target within 5 feet of actual anomaly locations.
(3) Develop a decision rule - If a instrument detects 90% of buried OE targets at the
specified minimum depths and locates the buried OE targets within 5 feet cm for 95
percent of actual locations, then that instrument will be considered for inclusion in the
matrix of OE detectors that may be used at future OE sites.
D-4
August 18, 1999
Final Ordnance Detection and Discrimination Study Work Plan
STEP 6:
SPECIFY LIMITS ON DECISION ERRORS
(1) Determine the possible rage of the parameter of interest - The possible range of
depths of detection is expected to be from surface to 10 feet below ground surface.
(2) Define both types of decision errors and identify the potential consequences of each 2.1 Deciding that a instrument can detect an OE item at a specified depth when it
truly can not detect the item. The consequence of this error is that OE item will
not be detected and human health will be endangered. Decision error (2.1) is the
more severe decision error.
2.1.1 The true state of nature for decision error (2.1) is that the instrument can
not detect the item.
2.2 Deciding that a instrument can not detect an OE item at a specified depth when it
truly can detect the item. The consequence of this error is that time and energy
will be spent on additional sampling. The consequences, therefore, are far less
severe than consequences of decision error (2.1).
2.2.1 The true state of nature for decision error (2.2) is that the instrument can
detect the OE item.
(3) Define the true state of nature for each decision error as the baseline condition or null
hypothesis and define the true state of nature for the less severe decision error at the
alternative hypothesis.
3.1 Null Hypothesis, Ho = Instrument cannot detect OE item (the signal of an
instrument is not significant)
3.2 Alternative Hypothesis, Ha = Instrument can detect OE item (the signal of an
D-5
August 18, 1999
Final Ordnance Detection and Discrimination Study Work Plan
instrument is significant).
(4) Assign the terms “false positive” and “false negative” to the proper errors.
4.1 False positive error = Decide instrument can detect OE item when it truly can not
detect the item. A false positive signal or target is one where there is no apparent
OE item to be detected.
4.2 False negative error = Decide instrument can not detect OE item when it truly can
detect the OE item.
(5) Specify a range of possible values of the parameter of interest where consequences of
decision errors are relatively minor (gray region).
5.1 The gray region has been set between five and seven feet below ground surface.
5.2 Assign probability values that reflect tolerable probability for the occurrence of
decision errors.
5.2.1 Tolerable False Positive Decision Error Rate: Set a rate of 20% for the
probability of a false positive error.
5.2.2 Tolerable False Negative Decision Error Rate: Set a rate of 30% for the
probability of a false negative error.
STEP 7:
OPTIMIZE THE DESIGN
In this step, statistical techniques were used to develop alternative data collection designs
and evaluate their efficiency in meeting project DQOs. To develop the optimal design for
this study, it will be necessary to reevaluate design optimization more than once after
D-6
August 18, 1999
Final Ordnance Detection and Discrimination Study Work Plan
revisiting previous steps in the DQO process. A statistician will accomplish this reevaluation.
(1) Develop general sampling and analysis design alternatives - A systematic sampling
method using grid samples will be used to determine whether or not the instrument
can detect the OE item of interest at the depths of interest.
1.1 Samples will be taken in a square-shaped grid pattern. The statistician will
determine the distance between samples.
1.2 The number of samples needed to detect OE items within a pre-specified
confidence limit will be determined by the statistician.
(2) Select the most resource-effective design that satisfies all of the project DQOs Initially a systematic sampling method will be employed.
(3) Document the operational details and theoretical assumptions of the selected design •
The definition of detection is clear and unambiguous
•
Depths greater than 10 feet bgs will not be evaluated
•
Mathematical distribution of signal strength is unknown
Individuals proficient in the use of said instruments will operate Instruments
D-7
August 18, 1999
***DRAFT***
ORDNANCE DETECTION AND
DISCRIMINATION STUDY WORK PLAN
APPENDIX E
SELECTION OF GEOPHYSICAL INSTRUMENTS
FOR THE FORT ORD ORDNANCE DETECTION STUDY
E-1
***DRAFT***
SELECTION OF GEOPHYSICAL INSTRUMENTS FOR THE FORT ORD ORDNANCE DETECTION
STUDY
Roger Young, PG
US Army Engineering & Support Center, Huntsville
November 30, 1999
House Resolution (H.R.) 2401 and H.R. 3116 directed the establishment of a program to demonstrate
and evaluate advanced technologies and systems that can be used to characterize and remediate active
and formerly used defense sites. In June 1993 the US Army environmental Center (USAEC) began a
series of demonstration site and live site tests to comply with the mandate. During that time a great many
ground-based and airborne geophysical systems have been evaluated for their ability to detect buried
UXO. The results of these tests are documented in a series of reports issued by AEC.
It is important to note that each test round had different targets sets buried at the site. Therefore,
detection rates between different locations and test rounds cannot be directly compared.
However,
detection rates have clearly improved over the last five years to the point where detection rates in excess
of 90% are achievable at test sites devoid of large amounts of frag and other metallic clutter. Detection
rates in excess of 70% are achievable at “live sites”.
The execution and scoring of geophysical systems at demonstration and live sites is complex. Careful
study of the AEC and other reports is necessary for a full understanding. However, the following tables
summarize detection results from several tests. The most notable result is that all effective detection
systems were ground-based.
Airborne systems were ineffective.
Furthermore, the ground-based
systems must travel directly over the area to be investigated; ground-based standoff systems are also
ineffective. This means that any terrain that must be investigated for buried UXO must be flat enough
and devoid of vegetation enough for the system to traverse it while maintaining a precise and correct
navigational “fix”. The trade-off between site preparation/suitability and probability of detection of UXO
has not been formally measured.
E-2
***DRAFT***
JPG Phase I Demonstration Site - 1994
(Top 5)
Sensor
Geo-Centers
ADI
UXB
Coleman
Metratek
1
STOLS/hybrid magnetometer
array
TM-4 Cesium Vapor
Magnetometer
Schonstedt GA-52B Fluxgate
magnetometer/
Foerster Mk26 Fluxgate
magnetometer
Ground Penetrating Radar plus
Electromagnetic Detector
Ground Penetrating Radar plus
EM-61 Electromagnetic Detector
Notes
Ordnance
Detection
Ratio
46%
False
Alarm
Ratio
1.33
45%
2.8
42%
1.51
Did not map entire
site
39%
5.2
31%
1.95
Did not map entire
site
Did not map entire
site
Full detection score given to items mapped at 2 meters or closer to correct location
Source: “Evaluation of Individual Demonstrator Performance at the Unexploded Ordnance Advanced Technology
Demonstration Program at Jefferson Proving Ground (Phase I)”, US Army Environmental Center Report SFIM-AECET-CR-95033, dtd. March 1995.
JPG Phase II Demonstration Site- 1995
(Top 5)
Sensor
Parsons
Geometrics
Geo-Centers
Geophex
ADI
1
EM-61 Electromagnetic Detector
G-858 Cesium Vapor
Magnetometer plus Ground
Penetrating Radar
STOLS G-858 Cesium Vapor
Magnetometer Array plus EM-61
Electromagnetic Detector plus
Schiebel Electromagnetic Sensor
Array
G-858 Cesium Vapor
Magnetometer Array plus
Geophex GEM-2 Electromagnetic
Senor Array
TM-4 Cesium Vapor
Magnetometer plus EM-61
Electromagnetic Detector
Probability
of
1
Detection
85%
83%
False
Alarm
Ratio
4.68
3.96
72%
20.7
71%
3.41
65%
9.35
Notes
Full detection score given to items mapped at 2 meters or closer to correct location
Source: “Unexploded Ordnance Advanced Technology Demonstration Program at Jefferson Proving Ground (Phase
II)”, US Army Environmental Center Report SFIM-AEC-ET-CR-96170, dtd. June 1996.
E-3
***DRAFT***
JPG Phase III Demonstration Site- 1996
(Top 5)
SCA/Geometrics
Naeva
GeoCenters
Blackhawk
Geometrics
Geophex
1
Sensor
Probability
of Detection
EM-61 Electromagnetic Detector
EM-61 Electromagnetic Detector
plus Scintrex SM-4 Cesium Vapor
Magnetometer
STOLS Array of G-822 Cesium
Vapor Magnetometers plus EM-61
Electromagnetic Detectors
G-858 Cesium Vapor
Magnetometer plus EM-61
Electromagnetic Detector
GEM 3 plus G-858 Cesium Vapor
Magnetometer
96%
94%
False
Alarm
Ratio
3.06
1.94
93%
5.18
90%
3.0
77%
3.11
Notes
Full detection score given to items mapped at 2 meters or closer to correct location
Source: “Live Site Unexploded Ordnance Advanced Technology Demonstration Program”, US Army Environmental
Center Report SFIM-AEC-ET-CR-96171, dtd. June 1996.
E-4
***DRAFT***
Live Site Demonstrations - 1996
(Top 5)
Vallon – (Eglin Air
Force Base)
Array of Vallon EL1302A1
Flux-gate Magnetometers
74%
False
Alarm
Ratio
NA
Australian Defense
Industries –
(Jefferson Proving
Ground)
Dual TM-4 Cesium Vapor
Magnetometers
71%
NA
Geo-Centers
(Yuma Proving
Ground)
STOLS Array of G-822
Cesium Vapor
Magnetometers
60%
NA
Coleman (Eglin
Proving Ground)
Array of EM-61
Electromagnetic Detectors
plus ground penetrating
radar
55%
NA
Metratek (McChord
AFB)
Array of EM-61
Electromagnetic Detectors
plus ground penetrating
radar
30%
NA
Sensor
1
Probability of
1
Detection
Notes
Of the 47 locations that
were excavated during
validation activities, 32
contained ordnance, 3
contained non-ordnance,
and the remaining 12
contained no discernable
man-made materials.
Of the 43 locations that
were excavated during
validation activities, 1
contained ordnance, 22
contained non-ordnance,
and the remaining 20
contained no discernable
man-made materials.
Of the 40 locations that
were excavated during
validation activities, 1
contained ordnance, 2
contained non-ordnance,
and the remaining 37
contained no discernable
man-made materials.
Of the 40 locations that
were excavated during
validation activities, 31
contained ordnance, 1
contained non ordnance,
and the remaining 8
contained no
discernable man-made
materials.
Of the 40 locations that
were excavated during
validation activities, 1
contained ordnance, 2
contained non-ordnance,
and the remaining 37
contained no discernable
man-made materials.
Most firms achieved average accuracy of better than 1 meter.
Source: “UXO Technology Demonstration Program at Jefferson Proving Ground, Phase III”, US Army Environmental
Center Report SFIM-AEC-ET-CR-97011, dtd. April 1997.
E-5
***DRAFT***
Ft. McClellan Live Site - 1999
(Top 4)
Sensor
Firm A
EM-61 Electromagnetic Detector
Probability
of
1
Detection
73%
Firm B
Firm C
Firm D
EM-61 Electromagnetic Detector
EM-61 Electromagnetic Detector
EM-61 Electromagnetic Detector
69%
65%
39%
1
False
Alarm
Ratio
1.54
Notes
See note 2
1.38
6.16
3.24
See note 2
See note 2
See note 2
Full detection score given to items mapped at 1 meter or closer to correct location
2
Detectors evaluated on-site, but rejected by geophysical contractors included: G-858 cesium vapor total field
magnetometer and gradiometer, Geonics EM-61 handheld; Geonics EM-61-3D; Schonstedt GA52-CX & GA72-CV
flux-gate gradiometers; White All-Metals Detectors; Vallon All-Metals Detectors.
Source: Unpublished Source Selection Board data, US Army Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville, November
1999
Ft. Ritchie Test Plot – Nov 1999
Sensor
1
False
Alarm
Ratio
0.06
Probability
of
1
Detection
16/16 =
100%
14/16 =
88%
16/16 =
100%
15/16 =
94%
Not
Calculated
IT
EM-61 Electromagnetic Detector
IT
EM-61hh Electromagnetic Detector
IT
IT
Scintrex Smartmag Cesium Vapor
Magnetometer
Schonstedt GX52a
IT
Lobo EM hand-held metal detector
8/16 =
50%
Not
Calculated
IT
White EM hand-held metal detector
10/16 =
63%
Not
Calculated
Notes
0.68
1.44
FAR not calculated.
“Significant
numbers” of non-OE
anomalies were
reported.
FAR reported as
“less sensitive to hot
rocks than the
Schonstedt”
Instrument
“performed similarly
to the Lobo, but with
somewhat better
results”
Full detection score given to items mapped at 2 feet or closer to correct location
Source: “Fort Ritchie OE Geophysical Prove-out Results” IT Group Memorandum to US Army Engineer District,
Baltimore, 17 November 1999
E-6
***DRAFT***
All of the successful systems used at these sites consist of one or more of the following technologies
types:
•
Cesium vapor magnetometers
•
Time-domain electromagnetic metal detectors
•
Frequency-domain electromagnetic metal detectors
•
Multifrequency electromagnetic detectors
•
Flux-gate magnetometers
•
Ground-penetrating radar (GPR)
During the earlier phases of tests, many systems were fielded that attempted to “fuze” geophysical data
sets from dissimilar instruments (e.g., mag + GPR, mag + EM). However, these attempts have not been
particularly successful.
In addition, many of the systems tested consisted of “arrays” of multiple
instruments of a single type. Some of these attempts (e.g. STOLS cesium vapor mag arrays) have been
very successful and should be considered whenever terrain & vegetation do not constrain the array’s use.
When designing the ODDS for Ft. Ord, geophysical instruments representing each of the successful
technologies were considered. This was done subjectively, not as part of a formally scored matrix. The
following table summarizes the results:
E-7
***DRAFT***
GEOPHYSICAL DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES CONSIDERED FOR EVALUATION AT ODDS
Technology
Effectiveness
Cesium Vapor
Magnetometers
High:
CV Mags have been the detector
used in several highly ranked
geophysical systems.
Time-Domain
Electromagnetic
Metal Detectors
High:
TD electromagnetics have been the
detector used in several highly
ranked systems.
Frequency-Domain
Electromagnetic
Metal Detectors
Medium:
FD electromagnetics have NOT
been the primary detector in any
highly ranked systems. However,
other experience shows that they
are very good at detecting small
items. They are not good detectors
for deeply buried, single items.
They can detect non-ferrous items
undetectable by mags.
Medium:
The GEM 2/3 was a primary
detector in two highly ranked
systems. However, they were never
the highest ranked systems.
Multifrequency
electromagnetic metal
detectors
Flux-Gate
Magnetometers
Medium:
Flux-gate mags have been used as
the primary detector in some highly
ranked systems.
Ground Penetrating
Radar
Low:
Although a number of systems
utilized ground penetrating radar as
a detector, GPR was never
successful as a stand-alone system.
Implementability
Cost
Medium:
CV Mags are relatively light and
compact and can be easily used in
open areas. In areas of difficult terrain
or vegetation it is difficult to maintain a
correct navigational fix. CV mags are
widely available from a variety of
sources.
Medium:
These instruments typically utilize a
transceiver coil 1 meter square but
smaller versions are also available. It
is easy to use the instrument in open
areas but difficult to use it in areas of
difficult vegetation or terrain. The
most commonly used instrument is
widely available.
High:
Mine/coin detectors are light and
compact. They can be used in any
traversable terrain. Instruments are
widely available from a variety of
sources.
Average in
typical terrain.
Much below
average when
towed arrays can
be used.
Medium:
These instruments are relatively light
and compact and can be easily used
in open areas. In areas of difficult
terrain or vegetation it is difficult to
maintain a correct navigational fix.
Only a limited number of instruments
are available.
High:
Flux-gate mags are light and compact.
They can be used in any traversable
terrain. Instruments are widely
available from a variety of sources.
Low:
These instruments are large, bulky
and slow. They are difficult to use in
any but the easiest terrain.
Instruments are widely available from
a variety of sources.
Representative
Instruments
Geometrics G-858
Geometrics G-822
Scintrex
Notes
Digital signal should be c0registered with navigational
data for best results.
Average in
typical terrain.
Below average
when towed
arrays can be
used.
Geonics EM-61
Geonics EM-61 hh
Digital signal should be coregistered with navigational
data for best results.
Higher than
average cost in
typical terrain.
Instruments are
slow and can
detect very small
items.
ANPSS-12
White
Fisher
Garrett
The analog output is not
usually co-registered with
navigational data.
Average in
typical terrain.
GEM2
GEM 3
Digital signal should be coregistered with navigational
data for best results.
Less than
average in
typical terrain.
Schonstedt GA-52/Cx
Schonstedt 72-CX
The analog output is not
usually co-registered with
navigational data.
Much higher
than average.
Systems are
slow and
expensive.
The data output is usually
viewed in transects, not
maps.
E-8
***DRAFT***
Based analysis of the available data, and experience of the team members, it was determined that the
only currently available geophysical technologies likely to be effective at Ft. Ord are the following:
•
Cesium-Vapor Magnetometers
•
Flux-gate Magnetometers
•
Time-Domain Electromagnetic Metal Detectors
•
Multifrequency Electromagnetic Metal Detector
Some of these geophysical technologies are represented by a family of similar instruments; others are
best-represented by only one manufacturer. Based on these factors, the following specific instruments
were selected for use in the ODDS:
Technology
Cesium-Vapor Magnetometers
Flux-Gate Magnetometers
Time-Domain Electromagnetic Metal
Detectors
Multifrequency Electromagnetic Metal
Detector
Selected Instrument
Geometrics G-858
Schonstedt GA2-CX
Geonics EM-61
Geonics EM-61hh
Geophex GEM 3
Towed-arrays were not selected for use in the ODDS. All successful towed arrays use one or a
combination of the above instruments. After the initial ODDS is complete, and technology effectiveness
demonstrated, then towed arrays of successful detectors should be considered at areas of Ft. Ord
based upon implementability and cost.
E-9