NOSSAINST 8020.

15A

GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING AN

EXPLOSIVES SAFETY SUBMISSION

Ref: (a) NAVFACINST 11010.45

(b) NAVSEA OP 5, Volume 1
(c) OPNAVINST 3500.39B

Instructions for use:

This enclosure is a guideline designed to assist the responsible
project manager in preparing an ESS. Information provided in
the ESS serves as the basis for NOSSA N53 and N54 review, NOSSA
N5 endorsement, and approval by the DDESB of the proposed
munitions response action. Since Section 2 of the ESS is the
SAR, the responsible project manager should ensure the SAR has
been properly coordinated and the required concurrences received
before submitting it as part of the ESS.
Enclose with a letter or memo two printed and one electronic
copy of the final ESS and each amendment/correction and send to:
COMMANDING OFFICER
NAVAL ORDNANCE SAFETY AND SECURITY ACTIVITY
ATTN: CODE N5
23 STRAUSS AVE, BLDG D323
INDIAN HEAD, MD 20640-5555
An ESS is required for the five munitions response activity
categories: MRS investigation/characterization; NDAI/NFA; TCRA;
on-site construction support; and execution of the selected
response. Since each category requires a unique set of
information, follow the steps below to identify what information
must be included in the ESS:
1. Select the ESS Category column that corresponds most closely
to the munitions response project being proposed. If the
project involves more than one ESS category, then select all ESS
Category columns that apply.
2. Identify those rows under the ESS heading column that have a
corresponding X in the selected ESS Category column(s).
3. Supply information for each ESS heading topic identified in
the previous step. The information section that follows the
table provides guidance regarding what to include. Number the
ESS using the same numbering scheme as found in the table.
Addressing each identified ESS Heading topic is mandatory.
While addressing other ESS Heading topics is not mandatory,
include the non-mandatory ESS heading topic title followed by
“N/A”, meaning not applicable. Do not paginate between ESS
heading topics.

Enclosure (4)
NOSSAINST 8020.15A

ESS Category

Execution of selected
MRS investigation or

Time-critical removal

On-site construction
characterization

NDAI/NFA

response
support
action
ESS Heading
1. Background
1.1. Responsible project manager X X X X X
1.2. MRS identifier and description X X X X X
1.3. Regional map(s) X X X X X
1.4. Scope of munitions response X X X X
1.5. History of MEC use X X X X
1.6. Previous studies of extent of MEC contamination X X X X X
1.7. Regulatory statute, phase, and oversight X X X X
1.8. Justification for NDAI/NFA decision X
2. SAR
2.1. NAVFAC Form 11010/31, “Request for Project Site
X X X X
Approval”
2.2. Additional information X X X X
3. Types of MEC
3.1. Types and quantities of MEC, including MPPEH X X X X
3.2. MGFD X X X X
3.3. Explosive soil and contaminated buildings X X X X
4. Project dates
4.1. Project dates X X X X
5. MEC migration
5.1. MEC migration X X X
6. QC/QA
6.1. Quality documentation X X X X
6.2. Personnel qualifications X X X X
6.3. QC implementation X X X X
6.4. QA implementation X X X X
7. Detection techniques
7.1. Detection equipment, method, and standards X X X X
7.2. Navigational equipment, method, and standards X X X
7.3. Equipment check-out and calibration X X X X
7.4. Data collection and storage X X X
8. Response actions
8.1. Response technique X X X X
8.2. Operational risk management X X X X X
8.3. MEC hazard classification, storage, and transportation X X X X
8.4. MEC and MPPEH disposition processes X X X X
8.5. EZ access X X X X
8.6. Mechanized MEC processing operations X X X X
8.7. Explosives soil X X X X
8.8. Contaminated buildings X X X X
9. Environmental, ecological, cultural and/or other
considerations related to the management of MEC
9.1. Environmental, ecological, cultural and/or other
X X X X
considerations related to the management of MEC

2
 NOSSAINST 8020.15A

ESS Category

Execution of selected
MRS investigation or

Time-critical removal

On-site construction
characterization

NDAI/NFA

response
support
action
ESS Heading
10. Technical support
10.1. EOD, UXO contractor, or other munitions response
X X X X
personnel
10.2. Physical security X X X X
11. Residual risk management
11.1. Land use controls X X
11.2. Long-term management X X
12. Safety education program
12.1. Safety education program X X X X
13. Stakeholder involvement
13.1. Stakeholder involvement X X X
14. Contingencies
14.1. Contingencies X X X X

1. Background
1.1. Responsible project manager. Provide the name and
contact information for the responsible project
manager submitting this ESS.
1.2. MRS identifier and description. Provide the current
and/or former name(s) or other unique identifier(s)
for the MRS that is the subject of the proposed
munitions response action, including the host
installation and cognizant command. Also identify
the size of each (in acres). If the MRS is divided
into areas of concern or parcels, identify those as
well. Indicate the status of the installation and
affected MRS, e.g., active installation,
transferring or transferred under Base Realignment
and Closure (BRAC), etc.
1.3. Regional map(s). Furnish a regional map or maps
depicting the location of the MRS relative to the
region and the activity or installation. Since this
is not an ESQD map (see Section 2), map scale is not
critical.
1.4. Scope of munitions response. Describe the overall
scope of the proposed actions, including
intermediate and future goals or project objectives.
Identify the current, determined, or reasonably

3
NOSSAINST 8020.15A

anticipated future land use of the MRS. If multiple

proposed actions or land uses will be occurring
within the MRS, identify their significant
differences and respective timeframes. Also include
a brief description of any construction or other
activities taking place on the MRS at the same time
as the proposed munitions response.
1.5. History of MEC use. Summarize the site history and/
or background with respect to MEC use, explaining
why MEC are known or suspected to be present in the
MRS. Cite references for information provided.
1.6. Previous studies of extent of MEC contamination.
Summarize conclusions drawn from previous reports,
studies, and/or surveys of MEC contamination. Cite
references for information provided.
1.7. Regulatory statute, phase, and oversight. Identify
the regulatory driver governing the proposed
munitions response action (e.g., CERCLA, RCRA, or
other regulation) and its phase (e.g., SI, RI,
TCRA). Identify the regulatory agency or agencies
providing oversight and any legally binding dates
for actions to occur. If the response action is not
being mandated by regulation or regulators, then so
state.
1.8. Justification for NDAI or NFA decision. Provide a
thorough justification supporting the NDAI or NFA
decision. Include a discussion regarding
stakeholder acceptance.
2. SAR
2.1. NAVFAC Form 11010/31, “Request for Project Site
Approval.” Include in this section the NAVFAC Form
11010/31 and ESQD maps required by reference (a).
For munitions responses the following information
must be shown on the ESQD maps:
2.1.1. The planned locations for MEC response-
related operations. Note: Preliminary site
work such as surveying, laying search lanes,
and detecting anomalies does not require
establishment of an ESQD arc.
2.1.2. ESQD arcs/EZs for MEC operations are
calculated using the criteria in reference
(b), Chapter 7 and 14, and are based on the
MGFD. ESQD arcs/EZs are based on
intentional and unintentional detonations

4
 NOSSAINST 8020.15A

and provide minimum separation distances for

non-essential and essential personnel,
including team separation distances, for:
2.1.2.1. Routine MEC processing operations,
including excavation, dredging,
manual screening, or vegetation
removal using hand-held equipment;
and
2.1.2.2. Mechanized MEC processing
operations, including power
screening equipment, power rakes,
shredders, and mechanized
vegetation removal equipment.
Contact NOSSA N54 to determine EZs for
complex processes (e.g., controlled burning
of contaminated facilities, use of
barricades and shielding, or any other
engineering controls designed to protect
personnel or facilities).
2.1.3. Storage location(s) and associated ESQD
arc(s) for demolition explosives and/or
recovered MEC.
2.1.4. Maximum credible event (MCE) and associated
ESQD arc(s) for explosive soil and
contaminated buildings.
2.1.5. All exposed site (ES) and potential
explosion site (PES) and their
relationships. Describe any protective
measures (such as evacuation of inhabited
buildings, blocking off public highways)
that will be used to eliminate or minimize
any exposures within the established EZ.
2.1.6. All other controlling ESQD arcs.
2.2. Additional information. In addition to providing
the ESQD arc information necessary to complete the
SAR, map or maps in not greater than 1:400 scale
must also be included that show:
2.2.1. Areas that contain or are suspected of
containing MEC that the ESS addresses.
2.2.2. Areas that were suspected of containing MEC,
but that research or site characterizations
have subsequently shown do not contain such.

5
NOSSAINST 8020.15A

2.2.3. Areas that the ESS does not address, but

that either a previous ESS has addressed or
a future ESS will address.
2.2.4. The current, determined or reasonably
anticipated future land use of the MRS that
is known or suspected to contain MEC that
the ESS addresses.
2.2.5. The ownership and land use of adjacent
properties, as appropriate.
2.2.6. Any other situation that may influence or
require consideration during the response
(e.g., over flight corridors, traffic
routes).
2.2.7. Soil sampling locations when the property
involves concentrations of explosives in the
soil that are high enough to present and
explosives hazard.
3. Types of MEC.
3.1. Types and quantities of MEC, including MPPEH.
Describe the types and quantities of MEC, including
MPPEH, present or potentially present. This should
be based on historical research, previous studies,
or from data generated during investigation and/or
characterization activities. This information
should include item-specific nomenclature and NEW.
3.2. MGFD.
3.2.1. Selecting the MGFD. Select a single MGFD
when there is a high probability that the
selected MGFD has the greatest fragmentation
distance of all MEC that are expected to be
encountered at the MRS. If, however, the
MRS history leads to a degree of uncertainty
that the selected MGFD represents the MEC
with the greatest fragmentation distance,
then identify multiple contingency MGFDs.
Include justification and cite references
for the selected MGFD and contingency MGFDs.
The following table is provided as an
example from a project that identified
contingency MGFDs:

6
 NOSSAINST 8020.15A

MGFDs EZs (ft)

Fragmentation Blast Overpressure
Operation
Description NEW Effects Effects
HFD MFD K328 K40 K24
40-mm Mk 2 0.15a 200b 1,095c 174d 21d 13d
3-in/50 cal
Excavated soil 0.74a 291e 2,133f 297d 36d 22d
Mk 27
screening
5-in/38 cal
7.25a 299b 2,207c 635d 77d 46d
Mk 35
40-mm Mk 2 25g 921h 2,207c 959g 117g 70g
3-in/50 cal
25g 921h 2,207c 959g 117g 70g
MEC treatment Mk 27
5-in/38 cal
25g 921h 2,207c 959g 117g 70g
Mk 35
Notes:
a. NEW of the item (in lbs) from OP 1664.
b. Hazard Fragment Distance (HFD) for the item from Table B-1 of DDESB TP-16.
c. Maximum Fragment Distance (MFD) or the item from Table B-1 of DDESB TP-16.
d. Reflects detonation of a single MGFD item without donor charge.
e. Hazardous Fragment Distance for up to 1 lb NEW from Table 7-9 of OP 5.
f. Maximum Fragment Distance for items up to 3 inches in diameter from Table
13-1 of OP 5.
g. Reflects detonation of multiple items and associated donor charges within
range limit (25 lbs NEW).
h. Reflects use of 3 ft of dry sand cover, from DDESB TP 15, Buried Explosion
Module (3,563 without cover).

3.2.2. Encountering MEC other than selected MGFD.

If while executing a munitions response the
UXO contractor or other munitions response
personnel encounter an MEC item that has a
greater fragmentation distance than the
selected MGFD, or the greatest of the
contingency MGFDs, if applicable, the
responsible project manager will: (1) direct
the UXO contractor or other munitions
response personnel to immediately cease
operations; and (2) submit an amended ESS to
NOSSA N5.
3.2.3. Encountering MEC with approved contingency
MGFDs. If while executing a munitions
response the UXO contractor or other
munitions response personnel encounter an
MEC item that has a greater fragmentation
distance than the selected MGFD, but less
than or equal to one of the contingency
MGFDs, the responsible project manager will:
(1) select from among the contingency MFGDs
in the approved ESS a new MGFD that has a
fragmentation distance equal to or greater

7
NOSSAINST 8020.15A

than the newly-encountered MEC item; (2)

implement the increased protection required
by the new MGFD; and (3) notify NOSSA N54 of
the change in MGFD. If the responsible
project manager wants to insert the newly-
encountered MEC between MEC already
identified as contingency MGFDs, the
responsible project manager may submit a
corrected ESS to NOSSA N54. NOSSA N54 shall
provide the responsible project manager with
EZs specifically for the new MGFD following
guidance found in DDESB Technical Paper 16
(TP 16) “Methodologies for Calculating
Primary Fragment Characteristics”. The
change in the MGFD will be documented in the
After Action Report.
3.2.4. Explosive soil and contaminated buildings.
Describe the type(s), concentration(s), and
location(s) of explosive contamination
believed to be present at the site. For
buildings, include a description of the
contaminated equipment, drains, ductwork,
sumps, etc. present.
4. Project dates.
4.1. Project dates. Provide the expected project start
date, i.e., the date that munitions response
activities that involve the placement of explosives
on a site, the intentional physical contact with
MEC, or the conduct of ground-disturbing or
intrusive activities in areas known or suspected to
contain MEC are scheduled. Indicate the potential
consequence, if any, should approval not be obtained
by the start date. Also provide the estimated date
that the project will be completed.
5. MEC migration.
5.1. MEC migration. Describe naturally occurring
phenomena (e.g., drought, flooding, erosion, frost
heave, tidal changes) that could cause the migration
or exposure of MEC, and procedures for monitoring
and managing such. Identify the frost line depth.
Describe controls for MEC left above the frost line
but below the proposed removal depth.

8
 NOSSAINST 8020.15A

6. QC/QA.
6.1. Quality documentation. Identify the documents that
address project quality, e.g., the Quality Assurance
Project Plan and the Quality Control Plan.
6.2. Personnel qualifications. For UXO technicians,
affirm that all personnel performing UXO duties meet
or exceed the requirements of DDESB TP 18 for theirs
respective jobs. For operations involving
decontamination and demolition of explosively
contaminated buildings, affirm that all employees
having actual contact with explosives (and
explosives residues) have been trained in the
identification, classification, and remediation of
the explosive hazards.
6.3. QC implementation. Describe the QC program.
Summarize the QC processes to be employed and the
standards against which the QC manager will be
evaluating (e.g., data quality objectives or
contractual and/or regulatory requirements).
Identify the pass/fail criteria for each standard
and the corrective action processes that will be
employed should the QC manager identify a failure.
6.4. QA implementation. Identify the organization or
independent contractor that will be executing
project QA and describe what they have been tasked
to perform.
7. Detection techniques. Since the detection techniques to be
employed directly impact the overall effectiveness of the
response actions and the residual explosives safety
hazards, briefly describe these techniques in this section.
7.1. Detection equipment, method, and standards.
7.1.1. Techniques and equipment types. Provide a
general description of the techniques and
equipment that will be used to detect MEC.
When describing the detection methods,
include the rationale used to select them,
e.g., best available technology based on
geology, topography, and munitions
characteristics. Address limitations and
mitigating actions, if any, e.g., equipment,
terrain, soil type.
7.1.2. Establish detection capabilities. Summarize
methods used to establish the expected
detection capabilities of the equipment

9
NOSSAINST 8020.15A

used, (e.g., geophysical prove-out (GPO),

test grid, test plots.) Identify the
performance standard, e.g., a probability of
detection (Pd) of 0.85 at a confidence level
(CL) of 90%.1 If anomaly discrimination will
be used, explain what methods will be used
to establish the expected accuracy of the
discrimination.
7.2. Navigational equipment, method, and standards.
Identify the types of navigational equipment to be
used and the methods by which they will be employed.
Include any contractual or regulatory navigational
standards that are being imposed. This information
is not required for construction support unless the
project calls for reacquisition of anomalies.
7.3. Equipment checkout and calibration. Describe daily
checkout and calibration procedures for each
critical piece of equipment (e.g., detectors,
navigational equipment, and radios.)
7.4. Data collection and storage. Summarize the various
processes that will be employed (e.g., hardware,
software and storage media) to collect, process, and
archive data amassed during the response action.
This information is not required for construction
support unless the project calls for reacquisition
of anomalies.
8. Response actions.
8.1. Response technique.
8.1.1. Provide details regarding vegetation
removal, if required. Describe the
equipment and processes to be employed.
Identify the measures to protect vegetation
removal operators from the explosive and
non-explosive hazards associated with the
operation.
8.1.2. Identify the specific munitions response
techniques being proposed (e.g., surface
removal, excavation, institutional
controls). If multiple techniques will be
employed, describe each in terms of who is
doing it, and how and when it is to be done.

1
While a Pd of 0.85 at a CL of 90% is a common contractual requirement, it is
not a Navy performance standard.

10
 NOSSAINST 8020.15A

8.1.3. Describe the processes by which MEC are

intrusively investigated and recovered.
Include a discussion of the decision tree
used to determine whether MEC are unsafe to
move, safe to move to the collection point,
or safe to ship over public highways.
8.1.4. Discuss use of approved munitions handling
equipment and how compliance with either
Chapter 10 of reference (b), or its
contractor equivalent, is to be met.
8.2. Operational risk management. Since munitions
response actions carry with them inherent risks, the
responsible project manager shall evaluate those
risks using facts, prudence, experience, judgment,
and situational awareness (reference (c)). Describe
in this section the inherent risks involved, the
hazard/risk methodology employed to assess those
risks, and the resulting risk assessment for each
response action.
8.3. MEC hazard classification, storage, and
transportation. Describe how recovered MEC will be
stored. If items are to be transported for off-site
storage or treatment, include the written
affirmation from the EOD or project UXO Safety
Officer that the items are safe to transport.
Discussions regarding the environmental requirements
and/or legal aspects related to the handling of MEC
should be presented in ESS Heading 9.
8.4. MEC and MPPEH disposition processes.
8.4.1. MEC. Briefly describe the use of a planned
or established OB/OD area to treat munitions
recovered during a munitions response. Such
areas may be an existing OB/OD range or a
new area planned for intentional
detonations.
8.4.2. MPPEH. Briefly describe the processes and
procedures for complying with paragraph 13-
15 of reference (b) in decontaminating,
inspecting, certifying, verifying, and
demilitarizing MPPEH so it may be released
to the general public as safe (5X) material.
Also describe the handling and storage of
both unsafe (3X) and safe (5X) material and
the final disposition of the safe (5X)
material.

11
NOSSAINST 8020.15A

8.5. EZ access. Describe application of the EZ access

protocol to this MRS. Include all requirements of
reference (b), paragraph 14-7.
8.6. Mechanized MEC processing operations. Describe use
of mechanized equipment. Examples of such equipment
include, but are not limited to, power screening
equipment, power rakes, and shredders. Shields or
barricades designed to defeat hazardous fragments
may be used to protect essential personnel. Shield
thickness and barricade design shall be based on the
MGFD and approved on a case-by-case basis. Contact
NOSSA N54 for specific guidance.
8.7. Explosive soil. Address methods used to reduce
explosives concentrations to a non-reactive level or
to reduce explosive hazards.
8.8. Contaminated buildings. Address methods used to
decontaminate the buildings and any installed
equipment. Summarize the decontamination plans
required by DoD 5160.65M, Joint Policies and
Procedures for Conventional Ammunition.
9. Environmental, ecological, cultural, and/or other
considerations related to the management of MEC.
9.1. Environmental, ecological, cultural, and/or other
considerations related to the management of MEC.
Address any environmental (e.g., permitting,
sampling and analysis), ecological (e.g., endangered
species), or cultural (e.g., tribal, religious, or
gathering sites) considerations that may affect the
overall munitions response effort. Additionally,
discuss any legal or relevant legal factors that may
have bearing on the proposed munitions response
actions.
10. Technical support.
10.1. EOD, UXO Contractor, or other munitions response
personnel. Summarize military EOD unit support that
may be required, as well as any memoranda or
agreement or memoranda of understanding with these
units. Summarize the technical support provided by
and the qualifications of UXO, munitions response,
and geophysical personnel.
10.2. Physical security. Identify the extent to which
Arms, Ammunition and Explosives physical security,
private security forces, and/or protective barriers
is required while munitions response actions are

12
 NOSSAINST 8020.15A

underway, both during and after duty hours. This

includes security of munitions storage facilities,
open excavations, EZs, and the job site after
operational hours.
11. Residual risk management.
11.1. Land use controls. Summarize any land use controls,
both institutional controls (e.g., state, county,
city ordinances, deed restrictions, signage) and
engineering controls (e.g., fencing, capping), to be
placed on the real property and are protective of
human health and the environment with respect to
explosives safety, consistent with the current,
determined, or reasonably anticipated future land
use of the MRS. Do not address this for munitions
response actions on an operational range.
11.2. Long-term management. Describe site management
including maintenance, monitoring, record-keeping,
5-year reviews, etc. initiated after response
objectives have been met that are intended to manage
any potential residual risks.
12. Safety education program.
12.1. Safety education program. Address methods to be
used to educate the public or receiving entity on
the hazards/risks associated with MEC that may
remain following the proposed munitions response
action.
13. Stakeholder involvement.
13.1. Stakeholder involvement. Briefly describe the
extent to which stakeholders are involved and
summarize how their concerns, if any, regarding the
explosives safety and the environmental aspects of
the munitions response are being addressed.
14. Contingencies.
14.1. Contingencies. Describe here alternative actions
that could be implemented in case of unanticipated
contingencies, e.g., where site conditions prevent
the primary approach from working efficiently or
effectively. Contingency MGFDs should be identified
in Section 3.2 of this enclosure.

13