Second Five-Year Review Reportfor
Site 4 – Old Landfill
Marine Corps Base (MCB) Quantico, Virginia
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Washington
Contract Number N62467-04-D-0055 Contract Task Order 480
March 2008
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION III
1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029
Colonel, Charles A. Dallachie Commander, Marine Corps Base 3250 Catlin Avenue Quantico, VA 22134-5001
Re: Second Five-Year Review Report for Site 4 - Old Landfill Marine Corps Base (MCB) Quantico, Virginia
Dear Colonel Dallachie:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III has reviewed the report entitled "Second Five-Year Review Report for Site 4 - Old Landfill". The report was prepared to address the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 121 (c) five-year review requirements. EPA has reviewed this five-year review report and has determined that it adheres to the OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P, Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance (EPA, June 2001). EPA concurs with the Navy's determination that with the completion of the required actions listed below, the remedies in place are protective of human health and the environment.
• Any depression/ruts where ponding would occur will be filled to the appropriate contours and seeded.
• The erosional channels behind the revetment and in the southern portion of the landfill will be filled.
• The groundhog holes will be filled. • The vegetation on the fence along the southern wetlands will be pulled and the
fence stabilized. • The phragmites in the wetlands will be eradicated via treatment with
postemergence herbicides.
o Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free. Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474
EPA's Region III would like to congratulate the Navy in preparing a report that meets the intent of EPA's Five-Year Review Guidance Document. If you have any questions, please contact Lisa M. Cunningham at (215) 814-3363.
~~fl~ 6.Je~ J. HZe/Director
Hazardous Site Cleanup Division
cc: Ms. Donna Heric, MCB Ms. Kristen Harstad, NAVFEC, Washington Mr. Steve Mihalko, VADEP
Navy Five-Year Review Signature Cover
Key Review Information
Site Identification
Site Name: Marine Corps Base (MCB) Quantico (Site 4 – Old Landfill) EPA ID: VA1170024722
Region: 3 State: VA City/County: Quantico
Site Status
NPL Status: Final
Remediation Status (under construction, operating, complete): Interim Remedy for Site 4 is operating.
Multiple Operable Units (highlight): Y N Number of Sites/OUs: 1
Construction Completion Date: October 1997 (Interim Action)
Lead Agency: Department of the Navy Fund/PRP/Federal Facility Naval Facilities Engineering CommandLead: Federal Facility Washington
Has site been put into reuse? (highlight): Y N
Review Status
Who conducted the review (EPA Region, State, Federal Agency): Naval Facilities Engineering Command Washington
Author Name: Kristen Harstad Author Title: Remedial Project Manager
Author Affiliation: Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Washington
Review Period: November 2007 Date(s) of Site Inspection: November 2007
Highlight: Statutory Policy Type (name): Review Number (1, 2, etc) Policy 1. Pre-SARA
2. Ongoing 2 3. Removal Only 4. Regional Discretion
Triggering Action Event: Initiation of the interim remedial action for Site 4 - Old Landfill: Completion of First Five-Year Review
Trigger Action Date: May 1996 Interim ROD; March 2003 Five Year Review
Due Date: March 2008
This five-year review only applies to the interim remedial action implemented at Site 4 – Old Landfill.
Issues:
� Six small depressions where water may pond were noted on the surface of the landfill. Four are on the northern portion of the landfill and two are on the southern portion of the landfill.
� Ruts from vehicles are present in a number of areas of the landfill (at lease five areas). Water may pond in these ruts.
� Numerous groundhog holes were noted in the surface of the landfill. � Several erosional channels were noted along the face of the landfill behind the shoreline revetment
(northern portion of the landfill). There is one erosional channel on the north slope of the southern portion of the landfill.
� A small section of the fence along the southern wetlands is covered with heavy vegetation and is starting to fall over.
� Although three invasive plant species were observed in the constructed wetland (phragmites, Japanese stiltgrass, and multiflora rose), the presence of phragmites only is considered to be problematic
Recommendations and Required Actions:
To verify the presence of the suspected depressions/vehicle ruts, the landfill surface should be surveyed as per the O&M Manual that is part of the Long-Term Monitoring Plan. In addition, it does not appear the two survey benchmarks have been surveyed recently. Any depression/ruts where ponding would occur will need to be filled to the appropriate contours and seeded as per the Long-Term Monitoring Plan.
The erosional channels in the face of the landfill behind the revetment and the erosional channel in the north slope of the southern portion of the landfill should be filled in.
The groundhog holes need to be evaluated to determine if the holes are active. If so, the groundhogs will need to be removed from the landfill area. Once any groundhogs are removed, the holes will need to be filled as per the Long-Term Monitoring Plan.
The vegetation on the fence along the southern wetlands will need to be removed and the fence stabilized.
The phragmites in the wetlands will need to be eradicated via treatment with postemergence herbicides. No actions are needed for the Japenese stiltgrass and multiflora rose because they are not expected to spread throughout the wetland.
Protectiveness Statement(s):
With the completion of the required actions listed above, the interim remedial action for Site 4 will be protective of human health and the environment. The remedy is functioning as intended.
This five-year review shows that the Navy is meeting the requirements of the ROD for the remedial action for Site 4.
Other Comments:
None.
Next Review:
The next five-year review of Site 4 will be completed in March 2013.
Signature of U.S. Marine Corps and Oate
CHARLES A. DALLACHIE Date " Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps Commander, Marine Corps Base, Quantico
f~~.·
\_)
REVISION 1 MARCH 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE NO.
NAVY FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SIGNATURE COVER KEY ............................................................................. i
ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................................ vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ ES-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1
2.0 SITE CHRONOLOGY......................................................................................................................2
3.0 BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................................2 3.1 Physical Characteristics .................................................................................................. 2
3.2 Land and Resource Use ................................................................................................. 3 3.3 History of Contamination................................................................................................. 4
3.4 Initial Response............................................................................................................... 4 3.5 Basis for Taking Remedial Action ................................................................................... 5
4.0 REMEDIAL ACTIONS .....................................................................................................................6 4.1 Interim Remedial Actions ................................................................................................ 6
4.1.1 Interim Remedy Selection............................................................................................... 6 4.1.2 Interim Remedy Implementation ..................................................................................... 8
4.2 Final Remedial Actions ................................................................................................... 8 4.2.1 Final Remedy Selection .................................................................................................. 8 4.2.2 Remedy Implementation ............................................................................................... 10
4.3 System Operation/Operation and Maintenance............................................................ 11
5.0 PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW ................................................................12
6.0 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS ..................................................................................................12 6.1 Administrative Components .......................................................................................... 12 6.2 Community Involvement................................................................................................ 13 6.3 Document Review ......................................................................................................... 13 6.4 Data Review.................................................................................................................. 14 6.5 Site Inspection............................................................................................................... 14 6.6 Interviews ...................................................................................................................... 15
7.0 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................16 7.1 Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? ........ 16 7.2 Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, clean-up levels, and
RAOs used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?........................................... 17 7.2.1 Changes in Standards and To Be Considers (TBCs) ................................................... 17 7.2.2 Changes in Exposure Pathways, Toxicity, and Other Contaminant Characteristics .... 17 7.3 Question C: Has any other information come to light that calls into question the
protectiveness of the remedy?...................................................................................... 18 7.4 Technical Assessment Summary.................................................................................. 18
8.0 ISSUES ......................................................................................................................................18
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS ................................................................19
100709/P iv CTO 480
REVISION 1 MARCH 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION PAGE NO.
10.0 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT ...............................................................................................20
11.0 NEXT REVIEW ..............................................................................................................................20
APPENDICES
A FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST B SITE VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS C WETLAND INSPECTION MEMORANDUM
TABLES
NUMBER
1 Chronology of Site Events 2 Issues Identified During the Second Five-Year Review 3 Description of ARARs for Selected Remedy 4 Toxicity Data Summary
FIGURE
NUMBER
1 Site Layout 2 Results of November 1 and 2, 2007 Site Inspection
100709/P v CTO 480
REVISION 1 MARCH 2008
ACRONYMS
ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CLEAN Comprehensive Long-Term Environmental Action Navy
CNS central nervous system
COCs contaminants of concern
CSF cancer slope factor
DON Department of Navy
DRMO Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office
EE/CA Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
ERA ecological risk assessment
FFS Focused Feasibility Study
FS Feasibility Study
GI gastrointestinal
IAS Initial Assessment Study
IR Installation Restoration
IRA interim remedial action
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
LTM Long-Term Monitoring
LUCs land use controls
MCB Marine Corps Base
mg/kg milligram per kilogram
NA not available
NCEA National Center for Environmental Assessment
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NOV Notice of Violation
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
NREA Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs
O&M operation and maintenance
PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PRGs preliminary remediation goals
QPMT Quantico Project Managers Team
RAO remedial action objective
100709/P vi CTO 480
REVISION 1 MARCH 2008
RBC risk-based concentration
RD remedial design
RF&P Richmond, Fredricksburg, and Potomac
RfD reference dose
RI remedial investigation
ROD Record of Decision
RPM Remedial Project Manager
STP sewage treatment plan
SVOC semivolatile organic compound
SWMU solid waste management unit
TBC to be considered
TtNUS Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
VAC Virginia Administrative Code
VDEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
VOC volatile organic compound
WQC Water Quality Criteria
100709/P vii CTO 480
REVISION 1 MARCH 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The interim remedial action (IRA) for Installation Restoration (IR) Program Site 4 – Old Landfill at Marine
Corps Base (MCB) Quantico, Virginia, included the following:
� Excavation and off-site disposal of soil and drainage swale sediment contaminated with
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in excess of 10 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).
� Excavation and on-site disposal of landfill material and sediment from the Potomac River shoreline
adjacent to the site.
� Installation of a 23-acre permeable geotextile separation membrane and soil barrier layer over the
landfill
� Shoreline stabilization.
� Wetland mitigation.
� Institutional controls.
The construction activities associated with the interim remedy were completed in October 1997. The first
five-year review was completed in March 2003 and found the interim remedy was constructed in
accordance with the requirements of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the IRA and the interim remedy
was functioning as designed.
The ROD for the final remedy for Site 4 was signed in November 2007 by the Marine Corps and in
December 2007 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The major
components of the final remedy selected in the 2007 ROD include the following:
� IRA (completed in 1997)
� Maintenance of the site fence and soil barrier layer
� Implementation of land use controls (LUCs)
� Implementation of a monitoring program and site reviews
Although the Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) Plan that includes an Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
Manual and a Remedial Design for LUCs was finalized in January 2008, the LUCs have not been
100709/P ES-1 CTO 480
REVISION 1 MARCH 2008
implemented. Consequently, this five-year review evaluates if the interim remedy, not the final remedy, is
functioning as it should.
The trigger for the second five-year review was the completion of the first five-year review in March 2003.
The assessment of this five-year review found that the interim remedy is functioning as designed.
Although several issues were noted during the site inspection on November 1 and 2, 2007, they do not
appear to affect current protectiveness of the interim remedy. Recommendations have been made to
address the issues so that they do not affect future protectiveness of the interim remedy.
100709/P ES-2 CTO 480
1.0
REVISION 1 MARCH 2008
SITE 4 – OLD LANDFILL MARINE CORPS BASE QUANTICO, VIRGINIA
SECOND FIVE-YEAR REPORT
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Five-Year Review Report is to determine whether the interim remedy at the site is
protective of human health and the environment (LUCs, which are part of the final remedy, have not been
implemented). The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in five-year review
reports. In addition, five-year review reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and identify
recommendations to address them.
The Department of Navy (DON) is preparing this Five-Year Review Report pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) §121 and the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA §121 states:
If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial action no less often
than each five years after initiation of such remedial action to assure that human health and the
environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented. In addition, if upon
such review it is the judgment of the President that action is appropriate at such site in
accordance with section 104 or 106, the President shall take or require such action. The
President shall report to the Congress a list of facilities for which such review is required, the
results of all such reviews, and any actions taken as a result of such reviews.
The DON interpreted this requirement further in the NCP; 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
§300.430(f)(4)(ii) states:
If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the lead
agency shall review such actions no less often than every five years after the initiation of the
selected remedial action.
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Washington conducted the five-year review of the interim remedy
implemented at Site 4 – Old Landfill at the MCB in Quantico, Virginia. Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. (TtNUS)
conducted an analysis of the available information in support of the five-year review in November 2007 in
response to Contract Task Order 480 under the Comprehensive Long-Term Environmental Action Navy
100709/P 1 CTO 480
REVISION 1 MARCH 2008
(CLEAN) Contract Number N62467-04-D-0055. Representatives of TtNUS conducted a site inspection
on November 1 and 2, 2007. Representatives of the DON, MCB Quantico, and Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (VDEQ) accompanied the TtNUS representative for part of the day on
November 1, 2007. This report documents the results of the review. The Five-Year Review Site
Inspection Checklist is included as Appendix A and Site Visit Photographs are included as Appendix B.
This is the second five-year review for Site 4. The triggering action for the first statutory review was the
initiation of the IRA on May 19, 1996. The first five-year review was completed in March 2003. The
five-year review is required because hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the site
above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
2.0 SITE CHRONOLOGY
The site chronology lists all important site events and relevant dates and is shown in Table 1.
3.0 BACKGROUND
3.1 Physical Characteristics
Site 4 (Old Landfill) is a 24-acre landfill located on the banks of the Potomac River in the Mainside of
MCB Quantico (see Figure 1). The area of the Potomac River adjacent to Site 4 is known as the
Quantico Embayment. Site 4 is bounded to the north and west by industrialized portions of MCB
Quantico. The base sewage treatment plant (STP) borders the site to the north. The Richmond,
Fredricksburg, and Potomac (RF&P) railroad tracks (a subdivision of CSX Railroad), barracks, and
several offices are located along the western site boundary. The southern edge of the site is surrounded
partially by wetlands (Site 96) and the Marine Corps Airfield. The site also contains a constructed
wetland that was created in the area of an unnamed tributary to replace wetlands that were destroyed
during implementation of the IRA. There are no residential properties or areas near the site. During the
IRA, the site was significantly regraded, and all existing structures were removed. Currently, the surface
of Site 4 slopes gently from the access road near the railroad tracks to the Potomac River. The shoreline
has been covered with riprap revetment to prevent further erosion. Chain-link fencing has been installed
around the perimeter, except along the river. Based on information gathered during post-IRA activities,
the northern and western boundaries of the site were redefined when landfill waste was encountered
during construction activities near the RF&P Railroad tracks and soil removal activities at IR Program
Site 32 (Pesticide Control Building). The northern boundaries of the site overlap with the boundaries of
Site 32.
100709/P 2 CTO 480
3.2
REVISION 1 MARCH 2008
Land and Resource Use
Landfill operations at Site 4 began in the early 1920s near the RF&P railroad tracks and continued to
expand eastward until 1971. Operations at Site 4 have extended the original shoreline an additional
600 to 1,200 feet eastward to create a new river bank, consisting of artificial fill. The Defense
Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) Scrapyard [known as Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU)
L-03] and Building 669 (known as SWMU B-08) were located within the landfill area. The scrap yard was
constructed in the 1950s on the northeastern portion of Site 4 and covered an area of approximately
2.5 acres. Building 669 was located near the Potomac River and was used to store electrical
transformers until 1979. The site has been inactive since the IRA was completed in 1997.
The site is currently an open, grass-covered field. The site is currently fenced, except along the river, and
the landfill waste is contained beneath a geotextile separation membrane and soil barrier layer. The
current and future land use for the surrounding area is military.
The Potomac River is not used for domestic or agricultural uses within the vicinity of MCB Quantico;
however, it is used for recreational and commercial fishing near the base. The base has a fish advisory
posted for waters in the Quantico Embayment, which is adjacent to the site. The advisory warns against
ingesting fish and shellfish species that are caught in the Quantico Embayment. The sediments in the
Quantico Embayment adjacent to Site 4 are being addressed as Site 99 (Quantico Embayment) and a
habitat enhancement cap was recommended for the sediment in the embayment in the Site 99 Feasibility
Study (FS).
Groundwater underlying the site is currently not used as a drinking water source. Groundwater is not
expected to be a future source of drinking water because potable water at the base is provided by three
surface reservoirs (Brackenridge Reservoir, Gray’s Reservoir, and Lunga Reservoir).
The surficial aquifer beneath the site consists of river deposits (alluvium and river terrace deposits) that
overlay the Potomac Group. The river deposits consist of sand, silt, and organic clay, interlayered with
peat in the southwest portion of the site. In northern portion of the site, this material consisted of gravel,
sand, silt, and clay mixtures. A 4- to 12-foot thick clay layer was encountered at the top of the Potomac
Group, ranging from 40 to 61 feet below the ground surface. Cohesive, dense sand with silt, clay, and
gravel, also part of the Potomac Group was encountered at depths ranging from 50 to 66 feet below the
ground surface. The depth to groundwater generally varied from 3 to 20 feet below the ground surface
depending on the season and amount of precipitation. The dominant groundwater flow direction at the
site is east toward the Potomac River.
100709/P 3 CTO 480
REVISION 1 MARCH 2008
3.3 History of Contamination
Wastes reportedly disposed at Site 4 included municipal refuse, construction debris, paints and thinners,
transformers, dielectric fluids, batteries, and compressors. Wastes were burned prior to burial until the
mid-1960s. The estimated volume of fill material at Site 4 is 281,000 cubic yards. The fill material was
observed to be approximately 2 to 13 feet thick and generally thickens toward the south and east, toward
the Potomac River. Site 4 was used until 1971, when another municipal landfill was opened at the base.
Electrical transformers were stored in the eastern portion of the DRMO area and the transformer storage
area at Building 669. The transformers were reportedly opened to recover the copper wire and steel
casings. Consequently, transformer oil, possibly containing PCBs, was released onto the ground. No
information exists concerning quantities of contaminants spilled in the DRMO area in the past.
During the Initial Assessment Study (IAS) in 1984, Site 4 was recommended for further study because of
the potential impacts to groundwater and surface water. The 1988 Confirmation Study and preliminary
Remedial Investigation (RI) indicated that past operations at Site 4, the DRMO, and Building 669 have
resulted in contaminated soil, groundwater, and sediment. Soil contaminants included volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), most of which are polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides, PCBs, and metals. Groundwater contaminants were mostly metals,
with a few detections of VOCs, SVOCs, and pesticides. Sediment contaminants were mostly PAHs,
pesticides, PCBs, and metals.
VDEQ issued Notice of Violation (NOV) No. 93-06-NRO-075 on June 24, 1993. The NOV noted
discharge of contaminants to state waters without authority of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit, thereby violating water quality standards for surface water and groundwater and
causing environmental damage (i.e., PCBs were detected in fish tissue).
3.4 Initial Response
The initial responses discussed below were conducted before the IRA was implemented.
A removal action was conducted from September 1990 through December 1990 to remove PCB
contaminated soil from the DRMO Scrapyard and the adjoining Building 669. Approximately 3,800 tons
of contaminated soil, including soil from another site (Site 5 - Old Batch Plant) unrelated to Site 4, were
excavated and disposed off site.
In response to the 1993 NOV, the DON initiated immediate measures to eliminate further contaminant
migration from Site 4. Activities included installation of silt fences to prevent migration of contaminated
sediment, a blacktop area was scarified by breaking up the asphalt to make the area more permeable
100709/P 4 CTO 480
3.5
REVISION 1 MARCH 2008
and to decrease runoff, collection of surface water samples to verify that PCBs were not migrating off site,
initiation of the Focused Feasibility Study (FFS), and initiation of an ecological risk assessment (ERA) by
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS).
MCB Quantico was proposed for the National Priorities List (NPL) on May 10, 1993, and finalized on the
NPL on May 31, 1994. In July 1995, the FFS and Proposed Plan identifying the DON's preferred interim
remedy were presented to the public, starting the period for public comment.
Basis for Taking Remedial Action
Based on information collected before implementation of the IRA, hazardous substances, pollutants, and
contaminants that have been released at concentrations greater than risk-based screening levels in each
site media include:
Soil Groundwater
� PAHs � Cadmium � Benzene � 4,4’-DDE
� PCBs � Chromium � Carbon disulfide � Aluminum
� 4,4’-DDD � Cobalt � Chlorobenzene � Arsenic
� 4,4’-DDT � Copper � 1,4-Dichlorobenzene � Barium
� Dieldrin � Lead � Vinyl chloride � Beryllium
� Aluminum � Manganese � Xylenes � Cadmium
� Arsenic � Thallium � Benzo(a)pyrene � Cobalt
� Barium � Vanadium � Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether � Copper
� Beryllium � Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate � Lead
� 2,4-Dinitrotoluene � Manganese
� Hexachlorobenzene � Mercury
� Hexachloroethane � Selenium
� 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene � Thallium
� 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol � Vanadium
� alpha-Chlordane � Zinc
� 4,4’-DDD
The media of concern for the IRA were soil and drainage swale sediment, which represented the highest
risk exposure pathways for Site 4. Potential exposure to soil is associated with significant human health
risks because of exceedance of the USEPA risk management criteria for either the average or the
reasonable maximum exposure scenarios. The unacceptable risks were only associated with the
hypothetical future residential exposure scenario.
100709/P 5 CTO 480
REVISION 1 MARCH 2008
Unacceptable cancer risk from the soil contaminants was driven by PAHs, PCBs, and beryllium, with
PCBs contributing the most to risk. There were no unacceptable noncarcinogenic hazards associated
with exposure to soil. The presence of PCBs in soil and drainage swale sediment was determined to be
impacting the Quantico Embayment of the Potomac River. Once in the embayment, bioaccumulation of
PCBs could occur in aquatic receptors and pose a potential risk via human ingestion of contaminated fish.
Studies conducted after the IRA confirmed potential risks to ecological receptors and humans ingesting
fish.
Risks from exposure to groundwater were also considered in the FFS during the development of IRA
alternatives. Potential exposure to groundwater under the hypothetical future residential scenario is
associated with unacceptable carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks. Unacceptable cancer risks were
driven by benzo(a)pyrene, arsenic, and beryllium. Benzene, chlorobenzene, aluminum, arsenic, barium,
manganese, thallium, and vanadium drove the unacceptable noncancer hazards.
The IRA was followed by additional RI and FS activities for Site 4 to evaluate groundwater, surface water,
and sediment contamination. These studies have been completed and are documented in the April 2000
RI Report and the October 2005 FS Report for Site 4. Groundwater and waste discovered outside the
landfill area are addressed in the final remedy for Site 4. In addition, a Quantico Watershed Post-IRA
Study that evaluated potential impacts to the Quantico Embayment was completed in February 2004.
Surface water and sediment in the embayment are addressed in the March 2007 Site 99 (Quantico
Embayment) FS Report.
4.0 REMEDIAL ACTIONS
4.1 Interim Remedial Actions
4.1.1 Interim Remedy Selection
The ROD for the IRA for Site 4 was signed in September 1997. Remedial action objectives (RAOs) for
the IRA were developed as a result of data collected during the preliminary RI and FFS to aid in the
development and screening of remedial alternatives to be considered for the ROD. The RAOs for soil
and on-site sediment include the following:
� Minimize direct contact, inhalation, and ingestion of contaminants posing a carcinogenic risk.
� Reduce migration of contaminants to groundwater.
100709/P 6 CTO 480
REVISION 1 MARCH 2008
� Minimize migration of contaminants to the adjacent embayment.
� Comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) directly associated with
the action.
The major components of the IRA selected in the ROD include the following:
� Consolidation of existing berms, demolition and off-site disposal of scrap yard buildings, and
incorporation of scrap yard building foundations within the landfill.
� Excavation and off-site disposal of surface soil and drainage swale sediment contaminated with PCBs
in excess of 10 mg/kg.
� Excavation and on-site disposal of landfill material and sediment from the shoreline.
� Geotextile separation membrane and permeable soil barrier layer installation covering 23 acres, and
incorporation of flood control measures and shore protection.
� Shoreline stabilization
� Mitigation for wetlands destroyed or impacted by implementation of the IRA (1.8 acres impacted
versus 2.1 acres replaced), including monitoring of the replacement wetlands to ensure mitigation is
effective.
� Institutional controls, to include no breaching of the barrier layer, fencing around the entire site with
locked gates, and access restrictions from unauthorized personnel
� O&M.
� Five-year reviews as required by CERCLA.
Final use restrictions for the landfill will be addressed in the final remedy for Site 4.
100709/P 7 CTO 480
REVISION 1 MARCH 2008
4.1.2 Interim Remedy Implementation
The DON prepared the Remedial Design (RD) and implemented the IRA. The RD was completed in July
1995. Site preparation activities for the IRA began in May 1996. The IRA was completed in October
1997. The major components of the IRA were as follows:
� Four on-site buildings were demolished and the landfill surface was cleared as initial steps for
preparing the site for subsequent actions.
� A total of 4,986 tons of soil and drainage swale sediment with PCB concentrations higher than
10 mg/kg was excavated and hauled off site for disposal. Erosion of the riverbank had resulted in
exposure of waste and debris along the shoreline from the shore to approximately 50 to 60 feet into
the river. Approximately 3,500 cubic yards of waste, debris, and sediment were excavated from the
river. The excavated material, which contained less than 10 mg/kg of PCBs, was placed on the
landfill and covered by a geotextile separation membrane and a soil barrier layer.
� The landfill surface was regraded, and a layer of geotextile separation membrane was placed at the
site. The soil barrier layer, which consists of 18 inches of common fill and 6 inches of topsoil, was
placed over the geotextile layer. The area was seeded upon completion of the topsoil layer. The
shoreline was stabilized with riprap to minimize erosion.
� A wetland was created to replace wetlands that were destroyed or impacted by installation of the soil
barrier layer (wetland mitigation). A stream was graded and backfilled with planting soil, and the
planting of new replacement wetland species was accomplished.
� Approximately 3,000 feet of chain-link fence was installed around the landfill perimeter, except along
the river, to control site access. Warning signs were posted on the fence.
The remediation contractor issued the final IRA report in February 1998. The DON, USEPA, and VDEQ
have determined that all IRA construction activities were performed according to specifications.
4.2 Final Remedial Actions
4.2.1 Final Remedy Selection
The ROD for the final remedy for Site 4 was signed in November 2007 by the Marine Corps and in
December 2007 by the USEPA. RAOs for the final remedy were developed as a result of data collected
100709/P 8 CTO 480
REVISION 1 MARCH 2008
during the preliminary RI and FFS, as well as data collected during the RI, FS, and Post-IRA Study, to aid
in the development and screening of remedial alternatives to be considered for the ROD.
The RAOs for groundwater, soil, and buried waste include the following:
� Prevention of human exposure to contaminated groundwater (as long as it poses an unacceptable
risk), soil, and buried waste through ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation.
� Minimization of the erosion of contaminated soil into the Quantico Embayment.
� Monitoring the potential migration of contaminated groundwater to the Quantico Embayment.
Preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) have not been established for soil/buried waste at Site 4 because
direct contact with this material has been eliminated/reduced through the implementation of the IRA.
Waste found outside the existing fence has either been removed or is covered with a geotextile
separation membrane and at least 2 feet of soil (which minimizes direct contact with the waste). Health
and-safety based restrictions are needed to protect the health and safety of the workers who would
engage in excavations in areas where waste is located outside the existing fence.
Groundwater PRGs based on protection of human and ecological receptors exposed to surface water,
sediment, and fish in the Quantico Embayment are currently being developed as part of a LTM Plan for
groundwater. The draft LTM Plan was submitted in July 2006. Although PRGs for groundwater were
presented in the FS Report, these values were set at the maximum detected groundwater concentration
for each detected chemical. Risk-based PRGs were developed in the LTM Plan such that the on-site
concentrations would not pose unacceptable risks if the contaminants migrate to the Quantico
Embayment.
USEPA does not require restoration of groundwater in areas where waste is left in place. Chemical
concentrations in the groundwater may reach levels that would allow for unrestricted use over time
because of natural processes. Unrestricted use of groundwater would be attained when concentrations
of chemicals meet acceptable levels based on drinking water standards and health advisories, state
groundwater standards, risk-based concentrations (RBCs), and upgradient (not site-related)
concentrations. Until groundwater concentrations meet these acceptable levels, restrictions would be
required on the use of the groundwater.
The major components of the final remedy selected in the 2007 ROD include the following:
� IRA (completed in 1997)
� Maintenance of the site fence and soil barrier layer
100709/P 9 CTO 480
REVISION 1 MARCH 2008
� Implementation of LUCs
� Implementation of a monitoring program and site reviews
4.2.2 Remedy Implementation
An O&M Manual was included as Appendix D of the LTM Plan that was finalized in January 2008.
Maintenance of the landfill cover (soil barrier layer), groundwater monitoring wells, shoreline revetment,
and site fencing will consist of annual inspection and repairs, as necessary, if the integrity of any of the
components of the remedy have been compromised. In addition, the areas where wastes have been
noted outside of the existing fence will also be inspected to verify that the 2-foot layer of soil over the
waste has not been disturbed. Mowing of the landfill cover will occur twice a year. Inspection of the
constructed wetlands will occur once every five years. All inspections may occur episodically, if weather
conditions warrant. In addition, periodic surveys of the landfill surface will be performed to provide a
quantitative measure of settlement of the landfill.
As long as the MCB Quantico uses the land near Site 4 as an airfield, land use will be limited because the
majority of Site 4 lies within the “clear zone” of the air field. The placement of structures, buildings, and
above-ground utility lines in a “clear zone” is typically prohibited. Site 4 is expected to remain under the
control of MCB Quantico for the foreseeable future and is unlikely to be released to the public. DON will
be responsible for implementing, maintaining, reporting on, and enforcing the LUCs.
An RD for LUCs for Site 4 is included as Appendix E of the LTM Plan and was prepared to meet the
following objectives:
� No residential use.
� No use/access to shallow groundwater, except for environmental sampling.
� All other uses of groundwater require DON approval. The acceptability of such use will be evaluated
based on the chemical concentrations present in the groundwater at the time of such use and
whether such use would permanently damage the barrier layer at the site.
� Prevention of any activities that may disturb the barrier layer, the shoreline erosion controls, or fence.
� Maintain the integrity of any current or future remedial or monitoring system.
Once implemented, these LUCs related to groundwater use/access will be maintained until the
concentrations of hazardous substances in the groundwater are at such levels as to allow for unrestricted
use and exposure.
100709/P 10 CTO 480
4.3
REVISION 1 MARCH 2008
The DON will obtain approval from USEPA and VDEQ prior to the conductance of any construction
activities at Site 4.
Monitoring of groundwater will be conducted in accordance with the final LTM Plan that was finalized in
January 2008. Monitoring will be conducted to confirm that contaminants are not present at
concentrations that may pose a threat to the human and ecological receptors in the Quantico
Embayment. The LTM Plan to be implemented as part of the Selected Remedy was developed with
USEPA and VDEQ concurrence and details the frequency, media type, analysis, and locations of the
LTM samples and the risk-based PRGs for groundwater.
At least every 5 years, a site review will be conducted to evaluate the analytical data, evaluate the site
status (i.e., current use and plans for future use) and regulations in effect at the time of the review, and
provide future direction as necessary. Site reviews are required because the Selected Remedy allows
contaminants to remain at concentrations that do not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
The site review will document whether the remedy continues to be protective of human health and the
environment, and if not, what further actions need to be taken.
System Operation/Operation and Maintenance
The ROD for the final remedy states that O&M will include maintenance of the barrier layer, groundwater
monitoring wells, shoreline revetment, and site fencing and will consist of annual inspections and repairs,
as necessary, if the integrity of any of the components have been compromised. O&M for the IRA was to
include, at a minimum, the following items: performance standards to assure integrity of the barrier layer,
erosion control, wetland monitoring, and inspection and maintenance, as applicable.
MCB Quantico conducted inspection and maintenance activities according to the O&M Manual developed
as a result of the IRA and dated November 30, 1997. The primary inspection and maintenance activities
associated with O&M included the following:
� Site security, condition of gates, evidence of trespassing, evidence of vandalism, and condition of
warning signs.
� Condition of landfill cover, including erosion, ponded water, burrowing animal damage, and vegetative
cover.
� Condition of constructed wetland.
100709/P 11 CTO 480
REVISION 1 MARCH 2008
� Condition of monitoring wells.
� Mowing and maintenance, as needed.
The primary cleanup of Site 4 took place during the construction phase of the IRA (i.e., removal of
contaminated soil and sediment and placement of geotextile separation membrane and soil barrier layer).
Therefore, as indicated in the planned elements above, the primary O&M activities have been geared
towards inspections and maintenance of the fence, landfill cover, and constructed wetland.
The LTM Plan finalized in January 2008 will replace the Maintenance Manual dated November 30, 1997.
The LTM Plan will assess and maintain the effectiveness of the final remedy at Site 4 and provides the
performance specifications for maintaining and monitoring the remedy.
5.0 PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
The invasive plant species phragmites, identified as being present in the constructed wetlands during the
site inspection for the first five-year review, were partially treated with herbicides based on the
recommendations in the First Five-Year Review Report.
Additional evaluations of Site 4 (FS for Site 4) and adjoining sediment (Quantico Watershed Study Post-
IRA Study and FS for Site 99, Quantico Embayment) were completed.
Additional waste encountered during soil removal activities at IR Program Site 32 was removed.
The ROD for the final remedy at Site 4 was signed in November 2007 by the Marine Corps and in
December 2007 by the USEPA.
6.0 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
6.1 Administrative Components
The USEPA and Virginia DEQ were notified of the initiation of the second five-year review on October 17,
2007. The Site 4 five-year review team was led by Kristen Harstad, the Remedial Project Manager (RPM)
for the DON. TtNUS assisted in the review under contract to the DON. Donna Heric of MCB Quantico
assisted in the review as the representative of the base. Lisa Cunningham, the USEPA RPM, and Steve
Mihalko, the VDEQ RPM, assisted in the review as the representatives of the support agencies.
100709/P 12 CTO 480
REVISION 1 MARCH 2008
Early in November 2007, the review team established the review schedule whose components included
the following:
� Community involvement
� Document review
� Data review
� Site inspection
� Five-Year Review Report development and review
The schedule extended through the end of March 2008.
6.2 Community Involvement
A notice was sent to three local newspapers that the second five-year review was to be conducted. The
notice announced that the results of the five-year review would be available to the public at the Chinn
Park Regional Library, John Porter Memorial Library, and Marine Corps Research Center.
6.3 Document Review
The five-year review consisted of a review of relevant documents including O&M records and monitoring
data. The documents reviewed include the following:
� RI/Risk Assessment Report, Old Landfill, November 1992
� FFS Report for Old Landfill, April 1995
� ROD for Old Landfill - Site 4, Interim Remedial Action, September 1997
� Maintenance Manual, Site 4 - Old Landfill, November 1997
� Final Report, IRA, Site 4 - Old Landfill, February 1998
� RI for Site 4 - Old Landfill, April 2000
� Survey Report, Quantico Watershed Study, Rapid Sediment Analysis Pilot Study, November, 2001
� Site Inspection Checklists, Site 4 - Old Landfill, December 1997 to December 2001
� Quantico Watershed Study Post-IRA Study Report, February 2004
� FS for Site 4 - Old Landfill, October 2005
� ROD for Old Landfill - Site 4, October 2007
� LTM Plan, Site 4 - Old Landfill, January 2008
100709/P 13 CTO 480
REVISION 1 MARCH 2008
6.4 Data Review
No additional groundwater or sediment data have been collected since the first five-year review was
conducted. Consequently the data review presented in the First Five-Year Review Report presents the
most recent data collected at Site 4.
No distinguishable groundwater plumes were evident from the data collected prior to the IRA. Data
collected after the IRA supports this conclusion.
Evaluations of the past and present impacts of Site 4 on the Quantico Embayment were presented in the
Quantico Watershed Post-IRA Study and the Final FS for Site 4.
6.5 Site Inspection
An inspection of the site was conducted on November 1 and 2, 2007 by representatives of TtNUS,
including a wetland specialist. Representatives of the DON, MCB Quantico, and VDEQ participated in a
portion of the site inspection on November 1, 2007. The purpose of the inspection was to assess the
protectiveness of the interim remedy, including the presence of fencing to restrict access, the integrity of
the soil barrier layer and shoreline protection, and the condition of the constructed wetland. Photographs
taken during the site inspection are included in Appendix A.
The following issues regarding the soil barrier layer, shoreline protection, and fence were noted during the
site inspection on November 1 and 2, 2007.
� Six small depressions where water may pond were noted on the surface of the landfill. Four are on
the northern portion of the landfill and two are on the southern portion of the landfill. The locations of
these depressions were flagged in the field and the approximate locations are shown on Figure 2.
� Ruts from vehicles are present in a number of areas of the landfill (at least five areas). Water may
pond in these ruts. The approximate locations of the ruts are shown on Figure 2.
� Numerous groundhog holes were noted in the surface of the landfill. The locations were flagged in
the field.
� Several erosional channels were noted along the face of the landfill behind the shoreline revetment
(northern portion of the landfill). There is one erosional channel on the north slope of the southern
portion of the landfill (approximate location shown on Figure 2). None of the erosional channels are
100709/P 14 CTO 480
REVISION 1 MARCH 2008
deep enough to impact the barrier layer, but if left unchecked, erosion of the cover soil may continue
and eventually impact the barrier layer.
� A small section of the fence along the southern wetlands is covered with heavy vegetation and is
starting to fall over. The location of this section of fence is noted on Figure 2.
No significant issues were identified during the site visit regarding the constructed wetland. The
vegetation planted during the IRA is healthy and dense. Some trees have emerged naturally. The only
issue that was noted during the site visit was the presence of three types of invasive plant species. MCB
Quantico personnel were notified of this issue and will apply a herbicide to the phragmites to
eliminate/control this invasive species (the other two invasive plant species were not expected to spread).
The wetland inspection report is included in Appendix C.
The overall condition of the soil barrier layer, shoreline protection, fence, and constructed wetland are
good. By conducting repairs associated with the issues noted above, the interim remedy at Site 4 will
continue to be protective of human health and the environment.
The institutional controls that have been put in place by MCB Quantico as part of the IRA include
restrictions on breaching of the barrier layer, access from unauthorized personnel, and any other activities
or actions that might interfere with the implemented remedy. No intrusive development of the landfill is
allowed. During the site visit, no activities were observed that would have violated the institutional
controls. The soil barrier layer was undisturbed (with the exceptions noted above), and no uses of
groundwater were observed.
The casings/pads for several of the monitoring wells appear to be cracked or damaged (see photographs
in Appendix B). Although the conditions of the monitoring wells do not affect the potential for release of
contamination from the site, the conditions of the monitoring wells will need to be evaluated as part of the
implementation of the LTM Plan.
Table 2 summarizes the issues noted during the site inspection, identifies whether the issues affect
protectiveness, and provides the corrective action that will be taken to address the issues. Milestone
dates for the corrective actions also are included.
6.6 Interviews
Three phone interviews were conducted as part of this five-year review. Mr. Dave Crosley, STP
Superintendent, was contacted and he indicated that he was not aware of any problems or concerns
100709/P 15 CTO 480
REVISION 1 MARCH 2008
related to the current site conditions at Site 4. He was aware of the access restrictions to Site 4 and
indicated that the restrictions were not a hindrance to the operation of the STP.
Mr. Martin Scott, Turner Airfield Environmental Coordinator, was contacted and he also indicated that he
was not aware of any problems or concerns related to the current site conditions at Site 4. He indicated
that he was very happy with the outcome.
Mr. Albert Gasser, Mayor of the Town of Quantico, was contacted and he indicated that he was aware of
the Old Landfill (drives by it everyday) and had no concerns regarding the measures taken there.
7.0 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
7.1 Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
The review of documents, ARARs, risk assumptions, and the results of the site inspection indicates that
the interim remedy is functioning as intended by the ROD, if the issues noted during the site inspection
are corrected. The removal of contaminated soil and drainage swale sediment, the removal of waste and
sediment from the Quantico Embayment, and the installation of the geotextile separation membrane and
soil barrier layer have achieved the RAOs to prevent direct contact, inhalation, and ingestion of soil and
sediment contaminants, reduce migration of contaminants to groundwater, and minimize migration of
contaminants to the adjacent embayment. The effective implementation of IRA institutional controls has
also helped to achieve the RAO to prevent direct contact, inhalation, and ingestion of soil and sediment
contaminants.
Informal inspections of the site were conducted between 1997 and 2005 by the MCB Quantico Natural
Resources and Environmental Affairs (NREA) Branch.
Inspection and maintenance of the site security controls and soil barrier layer have, on the whole, been
effective. Areas needing repair were noted on the site inspection checklists along with the status of the
repair. No formal inspections have been conducted since the completion of the inspection for the first
five-year review was completed in September 2002. With the exception of the issues noted above, there
are no indications of any difficulties with the final remedy.
The maintenance and survival of the constructed wetland has been good. A few clumps of several
invasive species were observed in the wetland. However, this does not affect the potential release of
contaminants from the site and does not affect protectiveness of the final remedy.
100709/P 16 CTO 480
REVISION 1 MARCH 2008
There were no opportunities to improve the performance and/or reduce costs of monitoring, sampling,
and treatment systems because these activities were not part of the IRA and the LTM of the landfill has
not started.
The institutional controls that are in place for the IRA include restrictions on breaching of the barrier layer,
access restrictions from unauthorized personnel, and any other activities or actions that might interfere
with the implemented remedy. No invasive development of the landfill is allowed. No activities were
observed that would have violated the institutional controls. The soil barrier layer is generally undisturbed
with the exception of the issues noted. The fence around the site is intact and in good repair with the
exception of the short section of fence along the southern wetlands.
7.2 Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, clean-up levels, and RAOs used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
There have been no changes in the physical conditions of the site that would affect the protectiveness of
the remedy.
7.2.1 Changes in Standards and To Be Considers (TBCs)
Since the remedial work has been completed, all ARARs for PCB-contaminated soil, wetlands, and
floodplains cited in the IRA ROD were met. A list of ARARs from the final ROD is included in Table 3.
There have been no changes in these ARARs and no new standards or to be considered (TBCs) that
would affect the protectiveness of the remedy.
7.2.2 Changes in Exposure Pathways, Toxicity, and Other Contaminant Characteristics
The exposure assumptions used to develop the human health risk assessment for Site 4 included both
current exposures (adult trespasser and construction worker) and potential future exposures (hypothetical
adult and child residents). The risk assessment also included exposure of an adult recreational user that
ingests fish; however, this route of exposure is not applicable to the interim remedy at Site 4.
Changes in toxicity factors for soil contaminants of concern (COCs) were not evaluated for this five-year
review because the only contaminant-specific remediation goal for soil was for PCBs. The remediation
goal for PCBs in soil (10 mg/kg) is based on a concentration obtained from USEPA guidance and is still
applicable.
Changes in toxicity factors for groundwater COCs were evaluated for this five-year review. The toxicity
factors used in the risk assessment in the RI prepared in April 2000 and the current values are shown in
100709/P 17 CTO 480
REVISION 1 MARCH 2008
Table 4. Although the risks associated with individual COCs will fluctuate slightly, the overall risks
associated with the COCs will not change substantially and the changes in toxicity factors do not affect
the protectiveness of the interim remedy.
The standardized risk assessment methodology has not changed significantly since the risk assessment
associated with the April 2000 RI was completed. Consequently, any changes in the risk assessment
methodology would not affect the protectiveness of the interim remedy.
7.3 Question C: Has any other information come to light that calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy?
There is no other information that calls into question the protectiveness of the interim remedy. No on-site
ecological targets were evaluated during the baseline risk assessment conducted, and none were
identified during the five-year review. Therefore, monitoring of on-site ecological targets is not necessary.
The site as a continuing source area (i.e., the potential for current migration of contaminants) was
evaluated in the FS for the final remedy for Site 4. Historical migration of contaminants was addressed in
the Quantico Watershed Post-IRA Study Report completed in February 2004 and the March 2007 Site 99
(Quantico Embayment) FS Report. An RD is currently being prepared for the Quantico Embayment.
Additionally, no weather-related events have affected the protectiveness of the remedy.
7.4 Technical Assessment Summary
According to the data reviewed and the site inspection, the remedy is functioning as intended by the
interim ROD. There have been no changes in the physical conditions of the site that would affect the
protectiveness of the remedy. All ARARs for soil contamination cited in the interim ROD have been met.
A review of changes in toxicity factors or risk assessment methodology indicated that the changes would
not affect the protectiveness of the remedy.
8.0 ISSUES
As noted above in Section 6.5, the following issues regarding the soil barrier layer, shoreline protection,
and fence were noted during the site inspection on November 1 and 2, 2007.
� Small depressions where water may pond were noted on the surface of the landfill.
� Ruts from vehicles are present in a number of areas of the landfill (at least five areas). Water may
pond in these ruts.
100709/P 18 CTO 480
9.0
REVISION 1 MARCH 2008
� Numerous groundhog holes were noted in the surface of the landfill.
� Several erosional channels were noted along the face of the landfill behind the shoreline revetment
(northern portion of the landfill).
� A small section of the fence along the southern wetlands is covered with heavy vegetation and is
starting to fall over.
In addition, three invasive plant species were observed in the constructed wetland (phragmites, Japanese
stiltgrass, and multiflora rose). The presence of these invasive species does not affect the potential
release of contamination from the site and does not affect current or future protectiveness of the interim
remedy. Several monitoring wells appeared to be in a state of disrepair and the conditions of the
monitoring wells will need to be evaluated as port of the implementation of the LTM Plan. However, the
current conditions of the monitoring wells do not affect the potential release of contamination from the
site.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS
To verify the presence of the suspected depressions/vehicle ruts, the landfill surface should be surveyed
as per the O&M Manual that is part of the LTM Plan. In addition, it does not appear the two survey
benchmarks have been surveyed recently. Any depression/ruts where ponding would occur will need to
be filled to the appropriate contours and seeded as per the LTM Plan.
The erosional channels in the face of the landfill behind the revetment and the erosional channel in the
north slope of the southern portion of the landfill should be filled in and seeded as per the LTM Plan.
The groundhog holes need to be evaluated to determine if the holes are active. If so, the groundhogs will
need to be removed from the landfill area. Once any groundhogs are removed, the holes will need to be
filled as per the LTM Plan.
The vegetation on the fence along the southern wetlands will need to be removed and the fence
stabilized.
The phragmites in the wetlands should be treated with postemergence herbicides.
The DON and MCB Quantico will be responsible for any follow-up actions associated with the issues
identified above.
100709/P 19 CTO 480
REVISION 1 MARCH 2008
10.0 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT
The interim remedy for Site 4 is protective of human health and the environment and is functioning as
intended. Changes in the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, clean-up levels, and RAOs used at the
time of the remedy selection do not affect the protectiveness of the interim remedy. No other information
has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the interim remedy.
11.0 NEXT REVIEW
The next five-year review for Site 4 is required by March 2013, five years from the date of this review.
100709/P 20 CTO 480
TABLE 1
CHRONOLOGY OF SITE EVENTS SITE 4 – OLD LANDFILL
MCB QUANTICO, VIRGINIA PAGE 1 OF 2
Event Date Landfill operations Early 1920s - 1971 Landfill surface used by DRMO for storage of waste fuels and solvents, electrical transformers, and out of service military vehicles
1950s - 1979
Rupture of pipeline adjacent near the landfill spilled approximately 100,000 gallons of diesel fuel onto the landfill
June 1980
IAS (equivalent to a preliminary assessment) 1984 Confirmation Study (equivalent to a site inspection) 1988 Removal action for soil contaminated with PCBs from DRMO activities 1990 Preliminary RI 1991 VDEQ issues NOV for discharging contaminants without a NPDES permit June 1993 USFWS conducts ecological risk assessment 1993 to 1999 Final listing on USEPA National Priority List May 1994 EE/CA and FFS for IRA 1994 to 1995 FFS and Proposed Plan released to the public; start of public comment period July 1995 RD completed July 1995 IRA activities – sediment removed from drainage channel, sediment and waste material removed from Quantico Embayment, DRMO structures and surface debris removed, soil barrier layer installed over landfill, shoreline protection installed, wetlands concentration in southern portion of the site
May 1996 to October 1997
ROD for the IRA is signed September 1997 Final Report - IRA February 1998 Additional waste material found west of landfill boundary 1998 RI to support final remedial action 1997 to 1999 Federal Facility Agreement signed February 1999 FS to support final remedial action 2000 to 2005 Sampling to support Rapid Sediment Analysis Pilot Study for Quantico Embayment
October 2001
Survey Report for Rapid Sediment Analysis Pilot Study November 2001 Post-IRA Study Work Plan June 2002 Quantico Watershed Study Post-IRA Study September 2002 First Five-Year Review Report March 2003 Quantico Watershed Study Post-IRA Study Report February 2004 Additional waste material found north of Epperson Avenue during CERCLA non-time-critical removal action at IR Program Site 32; waste was removed and disposed of and area was restored
July 2005
Site 99 (Quantico Embayment) FS March 2007 Proposed Plan for final action released to the public; start of public comment period
March 2007
TABLE 1
CHRONOLOGY OF SITE EVENTS SITE 4 – OLD LANDFILL
MCB QUANTICO, VIRGINIA PAGE 2 OF 2
Event Date ROD for final action is signed November 2007
(Marine Corps) December 2007
(USEPA) LTM Plan for Site 4 - Old Landfill January 2008
Abbreviations:
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act DRMO Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office EE/CA Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis FFS Focused Feasibility Study FS Feasibility Study IAS Initial Assessment Study IRA interim remedial action LTM Long-Term Monitoring NOV Notice of Violation NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System PCB polychlorinated biphenyl RD Remedial Design RI remedial investigation ROD Record of Decision USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VDEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
TAB
LE 2
ISSU
ES ID
ENTI
FIED
DU
RIN
G T
HE
SEC
ON
D F
IVE-
YEA
R R
EVIE
W
SITE
4 –
OLD
LA
ND
FILL
M
CB
QU
AN
TIC
O, V
IRG
INIA
Issu
e A
ffect
s Pr
otec
tiven
ess
Cor
rect
ive
Act
ion
to
Add
ress
Issu
e M
ilest
one
Dat
eC
urre
nt
Futu
re
Six
sm
all d
epre
ssio
ns w
here
wat
er m
ay p
ond
wer
e no
ted
on th
e su
rface
of t
he la
ndfil
l. F
our a
re
on th
e no
rther
n po
rtion
of t
he la
ndfil
l and
two
are
on th
e so
uthe
rn p
ortio
n of
the
land
fill.
N
Y
To v
erify
the
pres
ence
of t
he s
uspe
cted
de
pres
sion
s/ve
hicl
e ru
ts, t
he la
ndfil
l sur
face
sh
ould
be
surv
eyed
as
per t
he O
&M
Man
ual t
hat
is p
art o
f the
Lon
g-Te
rm M
onito
ring
Pla
n. I
n ad
ditio
n, it
doe
s no
t app
ear t
he tw
o su
rvey
be
nchm
arks
hav
e be
en s
urve
yed
rece
ntly
. A
ny
depr
essi
on/ru
ts w
here
pon
ding
wou
ld o
ccur
will
ne
ed to
be
fille
d to
the
appr
opria
te c
onto
urs
and
seed
ed a
s pe
r the
Lon
g-Te
rm M
onito
ring
Pla
n.
Nov
embe
r 20
08R
uts
from
veh
icle
s ar
e pr
esen
t in
a nu
mbe
r of
area
s of
the
land
fill (
at le
ase
five
area
s).
Wat
er
may
pon
d in
thes
e ru
ts.
N
Y
Num
erou
s gr
ound
hog
hole
s w
ere
note
d in
the
surfa
ce o
f the
land
fill.
N
Y
The
grou
ndho
g ho
les
need
to b
e ev
alua
ted
to
dete
rmin
e if
the
hole
s ar
e ac
tive.
If s
o, th
e gr
ound
hogs
will
need
to b
e re
mov
ed fr
om th
e la
ndfil
l are
a. O
nce
any
grou
ndho
gs a
re
rem
oved
, the
hol
es w
ill ne
ed to
be
fille
d as
per
th
e Lo
ng-T
erm
Mon
itorin
g P
lan.
Nov
embe
r 20
08
Sev
eral
ero
sion
al c
hann
els
wer
e no
ted
alon
g th
e fa
ce o
f the
land
fill b
ehin
d th
e sh
orel
ine
reve
tmen
t (n
orth
ern
porti
on o
f the
land
fill).
The
re is
one
er
osio
nal c
hann
el o
n th
e no
rth s
lope
of t
he
sout
hern
por
tion
of th
e la
ndfil
l.
N
Y
The
eros
iona
l cha
nnel
s in
the
face
of
the
land
fill b
ehin
d th
e re
vetm
ent a
nd th
e er
osio
nal c
hann
el in
the
north
slo
pe o
f th
e so
uthe
rn p
ortio
n of
the
land
fill
shou
ld b
e fil
led
in.
Nov
embe
r 20
08
A s
mal
l sec
tion
of th
e fe
nce
alon
g th
e so
uthe
rn
wet
land
s is
cov
ered
with
hea
vy v
eget
atio
n an
d is
st
artin
g to
fall
over
.
N
Y
The
vege
tatio
n on
the
fenc
e al
ong
the
sout
hern
w
etla
nds
will
need
to b
e re
mov
ed a
nd th
e fe
nce
stab
ilized
.
Nov
embe
r 20
08
Alth
ough
thre
e in
vasi
ve p
lant
spe
cies
wer
e ob
serv
ed in
the
cons
truct
ed w
etla
nd (p
hrag
mite
s,
Japa
nese
stil
tgra
ss, a
nd m
ultif
lora
rose
), th
e pr
esen
ce o
f phr
agm
ites
only
is c
onsi
dere
d to
be
prob
lem
atic
.
N
N
The
phra
gmite
s in
the
wet
land
s w
ill n
eed
to b
e er
adic
ated
via
trea
tmen
t with
pos
tem
erge
nce
herb
icid
es.
Nov
embe
r 20
08
TAB
LE 3
DES
CR
IPTI
ON
OF
AR
AR
s FO
R S
ELEC
TED
REM
EDY
SI
TE 4
– O
LD L
AN
DFI
LL
MC
B Q
UA
NTI
CO
, VIR
GIN
IA
Aut
horit
y M
ediu
m
Req
uire
men
t St
atus
Sy
nops
is o
f Req
uire
men
t A
ctio
n to
be
Take
n to
Atta
in
Req
uire
men
t C
hem
ical
-Spe
cific
Fe
dera
l R
egul
ator
y R
equi
rem
ent
Gro
undw
ater
A
mbi
ent W
QC
(4
0 C
FR 1
31.3
6)
Rel
evan
t and
A
ppro
pria
te
Thes
e re
gula
tions
est
ablis
h co
ncen
tratio
n lim
its fo
r pr
otec
tion
of s
urfa
ce w
ater
.
Dev
elop
men
t of P
RG
s w
ill co
nsid
er a
ttain
men
t of a
mbi
ent
wat
er q
ualit
y cr
iteria
for s
urfa
ce
wat
er in
the
Qua
ntic
o E
mba
ymen
t. S
tate
R
egul
ator
y R
equi
rem
ent
Gro
undw
ater
V
irgin
ia W
ater
Qua
lity
Sta
ndar
ds
(9 V
AC
25-
260-
140)
App
licab
le
Thes
e re
gula
tions
est
ablis
h co
ncen
tratio
n lim
its fo
r pr
otec
tion
of s
urfa
ce w
ater
.
Dev
elop
men
t of P
RG
s w
ill co
nsid
er a
ttain
men
t of w
ater
qu
ality
sta
ndar
ds fo
r sur
face
w
ater
in th
e Q
uant
ico
Em
baym
ent.
Act
ion-
Spec
ific
Sta
te
Reg
ulat
ory
Req
uire
men
t
Sol
id W
aste
(L
andf
illed
M
ater
ial)
Virg
inia
Reg
ulat
ions
for
San
itary
Lan
dfills
(9
VA
C 2
0-80
-250
D a
nd
9 V
AC
20-
80-2
50 F
)
Rel
evan
t and
A
ppro
pria
te
Thes
e re
gula
tions
est
ablis
h st
anda
rds
for s
anita
ry la
ndfil
ls.
The
regu
latio
ns in
clud
e gr
ound
wat
er m
onito
ring
and
post
-clo
sure
car
e re
quire
men
ts.
Gro
undw
ater
mon
itorin
g an
d m
aint
enan
ce o
f the
soi
l bar
rier
laye
r mee
t the
mon
itorin
g an
d po
st-c
losu
re re
quire
men
ts.
Not
es:
Ther
e ar
e no
loca
tion-
spec
ific
AR
AR
s as
soci
ated
with
the
Sel
ecte
d R
emed
y. R
efer
to th
e FS
Rep
ort f
or A
RA
Rs
for o
ther
alte
rnat
ives
.
Abb
revi
atio
ns:
AR
AR
ap
plic
able
or r
elev
ant a
nd a
ppro
pria
te re
quire
men
t C
FR
Cod
e of
Fed
eral
Reg
ulat
ions
FS
Fe
asib
ility
Stu
dy
P
RG
s pr
elim
inar
y re
med
iatio
n go
als
V
AC
V
irgin
ia A
dmin
istra
tive
Cod
e
WQ
C
Wat
er Q
ualit
y C
riter
ia
TAB
LE 4
TOXI
CIT
Y D
ATA
SU
MM
AR
Y
SITE
4 –
OLD
LA
ND
FILL
M
CB
QU
AN
TIC
O, V
IRG
INIA
Che
mic
al
Valu
es fr
om 2
000
RI R
epor
t C
urre
nt V
alue
s O
ral C
SF
(mg/
kg/d
ay)-1
D
erm
al C
SF
(mg/
kg/d
ay)-1
O
ral R
fD
(mg/
kg/d
ay)
Der
mal
RfD
(m
g/kg
/day
) O
ral C
SF
(mg/
kg/d
ay)-1
D
erm
al C
SF
(mg/
kg/d
ay)-1
So
urce
/Dat
e O
ral R
fD
(mg/
kg/d
ay)
Der
mal
RfD
(m
g/kg
/day
) Ta
rget
O
rgan
(s)
Com
bine
d U
ncer
tain
ty/
Mod
ifyin
g Fa
ctor
s So
urce
/Dat
e
Alu
min
um
NA
N
A
1.0E
+00
2.7E
-01
NA
N
A
--
1.0E
+00
1.0E
+00
CN
S
NA
N
CE
A/2
007
Ars
enic
1.
5E+0
0 1.
58E
+00
3.0E
-04
2.9E
-04
1.5E
+00
1.50
E+0
0 IR
IS/2
007
3.0E
-04
3.0E
-04
Ski
n, C
NS
3/
1 IR
IS/2
007
Bar
ium
N
A
NA
7.
0E-0
2 7.
0E-0
2 N
A
NA
IR
IS/2
007
2.0e
-01
1.4E
-02
Kid
ney
300/
1 IR
IS/2
007
Iron
NA
N
A
3.0E
-01
3.0E
-01
NA
N
A
--
7.0E
-01
7.0E
-01
Blo
od, L
iver
, GI
NA
N
CE
A/2
007
Man
gane
se
NA
N
A
2.0E
-02
2.3E
-02
NA
N
A
IRIS
/200
7 2.
0E-0
2 8.
0E-0
1 C
NS
, Blo
od
1/3
IRIS
/200
7
Not
es:
This
tabl
e pr
ovid
es c
arci
noge
nic
and
nonc
arci
noge
nic
risk
info
rmat
ion
for t
he C
OC
s in
gro
undw
ater
. A
t thi
s tim
e, C
SFs
are
not
ava
ilabl
e fo
r the
der
mal
rout
e of
exp
osur
e. T
he d
erm
al C
SF u
sed
in th
e as
sess
men
t has
bee
n ex
trapo
late
d fro
m th
e
oral
val
ue.
An a
djus
tmen
t fac
tor i
s ap
plie
d an
d is
dep
ende
nt u
pon
how
wel
l the
che
mic
al is
abs
orbe
d vi
a th
e or
al ro
ute.
Adj
ustm
ents
are
par
ticul
arly
impo
rtant
for c
hem
ical
s w
ith le
ss th
an 5
0 pe
rcen
t abs
orpt
ion
via
the
inge
stio
n ro
ute.
Inh
alat
ion
sl
ope
fact
ors
are
not p
rovi
ded
beca
use
the
inha
latio
n ex
posu
re ro
ute
is o
nly
appl
icab
le fo
r inh
alat
ion
of V
OC
s w
hile
sho
wer
ing,
whi
ch is
not
a c
once
rn b
ecau
se n
o V
OC
s w
ere
sele
cted
as
CO
Cs
for t
his
site
.
All
of th
e C
OC
s ha
ve to
xici
ty d
ata
indi
catin
g th
eir
pote
ntia
l for
adv
erse
non
carc
inog
enic
ris
ks in
hum
ans.
Th
e ch
roni
c to
xici
ty d
ata
avai
labl
e fo
r or
al e
xpos
ures
hav
e be
en u
sed
to d
evel
op o
ral R
fDs.
A
s w
as th
e ca
se w
ith c
arci
noge
nic
data
, de
rmal
RfD
s w
ere
extra
pola
ted
from
ora
l val
ues
appl
ying
an
adju
stm
ent f
acto
r as
app
ropr
iate
. A
djus
tmen
ts w
ere
nece
ssar
y fo
r ba
rium
and
man
gane
se.
No
adju
stm
ent w
as n
eede
d fo
r al
umin
um, a
rsen
ic, a
nd ir
on.
Inha
latio
n R
fDs
are
not
prov
ided
bec
ause
the
inha
latio
n ex
posu
re ro
ute
is o
nly
appl
icab
le fo
r inh
alat
ion
of V
OC
s w
hile
sho
wer
ing,
whi
ch is
not
a c
once
rn b
ecau
se n
o V
OC
s w
ere
sele
cted
as
CO
Cs
for t
his
site
.
Abb
revi
atio
ns:
CO
C
chem
ical
of c
once
rn
CN
S
cent
ral n
ervo
us s
yste
m
CS
F ca
ncer
slo
pe fa
ctor
GI
gast
roin
test
inal
IRIS
In
tegr
ated
Ris
k In
form
atio
n S
yste
m
NA
no
t ava
ilabl
e
NC
EA
N
atio
nal C
ente
r for
Env
ironm
enta
l Ass
essm
ent
RfD
re
fere
nce
dose
VO
C
vola
tile
orga
nic
com
poun
d
•
• ~Site96
n t I nt
300 o 300 Feet
DRAWN BY DATE
LEGEND
Limit of Soil Barrier
Road Railroad
Fence
Stream
I
\ I
Old Lar:1d~1I {Site 4)
Constructed Wetlands
Former DRMO Area (L-3)--.
~~ . S~IA(
/ ~~~:~ ftj n-
~ Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.A.JANOCHA 9114104
CHECKED BY DATE
G. ZIMMERMAN 11/26107 SITE LAYOUT
• COST/SCHEDULE-AREA
SITE 4 - OLD LANDFILL
MCB QUANTICO, VIRGINIA DRAWING NO.
AS NOTED
P:\GIS\QUANTICO_MCB\APR\SITE04.APR SITE LAYOUT - 8.5)(11 1112810755
N
Former Transformer Storage Area (B-8)
Layer/Geotextile Layer
Land Use Control Boundary
Topographic Contour
Approximate Location of Waste Material Found Outside Fence in 1998
Approximate Location of Waste Material Found Outside Fence in 2005
Former DRMO Area (SWMU L-03). Former Transformer Storage Area (SWMU B-08) and Former Diesel Spill Area
Building
Wetland
Surface Water
CONTRACT NUMBER
CTO 0480 DATE
DATE
REV FIGURE 1 o
P:/GISIOUANTICO_MCBlMAPDOCSlMXD/SITE04_MW SAMPLES,MXD 11126107 S5 • • •
N
",
OLFMW013 ss OLFMW018
:H03
·4
")()"
OLFMW20A S
Portion of Fence Needing Repair
Possible Depression Noted During November 1 and 2, 2007 Site Inspection (approximate location)
Vehicle Ruts Where Ponding May Occur (approximate location)
Topographic Contour (contour interval = 1 foot)
Land Use Control Boundary
Legend tSl Groundwater Monitoring Well
Fence Line
o•
, I
)•
OLFMW04A S
I
200 i Feet
o100
,"'"
200 i
DRAWN BY DATE
K. MOORE 11/26107
CHECKED BY DATE
~ Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.
G. ZIMMERMAN 11/28107 RESULIS OF NOVEMBER 1 AND 2, 2007 SITE INSPECTION
COST SCHEDULE AREA SITE 4 - OLD LANDFilL
Mea QUANTICO, VIRGINIA FIGURE NO. SCALE
AS NOTED FIGURE 2
APPENDIX A
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
• OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
Five-Year Review Site Inspection Checklist
(Working document for site inspection. Information may be completed by hand and attached to the Five-Year Review report as supporting documentation of site status. "N/A" refers to "not applicable.")
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site name: Site 4 (Old Landfill) MCB Quantico Date of inspection: November I and 2, 2007
Location and Region: Quantico, Virginia EPA ill: VAI170024722
Weather/temperature: Sunny 50's and 60's review: Department of Navy Agency, office, or company leading the five-year
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply) 181 Landfill cover/containment r Monitored natural attenuation 181 Access controls r Groundwater containment ~ Institutional controls r VertiCal barrier walls r Groundwater pump and treatment r Surface water collection and treatment rather
• Attachments: r Inspection team roster attached 181 Site map attached - See Figure 2
II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)'
I. O&M site manager Name Title Date
Interviewed r at site r at office r by phone Phone no. Problems, suggestions; r Report attached
2.0&Mstaff Name Title Date
Interviewed r at site r at office r by phone Phone no. Problems, suggestions; r Report attached
• A-I
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of deeds, OT other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in aJl that apply.
Agency Town of Quantico Contact Albert Gasser Mayor 1216/07 703-640-6998
Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; r Report attached Mr. Albert Gasser, mayor of the Town of Quantico, was contacted and he indicated that he was aware of the Old Landfil1 (drives by it everyday) and had no concerns regarding the measures taken there.
Agency Contact
Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; r Report attached
Agency Contact
Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; r Report attached
Agency Contact
Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; r Report attached
4. Other interviews (optional) r Report attached.
Dave Crosley - STP Superintendent - ] ]/26/07 - Knew of no site conditions, problems, or related
concerns that would impact the remedy.
Jim Scott - Turnei Airfield Environmental Coordinator - 1]/29/07 - Knew of no site conditions,
problems, or related concerns that would impact the remedy.
•
•
•A-2
• OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)
I. O&M Documents rO&Mmanual r Readily available r Up to date rN/A r As-built drawings r Readily available rup to date rN/A rMaintenance logs r Readily available r Up to date rN/A Remarks O&M Manual - part of Long-Term Monitoring Plan - submitted as draft in July 2006 waiting for resolution of comments - Site Inspection completed from 12/8/97 to 119105 as per Maintenance Manual submitted I l/30197.
2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan r Readily available r Up to date l8J N/A r Contingency plan/emergency response plan r Readily available rup to date I8l N/A Remarks
3. O&M and OSHA Training Recofds r Readily available r Up to date I8l N/A Remarks
4. Permits and Service Agreements r Air discharge permit r Readily available rup to date I8l N/A r Effluent discharge r Readily available rup to date I8l N/A r Waste disposal, POTW r Readily available rup to date I8l N/A r Other permits r Readily available r Up to date I8l N/A
• Remarks
5. Gas Generation Records r Readily available rup to date I8l N/A Remarks
6. Settlement Monument Records r Readily available r Up to date rN/A Remarks Not Available
7. Groundwater Monitoring Records r Readily available rup to date rN/A Remarks No Groundwater Monitoring has been done since last samples collected in 1999 as part ofFS.
8. Leachate Extraction Records r Readily available rup to date 18I N/A Remarks
9. Discharge Compliance Records rAir r Readily available rup to date 18I N/A r Water (effluent) r Readily available rup to date I8l N/A Remarks
10. Daily Access/Security Logs r Readily available rup to date I8lN/A Remarks
• A-3
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
IV. O&M COSTS • 1. O&M Organization
o State in-house o Contractor for State o PRP in-house o Contractor for PRP o Federal Facility in-house {g] Contractor for Federal Fa~ility
o Other
2. O&M Cost Records o Readily available o Up to date {g] Funding mechanism/agreement in place Original O&M cost estimate d Breakdown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
From l/l/03 To 12/31/03 $4,000 (approximate) o Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost
From l/1/04 To 12/3l/04 $4.000 (approximate) o Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost
From 1/1/05 To 12/31/05 $5,000 (approximate) o Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost
From 1/1/06 To 12/3l/06 . $5,250 o Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost
From 1/1/07 To 12/3l/07 $7,000 o Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost
3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period •Describe costs and reasons:
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS o Applicable DN/A
A, Fencing
1. Fencing damaged {g] Location shown on site map 0 Gates secured 0 N/A Remarks Fence in good condition except for the fencing next to the Southern Wetlands (Site 96) near the airfield
B, Other Access Restrictions
1. Signs and other security·measures o Location shown on sIte map DN/A Remarks$igns are visible on fence.
A-4 •
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P e
e.
C. Institutional Controls (ICs)
1. Implementation and enforcement Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented rYes jgJ No rN/A Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced rYes jgJ No rN/A
Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by) Part of Site Insoections Frequency Once a quarter between 12/8/97 and 1/9/05 Responsible party/agency MCB Quantico - NREA Contact
Name Title Date Phone no.
Reporting is up-to-date rYes rNo rN/A Reports are verified by the lead agency rYes rNo rN/A
Specific requireIl)entsin deed or decision documents have been met rYes rNo jgJ N/A Violations have been reported rYes rNo (2gN/A Other problems or suggestions: r Report attached
2. Adequacy (2g ICs are adequate r ICs are inadequate rN/A Remarks
D. General
1. Vandalism/trespassing r Location shown on site map (2g No vandalism evident Remarks
2. Land use changes on site (2g N/A Remarks
3. Land use changes orr site I8JN/A Remarks
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads r Applicable [8J N/A
1. Roads damaged r Location shown on site map r Roads adequate[8J N/A Remarks
e A-5
•• OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
B. Other Site Conditions
Remarks
VII. LANDFILL COVERS r Applicable rN/A
A. Landfill Surface
I. Settlement (Low spots) 18I Location shown·on site map· r Settlement not evident Areal extent Depth Remarks There were six small areas that appeared to be depressions where ponding may occur. In addition. tire tracks/ruts were evident in several places.
2. Cracks r Location shown on site map 1RI Cracking not evident Lengths Widths Depths
Remarks
3. Erosion r Location shown on site map r Erosion not evident Areal extent Depth Remarks Several places along interface of landfill behind revetment show signs of erosion. One erosional channel evident in southern portion of landfill. •
4. Holes r Location shown on site map r Holes not evident Areal extent Depth Remarks Numerous groundhog holes were discovered and marked. Could not tell if any are active.
5. Vegetative Cover 18l Grass 18l Cover properly established 18l No signs of stress r Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram) Remarks
6. Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) 18I N/A Remarks
7. Bulges r Location shown on site map 18I Bulges not evident Areal extent Height Remarks
•A-6
• OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
Wet AreaslWater Damage ~ Wet areas/water damage not evident r Location shown on site map Areal extent
8.
rWet areas rPonding r Seeps r Soft subgrade Remarks
9. Slope Instability Areal extent Remarks
B. Benches
channel.)
1. Flows Bypass Bench Remarks
2. Bench Breached Remarks
3. Bench Overtopped Remarks
C. Letdown Channels
1. Settlement Areal extent Remarks
2. Material Degradation Material type Remarks
3. Erosion Areal extent Remarks
r Location shown on site map Areal extent r Location shown on site map Areal extent r Location shown on site map Areal extent
r Slides r Location shown on site map ~ No evidence of slope instability
. r Applicable ~N/A
(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined
r Location shown on site map ~ N/Aorokay
r Location shown on site map ~ N/A or okay
• r Location shown on site map ~ N/A or okay
r Applicable ~N/A
(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill cover without creating erosion gullies.)
r Location shown on site map r No evidence of settlement Depth
r Location shown on site map r No evidence of degradation Areal extent
r Location shown on site map r No evidence of erosion Depth
• A-7
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
4. Undercutting r Location shown on site map r No evidence of undercutting •Areal extent Depth Remarks
5. Obstructions Type r No obstructions r Location shown on site map Areal extent Size Remarks
6. Excessive Vegetative Growth Type r No evidence of excessive growth rVegetation in channels does not obstruct flow r Location shown on site map Areal extent Remarks
D. Cover Penetrations r Applicable rN/A
1. Gas Vents r Activer Passive r Properly securedllocked r Functioning r Routinely sampled r Good condition r Evidence of leakage at penetration r Needs Maintenance lID N/A Remarks
2. Gas Monitoring Probes· r Properly securedllocked r Functioning r Routinely sampled r Good condition • r Evidence of leakage at penetration r Needs Maintenance lID N/A Remarks
3. Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill) r Properly securedllocked r Functioning r Routinely sampled r Good condition r Evidence of leakage at penetration lID Needs Maintenance rN/A Remarks Wells/pads are in fair shape. Several need repairs. All will need to be evaluated before being used as part of monitoring program.
4. Leachate Extraction Wells r Properly securedllocked r Functioning r Routinely sampled r Good condition r Evidence of leakage at penetration r Needs Maintenance 181 N/A Remarks
5. Settlement Monuments rLocated r Routinely surveyed rN/A Remarks Did not locate; these are not routinely surveyed.
A-8 •
• OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
E. Gas Collection and Treatment r Applicable IE] N/A
I. Gas Treatment Facilities rFlaring r Thermal destruction r Collection for reuse r Good condition r Needs Maintenance Remarks
2. Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping r Good conditionr Needs Maintenance Remarks
3. Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings) r Good condition r Needs Maintenance rN/A Remarks
F. Cover Drainage Layer r Applicable 18I N/A
I. Outlet Pipes Inspected r Functioning rN/A Remarks
• 2. Outlet Rock Inspected r Functioning rN/A
Remarks
G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds r Applicable 18I N/A
I. Siltation Areal extent Depth rN/A r Siltation not evident Remarks
2. Erosion Areal extent Depth r Erosion not evident Remarks
3. Outlet Works r Functioning . rN/A Remarks
4. Dam r Functioning rN/A Remarks
• A-9
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
H. Retaining Walls r Applicable Igj N/A • 1. Deformations r Location shown on site map r Deformation not evident
Horizontal displacement Vertical displacement Rotational displacement Remarks
2. Degradation r Location shown on site map r Degradation not evident Remarks
I. Perimeter Ditches/Orr-Site Discharge r Applicable Igj N/A
1. Siltation r Location shown on site map r Siltation not evident Areal extent Depth Remarks
2. Vegetative Growth r Location shown on site map rN/A r Vegetation does not impede flow Areal extent Type Remarks
3. Erosion r Location shown on site map r Erosion not evident Areal extent Depth Remarks .'
4. Discharge Structure r Functioning rN/A Remarks
VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS r Applicable 129 N/A
1. Settlement r Location shown on site map r Settlement not evident Areal extent Depth Remarks
2. Perforinance MonitoringType of monitoring r Performance not .monitored Frequency r Evidence of breaching Head differential . Remarks
•A-tO
• OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES r Applicable [8JN/A
A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines r Applicable rN/A
1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical r Good condition r All required wells properly operating r Needs Maintenance r NtA Remarks
2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances r Good conditionr Needs Maintenance Remarks
3. Spare Parts and Equipment r Readily available r Good condition r Requires upgrade r Needs to be provided Remarks
B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines r Applicable rNtA
1. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical r Good conditionr Needs Maintenance Remarks
• 2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances r Good conditionr Needs Maintenance Remarks
3. Spare Parts and Equipment r Readily available r Good condition r Requires upgrade r Needs to be provided Remarks
• A-II
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
C. Treatment System r Applicable rN1A • 1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply)
,
r Metals removal r Oil/water separation r Bioremediation r Air stripping r Carbon adsorbers rFilters r Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent) rOthers r Good condition r Needs Maintenance r Sampling ports properly marked and functional r Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date r Equipment properly identified r Quantity of groundwater treated annually r Quantity of surface water treated annually Remarks
2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional) rN/A r Good condition r Needs Maintenance Remarks
3. Tankst Vaultst Storage Vessels rN/A r Good condition r Proper secondary containment r Needs Maintenance Remarks
4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances •rN/A r Good conditionr Needs Maintenance Remarks
5. Treatment Building(s) rN/A r Good condition (esp.roof and doorways) r Needs repair r Chemicals and equipment properly stored Remarks
,"
6. . Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy) r Properly securedllocked r Functioning r Routinely sampled r Good condition r All required wells located r Needs Maintenance rN/A Remarks
D. Monitoring Data
1. Monitoring Data r Is routinely submitted on time r Is of acceptable quality
2. Monitoring data suggests: r Groundwater plume is effectively contained r Contaminant concentrations are declining
A-12
• OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
D. Monitored Natnral Attenuation
1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy) r Properly secured/locked r Functioning r Routinely sampled r Good condition r All required wells located r Needs Maintenance rN/A Remarks
X. OTHER REMEDIES
If there are remedies applied at the site which are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction.
XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
A• Implementation of the Remedy
•
• A-13
••
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.). • The remedy is intended to prevent direct contact. inhalation. and ingestion of soil and sediment contaminants, reduce migration of contaminants to groundwater, and minimize migration of contaminants to the adjacent embayment.
Six small depressions where water may pond were noted on the surface of the landfill. Four are on the northern portion of the landfill and two are on the southern portion of the landfill. In addition. ruts from vehicles are present in a number of areas of the landfill (at lease five areas). Water may pond in these ruts. To verify the presence of the suspected dcmressions/vehicle ruts, the landfill surface should be surveyed as per the O&M Manual that is part of the Long-Term Monitoring Plan. In addition, it does not aPJlear the two survey benchmarks have been surveyed recently. Any depression/ruts where pODding would occur will need to be filled to the appropriate contours and seeded as per the Long-Term Monitoring Plan.
" Numerous groundhog holes were noted in the surface of the landfill. The groundhog holes need to be evaluated to determine if the holes are active. If so, the groundhogs will need to be removed from the landfill area. Once any groundhogs are removed. the holes will need to be filled as per the Long-Term Monitoring Plan.
Several erosional channels were noted along the face of the landfill behind the shoreline revetment (northern portion of the landfill). There is one erosional channel on the north slope of the southern portion of the landfill. The erosional channels in the face of the landfill behind the revetment and the erosional channel in the north slope of the southern portion of the landfill should be filled in. • A small section of the fence along the southern wetlands is covered with heavy vegetation and is starting to fall over. The· vegetation on the fence along the southern wetlands will need to be removed and .the fence stabilized.
Three invasive plant mecies were observed in the constructed wetland (phragrnites, Japanese stiltgrass, and multiflora rose). The phragmites in the wetlands will need to be eradicated via treatment with postemergence herbicides. No action is needed for the Japanese stiltgrass and multiflora rose because they are not expected to spread throughout the wetland.
A-14
• OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
c. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems
Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high frequency of unscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised in the future.
• D. Opportunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
B. Adequacy of O&M
Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
• A-IS
APPENDIX B
SITE VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS
Western boundary fence line looking north from the access gate
Sign on the access gate
B-1
Access gate
Shoreline revetment looking north near OLFMW-25
B-2
One of a number of groundhog holes on the northern portion of the landfill
One of a number of groundhog holes on the northern portion of the landfill
B-3
One of a number of groundhog holes on the northern portion of the landfill
One of a number of groundhog holes on the northern portion of the landfill
B-4
Vehicle ruts in landfill surface near OLFMW024
Vehicle ruts in landfill surface near western boundary just north of access gate
B-5
Vehicle rut in landfill surface between OLFMW-25 and OLFMW012/14A
Depression in landfill surface near northeast corner of landfill
B-6
Slight depression in landfill surface just south of access gate before landfill slopes toward the constructed wetlands
Vehicle ruts in the northern portion of the landfill surface running from access gate toward the entrance of the constructed wetland
B-7
Erosional channels on face of landfill behind shoreline revetment (near OLFMW-25)
Erosional channels on face of landfill behind shoreline revetment (near OLFMW-25)
B-8
Monitoring wells OLFMW01A, OLFMW16A, and OLFMW026 (pads/casings in good shape/small depression is located next to OLFMW16A)
Monitoring well OLFMW19A (overgrown, one post knocked over)
B-9
Monitoring wells OLFMW012 and OLFMW14A (casings/pads in good shape; no lock on OLFMW12)
Monitoring well OLFMW-25 (casing/pad okay; riser too high to lock cap)
B-10
Egret at entrance to constructed wetlands
Constructed wetlands looking from entrance toward the west
B-11
Raccoon near the culvert that feeds the constructed wetlands
Fence along southern wetlands that is overgrown with vegetation and is starting to sag
B-12
Post in southern portion of landfill – slight depression exists around post
B-13
Vehicle ruts in southern portion of landfill surface looking from southern weltands toward OLFMW17A
B-14
APPENDIX C
WETLAND INSPECTION MEMORANDUM
MEMORANDUM
TO: Karen Lyons
FROM: J. Peyton Doub, PWS, CEP
DATE: November 5, 2007
SUBJECT: Visual Site inspection of Constructed Wetlands, Installation Restoration (IR) Program Site 4 – Old Landfill, Marine Corps Base (MCB) Quantico, Virginia
The following memorandum documents a visual site inspection conducted by a wetland scientist
on November 2, 2007 for the subject wetlands. The wetlands were constructed as on-site
mitigation to compensate for unavoidable wetland losses resulting from an interim remedial action
(IRA) completed in 1997 at Site 4, the Old Landfill, at MCB Quantico. The inspection supports a
Five-Year Review (Year 2008) of the final remedy, as required under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). It follows a similar
memorandum dated September 18, 2002 that outlined a visual site inspection supporting the first
(Year 2003) Five-Year Review of the IRA.
Background: Site 4, the Old Landfill, consists of approximately 23 acres occupied by an
abandoned landfill on the shore of a tidal reach of the Potomac River. Operations at the landfill
began in the early 1920s and ceased in 1971. The landfill was constructed by incrementally filling
tidal marshes and shallow waters on the river shoreline, ultimately extending the shoreline into
the river approximately 600 to 1,200 feet out from its original location. The interim remedial
action consisted of excavation and off-site disposal of PCB-contaminated soil, re-grading the
landfill, and covering the landfill with a soil barrier layer (Halliburton NUS, 1995a and b). The final
remedy includes the IRA completed in 1997, maintenance of the site fence and soil barrier layers
(layers installed as part of the 1997 IRA for Site 4 and a soil removal action at an adjoining site),
implementation of land use controls (LUCs), and implementation of a monitoring program and site
reviews.
Wetland Delineation: A wetland delineation following procedures in the Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory) and appropriate supplementary
guidance was conducted for Site 4 prior to the implementation of the interim remedial action in
1995 (Halliburton NUS, 1995a). Approximately 1.8 acres of wetlands were identified within the
proposed footprint of disturbance for the interim remedial action. The wetlands were situated in a
cove that roughly divided the landfill into northern and southern halves. The cove allowed
freshwater discharged from a storm drain northwest of the landfill to traverse the landfill and flow
into the Potomac River. After reviewing the wetland delineation, the Navy determined that it
MEMORANDUM November 9, 2007 Page 2 of 14
would not be possible to successfully implement the interim remedial action without permanently
filling the 1.8 acres of wetlands.
Wetland Mitigation Plan: To compensate for the unavoidable 1.8-acre wetland loss, the Navy
designed a plan for constructing approximately 2.1 acres of onsite wetlands as part of the interim
remedial action. The planned result was a net onsite wetland gain of approximately 0.3 acres.
The wetlands were restored in a reconfigured cove in the approximate original location of the
original cove and wetlands, dividing the covered landfill into northern and southern halves. The
original cove, which contained the 1.8 acres of wetlands, allowed freshwater released from a
storm drain at the northern perimeter of the landfill to traverse the landfill and flow into the
Potomac River. The new wetlands were designed to be influenced by the same hydrology
sources as the original wetlands in the cove. These sources included freshwater, both runoff
from the landfill surface and discharge the storm drain, and the tides of the Potomac River
(Halliburton NUS, 1995c). The Potomac River, although tidal at MCB Quantico, is normally fresh
or nearly fresh, with salinities normally less than 5 parts per thousand during all seasons (White,
1989).
The design called for restoring the approximate original elevations of wetlands in the cove and
planting three zones of herbaceous vegetation keyed to elevation as follows:
• Elevations Below 1 Foot: Saltmeadow Cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora)
• Elevations Between 1 and 2 Feet: Common Three-square (Scirpus americanus)
• Elevations Between 2 and 3 Feet: Soft-stem Bulrush (Scirpus validus)
The design also called for planting more widely spaced accents of other herbaceous species that
typically occur in similar landscape settings and are of good value to wildlife but which could not
be counted on to establish and spread rapidly. Accent species in the design included deep-water
duck potato (Sagittaria rigida), pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), and marsh hibiscus (Hibiscus
moscheutos). The design also called for planting a fringe of woody vegetation around the edges
of the wetland, including black willow (Salix nigra) and red maple (Acer rubrum) (both trees) and
elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) and groundsel tree (Baccharis halimifolia) (both shrubs)
(Halliburton NUS, 1995c).
Installation of Wetland Mitigation Plan: OHM Remediation Services Corporation (OHM) and
their subcontractor, Coastal Environmental Services (Coastal), constructed the wetlands and
installed the plant material called for in the wetland mitigation plan in 1997. Coastal substituted
arrow arum (Peltandra virginica) for the deep-water duck potato. Coastal also shifted the planting
MEMORANDUM November 9, 2007 Page 3 of 14
of the pickerelweed 25 feet down-gradient (i.e. toward the lower elevations in the center of the
wetland) to provide that species with a deeper hydrological regime. Planting took place between
April and June 1997. Planting was periodically delayed during this period by incidents of high
tidal flooding of the wetland (Coastal, 1997).
OHM and Coastal inspected the wetland mitigation area in November 1997 and presented their
observations in a written report. The report stated that a vigorous herbaceous stand comprised
predominantly of the planted soft-stem bulrush, common three-square, and saltmeadow
cordgrass had become established over much of the wetland. Several volunteer herbaceous
species had also reportedly begun to colonize the wetland. The volunteer species reportedly
included flat sedge (Cyperus sp.), soft rush (Juncus effusus), common cattail (Typha latifolia),
and smartweed (Polygonum persicaria) (Coastal, 1997).
Vegetative coverage was described as sparser in the upper (drier) fringe of the wetland. Possible
explanations provided in the report included flooding, herbivory, and low rainfall during the
summer of 1997. The report did not, however, recommend additional planting. It stated that tidal
wetland hydrology had been successfully established throughout the wetland and areas of sparse
vegetation in November 1997 would likely become colonized naturally by desirable wetland plant
species (Coastal, 1997).
A Site Inspection Checklist and Repair Report prepared by OHM in July 1998 stated that OHM
replanted vegetation in the wetland area (OHM, 1998). The reports did not provide information
on how much of the vegetation required replanting or what vegetation was used in the replanting.
It is assumed that OHM adhered to the original planting scheme when replacing vegetation.
First Five-Year Inspection: Peyton Doub, PWS, CEP of Tetra Tech NUS, who prepared the
wetland mitigation plan design, visited the site on Thursday, September 18, 2002 to evaluate the
wetland in support of the first (Year 2003) Five-Year Review. Also present were Andrew
Gutberlet of Engineering Field Activity Chesapeake, Lisa Bradford of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and Matias Santiago of the Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs
(NREA) office of MCB Quantico.
At that time, the entire wetland mitigation area supported dense vegetation. As called for in the
design, a shallow stream of running water flowed down the center of the wetland to the Potomac
River. The stream channel was generally around than 10 feet wide and 6 to 12 inches deep.
Low elevation lands adjoining the stream supported dense emergent wetland vegetation and
were saturated at the surface. Higher-elevation lands around the upper fringe of the wetland
MEMORANDUM November 9, 2007 Page 4 of 14
were not saturated at the surface, but the vegetation displayed watermarks suggestive of a recent
history of shallow inundation.
Vegetation throughout the wetland was dense and dominated by herbaceous plant species that
typically grow in wetlands (i.e. hydrophytes). Most of the wetland supported dense patches of the
following species: jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), soft rush, soft-stem bulrush, common three
square, common cattail, woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), and rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides).
Other plant species observed in the wetland included marsh hibiscus, pickerelweed, smartweed,
wingstem (Verbesina alternifolia, erroneously identified as coreopsis in the 2002 memorandum),
and tall ironweed (Vernonia altissima). All of the observed species were regionally indigenous
hydrophytes with wetland indicator statuses of Facultative Wetland (FACW) or Obligate Wetland
(OBL) (Reed, 1988). The soft-stem bulrush, common three-square, marsh hibiscus and
pickerelweed were components of the original design; the other species had not been planted
and must therefore have become established as natural volunteers. Smooth cordgrass, which
was planted as part of the original design and observed in November 1997, was not observed.
A dense fringe of black willow saplings was observed at the outer edge of the wetlands. The
original design called for planting a mixture of black willow and red maple at the fringe. At least
some of the black willows appeared to be surviving planted specimens, while others could have
been volunteers. No red maple was observed. Several volunteer tree saplings of other species
were observed at widely scattered locations within the wetland, including sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), elm (Ulmus sp.), and eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides).
Among the shrubs, dense patches of groundsel tree were observed, especially near the fringe of
the wetland where this species was planted. No elderberry (the other planted shrub species) was
observed. Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), another regionally indigenous shrub typical of
wetlands with fresh or nearly fresh water, was observed to have volunteered at several locations
in the wetland. The only invasive or exotic vegetation observed in the wetland were a few small
clumps of phragmites (Phragmites australis). Phragmites did not appear to have established
dominance over the wetland.
The first Five-Year Review concluded that the 2.1-acre wetland restoration had been successfully
accomplished in accordance with the general expectations of the design. Although not all of the
planted plant species had been successfully established, the entire wetland area supported
dense cover dominated by regionally indigenous wetland plants (hydrophytes) typical of natural
freshwater tidal marshes. The entire wetland displayed evidence of frequent soil inundation and
saturation expected for a tidal wetland. Spot infestation by the invasive plant phragmites was
MEMORANDUM November 9, 2007 Page 5 of 14
observed. The first Five-Year Review recommended that areas of the wetland infested by
phragmites be treated using an herbicide.
Present Observations (November 2, 2007): As was true during the site inspection for the first
Five-Year Review, the reconstructed wetland continues to be densely vegetated with regionally
indigenous freshwater tidal marsh vegetation throughout. Photo 1 shows an overview of the
wetland on September 18, 2002 and Photo 2 shows an overview of the wetland on November 2,
2007. No visibly stressed vegetation or substantial areas of bare soil are apparent.
Black willow saplings presently form a tall, dense fringe between 20 and 30 feet in height around
the outer edge of the wetland (Photo 3). Comparison of Photos 1 and 2 reveals that the black
willow saplings have grown considerably taller and larger since 2002. Many of the saplings are
now 3 to 5 inches in trunk diameter. A few black willow stems on the north side of the wetland
display evidence of gnawing and felling beavers (Photo 4). A beaver dam is present at the
eastern edge of the wetland (Photo 5). However, the losses of black willow stems to beavers do
not appear to be substantial. As noted in 2002, several groundsel tree shrubs were also
observed in the woody fringe around the wetland. However, groundsel tree appears to be much
less abundant than in 2002.
Most of the wetland presently supports dense cover by regionally indigenous herbaceous plants
common in freshwater tidal marshes such as common three-square, cattail, jewelweed, rice
cutgrass, soft rush, marsh hibiscus, woolgrass, smartweed, wingstem, and common boneset
(Eupatorium perfoliatum). All of these species have a wetland indicator status of FACW or OBL
(Reed, 1988). Most of these same plant species were also observed in the wetland in 2002. No
soft-stem bulrush, which was called for in the design and observed during the 2002 site
inspection, was observed. However, common boneset, which was observed frequently
throughout the wetland during the 2007 site inspection, had not been observed in 2002. Hence,
while the plant species composition of the wetland may have changed somewhat since 2002, the
wetland continues to be dominated by regionally indigenous herbaceous plants typical of natural
freshwater tidal marshes.
The central stream (Photo 6) appears similar to how it appeared in 2002. It is generally about 10
feet wide and 6 to 12 inches deep. Except in the immediate vicinity of the discharge, there is no
visually discernable current. Any slow current would be expected to fluctuate with the tides.
Several small fish were observed in the stream. The stream banks are densely vegetated and do
not display any visually apparent erosion.
MEMORANDUM November 9, 2007 Page 6 of 14
Even though the wetland is dominated throughout by regionally indigenous vegetation, three
invasive plant species were observed in the wetland on November 2, 2007. The first is
phragmites, which was also noted during the 2002 inspection. A linear area in the southeastern
quadrant of the wetland is presently infested with phragmites (Photo 7). The infestation appears
to be spreading westward, as evidenced by a small occurrence near the south-central part of the
wetland (Photo 8). The 2002 report describes the phragmites as occurring in “patches” (Photo 9).
This fact suggests that the present linear infestation may have resulted from the spread and
coalescence of the patches observed in 2002.
The second invasive plant species observed is Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum). It
was observed in the groundcover under black willow growth near the western (up-gradient) tip of
the wetland (Photo 10). Its occurrence is limited to a small, elevated area accumulation of
sediment encompassing only a few square feet. Because it is generally intolerant of saturated
soil conditions, it is unlikely to spread into the remainder of the wetland. The third invasive plant
species observed is multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). It was observed as a couple of isolated
specimens in the south-central part of the wetland (Photo 11). It too is only poorly tolerant of
saturated soils and hence unlikely to spread substantially over the wetland.
Conclusions and Recommendations: Based on field observations made during a site visit on
November 2, 2007, coupled with a review of the related documents as summarized above, it is
concluded that the 2.1 acres of reconstructed wetlands have been successfully established in
accordance with the general expectations of the design. The planned net gain of 0.3 acre of
freshwater tidal wetlands on the site, as called for in the design, appears to have been
successfully achieved.
The following recommendations are made to manage the successfully established wetland:
1. It is recommended that phragmites be eradicated from the wetland. Phragmites is an
invasive grass that is capable of forming dense monocultures spreading over large areas
of wetlands. While still limited to a small area in the southeastern quadrant of the
wetland, phragmites appears to have spread over a larger area since 2002. Treatment is
easier with less adverse effect on adjoining vegetation while patches remain small and
localized. Multiple postemergence herbicides are available to treat phragmites. Only
formulations labeled for use in aquatic habitats should be used. Application should be
manual only; aerial application, which could substantially damage non-target vegetation,
is not recommended.
MEMORANDUM November 9, 2007 Page 7 of 14
2. The observed infestations by Japanese stiltgrass and multiflora rose do not appear
substantial enough to warrant control action. Neither species is expected to spread
substantially into adjoining areas of the wetland.
3. Activity by resident beavers does not appear to be jeopardizing the vegetational and
hydrological integrity of the wetland. Action to remove the beavers or to protect
vegetation from the beavers is therefore not recommended.
4. Further formal monitoring of the wetland is not recommended. However, the efficacy of
phragmites treatments should be monitored until successful eradication is achieved.
Multiple rounds of treatment may be necessary to achieve successful eradication.
No additional action is recommended for managing the wetland.
REFERENCES
Coastal (Coastal Environmental Services, Inc.). 1997. As-Built Description of Wetland Planting,
Old Landfill as Marine Corps Combat Development Command (MCCDC), Quantico, Virginia.
Prepared for OHM Remediation Services Corp., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Project No. 41
133.01, December 17, 1997.
Halliburton NUS. 1995a. Wetland Delineation Report for Site 4 Old Landfill at Marine Corps
Combat Development Command (MCCDC), Quantico, Virginia. Prepared for Engineering Field
Activity Chesapeake, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington, DC under Northern
Division Contract Number N62472-90-D-1298, Contract Task Order 198.
Halliburton NUS. 1995b. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Report for Interim Remedial Action
at Site 4 - Old Landfill, Marine Corps Combat Development Command (MCCDC), Quantico,
Virginia. Prepared for Engineering Field Activity Chesapeake, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, Washington, DC under Northern Division Contract Number N62472-90-D-1298,
Contract Task Order 198.
Halliburton NUS. 1995c. Wetland Mitigation Plan for Site 4 Old Landfill at Marine Corps Combat
Development Command (MCCDC), Quantico, Virginia. NAVFAC Drawing Number 3089092,
Sheet 16 of 17, Sheet Number C-14. Prepared for Engineering Field Activity Chesapeake, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command, Washington, DC under Northern Division Contract Number
N62472-90-D-1298, Contract Task Order 198.
MEMORANDUM November 9, 2007 Page 8 of 14
OHM (OHM Remediation Services Corp.). 1998. Site Inspection Checklist and Repair Report,
July 1998.
Reed, P. B. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Soil
Conservation Service. Biological Report 88(24), September 1988.
White, C. P. 1989. Chesapeake Bay – A Field Guide. Tidewater Publishers, Centreville,
Maryland.
MEMORANDUM November 9, 2007 Page 9 of 14
Photo 1 Overview of Reconstructed Site 4 Wetland
November 2, 2007
Photo 2 Overview of Reconstructed Site 4 Wetland
September 18, 2002
MEMORANDUM November 9, 2007 Page 10 of 14
Photo 3 View South across Central Part of Wetland
Showing Portions of Black Willow Fringe on Northern and Southern Edges of the Wetland November 2, 2007
Photo 4 Beaver-Cut Black Willow Saplings on North Edge of Wetland
November 2, 2007
MEMORANDUM November 9, 2007 Page 11 of 14
Photo 5 Beaver Dam at Eastern End of Central Stream
(Near Where Central Stream Empties to Potomac River) November 2, 2007
Photo 6 Central stream, looking west (upgradient)
November 2, 2007
MEMORANDUM November 9, 2007 Page 12 of 14
Photo 7 Phragmites infestation in southeastern part of wetland
November 2, 2007
Photo 8 Small phragmites infestation in south-central part of wetland
November 2, 2007
MEMORANDUM November 9, 2007 Page 13 of 14
Photo 9 Patch of Phragmites September 18, 2007
Photo 10 Japanese stiltgrass near western (up-gradient) tip of wetland
November 2, 2007
MEMORANDUM November 9, 2007 Page 14 of 14
Photo 11 Multiflora rose in south-central part of wetland