five-year review report for the aberdeen area, aberdeen ...abbey point shoreline piles 3 through 7...

Five-Year Review Report for the

Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland

September 2003

Prepared by

Directorate of Safety, Health, and Environment Environmental Conservation and Restoration Division

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION III

1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

October 21,2003

Colonel Mardi U. Mark Commander, US Army Garrison (AMSSB-GCO) 2201 Aberdeen Boulevard Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21005-5001

RE: Five-Year Review for the Aberdeen Proving Ground - Aberdeen Area

Dear Mr. Stachiw:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III has reviewed the report entitled “FiveYear Review Report for the Aberdeen Area, dated September 2003”. The report was prepared to address theComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 121 (c) FiveYear Review requirements. EPA has reviewed this report and compared it to the OSWER Directive9355.7-03B-P, Comprehensive Five Year Review Guidance (EPA, June 2001). The report generally meets theintent of EPA’s Five Year Review Guidance Document.

EPA concurs conditionally with the Five Year review for the Aberdeen Proving Ground - AberdeenArea NPL Site, assuming that all short term appropriate land use controls will be applied by the Army. Theprotectiveness of many of the remedies strongly depends on the proper application of land use controls. There isstill an unresolved dispute between EPA and the Army regarding EPA’s post ROD authority as it applies toland use controls. Since there is not a final all-encompassing land use control document which obligatesAberdeen Proving Ground to enforce all needed and appropriate land use controls at this site, anyprotectiveness statement is dependent on the Army’s vigilance and application of appropriate controls.

It should also be clear to the public the Aberdeen Proving Ground Aberdeen Area is an Army “MegaSite” with environmental problems that have accumulated over sixty years, from 1918 to 1980 when the RCRAand Superfund Acts were passed. At the Aberdeen Area, only Michaelsville Landfill was actually on the NPLlisting document. However, the Aberdeen Proving Ground Federal Facilities Agreement requires APG toaddress the many environmental problems in the Aberdeen Area as if they were on the NPL. The produces theunusual result, that although, Michaelsville Landfill has been construction completed and there is a FinalCompletion Report done, work continues to go on with remedial investigations, feasibility studies, RODS, RD/RAs and other environmental work on the many Solid Waste Management Units identified in the RCRAFacilities Assessment. These areas are being tracked as DSERTS by the Army. Because Michaelsville Landfillwas completed, the Army asked EPA to delete the site from the NPL and complete all the other numerousDSERTS under the FFA. Due to a large VOC plume which contaminated Harford County Municipal wells andthe discovery of perchlorate in the City of Aberdeen water supply, EPA Region 3 decided to delay delistinguntil these serious issues are resolved, rather than diverting resources to delisting.

Celebrating 25 Years of Environmental Progress

2

The Aberdeen Area peninsula has eroded substantially over the last one hundred years and this erosionperiodically exposes munitions, bottles of chemicals and other problems. The Army has taken actions tostabilize some seriously eroded shorelines, but much unprotected shoreline exists. To date, much of facilityboundary has not been surveyed to determine if there are munitions outside the facility fenceline. APG isbeginning to address this issue, but it is years from being completed. Unlike a typical NPL facility that mayhave one major waste unit and a few smaller contaminated areas, the Aberdeen Area has a very large number ofcontaminated areas in various stages of investigation, design, construction of remedial actions. The AberdeenArea of Aberdeen Proving Ground will take years of work until all major chemical and ordnance hazards willbe addressed, and during this time, land use controls will be needed to protect the public and military personnel.EPA also has little knowledge of how Army personnel use the various areas at Aberdeen, which is still an activefiring range, making assessment of the adequacy of land use controls difficult, at least as they pertain to militarypersonnel .

In summary, EPA concurs with the Five Year Review, but it is the Army’s responsibility to maintainadequate land use controls to protect the public, the environment and military personnel, until a final land usecontrol document is in place for all areas of contamination. If you have any questions, please contact FrankVavra at (215) 814-3221.

Sincerely,

Abraham Ferdas, Director Hazardous Sites Cleanup Division

cc. Karl Kalbacher, MDE Christine Grochowski, APGSCC Paul Leonard, EPA Kenneth P. Stachiw, APG

Celebrating 25 Years of Environmental Progress

-

Aberdeen Proving Ground Aberdeen Area Five-Year Review

September 2003

Prepared by: Reviewed by:

Environmental Engineer KENNETH P. STACHIW Chief, Environmental Conservation

and Restoration Division

Concurred by:

;fGl-;~~f~L.- Director, Safety, Health

and Environment

/ L&-k c-3 (Date)

j, 23, =mx q ‘(Date)

Approving Official:

xputy installatidn Commander

0 tj OCT 2003

(Date)

FIVE-YEARREvmwsuMMAR Y FORM

Sitename (fromWasteLAN): Aberdeen Provinq Ground/Aberdeen Area (Michaelsville Landfill, Western Boundary Study Area, Other Aberdeen

Areas, Bush River Bomb Disposal Site, and Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7) EPAID (ffom WesteLAN): MD3210021355

Region: 03 - State: MD - 1 City/County: Aberdeen/Harford

Remediatlon status (choose all that apply): q Under Construction J Operating J Complete

Multiple OUs?* J YES o NO Construction completion date: Various

Has site been put into reuse? 4 YES J No

Authorname: Naren Desai

Authortitle: Project Officer

Review period? Various

AuthorAffiliatIon: Department of Army

Date(s) of site inspection: Various

Type of review: (Statutory 0 Policy (o Post-SARA o Pre-SARA q NPL-Removal only

D Non-NPL Remedial Action Site q NPL State/Tribe-lead o Regional Discretion)

Review number: J 1 (first) o 2 (second) o 3 (third) o Other (specify)

Triggering action: J Actual RA Onsite Construction western Boundary o Actual RA Start Study Area, Bush River Bomb Disposal Site. Abbey q Previous Five -Year Review Report Point Shoreline Piles 3 throuah 7) J Construction Completion (Michaelsville Landfill) .f Other (specify) APG request [Other Aberdeen Areas)

Triggering action date (From WasteLAN): Various

Due date (five-years after triggering action date): October 2 0 0 3

*rOU refers to operable unit.] **[Review period should correspond to the actual start and end dates of the five-year review in WasteLAN.]

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM

Deficiencies:

There have been no deficiencies identified as a result of these five-year reviews,

Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions:

Michaelsville Landfill

OU 1 - Michaelsville Landfill: Continuation of operation and maintenance (O&M) to maintain landfill cap andcover integrity, proper operation of the runoff collection system, and proper operation of landfill gas ventingsystem.

OU 2 - Michaelsville Landfill Groundwater: Long-term monitoring program should continue as outlined in theOperable Unit (OU) 2 Record of Decision (ROD) and monitoring plan. The long-term monitoring programshould report the occurrence and location of contaminants not previously identified. Three rounds ofgroundwater sampling and analysis have been completed at this area since the initiation of the monitoring plan.The Third Monitoring Report will present recommendations for future monitoring.

Western Boundary Study Area (WBSA)

OU 1 - Groundwater in the Southwestern two-thirds of the Western Boundary Study Area (WBSA) near theHarford County Production (HCP) wells: In 1991, trichloroethene (TCE) was detected in two HCP wells(HCP-5 and HCP-6) located at the Perryman well field. Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) constructed aninterim Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) treatment system to treat the groundwater from these two wells. Anew GAC plant has been constructed at Harford County’s Perryman facility and began operation in 2003.Components from the interim GAC plant were utilized during the construction of the new GAC plant. The newGAC treatment plant treats water from all of the HCP wells (HCP-1, -2, -4, -5, -6, -8, and -9).

Groundwater monitoring has been conducted and a review report will be prepared five years aftercommencement of remedial action to ensure that the selected remedy continues to provide adequate protectionof human health

OU 2 - Groundwater located in the northwestern portion of the WBSA: There has been no remedial activity orROD issued for OU2. Low levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and methyl tertiary butyl ether(MTBE) have been reported in groundwater samples obtained from OU2. In addition, perchlorate was detectedin groundwater samples obtained from wells, geoprobes and several CAP wells. A draft Remedial Investigation(RI) for OU2 has been submitted and an additional remedial investigation is ongoing.

Four underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed from the Block 4700 area in 1990 and 1995

OU 3 - Contains all other media in the WBSA OU 1 and OU 2 areas, including soil, sediment. and surfacewater: A soil removal action was also performed at the Aberdeen Fire Training Area (AFTA) between 1992 and1994. In order to address detected soil contamination, three excavation events were undertaken during thisperiod and more than 12,500 tons of contaminated soil were removed from the AFTA.

Sampling for risk assessment has been completed and the risk assessment report is currently being prepared.

1

Other Aberdeen Areas

There are currently 41 sites designated as Other Aberdeen Areas (OAAs) located throughout the Aberdeen Area(AA) of APG. Thirty-eight (38) sites were initially identified as areas of potential concern based upon a 1990report and three additional sites (Sites 28f, 32 and 33) were identified based upon the Cantonment Areainvestigation. Remedial activities have been performed at the following OAA sites:

• Site 2 Old Dump on Swan Creek • Site 4 Former Outdoor Pesticide Mixing Area at Building 5010• Site 5 DPW Backyard Storage Area Near Building 5262 • Site 6 DDT Spill Near Building 450• Site 7 Spent Lead Acid Battery Storage Site Near Building 2351 • Site 8 Discarded Batteries at Abbey Point Navigation Light • Site 9 Discarded Batteries at Spesutie Island Navigation Light• Site 18 Barrels Near Building 510 • Site 19 Sandblast Area Near Building 523 • Site 21 POL Facility Sand Pit Near Building 5215• Site 28d Building 3329 UST Site• Site 28e Building 3505 UST Site • Site 28f Building 3327 UST Site • Site29 Tower Road Site

Two studies, Phase I and Phase II, were completed at selected sites. The Phase I study was performed at 36OAA sites (excludes OAA Sites 23,28f, 29,32, and 33). Based upon an evaluation of the Phase I investigation,no further investigation was required at 11 sites (Sites 6,7, 8,10,14,15, 19,24,26c, 28a, and 28b). The remaining25 OAAs evaluated during the Phase I investigation required various types of further investigation.

A Phase II study was performed at 28 sites. These 28 sites excluded the 11 sites eliminated for furtherinvestigation during the Phase I study, and Sites 23 and 29 which are undergoing separate RemedialInvestigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Actions.

Bush River Bomb Disposal Site

The selected alternative for the Bush River Bomb Disposal Site was Removal and Demilitarization Using ShapeCharges. Implementation of this alternative offered the highest degree of protectiveness to human health and theenvironment. Removal and demilitarization is a permanent remedy that does not depend on long-term land usecontrols or maintenance. The removal of visible bombs was initiated in February 2001 and was completed inMarch 2002. The Army approved the type of detonation where shape charges were used. Soil stabilization isproceeding at the site. The remedy is functioning as intended by the decision documents.

Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7

The proposed removal action will address only the munitions and munitions-related items (MMRI) locatedwithin the Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7 along the Chesapeake Bay shoreline. Any miscellaneousMMRI located within the water 50 ft from the shoreline near Piles 3 through 7 will also be removed. Work wasinitiated in April 2002 and is expected to be completed in 2004.

2

Protectiveness Statement(s):


OU 1 - Michaelsville Landfill: The multi-layer landfill cap provides adequate protection of the groundwater bypreventing infiltration of precipitation into the landfill contents. Although the source material remains in place,there is no evidence of continued leaching of new contaminants.

OU 2 - Michaelsville Landfill Groundwater and Other Media: The monitoring plan for OU2 provides adequateprotection of human health and the environment. The monitoring plan includes analytes not previouslyinvestigated and includes discussions of distributions and trends of contaminants. The most current risk-basedor other screening criteria are included and reflect the latest toxicity information.

Western Boundary Study Area

OU 1 - Groundwater in the Southwestern two-thirds of the WBSA: The selection of the Plant Construction withGAC adsorption remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with Federal and Staterequirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements to the remedial action, and iscost effective. This remedy satisfies the statutory preferences for remedies that employ treatment that reducestoxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element. This remedy uses permanent solutions and alternativetreatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Because this remedy will result in hazardoussubstances remaining onsite above health-based levels, a review will be conducted every five years aftercommencement of remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of humanhealth and the environment.

OU 2 - Groundwater located in the northwestern portion of the WBSA: Protectiveness statements have beendeferred for WBSA OU2. A draft RI for OU2 has been submitted and an additional remedial investigation isongoing.

OU 3 - Contains all other media in the WSA OU1 and OU2 areas, including soil, sediment, and surface water.A soil removal action was also performed at the AFTA between 1992 and 1994. A risk assessment report iscurrently being prepared which will encompass these areas.


Protectiveness statements have been deferred for the OAA sites investigated during the Phase II RI pending theresults of the human health and ecological risk assessments. No RODS have been developed for any of theOAA sites. The human health and ecological risk assessments will evaluate whether the OAA sites represent apotential risk to human health or the environment. These risk assessments will also evaluate if the removalactions (which have been performed at selected sites), access controls (fencing, security guards, etc.) and otherfactors at these various sites ensure that there are no unacceptable exposure pathways. The exposureassumptions (toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives) which are utilized during thecompletion of the risk assessments shall be current and applicable to each individual site. The protectivenessstatements will be dependent upon the ROD which is obtained for these sites.


Removal, demilitarization, and disposal of visible MMRI reduced potential hazards associated with directhuman contact with MMRI formerly present at this site.

3

Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 Through 7

Removal, demilitarization, and disposal of visible MMRI will reduce potential hazards associated with directhuman contact of MMRI present at this site.

4

CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF FIGURES vii LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS xEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-l

1. INTRODUCTION 1-l

2. MICHAELSVILLE LANDFILL 2-l 2.1 Site Chronology 2-l 2.2 Site Background 2-2

2.2.1 Physical Characteristics 2-2 2.2.2 Land and Resource Use 2-2 2.2.3 History of Contamination 2-2 2.2.4 Initial Response 2-3 2.2.5 Basis for Taking Action 2-3

2.3 Remedial Actions 2-6 2.3.1 OU 1: Michaelsville Landfill 2-6

2.3.1.1 Remedy Selection 2-6 2.3.1.2 Remedy Implementation 2-7 2.3.1.3 Operation and Maintenance 2-72.3.1.4 Progress Since Last Five-Year Review 2-7

2.3.2 OU2: Michaelsville Landfill Groundwater and Other Media 2-8 2.3.2.1 Remedy Selection 2-8 2.3.2.2 Remedy Implementation 2-82.3.2.3 Operation and Maintenance 2-8

2.4 Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review 2-9 2.5 Five-Year Review Process 2-9

2.5.1 Administrative Components 2-9 2.5.2 Community Notification and Involvement 2-92.5.3 Document Review 2-92.5.4 Data Review 2-10 2.5.5 Site Inspection 2-10 2.5.6 Interviews 2-12

2.6 Technical Assessment 2-122.6.1 OU1 : Michaelsville Landfill 2-122.6.2 OU2: Michaelsville Landfill Groundwater and Other Media 2-14

2.7 Issues 2-162.8 Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions 2-162.9 Protectiveness Statements 2-162.10 Next Review 2-17

3. WESTERN BOUNDARY STUDY AREA 3-1 3.1 Site Chronology 3-1 3.2 Site Background 3-1

3.2.1 Physical Characteristics 3-2 3.2.2 Land and Resource Use 3-2

i

CONTENTS (continued)

Page

3.2.3 History of Contamination 3-4 3.2.4 Initial Response 3-5 3.2.5 Basis for Taking Action 3-7

3.3 Remedial Actions 3-8 3.3.1 OU1 3-9

3.3.1.1 Remedy Selection 3-9 3.3.1.2 Remedy Implementation 3-9 3.3.1.3 Operation and Maintenance 3-9 3.3.1.4 Progress Since Last Five-Year Review 3-9

3.3.2 OU2 3-9 3.3.2.1 Remedy Selection 3-9 3.3.2.2 Remedy Implementation 3-10 3.3.2.3 Operation and Maintenance 3-10 3.3.2.4 Progress Since Last Five-Year Review 3-10

3.3.3 OU3 3-10 3.3.3.1 Remedy Selection 3-10 3.3.3.2 Remedy Implementation 3-10 3.3.3.3 Operation and Maintenance 3-11 3.3.3.4 Progress Since Last Five-Year Review 3-11

3.4 Five-Year Review Process 3-11 3.4.1 Administrative Components 3-11 3.4.2 Community Notification and Involvement 3-11 3.4.3 Document Review 3-11 3.4.4 Data Review 3-12 3.4.5 Site Inspection 3-13 3.4.6 Interviews 3-14

3.5 Technical Assessment 3-15 3.5.1 OU1 3-15 3.5.2 OU2 and OU3 3-17

3.6 Issues 3-18 3.7 Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions 3-l8 3.8 Protectiveness Statements 3-18

3.8.1 Next Review 3-19

4. OTHER ABERDEEN AREAS 4-1 4.1 Site Chronology 4-15 4.2 Site Background 4-15

4.2.1 Physical Characteristics 4-15 4.2.2 Land and Resource Use 4-15 4.2.3 History of Contamination 4-16 4.2.4 Initial Response 4-16 4.2.5 Basis for Taking Action 4-19

4.3 Remedial Actions 4-20 4.4 Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review 4-20 4.5 Five-Year Review Process 4-20

ii


4.5.1 Administrative Components 4-20 4.5.2 Community Involvement 4-20 4.5.3 Document Review 4-21 4.5.4 Data Review 4-214.5.5 Site Inspection 4-21 4.5.6 Interviews 4-21 4.5.7 Technical Assessment 4-22 4.5.8 Issues 4-22 4.5.9 Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions 4-22 4.5.10 Protectiveness Statement 4-22 4.5.11 Next Review 4-22

5. BUSH RIVER BOMB DISPOSAL SITE 5-1 5.1 Site Chronology 5-l 5.2 Site Background 5-1

5.2.1 Physical Characteristics 5-l 5.2.2 Land and Resource Use 5-1 5.2.3 History of Contamination 5-1 5.2.4 Initial Response 5-2 5.2.5 Basis for Taking Action 5-2

5.3 Remedial Actions 5-2 5.3.1 Remedy Selection 5-2 5.3.2 Remedy Implementation 5-3


5.5.1 Administrative Components 5-4 5.5.2 Community Notification and Involvement 5-4 5.5.3 Document Review 5-4 5.5.4 Data Review 5-4 5.5.5 Site Inspection 5-5 5.5.6 Interviews 5-5

5.6 Technical Assessment 5-5 5.7 Issues 5-6 5.8 Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions 5-6 5.9 Protectiveness Statements 5-6 5.10 Next Review 5-6

6. ABBEY POINT SHORELINE PILES 3 THROUGH 7 6-1 6.1 Site Chronology 6-l 6.2 Site Background 6-1

6.2.1 Physical Characteristics 6-1 6.2.2 Land and Resource Use 6-l 6.2.3 History of Contamination 6-2 6.2.4 Initial Response 6-2 6.2.5 Basis for Taking Action 6-3

6.3 Remedial Actions 6-3 6.3.1 Remedy Selection 6-3 6.3.2 Remedy Implementation 6-4

iii



6.5.1 Administrative Components 6-6 6.5.2 Community Notification and Involvement 6-6 6.5.3 Document Review 6-6 6.5.4 Data Review 6-6 6.5.5 Site Inspection 6-6 6.5.6 Interviews 6-7

6.6 Technical Assessment 6-76.7 Issues 6-76.8 Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions 6-7 6.9 Protectiveness Statements 6-7 6.10 Next Review 6-7

REFERENCES

APPENDIX A: MICHAELSVILLE LANDFILL INSPECTION RECORDS

LIST OF FIGURES

Number Title1-1 Location Map of Aberdeen Proving Ground.1-2 Site Location Map, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 2-1 Site Location Map, Michaelsville Landfill, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground,

Maryland.2-2 Michaelsville Landfill Sampling Locations, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground,

Maryland.3-1 Location of WBSA and Areas Within the WBSA, Western Boundary Study Area, Aberdeen

Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.3-2 Site Map Depicting the Location of the Harford County Production Wells and the TCE Plume,

Western Boundary Study Area, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.3-3 WBSA Post-ROD Groundwater Monitoring Locations, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving

Ground, Maryland.4-l Other Aberdeen Area Sites, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. 5-1 Site Location Map, White Phosphorus Underwater Munitions Burial Area, Aberdeen Area,

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.6-1 Site Location Map, Bush River Bomb Disposal Site, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground,

Maryland. 7-1 Site Location Map, Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 Through 7, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving

Ground, Maryland.

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Number Title

2-1 Chronology of Site Events. 2-2 Historic Detections in Groundwater Equal to or Exceeding Comparison Criteria at Monitoring

Locations.2-3 Historic Detections in Surface Water and Sediment Equal to or Exceeding Comparison Criteria

at Monitoring Locations. 2-4 Recommendations.3-1 Chronology of Site Events. 3-2 Western Boundary Study Area - OU1 , Summary of Post-ROD Groundwater Sample Results. 3-3 Key to Abbreviations, Data Qualifiers, and Other Notations Used in the Data Tables. 3-4 Changes in Chemical-Specific Standards.3-5 Changes in Action-Specific Requirements. 4-1 Chronology of Site Events, Other Aberdeen Areas, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground,

Maryland.4-2 Summary of OAA Groundwater Sample Exceedances. 4-3 Summary of OAA Surface Water Sample Exceedances. 4-4 Summary of OAA Soil Sample Exceedances.4-5 Summary of OAA Sediment Sample Exceedances. 4-6 Summary of Site 2 Soil Sample Exceedances.4-7 Summary of Site 2 Sediment Sample Exceedances. 5-1 Chronology of Site Events. 6-1 Chronology of Site Events. 7-1 Chronology of Site Events.

v

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AA Aberdeen Area AEHA Army Environmental Hygiene Agency AFTA Aberdeen Fire Training Area APG Aberdeen Proving GroundAPGSCC APG Superfund Citizens Coalition APRF Army Pulse Reactor Facility ARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements ARL Army Research Laboratory AST Aboveground Storage Tank ATC Aberdeen Test Center AWQC Ambient Water Quality Criteria bgs Below Ground Surface BLRA Baseline Risk Assessment BTAG Biological Technical Assistance Group BTD Bomb Throwing Device BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes CAP City of Aberdeen Production CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActCFR Code of Federal Regulations cm/s Centimeter(s) Per Second COMAR Code of Maryland COPC Chemical of Potential Concern CY Cubic Yard(s) DCA Dichloroethane DCE DichloroetheneDCP Dichloropropane DDT Dichloro-ciphenyl-trichloroethane DEH Directorate of Engineering and Housing DELO Directorate of Logistics Operations DOE Department of Energy DPW Department of Public WorkDRMO Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office DSHE Directorate of Safety, Health and the Environment DU Depleted Uranium EA EA Engineering, Science, and Technology EOD Explosive Ordnance Disposal EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERL Effects Range Low ERT Environmental Response Team ESE Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. ETO Explosive Test Operator FCV Final Chronic Value FFS Focused Feasibility StudyFS Feasibility Studyft Foot/Feet ft2 Square Feet FTX Field Training Exercise

vi

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)

GAC Granular Activated Carbongal Gallon(s) GATE German Ammunition Train ExplosionGP General Physics HASP Health and Safety Plan HAZWRAP Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program HCP Harford County Production HE High Explosive HGA Hydrogeological Assessment IA Installation AssessmentIAG Interagency AgreementICF ICF Kaiser Engineers in. Inch(es)IRIS Integrated Risk Information System lb Pound(s) MCL Maximum Contaminant Level MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal MDE Maryland Department of the Environment m Meter(s) mg/kg Milligram(s) Per Kilogrammgd Million Gallon(s) Per DayMLF Michaelsville Landfill mm Millimeter(s) MMRI Munitions and Munitions-Related Items MP Monitoring Plan MSL Mean Sea Level MTBE Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether NBF New Bombing Field NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency PlanNEPA National Environmental Policy Act NJDEPE New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPL National Priorities List O&M Operation and MaintenanceOAA Other Aberdeen Area OB/OD Open Burning/Open DetonationOBF Old Bombing Field OU Operable UnitPAA Phillips Army AirfieldPAALF Phillips Army Airfield Landfill PAH Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls PCE TetrachloroethylenePLF Phillips Army Airfield Landfill POL Petroleum/Oil/LubricantPP Plate Pile PPb Part(s) Per Billion RAB Restoration Advisory Board RBO Remedial Action Objective

vii

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)

RBC Risk-Based ConcentrationRCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RDX Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine RFA RCRA Facility Assessment RfD Reference Dose RI Remedial InvestigationRI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ROD Record of Decision SQC Sediment Quality Criteria SVOC Semivolatile Organic Compound TAG Technical Assistance GroupTCE Trichloroethylene TNT TrinitrotolueneTPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons TRAAV Test Range for Advanced Aerospace Vulnerability U.S. United States U.S.C. United States Code µg/kg Microgram(s) Per Kilogram µg L Microgram(s) Per Liter USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USACHPPM U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine USAEHA U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency USATC U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center USATEU U.S. Army Technical Escort Unit USATHAMA U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency USEPA U.S.Environmental Protection Agency UST Underground Storage Tank UXO Unexploded Ordnance VOC Volatile Organic CompoundWBSA Western Boundary Study Area WES Waterways Experiment Station WPMLBA White Phosphorous Munitions Land Burial AreaWPUMBA White Phosphorus Underwater Munitions Burial AreaWWI World War I XRF X-Ray Fluorescence Yd Yard(s)

viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A five-year review was completed for the following six sites located at the Aberdeen Area of Aberdeen ProvingGround, Aberdeen, Maryland:

• Michaelsville Landfill; • Western Boundary Study Area; • Other Aberdeen Areas; • Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7; and • Bush River Bomb Disposal Site.


The remedy for Michaelsville Landfill included the construction of a multi-layer landfill cap over the landfill.This cap provides adequate protection of the groundwater by preventing infiltration of precipitation into thelandfill contents. A monitoring plan and well restrictions for the groundwater and areas surroundingMichaelsville Landfill provides adequate protection of human health and the environment. The monitoring planincludes the analysis of groundwater samples and discussions pertaining to the distribution and trends ofcontaminants. Three rounds of groundwater samples and associated analyses/discussions have been completedsince the implementation of the monitoring plan at this area.

The assessment of this five-year review found that the remedy was constructed in accordance with therequirements of the Record of Decision (ROD).

Western Boundary Study Area

The selected remedy for Operable Unit (OU) 1 of the Western Boundary Study Area (WBSA) is to constructand operate a new granular activated carbon (GAC) plant at Harford County’s Perryman Facility for thetreatment of groundwater from Harford County Production (HCP) wells HCP-1, -2, -4, -5, -6, -8 and -9. Aninterim GAC treatment plant has effectively treated water from wells HCP-5 and HCP-6. A new GAC plant wasconstructed at Harford County’s Perryman facility in 2002-2003. Components from the interim GAC plant wereutilized during the construction of the new GAC plant.

A post-ROD monitoring plan for the WBSA OU1 has also been developed and implemented, and includes thesampling and analysis of groundwater. The monitoring program also includes GAC system influent and effluentsampling and analysis.

A Draft RI of OU2 has been completed and an additional RI is currently ongoing in OU2. Low levels of VOCsand MTBE have been reported in groundwater samples obtained from OU2. In addition, perchlorate wasdetected in groundwater samples obtained from wells and geoprobes. Perchlorate has also been detected inseveral City of Aberdeen production (CAP) wells.

A risk assessment is currently being prepared for OU3. The OU3 risk assessment includes the completion of thehuman health and ecological risk assessments for all of the Aberdeen Area (AA) excluding OU2.


Protectiveness statements have not been developed for the OAA sites investigated during the Phase II RIpending the results of the human health and ecological risk assessments. The human health and ecological riskassessments will evaluate whether the OAA sites represent a potential risk to human health or the environment.

ES-1

These risk assessments will also evaluate if the removal actions (which have been performed at selected sites),access controls and other factors at these various sites ensure that there are no unacceptable exposure pathways.The exposure assumptions (toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives) which are utilizedduring the completion of the risk assessments shall be current and applicable to each individual site. Theprotectiveness statements will be dependent upon the ROD which is obtained for these sites.


A ROD was not issued for this site. However, the site has been remediated through the removal and disposal ofmunitions and munitions-related items (MMRI) from the Bush River Bomb Disposal Site. Removal,demilitarization, and disposal of MMRI has eliminated possible threats associated with direct human contactwith MMRI formerly present at the site. All removed MMRI has been managed in accordance with Federal,State, and Army regulations. Following removal of the MMRI the shoreline was stabilized to reduce futurebank erosion.

Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7

A ROD was not issued for this site. However, the site is being remediated through the removal and disposal ofMMRI from the Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7. Removal, demilitarization, and disposal of MMRIwill eliminate any possible threats associated with direct human contact with MMRI present at the site. Allremoved Mh4RI has been managed in accordance with Federal, State, and Army regulations. In order to ensurethe protection of the shoreline, any miscellaneous MMRI located within the water 50-ft from the shoreline nearPiles 3 through 7 will also be removed.

ES-2

1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of the five-year review is to determine whether the remedy at a site is protective of human healthand the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in five-year reviewreports. In addition, five-year reports identify deficiencies found during the review, if any, and proposerecommendations to address them.

The Lead Agency (United States Army) implemented these five-year reviews consistent with theComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Oiland Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA 12 1 ©) as amended states:

If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, orcontaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial action no less often thaneach five years after the initiation of such remedial action to assure that human health and theenvironment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented. In addition, if upon suchreview it is the judgement of the President that action is appropriate at such site in accordance withsection [104] or [106], the President shall take or require such action. The President shall report to theCongress a list of facilities for which such review is required, the results of all such reviews, and anyactions taken as a result of such reviews.

The NCP part 300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) states:

If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminantsremaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the leadagency shall review such action no less often than every five years after the initiation of the selectedremedial action.

The United States (U.S.) Army, on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has conducted afive-year review of remedial actions and investigations implemented at selected sites located within theAberdeen Area (AA), Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), Maryland (Figure l-l). This review was conducted byEA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA) under U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-BWXT Y-12 L.L.C.Contract No. 4300003638 for the Directorate of Safety, Health and the Environment (DSHE) from January2002 through June 2003. This report documents the results of the review.

This is the first five-year review for the APG-AA and is inclusive of the following five areas:

• Michaelsville Landfill (Chapter 2); • Western Boundary Study Area (Chapter 3); • Other Aberdeen Areas (Chapter 4); • Bush River Bomb Disposal Site (Chapter 5); and • Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 Through 7 (Chapter 6).

The triggering action for this statutory review was the initiation of remedial action at Michaelsville Landfill(MLF), as shown in EPA’s CERCLIS3/WasteLAN database, on 25 March 1993. Specifically, this five-yearreview was activated due to the continuing presence of contaminants at the MLF above levels that allow forunlimited and unrestricted exposure.

Although the triggering date for this five-year review was based on the MLF, the four additional Aberdeen AreaCERCLA study areas have been included in this five-year review for continuity. The locations of these fivesites included in this five-year review are presented on Figure 1-2.

1-1

2. MICHAELSVILLE LANDFILL

2.1 SITE CHRONOLOGY

A chronology of events for the Michaelsville Landfill Study Area is provided in Table 2-l.

TABLE 2-1 CHRONOLOGY OF SITE EVENTS EVENT OU DATE

Operation of landfill C 1969-1980

Initial discovery C May 1, 1981

Pre-NPL Activities Recommendation to Cap Recommendation to Impervious Cap Hydrogeological Assessment Removal Assessment Removal Activities Install leachate collection system

C1981 (Harford County Dept. of Health)1985 (AEHA)1990 (WES)August 18, 1989

1991

Preliminary Assessment C November 1, 1980

Site Inspection C March 28, 1988

Final NPL Listing C October 4, 1989

Federal Facilities Agreement C March 1990

Record of Decision (ROD) signature OU 1 June 29, 1992

OU 2 September 23, 1997

Remedial Design Start OU 1 July 1, 1992

OU 2 October 1, 1998

Remedial Design Complete OU 1 August 15, 1992

OU 2 March 1, 1999 (monitoring plan)

Construction Dates OU 1 First Cap 1983Second Cap March 25, 1993-September 30, 1994

Remedial Action Start/Finish OU 1 March 25, 1993/September 30, 1994

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study(RI/FS) Complete

OU 1 June 29, 1992

OU 2 September 23, 1997

Five Year Report OU 1 October 2002

OU 2 October 2003Notes: AEH = Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, MDE = Maryland Department of the Environment, NPL = National Priorities List, USGS = United States Geological Survey, WES = Waterways Experiment Station, * = OU1 and OU2are a result of addressing public water supplies and groundwater flow in the WBSA. Source: CERCLIS Site Information,http://www.epa..gov/superfund/sites/cursites/c3md/a0300423. htm, November 1999.

2-1

2.2 SITE BACKGROUND

2.2.1 Physical Characteristics

The Michaelsville Landfill area consists of approximately 20 to 25 acres within the security-controlled portionof APG, bordered on the north by Michaelsville Road and on the south by Trench Warfare Road (Figure 2-l).The area consists of the approximately 20-acre landfill and associated structures. Surface water drainage is toditches and wetland areas - and ultimately to Romney Creek, which in turn drains into the Chesapeake Bay.

The 1 -mile radius of the MLF consists of APG property. The main industrial sector of the APG-AA is locatedapproximately 3,300 A north of the MLF. Operations within 1,500 ft of the MLF include a firing range, anammunition receiving and transfer facility, a metal scrap yard, a low-level radioactive waste short-term storagefacility, and a former pistol firing range. APG barracks are located 1 mile north of the MLF, and on-post familyhousing is located 2 miles north of the MLF. The City of Aberdeen is approximately 4 miles north of the MLF,and the City of Perryman is located approximately 2 miles west of the MLF. The APG standby groundwaterproduction wells are located approximately 1 mile northeast of the MLF.

2.2.2 Land and Resource Use

Operations at the MLF began in late 1969 and continued through 1980. Landfill operations includedtrench-and-fill disposal of domestic and non-industrial waste from sources at APG. Since 1980, the facility hasbeen inactive.

The current land use of the surrounding area is military and includes an active firing range, a metal scrap yard,and an ammunition receiving and transfer facility. Future use scenario for the site is to maintain the site formilitary/industrial purposes, thus reducing the risk to people by limiting access to the site. There are nounacceptable risks presented by the contamination in the surface soil, surface water, and sediment. However,there is a potential risk from drinking groundwater; therefore, a restriction on the installation of drinking waterwells within 1/4 mile of the landfill cap has been put in place.

The groundwater aquifer underlying the site is currently not used as a drinking water source. The dominantshallow groundwater flow direction is to the southeast to the Chesapeake Bay.

2.2.3 History of Contamination

Based on verbal and written evidence, material other than general refuse that may have been disposed of inMLF includes pesticide containers, swimming pool paint, asbestos shingles, solvents, waste motor oil,transformer oil containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, rodenticides, and wastewater treatmentsludges.

In 1981 the Harford County Department of Health recommended capping the landfill. In response, animpervious soil cap was placed on MLF in 1983. Follow-up inspections in 1983 and 1985 indicated that thelandfill cap did not appear to be functioning properly to prevent water infiltration into the landfill.

The Hydrogeological Assessment (HGA) conducted by the Waterways Experiment Station (WES) in 1990(Miller et al. 1990) indicated that the landfill, prior to final capping, could be contributing organic and inorganicchemical contamination to the groundwater beneath the MLF. A Preliminary Risk Assessment (ICF 1991)addressed potential adverse impacts to human health and the environment from the MLF in the absence ofremedial action. This assessment addressed potential exposure to groundwater, surface water, sediment, and soilassociated with the MLF. This conservative Risk Assessment identified levels in excess of EPA ranges of

2-2

Island

---

1.1.1 APG Boundary

FIGURE 2-l SITE LOCATION MAP

MICHAELSVILLE LANDFILL ABERDEEN AREA, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND

acceptable risk for carcinogenic and non-cancer health effects. Some risk to invertebrate environmentalreceptors was also reported.

2.2.4 Initial Response

Past disposal operations at the MLF have led to contaminated soil, sediment, and groundwater present at theMLF and also the adjacent area. The Army decided to manage the environmental contamination in the differentmedia at the MLF in a phased approach. This separation of environmental media into two Operable Units (OUs)allowed the Army to begin remedial actions prior to the full assessment of the MLF area. The two OUs for theMLF include the following:

• OU1 - Michaelsville Landfill - includes the contents of the landfill; and

• OU2 - Michaelsville Landfill - includes groundwater and other media, which includesgroundwater, surface water, and sediment within and immediately surrounding the MLF.

Leachate seeps occurred several times, after capping the MLF, between 1983 and 1991. Jn 1991 a leachatecollection system was installed along the northwestern side of the MLF to provide for proper disposal of theleachate. In 1994 a new, multilayered cap system with a geosynthetic membrane was installed in accordancewith Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) requirements for sanitary landfills. Installation of thenew cap included surface water controls for seasonal precipitation and the installation of a methane gas ventingsystem within the landfill cap system. The leachate collection system installed in 1991 was removed andreplaced by a new drainage system.

2.2.5 Basis for Taking Action

OUl : Michaelsville Landfill

The source of the contamination at the MLF is specifically the waste within the landfill. Landfill operationsincluded trench-and-fill disposal of domestic and non-industrial waste from sources at APG. Cappingoperations were initiated to prevent infiltration of precipitation into the landfill materials and inhibit furthercontamination of groundwater and soil. Two surface soil samples were obtained from the top of the landfill inOctober 1989. These two soil samples were considered to be clean fill and not representative of landfillcontamination (ICF 1991). Organic chemicals detected in these samples were acetone, methylene chloride, andseveral pesticides. All organic chemicals, with the exception of acetone, detected in these samples werereported at concentrations similar to background samples obtained 700 ft east of the landfill. The maximumconcentrations of chromium, copper, and zinc were only slightly above the maximum levels detected in thebackground samples (APG 1992).

Ten samples were collected from seeps around the landfill during 1988 and 1989 (APG 1990). The chemicalsdetected in these seep samples included volatile organic chemicals such as acetone, methylene chloride, andvinyl chloride, as well as phthalates, pesticides, and PCBs. The blank samples also included methylene chloride,butyl benzyl phthalate, di-n-octyl phthalate, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, and PCBs. No appropriate backgrounddata exist for comparison of inorganic constituents in seep samples (ICF 1991).

OU2: Michaelsville Landfill Groundwater and Other Media

A summary of historical analytical detections exceeding comparison criteria in groundwater, surface water, andsediment is presented in Tables 2-2 and 2-3. Overall, compounds detected in the media around MLF appear tobe stable or decreasing with few. exceptions. Analyte levels at a few sites have shown increases -the mostconsistent increase has been iron, manganese, and ammonia in groundwater.

2-4

Table 2-4 provides a summary of long term trends observed within groundwater, surface water, and sedimentsamples obtained from the MLF area.

Groundwater

Historically, groundwater has been sampled since 1980 in the MLF area. The most significant groundwaterinvestigations include the Hydrogeological Assessment (HGA) (Miller et al. 1990) and the OU2 RemedialInvestigation (RI) (Metcalf & Eddy, June 1997). A round of groundwater sampling was also completed in May1994 that included analysis for explosives in groundwater, but explosives were not detected in these samples.For the OU2 RI, two rounds of groundwater sampling were completed in 1994 and 1995 with additionalconfirmatory sampling events as necessary. Groundwater samples were also obtained from selected wells in1996 and 1997 for chemical warfare agent degradation products, In addition, groundwater sampling wasconducted at selected wells in February 1999, March 2000, and March 2002 as outlined in the Post-RODMonitoring Plan.

A preliminary screening of groundwater results during the HGA and RI used the USEPA Region III risk basedconcentrations (RBCs) and the USEPA maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking water. Thirty-twowells in shallow groundwater were investigated. Eleven of these were considered to be upgradient wells.Generally, inorganic analytes were more frequently detected than organic analytes. Aluminum, ammonia,antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, thallium, 1,2-dichloroethane,1,1-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloropropane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethance, trans 1,3-dichloropropene, alpha benzenehexachloride, benzene, chloroform, trichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride were detected at concentrations thatexceeded the RBCs or the MCLs. Chloroform and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane were only detected in theupgradient wells. Aluminum, arsenic, beryllium, iron, manganese, and thallium exceeded RBCs or MCLs in theupgradient and downgradient wells. The distribution of contamination is not indicative of any distinct plume ofcontamination coming from MLF; however, downgradient wells generally have a greater number ofcontaminants than upgradient wells. Arsenic generally is detected at much higher concentrations downgradientof the MLF than upgradient. One upgradient shallow well (WES-M-10) exceeded the MCL for gross alpharadiation in 1995. This result was not confirmed during resampling in 1996 nor in the three post-RODgroundwater sampling events. One downgradient shallow well (WES-M-13) exceeded the MCL for gross betaradiation in 1995. This result was not replicated during the three post-ROD groundwater sampling events.Chemical warfare degradation products (thiodiglycol, isopropyl methyl phosphonic acid (IMPA), and methylphosphonic acid (MPA)) were detected in groundwater samples obtained from four wells in April 1996.Confirmatory sampling with a refined analytical procedure in April 1997 detected only thiodiglycol at two MLFwells. There is no comparison value for thiodiglycol (APG, 1997).

Eleven wells surrounding MLF are deep wells. They are situated in a semiconfined groundwater unit about 100feet deep. Five of the wells are upgradient of MLF, and one well is in a different hydrogeologic unit than theother wells. Arsenic, ammonia, iron, and manganese were detected in upgradient and downgradient deep wellsat levels greater than the RBCs. Vinyl chloride and cadmium were also detected, but not at levels or frequenciesindicative of unacceptable risk. One deep well reported one detection of gross alpha radiation higher than theMCL (APG, 1997).

Chemical warfare agent degradation products were detected in groundwater samples obtained from fivelocations during the 1996 and 1997 RI sampling events. Thiodiglycol was detected at two locations; IMPA wasdetected at three locations; and MPA was detected at one location. There are no screening values for thesecontaminants (APG 1997).

The APG Standby water supply wells were also sampled during the OU2 RI. These APG Standby wells arelocated northeast of MLF in the lower aquifer (also known as the second aquifer), a different unit than the deep

2-5

Table 2-2. Historic Detections in Groundwater Equal to or Exceeding Comparison Criteria at Monitoring Locations, Michaelsville Landfill, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground

c ‘NDWATER

h-J-M-05 (UpgradIent - Shallow)

MCL or RBC May-94 ugn ItgiL

Oti-94 UgR

Mar-95 ltgll

Feb-99 Mer-04 Me+02

u9R ugn tag/L l

1.1,2.2-TCA Chbmform

Aluminum

Antimony

Arsenic

Beqilium

Cadmium

Chromium Lead Iron Manganese

Ammonia MS-M-97 (Upgradient - Deep)

Chloroform Wnyl Chlohds

z ArsanK:

-_

Ammonia WES-M-10 (Downgradient - Shallow)

1.2-DCA 1 .2-DCP Benzene Chloroathane Wnyl Chloride

2,2’oxybis(lchforopropane)

Alpha BHC

Arm-tic iron Manganese

Ammonia Panem . Concentration exceeds compamon tfilena

-0.053 l *0.15

Cl <'- e1.0 ~1 :‘, .:. B2.J : ,. :. 0.20 <l .o

No Exwedanws No Exwedanws No Excedmces

2.020 t.” :45$66:J~ : -3;7lO

-30 q1.2 c2 3.6 B 3.0 J 2.25

2.4 J co.60

7.9 B

.. 52.eoaj ~~a60 3S.Y

14.38

Cl.0 4 Cl.0 4

4138. :..r;e,;l a.1 G.2 4.1 4.6

eo.10 0.22 B Co.40 9.4 2.2 B 22.2 Cl.3 14.5 314 .: :.:::g,679~

24.9 B 30.3 K

No Gmeadancas No Excaedances No Exwedances No Exweea~S

“0.15 Cl 2 Cl

10 5.3

-4 E 0.3 J 0.6 J

No Exceedartces No Exaadanms No Exaadancas No Excasdancas

5.7 J 6.0

No Exceedawes No Exwedanws No Exceedances No Exceedanws

4.0 Cl.0 4 .o 0.5 J Cl.0 0.5 J

3.3 J c3.1 s3.6

5 4.32 J 4 <l <l 1.1

6 107J IJ 0.96 2.0 -3 Cl i - 4.31 -.-- J .:i ?:a: : . . 0.1

“3.6 1.89J .‘.. .:6 1.9’ ” ‘0.69i 2 Cl 1J 4 .o 0.37 J

“0.26

“0.011

alo: : ;;:j;i : ... ‘&J 40 : : :+j:j

co.052 <0.652 <0.05 CO.054 <on5

No Excaadancas

No Excaedanws No Exceedances No Exceedances No Exceedance

“21 70,600. ttooo 10.000 L 20,661 LFF-Mtjj 22500

?*‘” “T+!,;& Bold wilt? Shading - Highest delected cM)CO~trahofI detectW in grOW!dwater.

TES: I . Groups of anslyles included in lhts table we those identlbd es hanng one Or more screemng cntena (RBC andlor MCL)

.-_. 2 WCs are reported as screenang cntena Wwn no MCL is Itsted for a pan~culsr constituent

3. &nalytes 0, groups of anatytes with results exceeding RBCs but nOt erceedlng MCLs for a pwtwlar constituenl are not losled unless it excbeded

me MCL at one me II me MCL was exceeded for any sample. men resulls are presenled for all samples

Table 4 - Page I 01’ 4

Table 2-2. Historic Detections in Groundwater Equal to or Exceeding Comparison Criteria at Monitoring Locations, Michaelsville Landfill, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground

GROUNDWATER

WEB-M-12 (Downgradknt - Deep)

MCLor RBC” May-M O&M

usn ug/L u9A

Mar-95 Fob49 Mar-00 Mm42

usn Uf$L uon U@L

T Ammonia

WEB-M-13 (Downgradient - Shallow)

NoExa3xbnws No Exceedames No Exceledancas NoExceedmces No Exrxedmcas

10 2.16 2.6 K <2 3.6 J 4.1 4.6 -73 11.6:“:: .:-j&j- 14.5 0 6.9 B 5.3J

MJExwedarms NOEX- NOEX- NC Exceedatlces

1.2-DCA 1.2-l?cP Benzene Chloroathane Vinyl Chloride

Bis(2-zhlomethyl)etheer

Alpha BHC

z Antimony Arsenu c&ett Cadmum Iron Manganese

x Ammonia

WES-M-22 (Downgradlent - Shallow)

1.2~DCA 1.2.DCP Benzena Chlomethane TCE Wnyl Chloride

EEli= Antimony Arsenic CotJell Lead Manganese

z Ammonia Panem . Concentration exceeds comparison criteria

“21 : 4#o: : : : 3,tw : : :4$ooL~ : it+7 f: 7.w-

.“.’ “” .“. 54111 1:::: ,.y’:$ : ;: : 2, 3 2.0 1.5 5 4 0.8 J 0.7 B 4 4 4 5 4.79 J 3.0

“3.6 .; : .;?:Sfi 4 ,: .I:c. : 7 : ;.:i:::.: .: .I -:: 2 Cl 0.8 J 4 0.6 J 4.0 &!J

“00096, 40 <lo -30 ,:. !?+I .. : : : :1;*2

“0.011 <0.055 co.055 ~0.05 CO.054 <o.w No Exc8edances

6 10

“73 5

1,100 -73

40 Cl.2 x3.1 4.2 .,,$,k.: : .‘.‘tO;& 8.0 J 6.7 J

27.7 29.2 52.8 Mf3.l 3fll.l --. - c3 +=3 a.40 ~0.40

26iWO ’ : 25;960 : 37.m:. : :3?,708J, : 3,650 : 3&o I I :3.3?0: .: : s,ozd 6.14@-

No Exceedatlc8s No Excuedances No Exceadances No Exceedances

5 4 Cl 0.9 J <l Cl Cl 5 1.25 J 2 2 4 Cl 4 5 2.65 J 4J 3 3.0 1 .s 1.3

“3.6 2.4J .: :j:’ 3 Cl.0 2.7 5 4.06 J 2 1.4 0.62 J 2: 255 J 0.7J Cl.0 0.48 J

No Excwdanc86 Na Exceedances No Exceedatlces

6 <25 c3.1 4.2 10 <2 4.1 ~3.8

l *73.. .; ‘-Ytt-. ‘: ,:q7 ::197 15 3.36 3.2 3.5 B 2.1 L Cl.3 CP

-73: .5,4Ytl 7,150. : &JO0

No Exceedan No Exceedances No Exceedames NC Exceedances

*: ‘- ! “““‘~ ,&L$” ,. Bold with Shading _ Hlghesl detected concenhahon detected in groundwater. NOTES: 1 . Groups of analytes mcluded n tfvs Isbls are fhose identified as having one or mcve screening cnlena (RBC and/or MCL)

2 - RBCs ere rsponed IS screening criteria when no MCL D Med fm a partlcufar constituent. 3 - Analytes or groups of analyles with resuns sxceedmg RBCs lxx not exceedmg MCLs for a pamcular consWent are no, IMM unless i( exceeded the MCL at one time If the MCL was exceeded for any sampk. then results are presented for all samples.

Table 4 - Page Z of 4

Table 2-2. Historic Detections in Groundwater Equal to or Exceeding Comparison Crlteria at Monitoring Locations, Michaelsville Landfill, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground

Q- VNDWATER

M-23 (Downgradient - Shallow)

MCL or RBC May-94 0694

“Qfl UQk UQ,,.

Mar-95

“QA

Feb-99 Mar90 Mar-02 UgR UQA UQA

‘Volatile I.l-DCE 1 .BDCA 1 ,P-DCP Benzena Chbroathana TCE Wnyi Chbride

Alpha BHC

Antimony AIsenic Cadmium cobalt Iron Manganese

Ammonia WES-M-25 (Downgradient - Shallow)

Chlomethana Vinyl Chbride

Bis(2ethylhexyl)phlhalale

I Cadmium Iron Manganese

Ammonia WES-M-ZQ (Downgradient - Shallow)

EitizE Arsenic Manganese

: Pattsm . concsntration exceeds comparison ctitetia

7 4 1 4 Cl 4 Cl 5 Cl 0.7 J IJ Cl 4 4 5 1.61 J 1J IJ 0.9 J 0.7 J Sl

“3,; :x..;gj. : :.,.,_ 4:d 2.0 1.4 1.1

..::.:... 2 4.0 2.1 5 3.13 3 l.OJ 4 0.28 J 2 1.77J I:- 0.7 J Cl.0 0.36 J

No Exc8edances

“0.011 co.052 <0.046 <0.05 <O.ffll a.05 IIWS

6 Q5 <25 E 1.6 K 6.2 <21 3.0 J CS.2 <I9

R <O.&J Q ,,. ;, 1: -4241.; ; .,._ :j!g... .‘. :h:. 1263 _‘.‘. :: :

-38;~oa ; : : 30;090: :: ‘~‘.J8;60+ I.: I :34;9gQ :.: : x700: .;: : : p;K@

No Exceedances

“21 : : : 32*- : : : : ,qo : : yc; ; .,:ssd:@m : : :‘. : ql

“3.6 1.36J 3 1 4 .o 1.9 2: 1: :.,;j&j ., -.6.3 4 <,,o :, 1: ::: ‘,:,: &A

6 Cl0 <lo- 40 1J <ll

No Exceedances No Exceedances

5 c3 <3. “1.100 *,2qQ.::.::: 3&o* :: :. zs;6yJ

“73-Y .‘/::58?~:. 652 :

.3z,; gy$d ,856 : : I :~~.,‘-. : :. : m

No Excaedanms No Exceedances No Exaedances No Exceedances No Exceedances

NC Exceedances NC Exceedancas NC Exceedances No Exceedances

10 “73

No Exceedances N-s 7.3 K 9.7 L 3.6 J p&y .j.,: yj& : .I, 103::‘: ‘. ;.ya7

No Excaadances Nc Excaedances No Excaedances Nc Exceedances No Exceedances

Sold with Shading - Highest detected concsnhalion delected in groundwatsr. NOTES: I _ Groups pt snalytes included in this table are those idemihed as hanng one or more screemng ctitena (RBC and/or MCL).

2 - R6Cs are reported as screenmQ criteria when no MC1 is Mad lor a paniculaf constituent 3 _ Analfles 01 groups of analytes wth results exceeding RBCs but rwt exceeding HCLs for a partwlar constituent are not Itsted unless I exceeded the MCL aI 0~ bme If the MCL was exceeded IOr any Same. then rSSul(s are prhsenMd for all SampIeS

Table 4 - Page 3 of 4

Table Z-2. Historic Detections in Groundwater Equal to or Exceeding Comparison Criteria at Monitoring Locations, Michaelsville Landfill, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground

GROUNDWATER

WES-M-31 (Downgradlsnl- DWP)

MCL or RBC May-04 OCl-94 Mar-05 FOb-Bg Mar-00 Mar-02 V@L vgn vgA w UsA w w

No Excaedarfcas NoExoeedancns No Excea&nces No Excedancas

Antimony 6

lrotl l *1,100 Mangenase “73

No Excaedanoss No Exceedances No Exceadancw No Exceeba~S

“21 Ammonia WEW-34 (Downgradlent - Deep)

No Exwedences No Exceedences No Excmdanax No Exwedances

Cadmium lml Manganese

5 “1.100

“73 No Exceedances No Exceedencas No Exceedences No Exwedancas

Ammonia “21 NS : 2300 : .P,Ooc. 24osL~~: :.. : &,M . .

,. :. Pattern - Cmcsntratfon exceeds comfMson criteria.

B Bold with Shading - Hlghesl detected concentration detected in grounbwstsr. NOTES: 1 . Groups of analyias included in this table are those idanti%d as havtng one or more screening criteria (RBC and/or MCL).

2 . RBCs are reported as screening aitsria when no MCL is fisted for a pstiicutw constituent.

3. Analyles 01 groups of analytes with results exceeding RBCs but noI exceeding MCLs for a pwticular constihMn1 are not tieed unkss r eaae&d

me MC1 a* one time. If me MCL was exceeded hx sny sampk. men resutts am presented fw *I samples.

Table 4 - Page 4 of 4

TABLL _ .4: Summary of Long Term (RI and Post-ROD) Trends

Michaelsville Landfill, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground

ANALYTE CLASS

Pesticide/RIB Herbicides Inoreanics

few increases - principle increases are down gradient,

2 of 6 sites with PAHs

Shading indicates analyte class with no detections or no exceedances or generally decreasing levels .

Page I of 2

TABLE 2-4: Summary of Long Term (RI and Post-ROD) Trends

Michaelsville Landfill, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground

ANALYTE CLASS

Chemical Agent

ILow level detections

I Detected sporadically at low levels, no criteria -

Ammonia exceedances in 10 of

Sediment

Feb. 1999 and March nitrobenzene at 2 2002 had wide spread locations in 3 post detections - No Criteria ROD rounds

No criteria, detected at low levels

. . .. ~~,~~.,~~,‘~~~~~ Shading indicates analyte class with no detections or no exceedances or generally decreasing levels .

Page 2 of 2

t

wells. This lower aquifer is located beneath a semiconfining clay unit and consists of sand and fine gravel.Arsenic, cadmium, iron, manganese, and ammonia exceeded their WCs in groundwater samples obtained fromthe Standby wells, while cadmium was the only contaminant to exceed the MCL in the groundwater samplesobtained from the APG Standby wells (APG 1997).

The three post-ROD rounds of sample collection indicate, in general, that levels of detected compounds/analytes have been stable or decreased. As shown on Table 2-2, seven shallow wells and four deep wellssurrounding MLF have been sampled during the three post-ROD sampling events. In general, theconcentrations of various parameters observed in the groundwater samples have remained relatively stable ordecreased during these three sampling events. However, concentrations of iron (WES-M-25, and WES-M-31),manganese (WES- M-05, and WES-M-29), and ammonia (WES-M-12, and WES- M-13) in groundwater haveincreased during these three sampling events. An increased concentration of ammonia was also observed inmost of the wells during the March 2000 sampling event as compared to the February 1999 and March 2002sampling events.

Surface Water

Unfiltered surface runoff water results from the Hydrogeological Assessment (HGA) and RI were compared tothe USEPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) derived Final chronic Values, or calculated values basedon Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Tier II methodology. No organic compounds were detected in surfacewater above comparison values. Aluminum, barium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead,manganese, vanadium, and zinc were detected at concentrations exceeding the comparison values in theupgradient and downgradient locations. Nickel exceeded the comparison value only at an upgradient location.Vanadium and selenium were reported at downgradient samples in singular sampling events at concentrationsexceeding comparison values. The highest lead concentrations were found in the upgradient samples, whichmay be indicative of another source area (APG 1997).

The post-ROD sampling events (February 1999, March 2000, and March 2002) indicates that one samplelocation (SW-U-M-l) has shown a general increase in the concentration of copper, iron, and manganese over thethree sampling events. This is an upgradient sample location. The concentrations reported in the remaining fivesurface water sampling locations have remained relatively consistent (other than March 2000) through thepost-ROD sampling events. An increase in the concentrations of various parameters was observed in most ofthe surface water sampling locations during the March 2000 sampling event. These elevated concentrationsdeclined in the March 2002 sampling event.

Sediment results were compared to human health RBCs, the USEPA-proposed Sediment Quality Criteria, or theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Effect Range Low values. The first round of downgradientsamples contained cadmium, lead, zinc, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, and eight polynuclear aromatichydrocarbons (PAHs)-such as benzo(a) pyrene- that exceeded RBCs. The location of benzo(a) pyrene and otherPolynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) suggests that these detections may be related to a nearby railroadtrack or asphalt road. Additional sampling in December 1996 confirmed the presence of PAHs, but atconcentrations below all comparison criteria (APG 1997).

The post-ROD sampling indicates that detected levels in sediments are generally stable or decreasing except forSD-U-M-2 (upgradient sediment) where levels of lead and nickel have increased during the three samplingevents. The post-ROD sampling data were evaluated with respect to the USEPA-proposed Sediment QualityCriteria, or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Effect Range Low values.

2-6

Surface Soil

Organics detected in the October 1989 HGA sampling event are apparently related to blank contamination andpossible general pesticide use. Only one analyte (arsenic) exceeded the RBCs in one of the subsequent RIsampling events, and was found at levels above the RHC in an unpgradient and a downgradient location. Thedata are not indicative of surface soil contamination resulting from previous operations at MLF (APG 1997).

2.3 REMEDIAL ACTIONS

2.3.1 OU1: Michaelsville Landfill

2.3.1.1 Remedy Selection

In June 1992, the Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1 specified the installation of a new, multi-layered cap inaccordance with MDE Requirements for Sanitary Landfill Closure Using a Geosynthetic Membrane as the mostappropriate remedial alternative for the MLF OU1 . The design features of the capping system were specified toinclude:

• Placement of compacted semipervious earthen material (minimum 2 ft thick) over the entirelandfill area;

• Regrading material to provide a minimum of 4 percent slopes over the landfill;

• Use of a geosynthetic membrane with a minimum thickness of 20 mil and maximumpermeability of 1 x l0-l0 cm/s as the impermeable layer;

• Use of a sand drainage layer with an in-place permeability greater than 1 x10-3 cm/s and aminimum thickness of 1 ft, to include a network of drainage pipes to promote stormwaterdrainage;

• Placement of a final earthen cover, minimum 2 A thick with vegetative stabilization; and

• Installation and use of a gas venting system.

2.3.1.2 Remedy Implementation

Construction of the impermeable cap began in 1993 and was completed in 1994. The leachate collection systeminstalled in 1991 was removed and replaced by a new drainage system. The construction of the landfill capchanged the topography of the MLF area. The landfill originally had elevations ranging from 28 to 46 ft abovemean sea level (MSL), which included waste mounded to approximately 16 ft above the original surfaceelevation. The addition of the multilayered cap leveled out the landfill topography and increased the elevationsby a minimum of 5 A, and decreased the side slopes to 4 percent. The new landfill cap is currently covered withgrass and low vegetation. Approximately 2.25 acres of wetlands were lost during the construction of the landfillcap.

2.3.1.3 Operation and Maintenance

The multi-layer landfill cap has been in place since 1994. The cap is maintained by routine mowing and surfaceinspection of the cap and drainage system. Repairs to the cover are made as necessary to correct the effects ofsubsidence, erosion, or other damage. The natural vegetation (grasses and weeds) covering the surface of the

2-7

landfill is maintained to prevent erosion. The total cost associated with OU1, including the landfill cap, isapproximately $7 million. The annual cost of mowing and inspection is approximately $50,000.

2.3.1.4 Progress Since Last Five-Year Review

This was the first five-year review for the MLF OU1 site.

No changes or amendments have been made to the OU1 ROD. The multi-layer cap, drainage system, and gasventing system have performed adequately. The cap is currently in compliance with the MDE requirements forlandfill caps and no additional activities beyond routine maintenance and inspection are necessary. Thewetlands lost by the placement of the new cap were replaced by the creation of 1 acre of wooded wetlands and1.75 acres of permanently and semi-permanently flooded emergent wetlands area. The mitigation wasaccomplished at two separate sites that drain into Sod Run, a tributary of the Bush River [U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (USACE) 1997].

2.3.2 OU2: Michaelsville Landfill Groundwater and Other Media


The ROD signed in September 1997 found the selected remedy for the MLF OU2 area to be no further action,but to perform monitoring in order to verify that no unacceptable exposures to potential hazards, posed byconditions at MLF OU2, will occur in the future. This remedy selection includes restrictions to the installationof drinking water wells within ¼ mile of the perimeter of the landfill cap to be initiated through the APGGeographical Information System and utilized in the APG Real Property Master Plan. These restrictions wouldbe incorporated into any real property document necessary for transferring ownership from the Army, in theunlikely event that the Army sells this property. The real property documents would also include a discussion ofthe NPL status of the site, as well as a description of the groundwater. In addition, APG will certify to EPA onan annual basis that there have been no violations of the prohibitions. No remedial actions are necessary toensure protection of human health, welfare, or the environment. The ROD required the development of amonitoring plan to periodically sample, analyze, and report on the various media of OU2.


A monitoring plan (MP) was finalized in October 1998. Groundwater, surface water, and sediment beneath andsurrounding the MLF were initially evaluated on an annual basis (1999 and 2000), but this was subsequentlychanged to bi-annual monitoring (2002). The MP also documents the procedure to certify that there have beenno violations of the restriction on drinking water wells within ¼ mile of the MLF as required by the ROD forOU2. A survey has been performed annually to confirm that drinking water wells have not been installed withinthe restricted area. Upon completion of the surveys, APG will submit a letter to EPA Region III and MDEconfirming that no drinking water wells exist within ¼ mile of the MLF. Three sampling events (February1999, March 2000, and March 2002) have been conducted at the site since the issuance of the MP. The dataobtained from these three sampling events are summarized within this five-year review.


Operation and maintenance (O&M) of the selected remedy includes the annual survey of wells in the area andthe performance of sampling, analysis, and reporting of monitoring results. The MP specifies that a SummaryReport will be prepared no less than every 5 years. The report will illustrate trends in monitoring data forgroundwater, surface water, , and sediment parameters. Monitoring will be evaluated for effectiveness, andrecommendations will be made for appropriate future changes in monitoring. These changes may include

2-8

elimination of non-critical monitoring parameters or changes in frequency, location, and number of samples.The estimated costs for future monitoring are approximately $125,000 annually.

2.4 PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW

This is the first five-year review for the site. However, the groundwater monitoring of Michaelsville Landfillhas been altered since the MP was finalized in 1998. Initially, the groundwater was to be sampled for analysison a yearly basis. However, APG and EPA have agreed, based on the low groundwater flow velocity within thearea and stable analytical concentrations detected in the groundwater samples, to conduct groundwater samplingon a biannual basis.

2.5 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

2.5.1 Administrative Components

The five-year review was led by Naren Desai, Michaelsville Landfill Project Officer, DSHE, APG. Thefollowing team members assisted in the analysis and/or review:

• Frank Vavra, Remedial Project Manage, EPA Region III • Kathy Davies, Hydrogeologist, EPA Region III • John Fairbanks, Remedial Project Manager, MDE

The following tasks were conducted as part of the five-year review process: document review, interviews, siteinspection, review of applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARS), and data review. Therewere no significant changes in the ARARs or site contaminants; therefore, site risks were not recalculated. Thecommunity was informed of the five-year review through the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meeting inMay 2001 and July 2003.

2.5.2 Community Notification and Involvement

The preparation of the five-year review was discussed during the monthly RAB meetings in May 2001 and July2003. In addition, prior community involvement was conducted during the preparation, evaluation, andcompletion of the initial investigations, ROD, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS), and RemedialDesign.

A notice was advertised in five local newspapers including The Aegis (Harford County), Cecil Whig, KentCounty News, East County Times (Baltimore County), and The Avenue (Baltimore County) in the 3-4September 2003 editions. The notice contained information that the five-year review was being conducted andincluded a project description and information for public participation including an address to send writtencomments or concerns, a phone number for verbal comments, the APG web site address, and the location ofpublic information repositories.

2.5.3 Document Review

This five-year review consisted of a review of relevant documents including the following:

Advanced Infrastructure Management Technologies. 2001. Second Annual Post-R.O.D. Monitoring Report,Michaelsville Landfill, Aberdeen Area, U.S.Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, prepared forthe U.S. Department of the Army Directorate of Safety, Health, and Environment, Aberdeen ProvingGround, Maryland.

2-9

Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. (ESE). 198 1. Installation Assessment of Aberdeen ProvingGround-Aberdeen Area, Report No. 301, prepared for the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous MaterialsAgency (USATHAMA), Environmental and Safety Division, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.

Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program (HAZWRAP), Oak Ridge, Tennessee. November 1998. Statementof Work for Environmental Sample Collection at Michaelsville Landfill and Select Aberdeen Area USTSites, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Energy Systems,Inc. for the U.S. Department of Energy.

HAZWRAP, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. February 1995. Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Work Planfor Michaelsville Landfill, Aberdeen Proving Ground. Prepared for APG Directorate of Safety, Health,& Environment by Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. for the U.S. Department of Energy.

ICF Kaiser Engineers (ICF). 1991. Preliminary Risk Assessment for Eight Selected Study Areas at AberdeenProving Ground, Maryland, Draft Report. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Toxic andHazardous Materials Agency.

Metcalf & Eddy. 1997. Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit Two, Michaelsville Landfill, AberdeenProving Ground, Maryland.

Miller, S. Paul, Derryberry, Nancy A., Breland, Phyllis L., and Wade, Roy (Miller et al. 1990). 1990. Draft Michaelsville Landfill Hydrogeologic Assessment. Prepared for the Environmental ManagementDivision, APG, MD, by the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES), Geotechnicaland Environmental Laboratories, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

U.S. Army APG, U.S. EPA, and the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) (APG et al. 1998).October 1998. Final Installation Restoration Program, Michaelsville Landfill, Aberdeen ProvingGround, Monitoring Plan for Operable Unit 2.

2.5.4 Data Review

Since the implementation of the remedial action (installation of the multi-layer landfill cap) at OU1 , the OU2RI has been initiated and completed. During the OU2 RI, 18 additional wells were installed to provide acomprehensive monitoring network around the MLF. No new wells have been installed since the completion ofthe OU2 RI. The second round of monitoring conducted under the ROD and Monitoring Plan for OU2 wascompleted in March 2000. A summary of historical data obtained from MLF is presented in Tables 2-2(groundwater) and 2-3 (surface water and sediment). Sample locations are presented on Figure 2-2. Table 2-4presents a summary of long term trends which have been observed within the groundwater, surface water andsediment data obtained from the RI and Post-ROD sampling events.

2.5.5 Site Inspection

Representatives of the Army, EPA, and the Maryland Department of the Environment conducted an inspectionof the site on 18 September 2003. No citizens expressed interest in participating in the joint inspection. Thepurpose of this inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy, including the integrity of the landfillcap and the condition of the landfill structures including gas vents, collection sumps, and stormwaterimpoundment.

No significant issues were identified at any time regarding the cap, drainage structures, gas vents, or thestormwater impoundment. The vegetation on the cap was in good condition and there were no areas ofsignificant erosion observed.

2-10

The institutional controls that are in place include prohibitions on the use or disturbance of groundwater untilcleanup levels are achieved, excavation activities, disturbance of the cap, and any other activities the at mayinterfere with the implemented remedy. No activities were observed that would have violated the institutionalcontrols. The cap and surrounding area were undisturbed, and no new uses of groundwater were observed.

As part of the Post-Rod monitoring of the site, routine site inspections are performed annually by the Army.Copies of these inspection records are presented in Appendix A. As shown on these records, there have been noknown violations of land use restrictions and prohibitions associated with the Michaelsville Landfill asstipulated in its associated ROD. However, as shown in Appendix A, some maintenance activity has occurred atthe MLF.

2.5.6 Interviews

The following individuals were contacted as part of the five-year review:

• Ms. Christine M. Grochowski, Restoration Advisory Board Community Co-Chair representingFoster Branch Homeowner’s Association, Aberdeen Proving Ground Superfund CitizensCoalition.

Ms. Grochowski stated that the Technical Assistance Group (TAG) representatives do a good job of monitoringthe Michaelsville Landfill and there are no outstanding issues associated with this site.

• Mr. Arlen J. Crabb

Mr. Crabb stated that he is concerned with the possibility of an errant test fired munition, due to the proximityof the test firing range to the landfill, which may result in penetration of the landfill cap. He also stated that hebelieves there is a possibility that the landfill will be delisted from the NPL and that he believes that would beunacceptable.

2.6 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

The following conclusions support the determination that the remedy implemented at the Michaelsville Landfillsite is expected to be protective of human health and the environment upon completion.

2.6.1 OU 1: Michaelsville Landfill

Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?

• Implementation of Institutional Controls and Other Measures: The installation providesadequate security services, maintains fences, and controls access to prevent trespass and erosion.With no current or planned changes in land use expected at the site, institutional controls areconsidered effective.

• Remedial Action Performance: The multi-layer cap, runoff collection system, and methaneventing system are effective in meeting the remedial objectives for OU1 to prevent infiltration ofprecipitation into the landfill contents and provide for the proper venting of landfill gases. Thesemeasures have prevented further degradation of the groundwater under the landfill. There is noevidence of a contaminant plume coming from the landfill.

2-11

• Systems Operation/O&M: The O&M requirements for OUI are adequate and properlyimplemented. Maintenance activities are regularly conducted to ensure the integrity of thelandfill cap. Long-term O&M of the landfill cap is required because the source remains in placeat OU1.

• Opportunities for Optimization: Adequate technical and financial performance of the cap havebeen identified.

• Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Failure: No early indicators of remedy failure have beenidentified except items corrected by expected routine maintenance.

Question B: Are the assumptions used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?

Changes in Standards and To Be Considered: As required by the National Oil and Hazardous SubstancesPollution Contingency Plan (NCP), selected remedies must be in compliance with all “applicable or relevantand appropriate requirements” (ARARs). ARARs are the cleanup standards, standards of control, and othersubstantive environmental requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal or State law thatspecifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or othercircumstance of a Superfund site.

The Michaelsville Landfill (OU1) complies with Code of Maryland (COMAR) Title 26.04.07.21 and26.04.07.22. COMAR 26.04.07.22 requires inspection of the landfill at least twice a year and reporting to MDE.This regulation has not changed since the completion of the landfill. COMAR 26.17.01.11 (formerly26.09.01.11), Sediment Control Design Standards and Specifications, has changed since the construction of thelandfill. Proper maintenance of the landfill should prevent any erosion and these changes should not affect thecleanup levels or protectiveness of the remedy. Other ARARs include the regulations protecting threatened andendangered species (50 CFR Parts 400-499) and the Toxic Substances Control Act (40 CFR Part 761) withregard to PCB removal activities. These laws do not affect the protectiveness of the selected remedy. Therehave been no changes in ARARs or risk-related factors associated with OU1.

• Changes in Exposure Pathways: There have been no changes in known contaminants, sources,or pathways at OU1 .

• Changes in Toxicity and Other Contaminant Characteristics: Toxicity and other factors forcontaminants of concern have not changed.

• Changes in Risk Assessment Methodologies: No changes in the risk assessment methodologyused to evaluate potential health effects associated with OU1 have occurred.

Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of theremedy?

No additional information has been identified that would call into question the protectiveness of the remedy.

2-12

2.6.2 OU2: Michaelsville Landfill Groundwater and Other Media



• Remedial Action Performance: The remedy is no further action with long-term monitoring. Themonitoring is required to continue for at least five years, after which time reevaluation of theneed for monitoring may occur.

• Systems Operation/O&M: The O&M requirements specified for OU2 are adequate and properlyimplemented. Continued O&M may be required for an extended period of time.

• Opportunities for Optimization: Opportunities for optimization may occur after evaluation ofthe results of the monitoring report. The nature, frequency, or location of monitoring may bechanged based on the results of the monitoring event. The original groundwater monitoring plan(1998), was altered to decrease the sampling frequency from annual to biannual. EPA and APGagreed to this change based on the low groundwater velocity and stable analytical concentrationsobserved in the groundwater of the Michaelsville area.

• Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Failure: No early indicators of remedy failure have beenidentified.

Question B: Are the assumptions used at the time of the remedy selection stilt valid?

Changes in Standards and To Be Considered: As required by the NCP, selected remedies must be incompliance with all “applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements” (ARARs). ARARs are the cleanupstandards, standards of control, and other substantive environmental requirements, criteria, or limitationspromulgated under Federal or State law that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant,remedial action, location, or other circumstance of a Superfund site.

The no further action ROD for OU2 did not stipulate any ARARs for the groundwater, surface water, sediment,or surrounding areas. Therefore, there have been no changes in ARARs as presented in the ROD.

The other regulations pertinent to groundwater contaminants in the MLF area are the Maximum ContaminantLevels (MCLs) and the EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentrations (RBCs). The MCLs are Federallyestablished drinking water regulations, while the RBCs are not promulgated by Federal regulation but followEPA risk assessment standard guidance and are used as guidelines for contaminants for which there is no MCL.The EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is the source for the toxicity values used in the riskassessment and in the RBCs. There were no changes in toxicity values that would significantly alter the riskassessments performed for any of the OUs where a ROD has been completed. The RBC for chloroethane wasreduced from 8,600 ppb to 3.6 ppb. There currently are no data for the oral Reference Dose (RfD) forchloroethane and no data for the carcinogen slope factor in IRIS, although Region III EPA does use provisionalvalues. Due to the uncertainty in the toxicological evaluation of this contaminant, no change in the riskassessment is recommended. No MCLs have changed since the RI or the two post-ROD sampling events foridentified contaminants of concern.

2-13

The EPA Superfund ECOTOX methodology was applied to the screening evaluation of surface water quality.The ECOTOX methodology incorporates the AWQCs, FCVs, and Tier II. Because of the uncertainty of theother values, only the AWQCs were used in the ecological risk assessment. The ECOTOX methodology has notchanged since it was first published in 1996. No changes to these methods have been identified which wouldaffect current plans for long-term monitoring in the surface water near the MLF. The COMAR 26.08.02 valuesfor water quality for aquatic life were originally promulgated in September 1974 and were amended in October1997. In 1998, EPA published the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. The December 1998 valuesare not promulgated and are intended as guidelines for the states in the development of state regulations, and thestates are given a period of 5 years to develop such regulations.

The Region III RBCs and Biological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG) Screening Levels for flora andfauna, EPA Sediment Quality Criteria (SQC), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) Effects Range Low Values (ERL) were used in the evaluation of the MLF area soil and sediment.Although there have been changes in the human health values, none warrant the recalculation of human healthrisk assessments for soil and sediment. The SQCs and ERLs used in the ECOTOX methodology have notchanged.

• Changes in Exposure Pathways: There have been no changes in known contaminants, sources,or pathways at OU2.


• Changes in Risk Assessment Methodologies: No changes in the risk assessment methodologyused to evaluate potential health effects associated with OU2 have occurred.



2.7 ISSUES

There have been no deficiencies identified as a result of this five-year review.

2.8 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS

Although there were no identified deficiencies, the following recommendations have been developed as a resultof the five-year review:

• OU1 : O&M should continue for OU1 to maintain the integrity of the landfill cap and cover andto ensure the proper operation of the runoff collection system and landfill gas venting system.

• OU2: Implementation of the long-term monitoring program for OU2 should continue as outlinedin the OU2 ROD and the OU2 Monitoring Plan. The Monitoring Plan will be evaluatedfollowing an analysis of the third round of post-ROD sampling event. The Monitoring Plan willbe evaluated in order to optimize the collection of sufficient data to evaluate trends and thenature of contaminants at the site. The monitoring report should report the occurrence ofcontaminants not previously identified and contaminants in locations not previously identified.

2-14

The recommendations are summarized in Table 2-4.

TABLE 2-4 RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations/Required Action LeadAgency

MilestoneDate

OversightAgency

Does the currentaction affect

protectiveness?

Continue O&M at OU1 Army Ongoing EPA Yes

Long-term monitoring at OU2 Army Ongoing EPA Yes

Preparation and Optimization ofMonitoring Results

Army Ongoing EPA Yes

2.9 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENTS

The remedies at OU1 (Michaelsville Landfill) and OU2 (Michaelsville Landfill Groundwater and SurroundingAreas) are protective of human health and the environment.

• OU1 : The multi-layer landfill cap provides adequate protection of the groundwater by preventinginfiltration of precipitation into the landfill contents. Although the source material remains in place,there is no evidence of continued leaching of new contaminants.

• OU2: The monitoring plan for OU2 provides adequate protection of human health and the environment.The monitoring plan includes contaminants not previously investigated and includes discussions ofdistributions and trends of contaminants. The most current risk-based or other screening criteria areincluded and reflect the latest toxicity information.

2.10 NEXT REVIEW

The next five-year review for the Michaelsville Landfill is required by September 2008, five years from the dateof this review.

2-15

3. WESTERN BOUNDARY STUDY AREA

3.1 SITE CHRONOLOGY

A chronology of events for the Western Boundary Study Area (WBSA) is provided in Table 3-1.

TABLE 3-1 CHRONOLOGY OF SITE EVENTS

ItemOperable

Unit Date

Sampling and analysis of groundwater associated with the Phillips ArmyAirfield Landfill

OU2 1983

Removal of two USTs from Block 4700 in vicinity of Building 4721 OU2 1990 and 1995

Removal of two USTs from Block 4700 in vicinity of Building 4726 OU2 1990

Development of Cleanup Levels in Soil for the Fire Training Area OU3 1992

Environmental Assessment, Remedial Actions at the Fire Training Area OU3 1992

Remediation of Contaminated Soil, Fire Training Area OU3 1992

Removal of Contaminated Soil within the Fire Training Area OU3 16 November 1994

Human Health Risk Assessment of Operable Unit 1 Western BoundaryStudy Area

OU1 December 1998

Remedial Investigation of the Western Boundary Study (Draft Report) OU1 January 1999

Western Boundary Study Area, Focused Feasibility Study, Operable Unit 1

OU1 May 1999

Proposed Plan for Remedial Action, Western Boundary Study Area,Operable Unit 1 – Groundwater

OU1 May 1999

Western Boundary Study Area Operable Unit 1, Record of Decision –Final

OU1 July 2000

Remedial Investigation of the Operable Unit 2 of the Western BoundaryStudy Area (Draft Report)

OU2 July 2001

Remedial Investigation of the Operable Unit 1 of the Western BoundaryStudy Area (Draft Report)

OU1 August 2001

3.2 SITE BACKGROUND

The WBSA is in the AA of APG in Harford County, Maryland (Figure 3-l). The WBSA is not on the EPA’sNational Priorities List (NPL), but APG and the Department of the Army have agreed, in a Federal FacilityAgreement, with the EPA to follow the CERCLA process in remediating this site. Parts of the WBSA havebeen used as an airfield, a testing area for weapons and vehicles, a maintenance facility and storage area forvehicles, a landfill, and housing area for troops. Because limited weapons testing has been performed in theWBSA in the past and is presently continuing, unexploded ordnance (UXO) may be found in some portions ofthe study area. The WBSA has been divided into the following three OU, based on the identification ofpotential receptor populations:

3-1

• OU 1 - groundwater in the southwestern two-thirds of the WBSA near the Harford CountyProduction (HCP) well field;

• OU 2 - groundwater in the northeastern one-third of the WBSA near the City of AberdeenProduction (CAP) well field; and

• OU 3 - contains all other media in the WBSA OU 1 and OU 2 areas, including soil, sediment.,and surface water.

In addition, the WBSA contains the Phillips Army Airfield (PAA), Aberdeen Fire Training Area (AFTA),Phillips Army Airfield Landfill (PAALF, a.k.a. PLF), the Palmer House Area, the Test Range for AdvancedAerospace Vulnerability (WV), the Block 4700 Underground Storage Tanks (USTs), and the Land TrainingArea.

The WBSA, OU1, OU2, and selected sites within the WBSA are shown on Figure 3-l.


The WBSA is located along the northwestern boundary of the Aberdeen Area of APG, bounded on the southand southeast by Old Baltimore and Michaelsville Roads.

OU1 consists of groundwater located in the southwestern portion of the WBSA near the HCP wells. OU2consists of groundwater located in the northwestern portion of the WBSA near the CAP wells.

Lands adjacent to the WBSA, on all sides, are generally undeveloped. Most of the area to the north andnorthwest is farmland. Areas to the south and southeast are APG test ranges. There is some development onAPG east of the WBSA.

The nearest human receptors of groundwater from the WBSA are the HCP and CAP wells that provide potablewater to residents of Harford County. The closest off-post homes to the study site are adjacent to APG along thenorthwest boundary and on-post in the northern portion of APG.

Surface features are grass, trees, and shrubs with occasional buildings and manmade wetlands or swamps.Subsurface features include underground storage tanks (USTs) and underground utilities.Petroleum/Oil/Lubricant (POL) USTs at APG are regulated under the UST program.


The WBSA contains the PAA, AFTA, P&F, the Palmer House Area, WV, the Block 4700 USTs, the LandTraining Area, and other areas. These areas are briefly described below:

• The PAA is in the central portion of the WBSA and is an active airfield. Testing has beenconducted in this area on various airplane parts, experimental aircraft, and sighting equipment.

• The AFTA, located just north of the PAA, was used as a housing area for troops during WorldWar II. Fire training exercises took place from the early 1960s until March 1989.

• The Palmer House Area, located southwest of the PAA, has been and is currently used as amaintenance facility for test vehicles.

3-2

• The TRAAV, also located southwest of the PAA, contains various aircraft and associated partsthat are stockpiled on the ground. Assembly, disassembly, testing, and firing into aircraft haveoccurred at the TRAAV.

• The PAALF has been used as a sanitary landfill since 1950. In 1971, use of the area was limitedto construction debris (inert materials). The PAALF consists of several sites including an “old”landfill area (operated Corn approximately 1950 to 1971) and a “new” landfill area (operateduntil the late 1990’s). Hydrocarbons were detected in a well adjacent to two grease pits at thesite, which had been used for waste oil disposal until 1980.

• Four USTs, in the 4700 Block, that reportedly contained fuel oil, waste oil, or solvents wereremoved.

• The Land Training Area was used for training during World War II using French land mines.

• The Field Training Exercise (FTX) area has been used since approximately 1960. Perchloratecontaining devices such as smoke grenades have been used within this area.

The AFTA is located across Bush River Road from Phillips Army Airfield. The site consisted of three bermedareas and a fire extinguisher practice area. Berm 1 contained a jet aircraft, Berm 2 had a broken flange set-upfor simulating fire on a loading dock, and Berm 3 contained a tank. There was also an old smokehouse, aseparation pond that received runoff from Berm 3, and an area that formerly contained a 3,000-gallon UST. TheUST was used to store fuel mixtures for training exercises and was removed in 1990.

The area encompassing OU1 is used for conducting flight operations at the PAA and for testing weapons andmilitary vehicles (tanks and other land vehicles). A portion of the area is covered with test tracks, ranges, andbuildings; however, the majority of the area is undeveloped.

The area encompassing OU2 is used for housing, storage, and some commercial activity. A portion of the areais covered with buildings; however, the majority of the area is undeveloped. The OU2 area consists of mowedlawns and fields, open fields, wood lots, wetlands, and limited development. Public water and sewer service issupplied to most of the northern portion of the site. The remainder of OU2 utilizes septic systems orport-a-toilets and relies on public water or bottled water for their water supply. The northwest region of OU2(FTX) is used as a troop training facility. This area has been used as a troop training facility sinceapproximately 1960.

The area northwest of OU2 is wooded and is located immediately off post consisting of housing and businessdevelopment along U.S. Route 40. Southeast of OU2 are test ranges. Also southeast of the study area is theMichaelsville Landfill (an NPL site). East of OU2 is Swan Creek.

The HCP wells are located approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the AFTA. A portion of the western border ofthe WBSA runs along the installation boundary where four of the HCP wells (HCP-5, -6, -8, and -9) are located(HCP-7 was never constructed). These wells currently pump water from OU1 and off-post areas. Four otherwells (HCP-1, -2, -3, and -4) are located off the installation property west of the WBSA in Perryman, Maryland.

The City of Aberdeen has a well field in OU2. This well field consists of 7 off post wells, CAP wells 1 through6 and 11, and four on post wells identified as CAP 7 through 10.

3-3


OU1

The types of contaminants reported in OU1, which contribute to the risks associated with exposure togroundwater, are :

• volatile organic compounds (VOCs) [1,1-dichloroethene (DCE) and trichloroethene (TCE)]; • metals (arsenic); and • explosive compounds [cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine (RDX) and trinitrotoluene (TNT)]

Arsenic was determined to be within background concentrations by the risk assessment. The suspected sourceof VOC contamination is the soil at the AFTA (Figure 3-2). However, the soil at the AFTA has beenremediated. The source of explosive compounds has not been determined.

OU2

During sampling of OU2 groundwater for the RI (APG 2001), the following observations were noted:

• One VOC, tetrachloroethene (PCE) was detected above MCL criteria in one sample. No otherVOCs were detected above their MCLs in these samples.

• No semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), PCBs, or pesticides were detected above theirMCLs).

• No radionuclides were detected above MCLs or the requirements in 40 CFR 141. • Low levels of explosives have been detected in OU2, but there are no MCLs for explosives. • Three different total and dissolved metals (aluminum, iron, and manganese) were detected above

MCLs.• Nitrogen was the only water quality parameter detected above an MCL.

Perchlorate was first detected in a well (PLP-18) in three groundwater samples collected in April and March2001 at concentrations ranging from 18.4-23.4 µg/L. Follow up geoprobe sampling was performed in2001-2002 and 8 new monitoring wells were installed in February 2003. Perchlorate has been identified inmonitoring wells at concentrations ranging from non detect (<1 µg/L) to 23.4 µg/L.

The CAP wells and the CAP Finish Water have been sampled weekly since June 2002. The highest productionwell perchlorate concentrations have been detected in wells CAP-3, -8, -9, and -10 at concentrations ofnon-detect to 5.0 µg/L. CAP Finish Water perchlorate concentrations have ranged from non-detect to 1.0 µg/L.

The RI/FS pertaining to the perchlorate in OU2 is currently ongoing,

OU3

OU3 contains all other media in the WBSA OU1 and OU2 areas, including soil, sediment, and surface water. Inparticular, OU3 includes the soil, sediment, and surface water associated with the AFTA.

The State of Maryland leased a total of 44 acres at the AFTA. Of the 44 acres, 2 acres were used for firetraining exercises. The AFTA was used for tire training exercises from the early 1960s until 1989. In the early1960s, fire training exercises were conducted as often as once per week. The exercises consisted of filling thetraining pits with water and fuel, then igniting the pit for the trainees to extinguish; any remaining fuel wasallowed to burn off. Fuels used for the exercises included diesel fuel, gasoline, kerosene, and jet engine fuels

3-4

(JP4 and JP5). Agents used to extinguish the fires were a mixture of 99 percent water with either a protein foam(animal blood) or an aqueous film forming foam. In early 1989, APG Environmental Management Division(Environmental Conservation and Restoration Division) directed that there were to be no more releases to theenvironment due to fire training practices, and training exercises were stopped in March 1989. The formerpresence of the AFTA contributed to contamination present within OU3 soil and groundwater contamination atOU1 .

As part of the RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA), soil samples and surface water samples were obtained fromthe AFTA for laboratory analysis of various organic and inorganic constituents. In addition, a soil gas surveywas also performed within the area of the AFTA. Based on these data, APG determined that a removal actionwas necessary at the AFTA. The removal action of soil was undertaken between August 1992 and July 1994.The identified contaminants of concern in the soil were found to be total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) andTCE. In order to address the detected soil contamination, three excavation events were undertaken during thisperiod and more than 12,500 tons of soil contaminated with TCE and TPH was removed from six areas atdepths ranging from 0.5 to 20 ft below ground surface (bgs). The excavated soil was treated at offsiteincineration facilities and the excavations were backfilled with fill material.


The WBSA has been the object of environmental investigations since the late 1980s. The investigations beganin September 1987 as part of an RFA of the AFTA and Other Aberdeen Areas (OAAs). In 1989 and 1990, theAFTA was investigated and TCE was detected in the groundwater beneath the AFTA. Though the AFTA was apart of the OAAs under the 1990 Federal Facilities Agreement for APG, subsequently, as the scope of thecontamination issues was better understood, the WBSA was established, which included the AFTA.

OU1

In February 1991, TCE was detected in well HCP-6. The HCP wells are part of the Perryrnan well field whichis located approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the AFTA. TCE was also subsequently detected in well HCP-5.During the RFA, the AFTA was identified as a potential source for chemical contamination of several mediaand was thus targeted for a groundwater study as a potential source for the TCE. An initial groundwaterinvestigation in 1992 indicated that the AFTA was a likely source of TCE in the HCP wells.

A 1993 investigation defined the extent of VOC-contaminated groundwater between the AFTA and the HCPwells. The 1993 investigation and subsequent investigations concluded that VOC contamination from theAFTA into the upper aquifer is affecting the HCP wells. Following an evaluation of contingency options for theHCP well field, APG conducted a CERCLA time critical Removal Action to install a GAC treatment plant totreat the groundwater from wells HCP-5 and HCP-6 (with available connections to treat HCP-8 and -9) whilethe RI was conducted. A new GAC plant was constructed at Harford County’s Perryman facility in 2002-2003and treats water from all of the HCP wells (HCP-1, -2, -4, -5, -6, -8, and -9).

A Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) for OU1 was initiated based on the RI results. The FFS identified andevaluated potential remedial alternatives and concluded with a recommendation of a preferred remedialalternative. The FFS selected a preferred alternative to ensure that concentrations of contaminants entering theHarford County water distribution system do not exceed MCLs or other health-based criteria.

A Proposed Plan was initiated for OU1 based on the RI and FFS.

The contaminated groundwater is a principal threat at this site because of the direct ingestion of drinking waterfrom wells that contain contaminants at concentrations greater than the MCLs. The Army has been providingtreatment for HCP wells HCP-5 and HCP-6 since 1993.

3-5

OU2

Low levels of VOCs and MTBE have been reported in groundwater samples obtained from OU2. Also, aspreviously mentioned, perchlorate was detected in groundwater samples obtained from wells and geoprobes.Perchlorate has also been detected in several CAP wells. A Draft RI of OU2 (APG 2001) has been completedand an additional RI of OU2 is currently ongoing.

OU3

Two of the Block 4700 USTs were removed from the vicinity of Building 4721 in 1990 and 1995, respectively.Oil-contaminated soil was removed and disposed along with one of the USTs. A small amount of contaminatedsoil was left in place at the other UST location. The other two Block 4700 USTs were removed from thevicinity of Building 4726 in 1990. Fuel-oil-contaminated soil was removed along with one of the USTs.Solvent-contaminated soil was removed along with the other UST.

The Land Training Area is currently overgrown with brush and briers. Although the area was reportedly clearedof mines on at least two different occasions, the RFA indicates that additional mines may be present in thesubsurface.

Based on the RFA data, APG determined that a removal action at the AFTA was necessary. The scope of workfor the removal action at the AFTA involved the removal and disposal of surface waters, debris (e.g., concrete,brick), and soil found to be contaminated. Work included:

• Sampling and laboratory analysis to delineate the extent of contamination; • Removal of contaminated soil, surface waters, and debris; • Verification sampling to determine whether the contamination had been removed; • Surveying of sampling location and extent of excavation; and • Site restoration.

The identified contaminants of concern were found to be TPH and TCE. In order to address soil contaminationdetected, three excavation events were undertaken during this period and more than 12,500 tons of soilcontaminated with TCE and TPH was removed from six areas at depths ranging from 0.5 to 20 A bgs. Samplingfor risk assessment has been completed for OU3 and the draft-final report was submitted in .


OU1

OU1 is the groundwater in the southwestern two-thirds of the WBSA that is near the HCP well field. The OU1area includes the AFTA, PAA, Palmer House area, and TRAAV. In February 1991, TCE was detected in wellHCP-6. TCE was also subsequently detected in well HCP-5.

Three types of contaminants in OU1 contribute to the risks associated with exposure to groundwater: VOCs(1,1-DCE and TCE) and metals (arsenic). Explosive compounds (RDX and TNT) have been found at low levelsin monitoring wells. Arsenic was determined to be within background concentrations by the risk assessment.

The suspected source of VOC contamination is the soil at the AFTA. This soil has been remediated; therefore,the primary source of contamination has been eliminated. The source of the explosive compounds has not beendetermined.

3-6

The concentration of hazardous substances in OU1 groundwater historically ranged up to 223 µg/L of TCE. TheTCE plume extends from the AFTA to HCP wells HCPS and HCP-6. The vertical extent of contamination isfrom near the water table at the fire training area (~30 ft above MSL) to approximately 60 ft below MSL nearthe HCP wells. Groundwater modeling by APG and the Maryland Geological Survey indicates there is apotential for TCE to be detected in well HCP-4 at some point in the future. The source of the TCE is APG.

The baseline risk assessment estimated the current and future health effects of chemicals of potential concern(COPCs). Based upon the risk assessment, there is the potential for adverse human health effects if futureresidents ingest or absorb untreated groundwater in the TCE plume area. Figure 3-2 depicts the area of the TCEplume.

The contaminated groundwater is a principal threat at this site because of the direct ingestion of drinking waterfrom wells that contain contaminants at concentrations greater than the MCLs. The Army has been providingtreatment for wells HCP-5 and HCP-6 since 1993. The purpose of the treatment system at the HCP wells is toprevent current or future exposure to the contaminated groundwater, to reduce contaminant migration, and toremediate the aquifer by reducing contaminant concentrations below MCLs for TCE (5 µg/L) and health-basedlevels for RDX (0.61 µg/L).

OU2

OU2 is the groundwater in the northeastern one-third of the WBSA near the CAP well field. The OU2 areaincludes the PAALF, Block 4700 USTs, and the Land Training Area. The discovery of perchlorate in thegroundwater of OU2 and the CAP wells has prompted an ongoing field investigation to evaluate the extent andmagnitude of contamination.

OU3

USTs were removed from the area of Block 4700. Two of the Block 4700 USTs were removed from the vicinityof Building 472 1 in 1990 and 1995, respectively. Oil-contaminated soil was removed and disposed along withone of the USTs. A small amount of contaminated soil was left in place at the other UST location. The othertwo Block 4700 USTs were removed from the vicinity of Building 4726 in 1990. Fuel-oil-contaminated soilwas removed along with one of the USTs. Solvent-contaminated soil was removed along with the other UST.

A soil removal action was also performed at the AFTA based on the RFA data. The scope of work for theremoval action at the AFTA involved the removal and disposal of surface waters, debris (e.g., concrete, brick),and soil found to be contaminated.

Sampling for OU3 human health and ecological risk assessment has been completed and a draft risk assessmentwas submitted in September 2002.


A ROD has been issued for OU1, but not for OU2 or OU3.

3.3.1 OU1


In July 2000, the ROD for OU1 of the WBSA specified that the selected remedy for OU1 is a fixed-bed GACsystem at Harford County’s Perryman treatment facility. This treatment system shall have a capacity of 5.2 mgd

3-7

and the capacity to treat all eight HCP wells. Although TCE is the primary contaminant of concern the GACunit is capable of treating both halogenated WCs and explosives and is a presumptive remedy. Additionally, agroundwater monitoring plan, as required by the ROD, is underway. Quarterly sampling is required and the firstyear of post ROD sampling will be completed in March 2003. The monitoring plan will be evaluated after thetreatment plant is completed.


Following an evaluation of contingency options for the HCP well field, APG conducted a CERCLA timecritical Removal Action to install a GAC treatment plant to treat the groundwater from wells HCP-5 and HCP-6(with available connections to treat HCP-8 and -9) while the RI was conducted, A new GAC plant (finalremedy) was constructed at Harford County’s Perryman facility in 2002-2003 and treats water from all of theHCP wells (HCP-1, -2, -4, -5, -6, -8, and -9) and has a treatment capacity of approximately 5.2million gallonsper day (mgd).


The treatment of uncontaminated water will not shorten the life of the GAC or otherwise increase the annualO&M costs. The annual O&M cost for the remedial activity at OU1 is approximately $271,000.


This is the first five-year review for the WBSA OU1 site. No changes or amendments have been made to theOU1 ROD.

3.3.2 OU2


Four USTs (8,000-gallon, 1,000-gallon, 6,000-gallon, and 275-gallon) and their associated contaminated soilwere removed from the Block 4700 area. An additional UST (250-gallon), based upon an interview, may alsohave been removed from this area.

Field work has been completed for the Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for OU2 and the draftrisk assessment report was submitted in September 2002.


An 8,000-gallon UST and a 1,000-gallon UST were removed from the vicinity of Building 4721 on 12September 1990 and 26 January 1995, respectively. Both had reportedly contained fuel oil. No perforationswere noted in either tank during their removal. Five cubic yards of oil-contaminated soil were also excavatedalong with the 8,000-gallon UST.

A 6,000-gallon UST (formerly contained fuel oil) and a 275-gallon UST (formerly contained solvent) wereremoved from the vicinity of Building 4726 on 7 September 1990 and 10 September 1990, respectively.Fourteen (14) cubic yards (cy) of contaminated soil were removed along with the 6,000-gallon UST and 90 cyof contaminated soil were removed along with the 275-gallon UST.

A 250-gallon UST, based upon an interview, was emptied and removed from an area adjacent to Building 4726.However, there is no written documentation confirming the removal of this tank.

3-8


There are no O&M costs associated with these remedial activities.


This is the first five-year review for the WBSA OU1 site. No changes or amendments have been made to theOU1 ROD.

3.3.3 OU3


A soil removal action was conducted at the AFTA. APG determined that an interim removal action wasnecessary at the AFTA due to the elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds.

Field work has been completed for the Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for OU3 and the draftrisk assessment report was submitted in September 2002.


Field work was undertaken between August 1992 and July 1994 during the soil removal activity at the AFTA.Three excavation events were performed during this time frame and more than 12,500 tons of contaminated soilwere removed from six areas at depths ranging from 0.5 to 20 feet below grade.


There are no O&M costs associated with these remedial activities.


This is the first five-year review for the WBSA OU3 area.



The five-year review was led by Naren Desai, Aberdeen Area Project Officer, DSHE, APG. The following teammembers assisted in the analysis and/or review:

• Frank Vavra, Remedial Project Manager, EPA Region III • Kathy Davies, Hydrogeologist, EPA Region III • John Fairbanks, Remedial Project Manager, MDE

The following tasks were conducted as part of the five-year review process: document review, interviews, siteinspection, review of ARARs, and data review. There were no significant changes in the ARARs or sitecontaminants; therefore, site risks were not recalculated.

3-9


The preparation of the five-year review was discussed during the monthly RAB meetings in May 2001 and July2003. In addition, prior community involvement was conducted during the preparation, evaluation, andcompletion of the initial investigations, ROD, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS), and RemedialDesign. A notice was advertised in five local newspapers including The Aegis (Harford County), Cecil Whig,Kent County News, East County Times (Baltimore County), and The Avenue (Baltimore County) in the 3-4September 2003 editions. The notice contained information that the five-year review was being conducted andincluded a project description and information for public participation including an address to send writtencomments or concerns, a phone number for verbal comments, the APG web site address, and the location ofpublic information repositories.


Various documents, including those presented in Table 3-1, were reviewed during the preparation of thisfive-year review.

3.4.4 Data Review

OU1

In February 1991, TCE was detected in well HCP-6 (located on post) of the Perryman well field. TCE was alsosubsequently detected in well HCP-5. An initial groundwater investigation in 1992 indicated that the AFTA wasa likely source of TCE in the Harford County wells.

A 1993 investigation defined the extent of VOC-contaminated groundwater between the AFTA and the HCPwells. The 1993 and subsequent investigations concluded that VOC contamination from the AFTA into theupper aquifer is affecting the HCP wells.

Table 3-2 presents a summary of data obtained, in four post-ROD sampling events, of June 2001, September2001, December 2001, and August 2002. Monitoring well locations are presented on Figure 3-3.

OU2

OU2 is the groundwater in the northeastern one-third of the WBSA that is near the CAP well field. The OU2area includes the P&F, Block 4700 USTs, and the Land Training Area. The discovery of perchlorate in thegroundwater of OU2 and the CAP wells has prompted an ongoing field investigation to evaluate the extent andmagnitude of contamination.

Phillips Army Airfield Landfill

The PAALF has been used as a sanitary landfill since 1950. In 1971, use of the area was limited to constructiondebris (inert materials). From April 1991 to May 1993, General Physics collected 104 groundwater samples foranalysis; 13 wells were sampled on eight different occasions. Three metals (antimony, cadmium, and lead) werereported above their respective MCLs in these groundwater samples. No VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, orexplosives were detected at concentrations greater than or equal to their respective MCLs.

Block 4700 USTs

As previously detailed, four, potentially five, USTs that reportedly contained fuel oil, waste oil, or solventswere removed from this area.

3-10

Fifteen groundwater samples from geoprobes completed in four different locations around the former USTs atBlock 4700 were analyzed for VOCs in November 1997. There were no detections of VOCs in any of thesamples analyzed (General Physics, 1997).

In March 2001, an additional 14 groundwater samples were collected from 7 different locations using geoprobeborings. PCE was detected above its MCL in one sample. No other VOCs were detected above their MCLs(URS, 2001)

Land Training Area

The RFA discusses a Land Training Area, 70 acres in size, located at Block 4900, adjacent to a cemetery. Thearea was used for training during World War II using French land mines and was marked on a field map used ina previous study in 198 1. The area is overgrown with early successional vegetation. Small rusted signs werereportedly posted along the east side of the area, identifying it as a hazardous area. Although the area wasreportedly cleared of mines on at least two different occasions, the RFA report indicates that additional minesmay be present in the subsurface. The RFA report recommended that the site be evaluated from a safetystandpoint.

OU2 and CAP Wells

The three aforementioned areas (PAALF, Block 4700 USTs, and Land Training Area) are located within thegeographical area of OU2 and may therefore have previously adversely affected OU2. As previouslymentioned, OU2 encompasses the groundwater in the northeastern one-third of the WBSA that is near the CAPwell field. A Draft RI of OU2 (July 2001) has been completed and an additional RI of OU2 is currentlyongoing. Twelve different VOCs have been detected in groundwater samples obtained from OU2. only Methyltertiary butyl ether (MTBE), PCE, and TCE were detected above MCLs in these groundwater samples. NoSVOCs, pesticides, or PCBs have been detected above their MCLs in OU2 groundwater samples. Six differentexplosives were detected in OU2 groundwater samples. Three total and dissolved metals (aluminum, iron, andmanganese) were detected above MCLs (APG 2001).

There are 11 City of Aberdeen Production (CAP) wells within or immediately adjacent OU2 of the WBSA.Four CAP wells are located on-post (CAP-7, -8, -9, and -10) and seven CAP wells are located immediatelyoff-post (CAP-l through 6 and CAP-l1). The CAP wells have been sampled periodically since 1999. Samplingevents between 1999 and 2002 consisted predominantly of VOC and explosive analysis. Since 1999, RDX hasbeen intermittently reported in CAP-7 at low concentrations. PCE, MTBE, and TCE have been reported in theoff-post production wells CAP-l through CAP-6 and CAP-l1. Low concentrations of PCE have been reported inthe on-post production wells CAP-8 and -10.

In addition, perchlorate was first analyzed in the CAP wells April 2001 and has been conducted weekly sinceperchlorate was first detected in the CAP wells in June 2002. Perchlorate was not detected in the CAP wellsduring the April 2001 sampling event.

The CAP wells and the CAP Finish Water have been sampled weekly since June 2002. The highest productionwell perchlorate concentrations have been detected in wells CAP-3, -8, -9, and -10 at concentrations ofnon-detect to 5.0 µg/L. CAP Finish Water perchlorate concentrations have ranged from non-detect to 1.0 µg/L.

The RI/FS pertaining to the perchlorate in OU2 is currently ongoing.

3-11

‘( 1’9 pus 2’~ CM) saruwdxa pus (z’vzs) 30~ loi potieus aJm soldwas WJhJOne pue ‘uayganb eiep ‘suo!~au6!sep aldwes ‘s~ua~u~ 1113 10 suoqdmsap JOT c-g a(qel 01 la&au

I ON c’v s

s ap!JO(L@eJlal UOC+W3

I ON Ii/En I .001 lVSNl acw-tsm uowen

I ON I sf I auazuaqoJoiu3!a-v’

slms3tl mduuws kylwfuiarmo249 aotl lsod do kwwns ‘mo - vmv Aanls Awarm ~kms3M z-c 3mvl

i /

8 . . P

Z:

i

TABLE 3-2 WESTERN BOUNDARY STUDY AREA - OUI, SUMMARY OF POST ROD GROUNDWATER SAMPLE RESULTS

Refer to Table 3-3 for descriptions of cell contents, sample designations, data quaths. and acronyms. Samples were analyzed for VOC (524.2) and explosives (CAD 4.2 and 8.1). Page 7 of 10

TABLE 3-2 WESTERN BOUNDARY STUDY AREA - OUl, SUMMARY OF POST ROD GROUNDWATER SAMPLE RESULTS

Parent Name:

Refer to - 3-3 for descriptiin8 of cell contents. ssrnpb designations, data qualifiers, ad I( IS. Sampbr & ?nalymd for VDC (524.2) and explorlves (CAD 4.2 and 8.1). t

- .-

/ !

TABLE 3-2 WESTERN BOUNDARY STUDY AREA - OUl, SlJhvlARY OF POST ROD GROUNDWATER SAMPLE RESULTS

Parent Name:

Refer lo Table 3-3 for descriptions of cell contents, sample designations. data qualiftara, and acronyms Samples were analyzed for VOC (524.2) and explosives (CAD 4.2 and 8.1). Page9oflO


%V?lp)e Name: WB-hYW-23C 1 WB-MW23C 1 WB-MW-23C 1 WE-PlOA 1 WE-PlOB

Parent Name: I I I I

Analyte Name Group: VOC

I I I I

Date Sampled: 6/2112001 12l4/2001 8/14/2002 6/15/2001 6/15/2001

lNlCd RBClUnit ! ! !

1,l ,l-Trichloroethane 200 320’ ugR ND ND ND ND ND 1,4-Dichlorobentene 75 0.47 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND

Acetone NSA 61’ ug/L ND ND ND ND Carbon Disukte t NSA loo’ us/L ND ND - ND ND

karbon Tetrachloride

Hexachloroethane

I 5 I 0.16 I “O/l I

Methytene Chloride

Naphthatene

Nitrobenzene

Tetrachtoroethene

I I ---- -w- ND I ND ND ND ND NSA 4.8 ug/L ND ND ND ND

- 1.3 B ND ND 5 4.1 ugk ND 0.71 R

NSA 0.65’ uglL ND L

NSA 0.35’ ug/L ND IF 5 0.63 uak ND h

SD ND ND ND

SD ND ND ID ND Nn Nn

~Trtchloroethene I 5 10.0261ua/L ND

Group: EXP _- ND ND ND ND

2-Amine-4,6-Dinitrotoluene NSA 0.22’ ug/L ND ND ND ND ND

Nitrobenzene NSA 0.35’ ugk ND ND ND ND ND

(RDX 1 NSAl 0.61 1 ug/Ll ND I ND 1 ND 1 ND 1 NO

Refer toi Q3 for dascrtptiin5 of cell contents, ssrnpte designations, data quatiirs, and d ns. Samplas b :bnatYzed br VOC (524.2) end explosives (CAD 4.2 and 8.1).

TABLE 3-2 WESTERN BOUNDARY STUDY AREA - OUl, SUMMARY OF POST ROD GROUNDWATER SAMPLE RESULTS

HCP-4 1 HCP-I 1 HCP-5 I Ol-JN-15DP HCP-5 1 HCP-5 HCP-5 1 HCP-6 1 HCP-6 1 Sample Name: HCP-~ HCP-4

Parent Name: HCP-5

Date Sampled: 6l18/2001 9l1112001 12H912001 81a12002 6/1012001 6/16/2001 9/l 112001 12/19/2001 61612002 6l1612061 911112001

Analyte Name 1 BTAG 1 RBCl Unit

vat-,, “I.7YIIIY.a . I”” ‘3-b ..w .-- ..I .-- -- .- ND 0.61 Chloroform 1 1240 1 0.15 1 ug/L 1 ND 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

.‘. &is.:. ., ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Dibromochloromethane 11000 0.13 ugll ND 1.. ____. - Methylene Chloride 11000 4.1 ugR ND 0.55 0 1.24 B 1.4 0 ND ND 0.55 0 1.61 B _

MTBE NSA 2.6 ugR ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1 ND ) ND

I 1.6f3 I ND 1 0.69 B

Toluene 17000 1 75' 1 UglL 1 1 NU 1 NU

2-Amino-46Dinttrotoluene NSA 1 0.22‘ 1 UG/Ll

4-Amino-2.6-Dinitrotoluene 1 NSA 10.22’ 1 UG/Ll ND 1

Refer to Table 3-3 for descrtptions of cell contents, sample designatiina. data qualifiers, and acronyms. Samnks were analyzed for VDC (524.2) and explosives (CAD 4.2 and 6.1).

PageloflO


Parent Name:

Refer lo ?-3 for descriptions of cell contents, sample designations, data qualifiers, and a{ 1s.

Sompbr w ,yWzed for VDC (524.2) and explosives (CAD 4.2 and 8.1). f !of 10

i ! TABLE 3-2 WESTERN BOUNDARY STUDY AREA - OUl, SUMdRY OF POST ROD GROUNDWATER SAMPLE RESULTS

Parent Name:

Refer to Table 3-3 for descriptions of cell contents, sample designations, data qualifiers, and acronyms. Samples wers analyzed for VOC (524.2) and explosives (CAD 4.2 and 8.1).

Page 3 of 10

TABLE 3-3: KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS, DATA QUALWIERS, AND OTHER NOTATIONS USED IN THE DATA TABLES

Explanation of Cell Contents:

0 = (blank cell) sample was not analyzed for this parameter.

= value was below the instrument detection limit.

0 4.5 = (data with no shading) reported value does not exceed comparison criteria.

= (data with shading) reported value exceeds the first-listed criterion, as follows: groundwater - MCL

= (data with pattern) reported value exceeds the second-listed criterion, as follows: groundwater - RBC (tap water)

= (data with shading, pattern ) reported value exceeds the both comparison criteria.

Groundwater Footnotes:

1. MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level values from National Primary Drinking Water Regulations 2. RBC - U.S. EPA Region III Risk Based Concentrations for tap water, 25 September 2001 * Value represents one-tenth of RBC value of non-carcinogenic parameter

Validated Data Qualifier Definitions:

NONE Confirmed identification.

“B” Not detected substantially above the level reported in the laboratory or field blanks.

6‘ 97 J Analyte present. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.

“K” Analyte present. Reported value may be biased high. Actual value is expected lower.

“L” Analyte present. Reported value may be biased low. Actual value is expected higher.

“NJ” Qualitative identification questionable due to poor resolution. Presumptively present at approximate quantity.

“R” Unreliable result. Analyte may or may not be present in the sample. Supporting data necessary to confirm result.

‘V’ Not detected. The associated number indicates approximate sample concentration necessary IO be detected.

“UJ” Not detected, quantitation limit may be inaccurate or imprecise.

“UL” Not detected, quantitation limit is probably higher.

OU3

Sampling for the OU3 RI has been completed and the Draft Risk Assessment Report was submitted inSeptember 2003.


Representatives of the Army, EPA, and the Maryland Department of the Environment conducted an inspectionof the Perryman GAC Treatment System (OU1) on 18 September 2003. No citizens expressed interest inparticipating in the joint inspection. The purpose of this inspection was to assess the protectiveness of theremedy, including the integrity and operation of the treatment system.

No significant issues were identified at any time regarding the system operation. Nine of the eleven GAC unitswere online and the system was operating at 3.7 mgd. The system is operated and maintained by HarfordCounty for the purpose of public water supply.

3.4.6 Interviews



Ms. Grochowski stated that her organization is maintaining an interest in the groundwater associated with theHarford County production wells. Ms. Grochowski believes that it is beneficial that a new GAC system is beinginstalled for the Harford County production wells.


Mr. Crabb stated that he is concerned with the potential changing dynamics of groundwater flow within the areadue to the current drought conditions. He is interested in how this potentially altered groundwater flow, i.e.lowered water table levels, may be affecting the TCE plume

Mr. Crabb is also interested in the purported disposal and/or use of French land mines within the Land TrainingArea and is not aware of an ongoing investigation of this concern. Mr. Crabb is also concerned with thedetection of a contaminant (Mr. Crabb stated that he thought the detected contaminant was perchlorate, but itwas an explosive parameter which was detected) in a City of Aberdeen Production well. (Note: Mr. Crabb hadexpressed these two concerns while discussing the Other Aberdeen Area sites. Also, since this interviewperchlorate has been detected in the CAP wells.


3.5.1 OU1

The following conclusions support the determination that the remedy implemented at OU1 is expected to beprotective of human health and the environment upon completion.


3-12


• Remedial Action Performance: The remedial action is the construction of a filtering bed withperiodic monitoring of the groundwater. Based on the operation of the interim system, GAC hasbeen effective in the removal of VOCs and explosive compounds.

• Systems Operation/O&M: The O&M requirements specified for OU1 are adequate and properlyimplemented. Continued O&M may be required for an extended period of time; however, largevariances in O&M costs are not anticipated.

• Opportunities for Optimization: Opportunities for optimization may occur after evaluation ofthe results of the monitoring report. The nature, frequency, or location of monitoring may bechanged based on the results of the monitoring event. No changes in the monitoring plan arecurrently recommended.


Question B: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?

Changes in Standards and To Be Considered

As required by the NCP, selected remedies must be in compliance with all “applicable or relevant andappropriate requirements” (ARARs). ARARs are the cleanup standards, standards of control, and othersubstantive environmental requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal or State law thatspecifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or othercircumstance of a Superfund site. The ARARs for the site are reviewed in this section by OU.

ARARs for WBSA OU1 address protection of groundwater, surface water, safety equipment, and emergencypreparedness. Due to the recent completion of the ROD (July 2000), no substantive changes to these standardshave been made that will affect the five-year review analysis. Tables 3-4 and 3-5 present the chemical-specificARARs and action-specific ARARs.

• Changes in Standards and To Be Considered: There have been no changes in ARARs or risk-relatedfactors associated with OU1.

• Changes in Exposure Pathways: There have been no changes in known contaminants, sources, orpathways at OUI .


• Changes in Risk Assessment Methodologies: No changes in the risk assessment methodology used toevaluate potential health effects associated with OU1 have occurred.

• Expected Progress Towards Meeting Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs): The remedial activity hasperformed as expected.

3-13



3.5.2 OU2 and OU3

There has been no ROD issued for, or remedial action performed at OU2.

There has been no ROD issued for OU3; however, there has been a removal action at the former AFTA andBlock 4700 USTs. No additional information has been identified that would call into question theprotectiveness of the remedial activity.



• Remedial Action Performance: The remedial action (removal actions at the AFTA and Block4700 USTs) was performed in accordance with their respective plans. Groundwater monitoringis continuing in OU2 due to the detection of perchlorate in groundwater samples.

• Systems Operation/O&M: There are no O&M costs.

• Opportunities for Optimization: Opportunities for optimization may occur after evaluation ofthe results of the monitoring report. The nature, frequency, or location of monitoring may bechanged based on the results of monitoring events.


Question B: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?

• Changes in Standards and To Be Considered: There have been no changes in ARARs orrisk-related factors associated with OU2 and OU3.

Currently, only a removal action has been conducted at the Block, 4700 USTs and AFTA (OU3). A finalremedial action has not been selected and a ROD has not been prepared. Therefore, specific ARARs have notbeen designated for the site. However, action levels for the removal action have been specified and may bedetermined to be ARARs upon development of the ROD. One source of these action levels is 40 CFR Part 264Subpart S, which establishes soil action levels that are used to define the extent of excavation. New JerseyDepartment of Environmental Protection and Energy (NJDEPE) soil remediation guidelines were used forconstituents not found on the federal list of action levels.

No regulatory levels exist for perchlorate. EPA is currently evaluating their perchlorate criteria and may issue ahealth advisory and an MCL for this parameter.

• Changes in Exposure Pathways: There have been no changes in known contaminants, sources,or pathways at OU2 and OU3.

3-14


• Changes in Risk Assessment Methodologies: No changes in the risk assessment methodologyused to evaluate potential health effects associated with OU2 and OU3 have occurred.



3.6 ISSUES



There were no identified deficiencies as a result of the five-year review.


OU1

The remedy at OU1 is protective of human health and the environment. Groundwater will be extracted at a ratesufficient to reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of the contaminated media. The treatment technologyidentified in the ROD is carbon adsorption for VOC removal.

Treated water will meet MCLs and non-zero Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs), or other existinghealth-based criteria for contaminants of concern without MCLs or MCLGs. For the ROD, the health-basedcriteria for the explosive RDX is 0.61 ppb.

A monitoring plan for the WBSA has been developed and implemented, and includes the sampling and analysisof groundwater. The monitoring program also includes effluent sampling and analysis. The specifics of themonitoring program (i e., media sample, target analytes, number of samples, frequency, and deliverables) aredetailed in the post-ROD monitoring plan (APG, December 2000).

OU2 and OU3

A protectiveness determination of the remedies implemented at OU2 and OU3 cannot be made at this time untilfurther information is obtained. A ROD has not yet been developed for OU2 and OU3 therefore protectivenessstatements have not been developed pending finalization of the human health and ecological risk assessments.The human health and ecological risk assessments will evaluate whether the OU2 and OU3 sites represent apotential risk to human health or the environment. These risk assessments will also evaluate if the removalactions (which have been performed at AFTA and 4700 Block USTs), access controls (fencing, security guards,etc.) and other factors at these various sites ensure that there are no unacceptable exposure pathways. Theexposure assumptions (toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives) which are utilized duringthe completion of the risk assessments shall be current and applicable to each individual site. The protectivenessstatements will be dependent upon the ROD which is obtained for these sites.

3.8.1 Next Review The next five-year review for the OAA sites is required by September 2008, 5 years from the date of thisreview.

3-15

4. OTHER ABERDEEN AREAS There are currently 41 sites grouped into 5 categories that are designated as Other Aberdeen Areas (OAAs). Theapproximate locations of these sites are presented on Figure 4-1. The following are brief summaries ofhistorical site information for each OAA site based on information prior to the RI. Phase II of the RI wasconducted in 2000-2001 and the report has not been finalized.

CATEGORY A DUMP/LANDFILL AREAS

Site 1: Old Dump on Woodrest Creek

This site is located in the northeast portion of the restricted area of APG several hundred feet north-northwest ofBuilding 525. The dump is situated along the northern edge of Woodrest Creek and runs in a north-northwestdirection along the edge of the creek between Surveillance Range Road and Building 525. It includesapproximately 3.7 acres and is covered with grass, briars, and several small trees. The dump was reportedlyused until the 1950s for disposal of construction debris by burning. RFA personnel reported that exposedmaterial could be seen in the elevated wooded area that borders the creek and along the edge of the creek duringlow tide. Items reported by RFA personnel included concrete blocks, culverts, plasterboard, bricks, and steeland clay pipe (APG 1990).

Site 2: Old Dump on Swan Creek

This site is located outside the restricted area in the northeast portion of APG along the north side of PlumbPoint Loop. The dump site covers approximately 30,000 square feet (ft2) and is located behind the officersquarters in a wooded area along the embankment of an inlet of Swan Creek. The dump was reportedly usedbetween 1917 and 1935; wastes were not well defined but included municipal-type debris. On-post wastes weredumped and then bulldozed over the side of the embankment. The RFA reported that parts of rusted drums,metal plates, light posts, metal vehicle parts, tires, building debris, glass, and other debris were exposed at thesurface in the marsh (APG 2003).

Site 3: Churchville Test Course Dump

This site resides within a geographically separate APG testing facility, the Churchville Test Course, locatedapproximately 9 miles northwest of the AA. The Installation Assessment (IA) Report (APG, 1981) referencedan old dump located in the rear of the testing facility. The location was not defined and no information wasgiven to indicate any further investigation into the dump. The length of time that the area was used as a dump isunknown (APG 2003).

During a site visit at the Churchville Test Course conducted for the RFA report, Mr. Puleio from the test courserecalled working on the cleanup of the dump approximately 10 years prior, i.e., in the 1970s. Mr. Puleio pointedout the location of an old dump on an aerial photograph, which was located in the middle of a natural drainageditch or ravine. As part of the RFA, a records search was engaged with the State, City, and Countyenvironmental offices in an attempt to locate documentation of the cleanup performed in the 1970s. No reportsor similar documentation were found nor did personnel from the previous environmental organizations have anyrecollection regarding this cleanup (APG 2003).

4-1

CATEGORY B PESTICIDE CONTAMINATED AREAS

Site 4: Outdoor Pesticide Mixing Area at Building 5010

Building 5010 is located outside of the restricted area of APG in the north-central portion of the base nearHavre de Grace Street. Building 5010 is a two-story building that was formerly used as an incinerator.According to the RFA, Building 5010 also was used to store and mix pesticides and herbicides for applicationsince at least the mid-1970s (APG 1990). The exact date of change of use for the building was not found in areview of the Directorate of Engineering and Housing (DEH) records conducted for the RFA. At the time of theRFA, Building 5010 apparently was still in use for pesticide and herbicide mixing activities. Presently, Building5010 is not currently in use and is scheduled for demolition (APG 2003).

Site 5: DPW Backyard Storage Area Near Building 5262

The Department of Public Works (DPW) Backyard Storage Area is located outside of the restricted area ofAPG in the north-central portion of the base adjacent to Student Drive. This area has been an equipment storagearea for APG-DPW for approximately 30 years and is located behind Building 5262. The entire area issurrounded by a 6-ft-high chain-link fence and covers approximately 78,000 ft2. The soil within the storage areais a hard clay covered with gravel. The surrounding area is relatively flat and a small marsh is located near theeastern side of the yard. Although the area is not within the restricted access portion of APG, access to this areais controlled by a gate to the storage yard (APG 2003).

Interviews conducted for the RFA with employees of the APG electric shop indicated that two areas in thestorage yard were used for transformer storage. Area 1, located on the western side of the storage yard andcovering 11,000 ft2, was used to store transformers until they were removed in March 1989. Area 2, located onthe eastern side of the storage yard, covers 3,200 ft2. It was thought to be used for transformer storage between1964 and 1974. Transformers were stored in Area 2 at the time of a February1996 Phase I site visit. As a resultof a routine PCB investigation conducted by USEPA, three soil samples were collected in August 1986.USEPA recommended site cleanup action be taken based on the laboratory results (APG 2003).

A removal action was conducted by APG at this site between February and May 1992 to removepesticide-contaminated soil.

Site 6: DDT Spill Near Building 450

This site is located in the restricted area of APG in the north-central portion of the installation and consists of anopen area near Building 450 and the Old Phillips Airfield that is used for outdoor storage of equipment andvehicles. The area was bermed and had been used as a POL storage facility. The sides of the former berms werereported to be 1 to 2 feet high. The area is relatively flat and surface drainage likely infiltrates into the soil ordrains towards Spesutie Narrows (APG 2002).

The IA reported the discovery in 1974 of approximately 4,755 gallons of excess dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) stored in an open field near Building 450, with 35 percent of the containers corroded andleaking. At the time of the RFA, a 675-gallon, above-ground storage tank (AST) that was used to store dieselfuel was located within the berm. It has since been removed and the site is currently a grass field and unpavedopen storage. The actual spill site covered a 30 x 39-foot area within the larger bermed area that wassubsequently excavated to a depth of l-foot (APG 2002).

4-2

CATEGORY C BATTERY STORAGE/DISPOSAL AREAS

Site 7: Spent Lead Acid Battery Storage Site Near Building 2351

This site is located outside of the restricted area of APG in the northern portion of the base adjacent toFrankford Street. This site was described in the RFA (APG, 1990) as an area that was used to store usedlead-acid batteries prior to disposal or recycling. Soil at the site was sampled and metals andpetroleum-contaminated soil was excavated and disposed of off-post in 1995 (APG, l994d). Verificationsamples were collected after the soil was removed and the results indicated that the contamination had beenremoved. Therefore, this portion of the site is no longer considered to be a concern (APG 2002).

Just behind Building 2351 is Building 2350. Attached to one side of Building 2350 is a small rectangularconcrete extension approximately 5 feet wide and 12 feet long. It was reported that this concrete extension mayhave been used to discharge weapons for testing (APG 2002).

Site 8: Discarded Batteries at Abbey Point Navigation Light

The site is located in the southeast portion of the restricted area of APG along the shoreline of the ChesapeakeBay, northeast of Abbey Point Road and southwest of Romney Creek. Located in a remote area of an activebombing range (Range Control Area), the site is not presently accessible by roadway and can only be reachedwhen munitions testing is not being performed in the area. This site was inspected on May 7,1995 as part of thePhase I scoping activities. The site is the location of a former lighted marine navigation tower where severalhundred 6-volt and 12-volt lead-acid batteries were discarded on the ground when they could no longer be usedto operate the lighted signal system (APG 2002).

The tower is a 4-foot by 4-foot square steel structure approximately 50 feet high. The base of the tower waspreviously enclosed with steel plates and typically housed 20 batteries to operate the lighted signal system ofthe tower. According to APG personnel, the navigation tower is no longer in operation since the structure wasstruck by a munitions round during testing performed in the area. The batteries in the housing were partiallydamaged by an electrical short circuit resulting from the disabling impact of the round. Large UXO andexploded ordnance debris are present in the wooded area and shoreline in the vicinity of the site (APG 2002).

During the 1995 Phase I scoping visit, a minimum of 50 discarded batteries were observed in a low-profile pilelocated approximately 15 to 20 feet southwest of the tower. Several of the batteries were exposed at the surfacewhereas others were partially buried by soil and decaying vegetation. The lateral extent of the battery pile wasestimated to be approximately 15 feet by 20 feet at the time of the visit. Single batteries were observed in otherareas of the site. The vertical extent of the battery pile could not be determined during the Phase I visit.However, it appeared that the pile of batteries extended below the surface of the soft soil present at the site. Noevidence of stressed vegetation or stressed wildlife was observed at the site. In 1996, APG removed thebatteries from the site for offpost disposal (APG 2002).

Site 9: Discarded Batteries at Spesutie Island Navigation Light

The site is located in the restricted area of APG along the shoreline of Back Creek in the southwest portion ofSpesutie Island. This site was inspected on 7 May 1995 as part of the Phase I scoping activities. Located in aremote marsh on Spesutie Island, the site is accessible only by watercraft, aircraft, or foot. The site is thelocation of a former navigation tower previously used by APG security marine patrols. An unknown number of6-and 12-volt lead-acid batteries were discarded into shallow water of Back Creek and onto the shoreline belowand around the tower when the units could no longer be used to operate the lighting system (APG 2003).

4-3

The tower consisted of a 15-ft by 15-ft square, wooden, open-tie structure approximately 30 ft high, whichstraddled the marsh shoreline and shallow tidal channel of Back Creek. During the Phase I scoping visit, aminimum of 50 to 60 discarded batteries were observed in shallow water beneath the tower. Numerous batterieswere also observed submerged in approximately 3 to 4 ft of water immediately around the tower. In 1996, APGremoved the visible batteries from the site for offpost disposal (APG 2003).

Site 10: Building 5039 Battery Shop

This site is located outside of the restricted area of APG in the north-central portion of the base adjacent toBelair Street. The site was used for temporary storage of lead-acid batteries, and activities associated withvehicle maintenance. Building 5039 is a small single story, metal tied building (the battery shop) and adjacentpaved and grassy areas. During the RFA, stains were observed around the concrete foundation and roadwaycurbing adjacent to grassy areas that indicated possible spills or rusting of stored items. This site was inspectedon November 9, 1994 as part of the Phase I scoping activities, and the concrete staining was visible at that time.As of 1994, the building appears to be currently unused or have limited use. No activities associated with anongoing battery shop operation were observed. No previous sampling is known to have been conducted at thesite (APG 2002).

CATEGORY D SPESUTIE ISLAND AREAS

Site 11: Old Burn Trench on Spesutie Island

This site is located in the northwestern portion of Spesutie Island west of Morgan Road. The IA Report (APG1981) and WA (APG 1990) referenced a concrete-lined trench that was used for tank testing and burningchemical compounds from 1917 through the late 1950s. According to previous personal interviews, the walls ofthe concrete trench were broken down and the trench was filled with soil and concrete debris in the late 1950s(APG 2003).

The approximate location was described by retired APG employees during personal interviews conducted forthe IA and RFA. However, a definite location of the concrete trench could not be provided (APG 2003).

Site 12: Old Chemical Dump on Spesutie Island

This site is located in the northeastern portion of Spesutie Island west of Spesutie Island Road. This sitereportedly consists of old dump areas located off Duck Lane, on the north side of an overgrown road that travelsthrough a marsh to an old bridge across a tributary to Back Creek. The dump area is located in a low-levelmarsh area, which is mostly partially submerged at high tide. The area inland along the road is covered withbriars and grass, with a few sparse trees. The RFA estimates that the dump area is 300 ft in length with amaximum width of 20 A. Boxes with bottles of chemicals were reportedly thrown from the road into the marsh.There is also another small dump reported to be located at the edge of the marsh, about 450 ft from the bridgeand 20 ft off the road. At this location, a box of water-reactive chemicals was reportedly buried. There is a 2-ftcover of soil over this spot (APG 1981).

Site 13: Chemical Dump Ponds on Spesutie Island

This site is located in the northeastern portion of Spesutie Island west of Spesutie Island Road. This site consistsof two sets of shallow ponds named the North Ponds and the South Ponds for the Phase I RI. Each set of pondsincludes three long, narrow, ponds (total of six ponds) that were excavated using explosives in 1965 (APG2000).

4-4

The North Ponds were reportedly created for the purpose of disposing excess chemicals. However, the typesand quantities of materials disposed in the ponds are not known, nor is the timing and duration of disposal, ifany. The South Ponds were reportedly created as a duck habitat, The ponds are not presently being used byAPG (APG 2000).

Thick patches of marsh grass have grown around the ponds’ perimeter and sediment has partially filled theponds. Abundant vegetation and aquatic life were observed in the ponds in November 1994 (APG 2000).

Site 14: Former Burning Area Near Building 1171

This site is located in the eastern portion of Spesutie Island just east of Spesutie Island Road. The site wasreported to be near Building 117 1 and consisted of a former burn area that was used for open burning of highexplosives (HE) for approximately 30 years. Batches of HE or bad loads were combusted at this site. The IAestimated that several tons of explosives were disposed of in this manner (APG, 1981).

Interviews with retired employees of the tenant organization who worked in the area revealed that theoperations lasted about 12 years, beginning in 1948 with the construction of Building 1171 and ending about1960 with the construction of Building 1170. Predominantly TNT-based explosives were burned. Burning ofthese compounds took place once a week with an average of 100 pounds per week being burned (APG, 1990).During the RFA, five composite soil samples were collected at the suspected burning area located southwest ofBuilding 1171. Explosives were not detected in those samples (APG 2002).

Site 15: Metal Barricade Near Building 1122

This site is located in the north-central portion of Spesutie Island south of Spesutie Island Road and east ofMorgan Road. This site consists of a small metal barricade which was reportedly used to burn laboratoryresidues and wastes. The barricade is located approximately 350 feet south of Building 1122 near a tidal marshtributary leading into Back Creek and is set in an open area that is mowed (APG 2002).

The metal barricade is a small metal box open on one side. It is 8 feet wide and 10 feet long, with three sidewalls, a roof, and bottom of l-inch steel plating. The barricade is open on the south side and faces the saltmarsh. The wastes that were burned in the barricade were reportedly residual methylene chloride, carbontetrachloride, and ignitable wastes from the explosives laboratories. There are no documents or recordsindicating the quantity or complete identity of the materials burned in the barricade. During an inspection of thesite for the RFA, residual black particles were observed on the bottom plate but these were considered to bemostly rust debris from weathering of the steel. There was no visible evidence of soil contamination or signs ofstressed vegetation around the barricade at the time of the RFA or during a 1994 site visit conducted for theworkplan. As part of the RFA, a composite soil sample was collected at the open end of the barricade.Explosives were not detected in the sample (APG 2002).

CATEGORY E MISCELLANEOUS AREAS

Site 16: DRMO Metal Scrap Yard

The Defense Reutilization Marketing Office (DRMO) Metal Scrap Yard is located in the north-central portionof the restricted area of APG along the east side of Michaelsville Road and a railroad track. The DRMO MetalScrap Yard covers an area of approximately 12.7 acres. The yard is clear of vegetation and is accessible througha gate on the north end of the yard (APG 2003).

4-5

The DRMO Metal Scrap Yard has been used to store various types of large rolling stock (trucks, jeeps, andtrailers), automated data processing equipment, used ammunition canisters, cable, wiring, stoves, refrigerators,air conditioners, and various compressors and motors (APG 2003).

Site 17: Silver Contaminated Ditch in Transonic Range Area

This site is located in the central portion of the restricted area of APG, in the area known as the TransonicRange. The Transonic Range is one of the Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Facilities located in thedownrange portion of the AA of APG. The range was used to test fire depleted uranium (DU) projectiles at hardtargets (APG 1981). This activity had occurred outdoors in the past, but is now conducted indoors to eliminateatmospheric releases of DU vapor resulting from impact of the projectiles (APG 1981). Also at the TransonicRange, photographs are processed in Building 740B. Based upon available historical and analytical data, it isassumed that in the past, wastewater from the developing process was drained from Building 740B to a septictank, located in proximity to a series of seasonal drainage ditches/culverts that lead to Delph Creek(approximately 1,300 ft downstream). Based upon available information, it is believed that this procedure wasstopped in the mid-l970s (APG 1994b). A sewer line at the Transonic Range that was thought to be directed to awastewater treatment plant was found to be discharging to these series of seasonal drainage ditchesapproximately 1,300 ft upstream of Delph Creek. Samples of the sediment collected in the upper 300-ft sectionof the drainage ditch (i.e., closest to Building 740B) disclosed silver from photo-processing (APG 2003).

Site 18: Barrels Near Building 510

Building 510 is located in the northeast portion of the restricted area in a warehouse complex along MulberryPoint Road on Johnson Point near Spesutie Narrows. The main access road through the area is on the west sideof Building 510, and a series of railroad sidings are located on the east side of the building. A large openstorage area is located between the railroad sidings and Spesutie Narrows, in an area to the east of Building 510.Numerous tracked vehicles, pallets of materials, lumber, and utility poles are in the storage area. The storagearea is bordered on the south (generally to the southeast of Building 510) by a wooded area, and further to thesouth by a salt marsh (APG 2003).

Directorate of Safety, Health and Environment (DSHE) staff were shown an area located at the eastern edge ofthe wooded area, about 100 ft inland from the shoreline of Spesutie Narrows in which approximately 30 to 40barrels were found. The barrels appear to have been randomly placed or dumped, and are intermixed with othermetallic debris (although the bulk of the dumped material is the barrels) throughout an area approximately 60 ftby 80 ft. The barrels are of numerous sizes, types, and colors. Some have one end removed; others appear tohave both ends intact. The barrels are very rusty and have numerous holes. No intact barrels were observed.One barrel was observed to have l-2 gal of solidified oil or grease remaining; however, it could not bedetermined if the barrels generally had material in them at the time of disposal. At one time the warehousereportedly received barrels of heavy lubricating greases and oils for machinery and equipment, as well asbarrels of lighter oils and hydraulic fluids. Presently, Building 510 is a carpenter shop and is used to storelumber (APG 2003).

Site 19: Sandblast Area Near Building 523

This site is located in the northeast potion of the restricted area of APG. The RFA reported that infrequentequipment sandblasting took place on a flat area behind Buildings 523 and 528. The sandblast area reportedlyhad dimensions of approximately 95 feet by 185 feet and was covered with approximately 5 inches of sand atthe time of the WA inspection. Below the sand was a l-to 5-inch layer of broken asphalt. Beneath the asphalt are2 inches of gravelly road bed material and railroad slag. The sandblast area is bordered on the east by a grasscovered slope. At the bottom of the slope is a tree line which defines a marshy area that drains into WoodrestCreek (APG 2002).

4-6

Based on the RFA results, APG implemented a removal action at the site in November 1994. Prior toexcavation of any soils, further characterization was performed (APG, 1994b). A second removal action wascompleted in December 1994 at three locations exceeding lead cleanup levels. Approximately 568 tons ofcontaminated soil was removed (APG 2002).

Site 20: Potential Explosives in Groundwater Area

This site is located in the north-central portion of the restricted area of APG and consists of four study sites eastand west of Michaelsville Road. The four study sites include:

• Former Plate Pile (PP) Site Near Building 702 • Building 745 and New Plate Storage Pad • Fragmentation Pit Near Building 705B • Bomb Throwing Device (BTD) Range

The Former Plate Pile Site is located behind Building 702, which is on the west side of Michaelsville Road. TheFormer Plate Pile Site was reportedly a building that was used for storage of spent plates from DU projectiletesting. The plates apparently were stored in the building for an extended period, during which time the buildingdeteriorated and leaked, allowing rainwater to wash DU-contaminated residue from the plates. A soil removaland clean-up has taken place at this site under a separate program at APG (APG 2003).

Building 745 (Assembly Building) is an Aberdeen Testing Center (ATC) facility located on MichaelsvilleRoad. It is used for the assembly of test shells, mainly (75 percent) DU projectiles, and was built in 1957. It isreported that a new plate pile storage (New Plate Storage Pad) area is the location of a former detonation pad.This pad is about 100 ft2 and 12 ft thick, and is located to the north and east of Building 745, across the pavedroad (APG 2003).

The Fragmentation Pit itself is numbered 716, and is located about 0.5 mile off Michaelsville Road. TheFragmentation Pit facility consists of an approximately 30-ft-diameter, 30-ft-deep, concrete-lined pit, a concretepad for locating a crane, a mechanical screen for sitting sand from the pit, a hardened control bunker, and smallmetal sheds. In operation, the pit would be filled with sand and the explosive item to be tested, and theexplosive would be detonated. The sand would then be removed from the pit, using a crane, and transferred tothe mechanical screen. The sand could be reused at the completion of the test. Piled sand from past testing islocated around the mechanical screen, which was abandoned in place. All other facilities have been removed.The facility has not been used for many years. However, one individual at Building 705B recalled the pit beingused in the early 1980s (APG 2003).

The BTD Range was used to test the bomb-throwing device developed during World War II. Tests wereconducted by firing 4,000-lb bombs into the 12,500-yd impact area. The BTD Range was also used for minetesting and static detonation, and Composition B explosive testing between 1950 and 1960 (APG 1981).

Site 21: POL Facility Sand Pit Near Building 5215

This site is located outside of the restricted area in the northeast portion of APG in a gravel parking lot on thenortheast side of Building 5217 near the intersection of Ravenna Road and Frankford Street. Building 5215 waspreviously a petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POL) storage facility managed by the personnel in Building 5217.At the time of the RFA, a small metal storage shed containing spill and containment equipment was observed tobe immediately behind Building 5215. A containment area constructed of 2-m by 12-m lumber surrounded themetal shed, forming a sand pit. The sand was approximately 5 to 6 in. deep in the pit, and served to keepoperations confined to that area. During the RFA, visible evidence of an oily substance was noted on the sand.

4-7

The sand also reportedly had a petroleum distillate odor. Materials used at the facility likely consisted ofpetroleum products for light armor vehicle maintenance such as motor and gear oils, hydraulic fluids, andlubricants. It is unknown whether solvents were used and stored at the facility. Presently, Building 5215 is a90-Day Hazardous Waste Storage Building. During a November 1994 site inspection conducted as part of thePhase I work plan scoping activities, the metal shed and sand pit were found to have been removed (APG2003).

According to personnel from the Conservation Branch of the Directorate of Logistic Operations (DELO), inapproximately 1987, an area of approximately 50 ft2 near Building 5215 was excavated to remove petroleum-contaminated sand and soil. A l-in. layer of soil was excavated from the entire work area, with a 6- to 8-in.depth excavation where oil had soaked into the soil beneath the surface. It is unknown whether post-excavationsoil samples were collected to assess contaminant levels in the remaining soil (APG 2003).

Site 22: Buildings 309 & 390 Storm Sewer Outfalls

This site is located both within and outside of the restricted area in the north-central portion of APG. AtBuilding 309, in the restricted Army Research Laboratory (ARL) compound, wastewater discharges wereinitially thought to be directed to a treatment plant located to the east of the site. The waste streams were fromlaboratory areas, and may have included explosive residues and possibly photographic developing chemicals, aswell as other contaminants. Based on the results of dye tests conducted by APG in early 1994 (APG 1994c), thewaste streams were found to exit the building area to the north and discharge outside the ARL fence at aconcrete headwall on a small tributary of Dipper Creek. No obvious evidence of environmental stress was notedat Dipper Creek. The outfall is adjacent to Building 80G, which is one of several duplex residences adjacent tothe road and creek. Extensive retrofitting of piping within Building 309 has subsequently been conducted toproperly reroute the waste streams (APG 2003).

The building and testing history at Building 390 is very similar to that for Building 309. However, at Building390 the waste streams were found to be discharging to the tidal floodplain of Dipper Creek at a location withinthe ATC restricted area near the sewage treatment plant. The wastewater reportedly traveled through a stormsewer system and discharged to the marsh floodplain via a 24-in-diameter concrete pipe. Although the contentof the waste stream is uncertain, the contaminants may have included explosive residues, photographdeveloping chemicals, and other contaminants. No obvious evidence of environmental stress was noted atDipper Creek (APG 2003).

Site 23: Building 525 Site

This site is located in the northeast portion of the restricted area of APG off of Mulberry Point Road,approximately 1600 feet from the intersection of Surveillance Range Road. Building 525 was formerly used forassembling and processing artillery and weapons. Building 525 is currently under the supervision of theAberdeen Test Center (ATC) and is primarily used for painting artillery components and weapons systems.Building 525 housed vapor degreasers which may have been discontinued and dismantled in the 1970’s (APG2002).

Site 24: White Phosphorus Munitions Land Burial Area

This site is located in the northeast portion of the restricted area of APG near the mouth of Mosquito Creek.This site consists of two areas of suspected white phosphorus dumping or burial-- the White PhosphorusUnderwater Munitions Burial Area (WPUMBA) and a potential land burial site-- the WPMLBA.

4-8

Based on interviews of former employees who worked on the post following World War I, an unknown amountof World War I white phosphorus munitions (ordnance) was supposedly buried in the Chesapeake Bay in thevicinity of Black Point during the period 1922-l925. The ordnance reportedly consisted of United States,British, and French land mines, grenades, and artillery shells. According to the interviews, bulk phosphorusmay also have been disposed in the Bay. It is possible that this disposal event involved a single barge load ofmunitions; however, it may have involved considerably more. In 1933, the WPUMBA was reportedlyuncovered by a strong hurricane, which may have led to a large waterfowl kill. After several investigationsfailed to identify the munitions and significant contamination, a ROD was issued in 1991 declaring a no actiondecision and that no effective remedial action is possible at the site (APG, 1991).

Site 25: Shell Washout Wastewater Ditch at Building 700B

This site is located in the central portion of the restricted area of APG near Michaelsville Road, southeast ofAviation Arms Road. Building 700B was built in the early 1950s, and the shell washout facility has been usedto rinse munition shells for almost 40 years. The IA Report (APG 1981) stated that this facility was operatedapproximately eight times per year, discharging approximately 3,000 L (approximately 800 gal) of wastewaterper year. The wastewater was filtered through sawdust to remove explosive residue. The wastewater thenflowed to a ditch and a series of three dropout basins and a dirt weir. The ditch downstream of the weirdischarges to Romney Creek. The sawdust and solid materials were periodically removed and transported to thedemolition area of the Old Bombing Field (OBF) for burning (APG 1981). It was also reported that the basinareas along the ditch were dredged out once a year to remove particles of explosives that had settled out. Thissediment was also taken to the OBF for burning (APG 1981).

The facility was closed and not routinely operated for a period of approximately 2 years. During this time(September 1986 through June 1988), an activated carbon filter system was installed to treat any wastewaterfrom the facility. The carbon filters were placed in a series of three baffles to remove any residual materials inthe wastewater. The only time that the facility was operated during this period was when testing of munitionstook place. Reportedly, only small amounts of wastewater were generated during this time. All dischargeoperations were halted in 1989 (APG 2003).

Site 26a: Old Bombing Field OB/OD Area

This site is located within an active range in the southern portion of the restricted area of APG off OldBaltimore Road and west of Romney Creek. The OBF consists of two separate areas, one for open burning(OB) and the other for open detonation (OD). The OBF covers approximately 8 acres of land near the shorelineof Romney Creek. OB/OD of explosive wastes or discarded explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics haveoccurred at this site since 1973. In 1981, the IA Report (APG 1981) stated that 99 percent of all munitionsdisposal took place at the OBF. At the present time, OB/OD disposal operations are only conducted at the OBFby ATC. OD is conducted in pits approximately 6 ft deep. In the OD area, a hole is backfilled and moundedwith soil and then a charge is remotely ignited to demolish the round to be disposed. The OB area isapproximately 500 yards northwest of the OD area. Initially, burning of materials was conducted onunprotected ground. Subsequent burning took place on two pads approximately 20 ft apart. These pads wereconstructed of crushed stone and clay that were placed over the original burning areas. Currently, metal burnpans (10 ft by 3 ft by 1 ft) are used to allow easy inspection of the burn material. Residues remaining after burnsare drummed and handled as hazardous waste (APG 1990).

Site 26b: New Bombing Field OB/OD Area

This site is located within an active range in the southwest portion of the restricted area of APG off Abbey PointRoad. The OB/OD area at New Bombing Field (NBF) was previously described as two burning and demolition

4-9

areas separated by an earthen berm approximately 2 m high. In November 1988, this area was a circular areawith approximately a 10-ft radius. The OB/OD at the NE3F was reportedly in use in 1982 (APG 1981).

Site 26c: Abbey Point Suspected OB/OD Area

The Abbey Point site, also known as the “15,000-yard Impact Field”, is located in an active bombing range inthe southern portion of the restricted area of APG. The site consists of an area of patchy stressed vegetation andbare soil adjacent to an unpaved extension of Abbey Point Road that terminates at the shoreline of theChesapeake Bay. It was reported by APG personnel that this area of Abbey Point was used between 1931 and1981 for burning and demolition of munitions. It was also reported that a truckload of titanium chemicals hadbeen buried at Abbey Point (APG, 1981, p. 2-48); however, this has not been confirmed. Other than the stressedvegetation and bare soil, no other physical evidence of burning or detonation (e.g., pad areas, etc.) have beenobserved. No known previous sampling has been conducted at this site (APG 2002).

Site 27: German Ammunition Train Explosion Area

The German Ammunition Train Explosion (GATE) Area is located in the central portion of the restricted areaof APG just east of Michaelsville Road. According to the IA Report (APG 1981), approximately 200 tons ofGerman munitions were stored on railroad cars awaiting disposal following World War II. An explosion of anestimated 20 tons occurred, scattering the remaining munitions over an estimated 400-acre area. Currently, thearea is controlled by the ATC restricted area fence (post-wide), APG security, and onsite posted signs.

The explosion apparently occurred on the railroad tracks along Michaelsville Road between Building 710 andthe road’s intersection with Rifle Range Road near Building 728. The affected area is on both sides ofMichaelsville Road. The primary environmental concern is release of explosive chemicals to the environmentwith possible UXO.

Site 28a: Building 436 UST Site

This site is located at Building 436 in the northeast portion of the restricted area of APG. Building 436 islocated off of Mulberry Point Road and serves as the Automotive Test Facility for the Automotive TestDivision, Engineering Directorate of the Aberdeen Test Center.

An 8,000-gallon UST, located on the northern side of Building 436, was formerly used to store No. 2 fuel oiluntil it was removed on January 12, 1995. During closure activities, it was observed that the piping connectedto the runway of the UST had leaked (APG 2002).

Site 28b: Building 456 AST Site

This site is near Building 456 in the northeast portion of the restricted area of APG. The site is within the oldPhillips Army Airfield, approximately 1,200 feet southeast of Building 456 and is accessed by an old roadleading from Mulberry Point Road. The site is situated in a flat area containing a dirt test track, a bulk fuelloader, a vacuum chamber, and scrap metal storage (APG 2002).

This site consists of a former 450,000-gallon, cylindrical AST, two abandoned AST berm areas (designated asAST 456B and AST 456C), several utilities, and a bulk fuel loader. AST 456 was formerly used to store No. 2diesel fuel until it was closed on July, 1995 after 23 years of service. The AST 456B and AST 456C berm areapreviously housed two, single-wall, 2,000-gallon ASTs that were used to store gasoline (AST 456B) andsolvents (AST 456C). ASTs 456B and AST 456C were reportedly removed in early 1996. The types of solventsstored in AST 456C could not be determined as part of previous research and investigations conducted for thesite (APG 2002).

4-10

Site 28c: Building 2458 UST Site

Building 2458 is located in the northwest portion of the unrestricted area of APG near the intersection ofMaryland Boulevard and Proving Ground Road. Prior to its removal, a fuel oil UST was located adjacent to thenorthwest side of Building 2458.

Site 28d: Building 3329 UST Site

Building 3329 is located in the northwest portion of the unrestricted area of APG near the intersection ofMaryland Boulevard and Proving Ground Road. Building 3329 was used as a gasoline service station at APG inthe past. In 1991, four 10,000-gallon tanks that were used to store gasoline were removed from the Building3329 area as part of the tank closures. Additionally, one 550-gal fuel oil tank and one 550-gal waste-oil tankwere removed later that year. The tanks were reported to have been in place for 26 years at the time of theirremoval (APG 2000).

Site 28e: Building 3505 UST Site

Building 3505 is located in the northwest portion of the unrestricted area of APG near the intersection ofMaryland Boulevard and Proving Ground Road. The fuel oil UST was located adjacent to the southwest side ofBuilding 3505 and was abandoned in place due to the close proximity to Building 3505.

Site 28f: Building 3327 UST Site

Building 3327 is located outside of the restricted area of APG in the north-central portion of the base nearAberdeen Boulevard and Raritan Avenue. Building 3327 is a single story building that was formerly used as adry cleaning facility from approximately 1962 to the mid-l980’s. The immediate area surrounding Building3327 consists predominately of macadam parking areas with a manicured grass area located to the north.

During the Phase II RI a 500-gal UST containing tetracbloroethylene (PCE) was identified and subsequentlyremoved.

Site 29: Tower Road Site

Building 340 is located in the north-central portion of the restricted area of APG, on Tower Road approximately500 feet north of the intersection of Colleran Road and Tower Road intersection on Tower Road. Building 340was used as a refueling facility for government vehicles from 1949 to 1995. Eight USTs were installed duringthis period. According to available records, these USTs were used to store gasoline, diesel fuel, and kerosene.Four of the USTs were either removed or abandoned-in-place during the several phases beginning in 1990. Theother four USTs were taken out of service but remain in place. These USTs will be removed following thecompletion of remediation (APG 2002).

Site 30a: Pistol Range

The site is located in the south-eastern portion of the unrestricted area of APG approximately 1,300 ft northwestof Michaelsville Road. The Ordnance Center and School was the main user of the Pistol Range. The PistolRange covers an area approximately 1,000 ft by 300 ft. The exact time of operation is unknown. The area wasacquired by APG approximately 1939-1940. In 1952, the Pistol Range was used primarily by the APGMarksmanship Group, after-hours and on weekends. Firing was limited to small caliber hand guns. The use ofthe range was discontinued during the 1960s due to the build-up and increased activity in the 5 100 block area(APG 2003).

4-11

Site 30b: Known Distance Range

The site is located in the central portion of the restricted area of APG approximately 1,200 ft west of OldBaltimore Road. Information was obtained from John H. Conley, a former APG Range Control Officer (Conley1997). The Known Distance Range was in full operation after 1939 until early 1965, and was operated by theOrdnance Center and School as a standard Army range facility with l00-, 200-, and 300-yd firing lines.According to the APG Safety Regulation dated 1947, firing was limited to 30-caliber, shoulder-fired weaponsusing ball ammunition, M2s and tracer M2s, 22-caliber rifles, 30-caliber carbines, 45caliber pistols andrevolvers, and 45 caliber submachine guns. In the 1970s, the Chemical School used this site for trainingprocedures for demilitarization of Army material exposed to chemical agents. Molasses was used to simulatethe chemical agent (APG 2003).

Part of the sand berm extending across the Known Distance Range is behind the 1,500-yd exclusion fence of theArmy Pulse Reactor Facility (APRF). The APRF was constructed in late 1964 to early 1965.

Site 31: Poverty Island Potential Mine Burial Site

This site is located in the south-western portion of the restricted area of APG. It was initially improperlycommunicated that a mine burial pit was found at the site during construction activities. Interviews withpersonnel working at the site revealed there is no mine pit. There were only two mines uncovered duringconstruction activities when a road grader was installing a drainage ditch. Woods bound the site to the east andsouth.

Site 32: Building 507 Site

Building 507 is located in the northeast portion of the restricted area in a warehouse complex along MulberryPoint Road on Johnson Point near Spesutie Narrows. The main access road through the area is on the west siteof Building 507, and a series of railroad sidings are located on the east and south side of the building. A largeopen storage area is located between the building and Spesutie Narrows, in an area to the east of Building 507.Numerous tracked vehicles, pallets of materials, lumber, and utility poles are located in the storage area. Thestorage area is bordered on the east and south by a marsh area associated with Woodrest Creek and SpesutieNarrows.

Building 507 was constructed in approximately the early 1940s and was utilized as a primary shipping andstorage facility for APG. The building still contains some materials but has not been extensively used since2000, when a section of the roof collapsed. The building continues to be used as a major receiving, shipping,and storage facility for large items at APG (APG 2003).

Site 33: Building M600 Site

Building M600 is located within the north-east portion of the restricted area of APG. Building M600 wasformerly used as a magazine storage area and an adjacent Building 615 was used as a maintenance facility.Some washracks were formerly located adjacent to the eastern side of Building 615. The washracks werepresumably used to wash equipment and parts and encompassed an area of approximately 30 x 15 ft. There areno known incidences or activities, other than the existence of the former washracks, which may havecontributed to the contamination detected within the area of Building 615 (APG 2003).

4.1 SITE CHRONOLOGY

A chronology of events for the OAA Study Areas is provided in Table 4-l.

4-12

Other than the RFA report, there have been two primary investigations performed regarding the OAA sites.These investigations included the Phase I and Phase II Remedial Investigations. The Phase II investigationincluded the collection and analysis of groundwater samples throughout the Cantonment Area as well as OAAsite-specific investigations.

4.2 SITE BACKGROUND


There are 41 OAA sites located throughout the APG Area. Thirty-eight (38) of these sites (Sites 1 through 31)were initially identified as areas of potential concern based upon the RPA (1990) report and additionalsubsequent information received from various sources. Two of these 38 sites, Site 23: Building 525 Site andSite 29: Tower Road Site, have been investigated as separate sites. In addition, three sites (Sites 28f, 32 and 33)were identified as areas of potential concern and were included as OAA sites based upon the Cantonment Areainvestigation.

The AA of APG was established in 1917 as the Ordnance Proving Ground. Testing of ammunition began inJanuary 1918. APG has been active since 1917, and these 41 sites have been used for various purposes duringthe course of APG history. These sites are located within the boundaries of APG, although they are notcurrently being utilized for the purpose for which they are being investigated. However, these sites, other thanSite 2, are located within an industrial setting and may be used for industrial-type activity in the future. Site 2 islocated in a residential housing area of APG and is also located near a playground area.


The current land use of the OAA is military, light industrial, commercial, residential, and recreational. The AAof APG is divided into two areas-restricted and unrestricted. The restricted portion of the AA is completelyfenced and access to this area is strictly regulated. The unrestricted portion of the AA is also fenced, but accessto this area, though still regulated, is less stringent than restricted area access. Portions of the unrestricted areaare also used as residential areas.

The groundwater aquifer underlying these sites is currently not used as a drinking water source at these sites orwithin the areas adjacent to these sites. However, Harford County and the City of Aberdeen have severalgroundwater production wells located within the adjacent western boundary study area (Chapter 3).


Various materials including explosives, pesticides, herbicides, general debris, cleaning agents, petroleumproducts, and other materials have been used, stored, and disposed of at APG since its creation in 1917. Theuse, storage, and disposal of these materials may have contributed to the presence of contaminants within thegroundwater, surface water, soil, or sediment within the AA.


The RFA report (1990) first established the potential presence of areas of potential concern. The Phase Iinvestigation (2000) was performed as a “ screening” approach for 36 OAA sites (Sites 23 and 29 wereevaluated separately). Meetings were held between EPA, MDE, APG, and TAG personnel to discuss the PhaseI RI results. Of the 36 OAA sites evaluated in the Phase I RI, 11 OAA sites indicated no need for furtherinvestigation and 25 OAA sites were recommended for further investigation.

4-13

Following the completion of the Phase I RI report, various meetings were held in the first half of the year 2000between APG, EPA, MDE, and TAG to discuss plans for the Phase II RI and Cantonment Area investigations.

Some remedial activities, as presented below, occurred prior to the RFA (Sites 3 and 21) or between thecompletion of the RFA report (1990) and completion of the Phase II RI. Remedial activities have beenperformed at the following OAA sites and these actions are summarized on Table 4-2 :

• Site 2 Old Dump on Swan Creek • Site 4 Former Outdoor Pesticide Mixing Area at Building 5010• Site 5 DPW Backyard Storage Area Near Building 5262• Site 6 DDT Spill Near Building 450 • Site 7 Spent Lead Acid Battery Storage Site Near Building 2351 • Site 8 Discarded Batteries at Abbey Point Navigation Light • Site 9 Discarded Batteries at Spesutie Island Navigation Light • Site 16 DRMO Metal Scrap Yard Barrels Near Building 510 • Site 18 Sandblast Area Near Building 523 • Site 19 POL Facility Sand Pit Near Building 5215 • Site 21 Building 525 Site • Site 23 Building 3329• Site 28d UST Site • Site 28e Building 3505 UST Site • Site 28f Building 3327 UST Site • Site 29 Tower Road Site

Site 2 - Surface debris was removed from the marsh during a 1996 removal action. Additionally, a cover wasplaced over the dump to prevent surface and dust exposures and the erosion of soil and debris from the dump(URS 2000). The area was also enclosed with a fence in order to inhibit unauthorized entry into the area.

Site 4 - Based on the U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency (USAEHA) and RFA sample results, APGremoved 586 tons of pesticide-contaminated soil and restored the site in July and September 1991 (APG1992a). The Phase II investigation at Site 4 included a limited soil removal and abandonment of a collectionsump. Existing sump water and sediment, from one sump which was abandoned, were removed and the sumpwas filled with concrete to the ground surface. The limited soil removal was conducted in a 20x20x4-ft areaadjacent to the northwest portion of Building 5010. This area formerly contained elevated pesticideconcentrations reported during the Phase I RI and further defined during the Phase II RI. Five confirmatory soilsamples were collected after the excavation and the results confirmed the removal of impacted soil.

Site 5 - A removal action was conducted by APG at Site 5 between February and May 1992 to removepesticide-contaminated soil, and perform site restoration (APG 1993a). Following removal of the contaminatedsoil, six verification samples were collected at the base of the excavation and confirmed the removal of soilexceeding criteria. A 10 mg/kg action level was determined by EPA Region II for cleanup of thePCB-contaminated soil at this site.

Site 6 - The Installation Assessment (IA) (APG 1981) reported the discovery in 1974 of approximately 4,755gallons of excess DDT stored in an open field near Building 450, with 35 percent of the containers corroded andleaking. These containers were repackaged and moved to Building 509 for storage. At the time of the Phase I R.I visual site inspection, a 675-gallon AST that was used to store diesel fuel was located within the berm area ofthe site. The Phase I RI report documents that this AST had been removed and the site is currently a grassy fieldand unpaved storage area. The actual spill site covered a 30- by 39-ft area (APG 1981) within the larger, 106- to197- ft, bermed area. Soil was removed from a 40- by 39-ft area to a depth of 1 ft.

4-14

TABLE 4-l CHRONOLOGY OF SITE EVENTS, OTHER ABERDEEN AREAS, ABERDEEN AREA, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND

Site Preliminary evaluation of sediment data collected from Swan Creek Environmental Assessment for Proposed Removal Actions at: The DRMO Scrap Metal Yard; Spent Lead Acid Battery Storage Site (Building 2351); Sandblasting Area Near Building 523; Wastewater Ditch at the Shell I

1994 1994

1 Washout Facility (Building 700B); and Old Dump at Swan Creek Analytical Data for Woodrest Creek Samples Removal of Contaminated Soil at the Sandblast Area, Building 523 Contamination Assessment of Building A501 0 Preliminary Risk Assessment for the Swan Creek Dump Site Technical Memorandum - Field Sampling Summary for Phase I Screening

1994 1995 1995 1996 1998

TABLE 4-2 SUMMARY OF REMOVAL ACTIVITIES, OTHER ABERDEEN AREAS, ABERDEEN AREA, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND

Zte No.

4

Site Name

Old Dump on Swan Creek

Churchville Test Course Dump

Former Outdoor Pesticide Mixing Area at Building 5010 DPW Backyard Storage Area Near Building 5262 DDT Spill Near Building 450

Spent Lead Acid Battery Storage Site Near Building 235 1

Discarded Batteries at Abbey Point Navigation Light

Contaminant

heportedly used from 19 17 - 1935. Wastes not well detined, but Included municipal-type debris. Metals and pesticides are primary ZOPC’. Type of debris formerly present in the dump is unknown. Metals are primary-COPC. Pesticides. nrimarilv 4,4’-DDT and I,4’-DDE: ‘Metals,-pesticides, explosives, and radioactive parameters are also COPC. Metals and pesticides are primary COPC.

DDT and diesel fuel. DDT is the primary COPC.

Lead-acid batteries. Lead is the primary COPC.

Several hundred 6-volt and 12-volt lead-acid batteries were discarded in this area. Lead is the primary

Extent

Approx. 30,000 f?.

Approx. 1,750 l?.

Approx. 5,000 d by 2 A deep excavation in 199 1. Approx. 400 tlr by 4 It deep excavation in 200 1. Transformers were stored within a 2-acre area between1964and1974. Spill site was approx. 1,170 ti within an approx. 20,882 t? benned area. 200 ttr battery storage area.

Approx. 300 I? lateral area of extent.

Remedial Activities

Surface debris was removed from the marah in 1996. A chain link fence has been installed between the dump and an adjacent residential area. Dump has been covered with surface soil.

Dump was cleaned up in the 1970’s based upon verbal communication.

Approximately 586 tons of pesticide-contaminated soil was removed in 199 1. A limited soil removal and abandonment of a collection sump were performed in 2001 during the Phase II RI. Pesticide-contaminated soil was removed in 1992.

DDT containing drums were removed in 1974. A diesel fuel AST was also removed from this area. DDT contaminated soil was removed from an approx. 1,170 f? area to a depth of 1 ft. Area was used to store lead-acid batteries prior to disposal or recycling. Metals and petroleum- contaminated soil was excavated and disposed of offsite in 1995. Verification samples indicated that the contamination had been removed. Removal action to collect all visible batteries from the site was performed in 1996.

-

TABLE 4-2 (Cont.)

9

16

18

19

21

23

28b

28c

28d

Discarded Numerous 6-volt and 12-volt lead- Approx. 500 A 2 lateral Batteries at

50 to 60 discarded batteries were observed during the acid batteries were discarded in area of extent.

Spesutie Island Phase I RI scoping visit. Removal action to collect all

this area. Metals, but lead is the Navigation Light

visible batteries from the site was performed in 1996. primary COPC.

DEMO Scrap Scrap yard may have PCBs, DRMO scrap yard covers PCB contaminated soil was removed from three areas in Yard metals, petroleum products, and approx. 12.7 acres.

solvents. VOCs, SVOCs, 1994. Two areas were approximately 625 @ and the

explosives, pesticides, and metals third area (located outside of the fenced yard) was

Bach area was excavated to a detected above screening criteria.

approximately 45Oft 2.

TCE is primary VOC. depth of l-foot and a total of 10dtons of soil were removed.

Barrels Near Lead is the primary COPC. Approx. 4,800 ft 2. Two Building 5 10 areas, of approx. 400 ft2

Approx. 30 to 40 barrels (former contents down)

by I- foot deep, were along with other metal debris were formerly present at the site.

excavated. Lead impacted soil was excavated, along with

observed surface metal debris, and disposed of offsite during the Phase II investigation. Two lead impacted areas (i.e., soil concentration exceeded 1,000 mgikg) were removed during the Phase II RI in 200 1.

Sandblast Area Lead is the primary COPC. Approx. 17,575 f?. Approx. 568 tons of contaminated soil was removed in Near Building 523 1994. POL Facility Sand Petroleum-contaminated sand and Approx. 50 ti. Petroleum contaminated soil and sand were excavated Pit Near Building soil. Vinyl chloride, die&in, o- from this site in approximately 1987. 5215 nitrotoluene, and several metals

were also reported above screening criteria.

Building 525 Site Solvents, primarily TCE and TCA Approx. 80,000 f?. A 15,000-gals2 fuel oil UST was abandoned in place in are the COPC. 1991. A 1 ,OOO-gal solvent UST was removed in 1993.

Building 456 AST No. 2 diesel fuel, gasoline, and One 450,000-gallon AST AST 456 (formerly contained No. 2 diesel fiel) was Site solvents were formerly stored at (AST 456). Two 2,OOO- closed in July 1995. ASTs 456B (formerly contained

this site. gallon ASTs (ASTs 4568 gasoline) and 456C (formerly contained solvents) were and 456C). reportedly removed in early 1996.

Building 2458 VOCs (chloroform, MTBE, and Size of former UST is A fuel oil UST was formerly located adjacent to the UST Site TCE) are primary COPC. LUlkllOWll northwest side of Building 2458. Building 3329 VOCs (TCE, PCE, and vinyl Six former USTs Four lO,OOO-gal gasoline tanks, one 550-gal fuel oil UST Site chloride) are primary COPC. associated with former tank., and one 5Wgal waste oil tank were removed in

gasoline station. 1991.

TABLE 4-i ,nt.)

28e

28f

Building 3505 UST Site Building 3327 UST Site

VOCs (primarily TCE and PCE) Size of former UST is A fuel oil UST was formerly located adjacent to the are primary COPC. UIlkIlOWn southwest side of Building 3505.

VOCs (primarily PCE) are primary MO-gallon UST A 550-gallon UST, 300 gallons of PCE and water, and COPC. approximately 8 cubic yards of PCE-contaminated soil

I I I 1 were removed in 2002. 29 1 Tower Road Site 1 Solvents, primarily TCE and TCA 1 Approx., 1.7 million f?. [ Eight USTs were formerlv used at this site. pour of

are the COPC. - these USTs were either r&roved or abandoned in place during several phases beginning in 1990. The other four USTs were removed from service but remained in place. This site is being addressed as a separate study area.

1. COPC - Chemical(s) of Potential Concern

Site 7 - Soil at the site was sampled, and metals and petroleum-contaminated soil was excavated and disposedof offsite in 1995 (APG 1994d). Verification samples were collected after the soil was removed and the resultsindicated that the contamination had been removed. Therefore, this portion of the site was no longer consideredto be a concern.

Site 8 - APG conducted a removal action in 1996 to collect and remove all visible batteries from the site (APG2002).

Site 9 - APG conducted a removal action in 1996 to collect and remove all visible batteries from the site (APG2002).

Site 16 - A removal action was completed in the former transformer storage area in January and August 1994.This action consisted of the excavation and disposal of contaminated soil from three areas. Each area wasexcavated to a depth of 1 ft and a total of 106 tons of soil with a maximum contamination of 83 mg/kg of PCBswas removed (APG 1994e).

Site 18 - Soils with lead concentrations exceeding 1,000 mg/kg, as measured in the field using X-rayfluorescence (XRF), were excavated and disposed offsite from Site 18 during the Phase II investigation.Approximately 18 cubic yards (20 tons) of material were excavated from the site. Following the excavation, soilsamples were collected from the bottom of the excavation for laboratory analysis and confirmed the removal ofsoil exceeding criteria. Exposed surface metals were also removed and properly disposed of during theexcavation of the lead-impacted soil.

Site 19 - Based on the RFA results, APG implemented a soil removal action at the site in November 1994. Priorto excavation of any soils, further characterization was performed (APG 1994b). A second removal action wascompleted in December 1994 at three locations exceeding lead cleanup levels. Approximately 568 tons ofcontaminated soil was removed (APG 1995h).

Site 21- During a November 1994 site inspection conducted as part of the Phase I RI work plan scopingactivities, the metal shed and sand pit, formerly associated with Site 21, were found to have been removed andthe area regraded and graveled. According to personnel from the Conservation Branch of DELO, inapproximately 1987, an area of approximately 50 ft2 near Building 5215 was excavated to removepetroleum-contaminated sand and soil. A l-in. layer of soil was excavated from the entire work area, with a 6- to8-in.-depth excavation where oil had soaked into the soil beneath the surface. It is unknown whetherpost-excavation soil samples were collected to assess contaminated levels in the remaining soil. Six soilsamples (from two depths at three locations) and two groundwater samples (from two depths at one geoprobelocation) were collected during the Phase I RI.

Site 23 - Building 525 was formerly used for assembling and processing artillery and weapons. Building 525 iscurrently under the supervision of the Aberdeen Test Center (ATC) and is primarily used for painting artillerycomponents and weapons systems. The site formerly contained two USTs: a 15,000-gallon UST for #2 fuel oilstorage and a 1,000-gallon UST for solvent storage. The fuel oil UST was abandoned in place in October 1991,and the solvent UST was removed in November 1993. In addition, a Remedial Investigation and Baseline RiskAssessment (BLRA) was performed for Building 525. Based on the review of the RI and BLRA, onlygroundwater associated with the surficial aquifer has been identified as the medium of concern at the Building525 Site. NOTE: This site is being addressed as a separate study area.

Site 28d - In 1991, four 10,000-gallon tanks that were used to store gasoline were removed from the Building3329 area. Additionally, one 550-gallon fuel oil tank and one 550-gallon waste oil tank were removed later thatyear.

4-15

Site 28e - A fuel oil UST located adjacent to the southwest side of Building 3505 was removed.

Site 28f - A 550 gallon UST located immediately adjacent to Building 3327 was removed in July 2002. Due tothe close proximity of the UST to Building 3327 and several utilities, major over-excavation of the UST wasnot possible. Approximately 300 gallons of PCE and water were removed from the UST and approximately 8cubic yards of PCE contaminated soil were removed during the excavation and properly disposed.

Site 29 - Building 340 was used as a refueling facility for government vehicles from 1949 to 1995. Eight USTswere installed during this period. According to available records, these USTs were used to store gasoline, dieselfuel, and kerosene. Four of the USTs were either removed or abandoned in place during several phasesbeginning in 1990. The other four USTs were taken out of service but remained in place. It is currently plannedthat these USTs will also be removed. NOTE: This site is being addressed as a separate study area.


The Phase I RI was performed at 36 OAA sites (excludes OAA Sites 23,29,32, and 33) recommended forfurther investigation by the Aberdeen Area IA Report, the RFA Report, and Aberdeen Proving Ground. ThePhase I RI work was completed at 36 OAA sites in June 1997. Based upon an evaluation of the Phase Iinvestigation, no further investigation was agreed upon for 11 sites (Sites 6,7,8, 10,14,15, 19,24,26c, 28a, and28b). The remaining 25 OAA sites evaluated during the Phase I investigation required various types of furtherinvestigation.

A Phase II RI was performed at 28 sites. These 28 sites exclude the 11 sites eliminated for further investigationduring the Phase I RI, and Sites 23 and 29, which are undergoing separate RI/FS Actions. However, these 28sites include three additional sites, Sites 28f, 32 and 33, that were formed as a result of the Cantonment Areainvestigation. Results of the Phase II RI have not been finalized. Draft analytical results are presented in Tables4-3 through 4-8. Human health and ecological risk assessments are currently being performed upon theanalytical data obtained for these sites during the Phase II investigation. A Final RI Report and RiskAssessment is currently in the process of being completed. A preliminary evaluation of the Phase II RI dataindicates that additional investigation/remedial activity may be necessary at the following sites, which will beevaluated in the Feasibility Study (FS) process:

• Site 1 Old Dump on Woodrest Creek • Site 2 Old Dump on Swan Creek• Site 8 Discarded Batteries at Abbey Point Navigation Light• Site 9 Discarded Batteries at Spesutie Island Navigation Light • Site 12 Old Chemical Dump on Spesutie Island • Site 16 DRMO Metal Scrap Yard • Site 17 Silver Contaminated Ditch in Transonic Range Area• Site 22 Buildings 309 & 390 Storm Sewer Outfalls • Site25 Shell Washout Wastewater Ditch at Building 700B • Site 28e Building 3505 UST Site • Site 28f Building 3327 UST Site • Site 30a Pistol Range • Site 30b Known Distance Range • Site 32 Building 507 Site • Site 33 Building M600 Site

It is presumed that additional investigation/remedial activity may be performed at these sites due to anevaluation of the data obtained from these sites during the Phase II investigation. Elevated (i.e., exceeding

4-16

screening criteria) concentrations of VOCs were reported in groundwater samples obtained from Sites 16,28e,28f, 32, and 33. Elevated concentrations of explosives were reported in groundwater samples obtained from Site25. The presence of these elevated concentrations of VOCs and explosives in groundwater samples may requireadditional investigation regarding the nature and extent of these parameters and the completion of a humanhealth and ecological risk-based assessment.

Also, based upon preliminary evaluation of the Phase II RI data, an additional investigation and/or remedialactivity may be required for Site 2. Site 2 is located within a residential area and elevated concentrations of leadwere reported in soil samples obtained from this area.


No RODS have been developed for any of the OAA sites. Thus, specific Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs)have not been developed for these sites to aid in the development and screening of remedial alternatives to beconsidered for the ROD. Each site will be evaluated in a Feasibility Study that will be prepared for the OAA,with the exception of Sites 23 and 29 which will be evaluated in separate feasibility studies.


This was the first five-year review for the OAA sites.



EA performed the five-year review of the OAA sites at the request of APG. The five-year review was led byNaren Desai, DSHE, APG. The following team members assisted in the analysis and/or review:


The following tasks were conducted as part of the five-year review process: document review, interviews, sitevisit, and data review. The community was informed of the five-year review through the RAB meeting in May2001.

4.5.2 Community Involvement

There was no direct community involvement associated with the preparation of the OAA five-year review. Priorcommunity involvement has been conducted during the preparation, evaluation, and completion of the Phase Iand Phase II investigations. Status of the OAA investigation is presented annually at the public TUB meetingsin May 2001 and July 2003.

A notice was advertised in five local newspapers including The Aegis (Harford County), Cecil Whig, KentCounty News, East County Times (Baltimore County), and The Avenue (Baltimore County) in the 3-4September 2003 editions. The notice contained information that the five-year review was being conducted forthe AA and included a project description and information for public participation including an address to sendwritten comments or concerns, a phone number for verbal comments, the APG web site address, and thelocation of public information repositories.

4-17


This five-year review consisted of a review of relevant documents, including the RPA, Phase I and draft PhaseII RIs.

4.5.4 Data Review

Tables 4-3 through 4-8 present a draft summary of data obtained during the Phase II investigation, which willbe evaluated in the Risk Assessment. A thorough discussion of results has been reserved until the completion ofthe Risk Assessment.


No specific site inspections were conducted during the preparation of the five-year review document. Siteinspections were recently performed upon the sites during the preparation of the Phase II investigation.

4.5.6 Interviews



Ms. Grochowski stated that there was nothing that stood out, as far as she knew, in association with the OAAsites.


Mr. Crabb stated that there was nothing that stood out associated with the OAA sites.

4.5.7 Technical Assessment

Decision documents have not been prepared for any of the OAA sites; therefore, the questions associated withthis section are not currently relevant.

4.5.8 Issues

Removal actions have been the only remedial activities performed at several OAA sites. These activities havebeen effective, but each of the OAA sites investigated during the Phase II RI are currently being subjected to ahuman health and ecological risk-based assessment. These assessments will determine if additional activitiesare necessary for a particular site.

4.5.9 Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions

Human health and ecological risk-based assessments are being completed for the OAA sites. The FS for theOAA is being prepared in 2003/2004 and the MOs, if necessary, will be prepared in 2004/2005.

4-18

4.5.10 Protectiveness Statement

A protectiveness determination of the remedies implemented at Other Aberdeen Areas cannot be made at thistime until further information is obtained. A ROD has not yet been developed for the OAA thereforeprotectiveness statements have not been developed for the OAA sites investigated pending finalization of the RIand the results of the human health and ecological risk assessments. The human health and ecological riskassessments will evaluate whether the OAA sites represent a potential risk to human health or the environment.These risk assessments will also evaluate if the removal actions (which have been performed at selected sites),access controls (fencing, security guards, etc.) and other factors at these various sites ensure that there are nounacceptable exposure pathways. The exposure assumptions (toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial actionobjectives) which are utilized during the completion of the risk assessments shall be current and applicable toeach individual site. The protectiveness statements will be dependent upon the ROD which is obtained for thesesites.

4.5.11 Next Review

The next five-year review for the OAA sites is required 5 years from the date on which this review is signed.

4-19

TABLE 4-3: SUMMARY OF OAA PHASE II RI c JUNDWATER SAMPLE EXCEEDANCES Range of Exceed

Minimum Maxiumum Detection Reporting RBC Exceed RBC - MCL MCL - ,itr Nn./NRme ..- . .-. Analyte U/F Concentration Concentration Units Frequency Limits Criteria Frequency Criteria Frequency 7 . . . . II~ 3: Churcnvme lm “eta18

luminum u 179 26700 d- 2L? 200-200 3700 N IL2 . . . I ..A” In

..-.. F 252 471 UIVL I

swse u 230 926 U” , ium U 40.7 40.7 W- It2 5t

I I I I I 0.79 I 0.79 I uan I 116 I

U-Unfdtercd F-Filtered N - Non-cancemus C - C~ICU’OUS Number of Samples include duplicate analyse.

I GDA ~tiitecis Afl CFR~ NPDIVR: Radionuclida; Fii Ruk. PageIoflO

Y.&C I.“.II.l,,,C Analyl

Site I I: Old Bum Volatiles -

I I I I-nc Trench on

Spesulie Island

Site 16: DRMt

Metal Scrap Ya

TABLE 4-3: SUMMARY OF OAA P

Lalmwm

Chmmium Cobalt Coppa

--- _“” -

IO-IO 0.045 c 7/8 IO 200-200

6l8 260N snl

W- 8/R 2000

5-s O/8

7.3 N I18 4

s/8 42.4 I 5-5

4/8 l.8N 2l8 5 Ol8 751 8/8 IO-IO II N 818

ug/L 8/8 100

50-50 618

73 N 4&t _- Pin S.-r.., . . . ..I

Lead ILlI ~ 8.6! IFI 26.t

ahon Tetmchloridc *. .

__ 5.17 89.1 I u- -_- ., ate I .09 I I

8.75 I I _- ud. 1 24136 I 1~174 I drtr- I

I I 3/16 A I I,,L \ d -I r-----..

P&ticld&‘CB

Heptachlor

Expbriva RDX

-- .-.- 7.” ” _.-- Jr-I”

-_ 0.02 0.02 UN- t/36 0.056-0.056 0.015 c l/36 0.4 Of36

n ,c . . llfil c 2n

__ “.,J I.1 Metals WL 33 0. I-o.5 I I I

F 15.6 144ooo

1 I I I I I

up/L pn 2506 200-200 200-200 --- --- 1 I

77MN I I

U 38 II36 134000

3700 _.__ N . . I - I _- __ I “I

35136

‘Y F 4.6 23l36 -_ _-

13.5 “, P 5f36 60-60 F 20.9 I.5 N 5l36

20.9 6 406

g IN6 IO-IO U

0.045 c 4.06

1136 I54

IO Ii36 “I fl I7136 IO-IO 0.045 c I7136 IO I5136

U-Untiltemd F-Filtered N - Non-csw-mus C - Caneous

ks includes duplicate analyscc. .. i CFR. NPDWR; Radionuclide; Final Rule.

t ‘IO

( I

TABLE 4-3: SUMMARY OF OAA PHASE II RI < AOUNDWATER SAMPLE EXCEEDANCES

I I I Range of Exceed

Minimum Maxiumum Reporting RBC MCL - I .imita 1 Criterin 1 Freauencv 1 Criteria

U-Unftitmd F-Filtered

N - Non-csmerous C - Cmumus Number of Samples includa duplicate attaly~e9. I EPA ~ritmia. 40 CFR. NPDWR; Radionucl~cs; Final Ruk.

Page 3 of IO

I

TABLE 4-3: SUMMARY OF OAA PHASE II RI GROUNDWA’

I I I I I

Explosives in

Gmundwtcr

TER SAMPLE EXCEEDANCES

SiteZl: POL

Facility Sand Pit

Near Building

5215

4.8 c 1114 6 o/14

OS-O.5 0.61 C l/8 _-

114 1 IO-10

1 Beryllium IUI I I 14114 I 2OOaO 1 260

I-200 3700 N I114 L400

-_ 3700 N 6fl4 -- 0.045c 5114 IO

‘N 5114

3114 71yyL . II .

rm; I WI, - -100 1 j I WI4

1 - 3-6 I I I -_

_- I

- - I ,r I _.. 15-15 I 71N I

5114 ._ PI,”

, I> 1 0,1-v I

15-15 1 73N 1

I

-

WI4 1

- 1.2-0.2 I n 17 I I I 1 II 1 I

V.“, 1119 IO-40 L 73 N O/l4

1

1 3114 -.

14 _-

50-50 26 N 5114 N IllA I

5-5 1 7.3N 1 “I,

Ol3 A I

ov zf3

Go 73 N In 73 N 313

r1t-k-l I

U-Unfiltcnd F-Filtered N - Noncattcetnus C - cslcero~s

Numberof’ I. EPA ctitb

+ includea duplicate aalysa. CFR. NPDWR; Ralionuclid~; Filul Ruk. I i

i.. IO

! !

TABLE 4-3: SUMMARY OF OAA PHASE II RI L~LOUNDWATER SAMPLE EXCEEDANCES

U-Unfiltcfal F-Filtered

N - Non-cancerous C - Canmous Number of Samples includes duplicate analyses. I, EPA criteria, 40 CFR, NPDWR; Radionuclida; Final Ruk.

Pagc5oflO

Ammunition Train

3329 UST Site

U-Unliltcml F-Filtered N - Nonancerous C - t2mcemus Number o! I. EPAcrh

!cs includes duplicate annals. ,; CFR NPDWR; Radibwclidar; Final Ruk. i i. “IO

! ,

TABLE 4-3: SUMMARY OF OAA PHASE II RI \ 3UNDWATER SAMPLE EXCEEDANCES I I I I I I 1 Range of 1 I I 1 Exceed 1

Minimum 1 Maxiumum I Detection I Reporting I RFK I Exceed RBC - Frequency

3505 LIST Se

U-Unfiltered F-Filtered

N - Non-cancerous C - Ca~xro~a Number of Sampks includes duplicate analyses. I EPA criteria, 40 CFR. NPDWR; RadionucJides; Final Rule.

Page7 of 10

TABLE 4-3: SUMMARY OF OAA PHASE 11 RI

U-Unfiltcrai F-Filtered N - Noncsncenwa C - Cmcemus Number of b includcr dupbcate analyses. I. EPAcrit -CFR. NPDWR; Radir~nuclidc~: Final Ruk. i

b IO

i i

TABLE 4-3: SUMMARY OF OAA PHASE II RI < .OUNDWATER SAMPLE EXCEEDANCES

U-Unfdlmd F-Filtered

N - Noncanccruus C - c2xrcmus Number of Samples includes duplicate analy~a. I ET.4 criteria. 40 CFR. NPDWR: Radionuclidcs; Final Ruk.

Page 9 of IO

I

TABLE 4-3: SUMMARY OF OAA PHASE II RI GROUNDWATER SAMPLE EXCEEDANCES

I Site I Mini -.,- XI--%----~- Range of Exceed

‘,.....~I.“,.. l*laxwmum I U/F Concentration Conce-A--Ar-- TV

Detection Reporting RBC Exceed RBC - MCL MCL - -p Limits wrwron units Frequency 1 , Criteria Frequency

-_ 0.62 Criteria Frequency

t-25 ---- 0.63 C __ 0.52 00 c I ., 27156 5 I?‘-

,-,< nn-lrr I -*1-I c

“C __ 0.66 0.66 ” 0.82 3.14 31

u .

ILead

IS-15 I l/13 1

. “II-.“,,, 4. I 3040 Zinc

I II/13 1 %500 Il.3 26 N 1 203 -

11300 [

“%L 1 13113 1 1

20-200 1 I

1100 N 1 I

2/13 __ I

U-Unfiltered F-Filtered N - Non-cnncemus C - CB~C~~OUS Numberof’ I. EtPAcrirt

‘es includes duplicate r~lyser.

,:, CFR NPDWR; Radionuclidc+; Final Ruk.

i

TABLE 4-4: SUMMARY OF OAA PHASE II RI E .FACE WATER SAMPLE EXCEEDANCES

Site 4: Outdoor Metals Pesticide Aluminum Mixing Area at Aluminum Building 50 10 Arsenic

F 326 497 Up,5 2/2 200-200 3700 N 012 25N 2f2 U 1110 1280 l&L 2i2 200-200 3700 N Of2 25 N 2l2 F 4.52 4.52 Ug5 l/2 lo-10 0.045 c 112 19oc 012

U-Untiltend F-Filteral

N - Non-cancerous C - Gmcerous Number of Samples includes duplicate analysts. I EPA criteria, 40 CFR, NPDWR: Radionuclides; Final Rule.

Page I of 3

TABLE 4-4: SUMMARY OF SAMPLE EXCEEDANCES

Man J-J me -- 3.2 212

Man 15-15 73 N 2i2 145OON Of2 .-- Mercury jU[

,” Y YL 15-15 0.103 I 73N 2/2 0.103 145OON Of2 112 Site 17: Silver 0.2-0.2 Metals I Ug/L I 0.37 012 I 0.012 I l/2

I , I rated Aluminum 1 FI

I I I 1A I

I 12, ..-n A ,A a,... ^^^ _-. ! ! I I Contamir

Ditch Transomc

Range Area

,. , 17

in I

Aluminum IUl 89 j 1;; . . U 4.45 8.25 l&/L 215 F 1.13 1.18 UglL 214 U 1.46 1.49 L&L 215 U 1 56 0 *WV/r z/c

;Lio , UglL , 414 ZW-ZW 3700 N 1 1

014 1 25N i 314 ug/L

-. 515 200-200 37OON 3/s __ 1 35N 1 _L.. c/c -‘,a I

10-10 0.045c 2l5 19oc 015 5-5 l.8N 014 0.53 N 214

A-5 1.8N o/5 0.53 N 3/T

Site 22: Buildings 309 &390 storm

Sewer Outfalls

:r I U”./ , Yfz,tY, r’,J

lu( 215 I 38.7 &g/L 515 IF! 75.6 31x-l ,.“A A/A -we”

I VI 2180 I 757f-m

~.__ _. 10-10 11 N 315 I1 N w; 25-25 150N Of5 6.5 N 4/s

100-100 IlOON l/4 320N II4 100-100 1lOON 515 320N 515 --. “- w

U 25.9 27.1 “g/;: ;;; U 3-3 -- __ F 50.9 1150 UgL

1 414

3.2 1 3/5 15-15 73N

U 314 t 1ACMWt fill

90.6 941 Ufi 515 15-1s 71 N CIC L-JW 17 v14

Ul -- _-

I ,” 1, as_1 0.1 145OON 0.17

Ug/L o/5

2f5 Ul 0.2-0.2 0.37 103

015 0.012 112

1

UJg5 2l5

2I5 IO-10 18N I 0.0001 N 2l5 2l5 1OOOON o/5

114 I 20-20 1 1lOON 1 014 1lON 214 x-l-3i-t llfN-lN t 110N 2f5

~“CSY Manganese 4anganese n

Mercury Silver .I--->1 . . . .

I Lvw-L”” 1 JlWN 1 VII r I l/l .A .^ _ -.- - I 19oc I O/l I

-

Y” ’ IU-10 WI45 c l/l g/L1 111 IO-10 0.045c l/l

25-25 150N O/I 25-25 15ON O/l

uya., , II 1 100-100 1lOON l/l UglL l/l 100-100 IlOON l/l

U-Unfiltcmd F-Filtered N - Non-zar-ms C - Cancmus Numhcr of ks includes duplicate analyses. I. EPA CriIL . : CFR, NPDWR; Rxlionuclidcs; Final Rule.

I I

U-untltmfl F-Filtered

N - Noncanccmus C - Cancemus Number of Samples includa duplicate aml,lyscs. I EPA witch, 40 CFR. NPDWR; Radionuclides; Final Ruk.

Page 3 of 3

N - Noncancemus C - Canc~us Number of Samhs includes duplicate analysc~

Page 1 of 3

I

! i

TABLE.-.-- 4-5: SUMMARY OF OAA PHAS- .I RI SOIL 1 SAMPLE EXCEEDANCES

Minimum 1 Maxiumum 1 I nrtrrtlnn I Rrnm= nf I RK IExceed BBC -I BTAG IExceed BTm

Site NoJName

Site 30B: Known Distance Range

Metals Antimony Arsenic Beryllium c-hrnm;,.m

I I 0.83 210 mgfkg 12122 12.7-17 A 1 R?N 1 2122 0.48 12122 1.94 5.47 mgkg 22122 2.05-2.9 3.8 C 1 l/22 328 o/22

0.079 0.78 mg/kg 22122 1.02- 1.45 410N o/22 0.02 22122 5 ns 22~6 mdke 22122 2.05-2.9 610N o/22 0.0075 22122

I

“,““.,..U.a. _.-- --._ Copper 4.98 1010 mglkg 22J22 I 5.12-7.25 1 8200 N 1 o/22 I 15 1 10122 I Iron 3130 14700 mg/kg 22122 -

16-6.24 1 1200 [Lead I 14.8 I 30600 1 mg/kn I 22122 I 0.6 I 20.5-29 1 61000N o/22 0.012 22122

_- _.- 5122 0.01 22122 -- &In 19122 Magnesium I 235 ! 1410 1 mg/kg I 22122 I 1020-1450 --

- 17-4.35 4100N I3-0.04 20 9-11.6 4100N

. OOON I Manganese Mercury Nickel 20.7 0.02 1.87 0.18 550 14.9 mg/kg mgkg mg/kg 22122 22f22 17122 0.0 3.u 8.1

1.06 2.07 mg/kg 4122 1.06-1.45 1 1

. .- -_.-- n133 I 3-w I 5122 I

Site 33:

-,-- --- ,

0122 0.058 6/22 o/22 2 20122 0122 1.8 l/22

UCIIt,InLUI.I

Silver 0.659 0.75 mgfkg 2122 2.05-2.08 1 1OOON o/22 0.0000098 2l22

4.09-5.8 . ..- ____ - ,̂ ̂ .̂ A- ,..a

Zinc 11.1 533 wk3 22122

IMetals

6lOUU N urn 10 LULL

I I I I I 2.94 21 mg/kg 1 212 1 2X14-19.6 3.8 C 112 73R cl13

- ._ Building M600 Site

Arsenic , _I” , “, - I 0.158 /mgkgl l/2 1 1.02-1.02 41^ =’ ’ Beryllium 0.158 IUN 1 “‘-’ VI‘

I nn9 I , “.“L ,

I 17 LIL I

mgkg 1 1 1.02-9.82 1OON ̂ .- UIZ A- - ,a I Cadmium 3.22 42.5 212 LIL

Chromium 610N o/2 0.&5- 212 ---- __ A,? 1c 113

32.9 59.2 mgke, 212 2.04-19.6 26.6 49.4 mg/kg 212 5.11-49.1 1 X200 N

#n 16200 19900 me/kg 212 20.4-196 _ _ ̂ ̂ ̂ _

ad 46.5 182 mglkg 212 0.613-5.89 ho Le Manganese Magnesium Nickel Selenium Zinc

01; _._ _

E 212 58.5-97.6 4100N 330 l/2 mg/Kg 212 1020-9820 4100 N Of2 330 2f2

mgfkg 212 8.18-78.’ ..,-.A., ,-&\I- ? 111

ZY.1 34. I

0.835 8.26 mg/kg 2l2 I .02-9.82 1 1UUUN I U/Z 1 1.x 1 IIL 854 8340 m@kg 212 4.09-39.3 I61oOON I o/2 1 10 I 212

317 343 Img/k;

6350 7800 I n

_^ _ _a s. 3 1 4lWN 1 VI.5 I L I LIL - .- _ ̂ . I- I

N - Non-cancerous C - Cancerous Number of Samples includes duplicate anal~~~~.

Page 3 of 3

loodrest Creek

N - Non-cancerous C - thw~OuS Number of Samples includes duplicate analy=. I EDA rr;w& AO CFR NPDWR: Radionuclida; Final Rule.

Page I of 4

TABLE 4-6: SUMMARY OF OAA PHASE II RI SEDIMENT SAMPI m PYpmmn~* Npm@ Mmlmum Maxmmum DetectInn 1 ur..m. mc

ame Analyte Concentration Concentration Units Frequel Nickel 15.4 88.4

:d Silver mgkg 2712;

0.872 1.71 mglkg 9127 46.1 731

!s/PCB m&2 2712; , I.

I 49 I

z FP ..,n,.. ,

I Arser

1 N IN 1 o/14 150N 9114

I r Arsenic Cadmium -. .

2.6 12.1 mgIkg 9/11 2.58-i 0.17 1.38 v& 7111 1.29-I

I ransonrc Ctuomtum 4.8 796 Range Area Copper

mglkg 1 lV11 3.1 142 ml

Lead I 4.2 129 Mercury 0.02 1.02 m” Nirlwl .n I Site 22:

I o/11 1 0.15 1

4/11 o/11 20.9N 1 fill 1 I

lildir 1g 309 & 390 Storm :wer Outfalls

I

enzota)anthracene I 177 I 1%

iethyl Phthalate Fluoranthene Phenanthrene Pyrene Mdll.

--,

365 c 309 779 289 462 U&

284 860 ugkg 2i; I

I I I I .Y" Ugk gl 212 I 4 19-429 i 7800C i48

o/2 261 P ugncg 212 4 19-429

I 116OOOOOOf IN o/2

- utig 2

2f2 _^ _-- 4 I Y42Y 182OOOOON o/2 II

Ek ~ 2l2 419-429 I 600N 1 -- -- 240 2;;

6MOOON o/2 665 N l/2

3.8 C 2/2 0.057 c 2l2 IOON O/2 t.2N 112

26N 2f2

! I 419-429 .._-.-.”

Arsenic ICadmium

n JChromiun

t ---t 7 49 .._ 1 0.98 2% 24.1 62.2

I I mgfkg 2l2 mg/kg 1

! 2.37-2.4 212 I-1 .19-1.2

mg/lcg 2/2 I 2.37-2.4

N - Noncancerous C - C~~CCI-UUS Number of: I. EPA crik

‘es includa duplicate analysa. J CFR. NPDWR; Radionuclidca; Final Rule. t

If4

TABLE 4-6: SUMMARY OF OAA PHASE IL SEDI

I Minimum 1 Maxiumum _ I . -.t__

[MENT SAMP uetectlon Range of ---

‘LE EXCEEDANCES I RRC ~Exceed RBC -I BTAG IExceed m

Glding 309 & 390 storm

Sewer Outfalls

I. I 9.48-9.61 41UUN I ._.

212 2.31-2.4 IOOON 1 - .- 4.744.81 610(

Site 26A: Old Bombing Field OB/OD Area

Site 30B: Known

Distance Range

‘Metals Arsenic Chromium

c 41000OON I

I Building 507 Site 2-Methylnaphthalene Antbracene Benzo(a)anthracene 84.2 LJI 119 1320 --- 101 ugl uldk __ I 416 .nL- 1ll;i-l

iel I -.-

pmi-Volatiles I I I . . . -I<7 775 I ulzkg 216 W-526 1 a

&kg 216 495-Y’ I*

464-1 udk I 416 464-1

464-: 464-l

* .

O/6 1 -/UN 1 LIO

016 1 85.3N 1 l/6 - . ,I I ” ,tilOOOWUNI

)oc I 016 1 261C 1 110 . ,r i

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Ctuysene . . ~.

lU3 L I””

105 686 uglkg 416

146 1260

ugncg 516

371 2340 W&g 516

Site 32:

IFluorantnene I L*.3

2,3-c,d)Pyrene I 88.1 I 614 - 1 n-m I

phenanmrene I I ,“l”

526

I 464-526

516 464-1330 I

N - Non-cancerous C - Cancerous Number of Samples includa duplicate aalyses. 1, EPA criteria, 40 CFR. NPDWR; Radionuclih; Final Rule.

Page 3 of 4

TABLE 4-6: SUM NT SAMPLE EXCEEDANCES

U.“J, b JI”

I”” I. O/6 1.2N 2.43-7.7s

S/6 610N O/6 0.26 N 6/6

Lead I 7.36 6.06-19.4

1320 8200 N

mg/kg 616 O/6 34N

0.728-2.33 416

.* 1200 516 J/6 0.02-0.08 46.7 516 20 O/6 0.15

9.7-3 1 216

WI 4100N 6th 016 20.9 N

4 X5-15 c S/6

#TlnnnN n,/ 1cnxr 5/h

Mercury . . . .

I

iles ne

Acenaphthylene Anthracene

Benzo(a)anthracene

0.04 I .96 tn II

0.3 154 ^_..

m mgjkp 616 _

lU.I LXJ mglk, “.., ..-1 __,- 47.1 I 47.1

up/kg l/2 139

453-453 139 U&T 112

316 316 U

1910 1910 we I 112 453-453 - 1 t

I 453-453 I I J/2

-_ dkl

_- l/2 I 1 44

453-453 l61000000~I 1 112

Ill7 ’ PCIN 1 1 I?

IBenzo(a)pyrene

-------- _. 7800 C I ii;;

I I

_.- -- --- I”“” &kg

1IL J/2

4au I 453-453 -w I --

U g/kg ~ l/2 453-453 780000C I 1 67u J tu

t-V7 1 18OC I l/7 I

.d.d Ida I”” L UIL

453-453 kg 1 8200000 N o/2 l/2 453-453

T~OON 1 l/2 82~0000 N Of2 1 19N 1 l/2

3000 72.5 949

3000 72.5

940

uglkg l/2 ug

We~J 453-453 78oOC I 600 c I I

hene Fluorene Jndeno( 1,2.7-r

CfIhena

I 1.67 I 23.9 1 ug/kg I 2

I I IArsenic

“..“-I”..# , -rlW,. nglkg

I

,

3i3 LU.7 1. 4.09-39.3 1 61ooON

1

,

013 1 ISON 1 2f3

N - Non-cancwuus C - CIW~ Number of I. EPA critt

‘es includes duplicate rntdyscs.

.I CFR. NPDWR; Wionuclides; Final Rule. 1, ,f4 i

TABLE 4-7: SUMMARY OF SITE 2 1sd1L SAMPLE EXCEEDANCES

N - Nor~-can~~rous C - Cancerous Number of Samples includes duplicate analyses.

I EPA criteria, 40 CFR, NPDWR; Rsdionuclida; Final RUIC Page I of I

TABLE 4-8: SUMMARY OF SITE 2 SEDIMENT SAMPLE EXCEEDANCES

IFrequencl Reporting r RBC 1 RBC - I BTAG 1 BTAG - 1 NoJNam e Analyte I n on Units 4 Limits Criteria Frequency Criteria Frequency

Site 2: PesticidesfPCB 2700 c Of4 16C l/4

on Swan 4,4-DDE I 6.43 I 27.3 lug/kgl 4/4 1 13.3-23.4 1 19OOC 014 2.2 c 414

Creek 4,4-DDT 1.9 4.89 lug&j 414 1 13.3-23.4 1 1900 C o/4 1.58 C 414

P Id Dumd4,4-DDD ! 13.1 I 31.7 lugkgl 4/4 1 13.3-23.4 1 :

Metals I ! I ! ! 1 Aluminum 18200 1 25200 Irng/kd 4/4 I 158-273 1 7800 N ] 414 014 Arsenic 9.49 I 19.5 Ime/kf2l 4/4 I 7 89-11.7 I 0.43 C I 414 0 057 c d/A

Cadmium ! 1.96 ! 5.91 Irnglkd 4/4 I 3.95-6.84 -1 3.9N I l/4 1 1.2N 1 414 I Chromium 40.8 47 mglkg) 414 7.89-13.7 Copper 102 I52 mgfkfj 414 19.7-34.2 Iron 32700 45900 mgfkd 414 78.9-137 Lead ! IS9 ! 264 Imp&d 414 I 2.37-4.1 T- 400 1 O/4 1 46.7 1 414 Manganese I 228 I 906 Irn&d 4/4 I 11.8-20.5 Mercury I 0.36 0.79 Imp/kg/ 4/4 1 0.108-0.216

l60N 1 414 I 014 0.78 1 l/4 1 0.15 1 414

Nickel 69.6 82.5 rngkgj 4/4 3 1.6-54.7 l60N o/4 20.9 N 414 Silver 2.12 2.83 rngkd 414 7.89-13.7 39 N o/4 IN 414 Zinc 472 1570 mglkd 414 15.8-27.3 2300 N 014 150N 414

N - Non-cancerous C - Cancerous

Number of Samples includes duplicate analyja.

I EPA criteria, 40 CFR, NPDWR; Radionuclida: Final Rule. Page I of I

5. BUSH RIVER BOMB DISPOSAL SITE This is the first five-year review for the Bush River Bomb Disposal Site. The triggering action for this statutoryreview was due to a request from APG. The five-year review was requested due to the fact that hazardoussubstances, pollutants, or contaminants were suspected or remained at the Bush River Bomb Disposal site.

5.1 SITE CHRONOLOGY

A chronology of events for the Bush River Bomb Disposal Site is provided in Table 5-l.

TABLE 5-l CHRONOLOGY OF SITE EVENTS

EVENT DATE

Disposal of bombs at site 1918-1957

Commencement of removal operations February 2001

Bush River Bomb Disposal Site, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland – ActionMemorandum

October 2001

Completion of removal operations March 2002

5.2 SITE BACKGROUND


The Bush River Bomb Disposal Site is a former disposal site within the Aberdeen Area of APG. The BushRiver Bomb Disposal Site consists of approximately 1,700 ft along the Bush River shoreline of the OldBombing Field (below a 15-ft embankment), approximately % mile southwest of Chilbury Point (Figure 5-l).The site is in the secured/restricted range area adjacent to the Underwater Explosives (UNDEX) Pond Test Site.


The Bush River Bomb Disposal Site has been used for the disposal of bombs from the Old Bombing Fieldwhich was used from 1918 to approximately 1957. Future use scenario for the site is to maintain the site formilitary/industrial purposes.


The Army used the Old Bombing Field from 1918 to approximately 1957 for test purposes involving the releaseof various size bombs from aircraft at various altitudes for impact on to and around the test field. Periodicsweeps of the range prior to 1957 led to the disposal of some of the bombs over the shoreline embankment.

An inspection of the Bush River Bomb Disposal Site, as documented in the October 2001 ActionMemorandum, revealed an estimated 400 to 500 bombs, with the majority comprised of 250, 500, and 750general purpose bombs. A few special armor-piercing bombs were also observed. A 500-lb general purposebomb may contain up to 274 pounds of TNT or 50-50 amatol explosive. Most of the observed bombs appearedto be missing tail-fin assemblies and a number of bombs had plugs where the nose fuze would be inserted.Some bombs appeared damaged to the extent the bodies were either split open or had various size holes. Anumber of bombs were observed to be partially covered from embankment erosion and a few were observed inshallow water.

5-1


Removal operations began at the Bush River Bomb Disposal Site in February 2001 and were completed inMarch 2002. All visible bombs, 603 in total, were removed. A silt fence has been installed around the area(s)from where the bombs were removed and the site is currently being stabilized in order to minimize futureerosional activity. An Engineering Cost Analysis prepared for the Bush River Bomb Disposal Site presented thecomparative analysis of removal options and documented the selection of Removal and Demolition UsingShape Charges as the recommended alternative. A Record of Environmental Consideration prepared for thedisposal site described the environmental consequences of the selected action and alternatives as well as thecumulative effect of the selected alternative on human health and the environment.


The basis for taking action was the disposal of bombs at this site. The Bush River Bomb Disposal Sitecontained MMRI, and posed a health and safety threat to persons inadvertently entering the site. Bush River isused by the public for recreational boating and fishing, as well as for commercial fishing. The MMRI wereeasily visible from the waters of Bush River. Authorized or non-authorized persons may have been injured bywalking around or handling the munitions prior to their demilitarization and disposal. Despite security measurestaken at the site, trespassing is a concern.

While very little is known about environmental effects on the Bush River from decaying munitions, the exposedMMRI may have posed a potential threat to the environment.

Actual or threatened release of hazardous constituents, pollutants, or contaminants from the site, if notaddressed by implementing the removal and demilitarization action, may have presented an imminent andsubstantial endangerment to public health, or welfare, or the environment.


5.3.1 Remedy Selection

Three alternatives were evaluated in the Engineering Cost analysis: No Action; Removal and DemilitarizationUsing Water Jet Cutting; and Removal and Demilitarization Using Shape Charges. The alternatives wereevaluated on a comparative basis using effectiveness, implementability, and cost as the evaluation criteria.

The selected alternative for the Bush River Bomb Disposal Site was Removal and Demilitarization Using ShapeCharges. Implementation of this alternative offered the highest degree of protectiveness to human health and theenvironment. Removal and demilitarization is a permanent remedy that does not depend on long-term land usecontrols or maintenance. Of the 603 bombs recovered, only two contained high explosives. All visible bombshave been removed corn the site as of March 2002. The impact to soils and groundwater was minimal. TheArmy approved the type of detonation where shape charges were used. The site is currently undergoing soilstabilization to minimize future shoreline erosion.

5.3.2 Remedy Implementation

The Removal Action required site preparation to provide access to the site, onsite assessment of the MMRI,removal and demilitarization of the MMRI, and site restoration and stabilization.

The U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center (USATC) Explosive Test Operator, Firepower Core, High ExplosiveTeam (ETO), the U.S. Army Technical Escort Unit (USATEU), and an APG-approved Explosive Ordnance

5-2

Disposal (EOD) contractor provided the remediation services during the Removal Action. A gravel access roadextending 1,000 fi from the existing road was constructed to the shoreline embankment to facilitate the removaland transport of the MMRI to an offsite temporary holding/assessment area. Extraneous debris (tree limbs) wasremoved from the disposal site and support equipment (e.g., bombproofs for personnel and storage ofdemolition explosives) was mobilized at the work sites.

The Removal Action followed protocols set forth as onsite assessment, removal, demilitarization, and siterestoration activities.

The removal and demilitarization of the MMRI using shape charges eliminated the human health risksassociated with the Bush River Bomb Disposal Site and was cost effective. The removal and demilitarization ofthe MMRI eliminated the potential for release and migration of associated contaminants.

The Bush River Bomb Disposal Site Removal Action was conducted to meet the intent of CERCLA and theNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and was performed in accordance with Army requirements. TheRemoval Action was conducted to minimize impacts to the shoreline embankment (i.e., shoreline destroyed toremove MMRI will be stabilized). The use of shape charges to open the rounds may have created some airemissions, but the air emissions were short-term in nature and did not decrease overall air quality on APG in thelong-term. Conformity under the Clean Air Act, Section 176 has been evaluated for the Bush River BombDisposal Site Removal Action per 40 CFR 51, and a Record of Non-Applicability shows that total emissionsfrom the Removal Action will be below the de minimus threshold values under 40 CFR 51.853 (d)(5).


This was the first five-year review for the site. The bomb removal and disposal operations were initiated inFebruary 2001 and were completed in March 2002. Currently, the shoreline is being stabilized and portions ofthe site are being regraded in order to minimize future shoreline erosion.



The five-year review was led by Naren Desai, Aberdeen Area Project Officer, DSI-IE, APG. The followingteam members assisted in the analysis and/or review:


The following tasks were conducted as part of the five-year review process: document review, interviews, siteinspection, review of ARABS, and data review. There were no significant changes in the ARARs or sitecontaminants; therefore, site risks were not recalculated.


The community was informed of the five-year review through the monthly RAB meetings in May 2001 andJuly 2003. A notice was advertised in five local newspapers including The Aegis (Harford County), Cecil Whig,Kent County News, East County Times (Baltimore County), and The Avenue (Baltimore County) in the 3-4September 2003 editions. The notice contained information that the five-year review was being conducted andincluded a project description and information for public participation including an address to send written

5-3

comments or concerns, a phone number for verbal comments, the APG web site address, and the location ofpublic information repositories.


The five-year review consisted of a review of relevant documents including the Action Memorandum, BushRiver Bomb Disposal Site, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, dated October 2001.

5.5.4 Data Review

No specific analytical data were reviewed, or known to exist, during the preparation of the five-year review.


No specific site inspections were conducted during the preparation of the five-year review document.

5.5.6 Interviews



Ms. Grochowski stated that she thought work was continuing at this site with the removal and disposal ofmunitions.


Mr. Crabb stated that he was concerned with the potential presence of bombs in the Bush River due to thepossibility that boaters may drop their anchor upon these munitions. He stated that he wants to make sure thatthese munitions have been removed from Bush River.


The following conclusions support the determination that the remedy implemented at the Bush River BombDisposal Site is expected to be protective of human health and the environment upon completion.


Based upon the October 200 1 Action Memorandum, at the completion of the removal operations in March2002,603 bombs were removed from the Bush River shoreline. The response is considered a non-time criticalremoval action as defined under CERCLA. Bomb removal action work was initiated in February 2001 and wascompleted in March 2002. The remedy is functioning as intended by the decision documents.

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives(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 theremedy.

5-4



5.7 ISSUES



Although there were no identified deficiencies, the following recommendations have been developed as a resultof the five-year review:

• Prepare and review a document or memorandum detailing the completion of the removal action at theBush River Bomb Disposal Site.

• Periodically monitor, especially after a large storm, the Bush River Bomb Disposal Site for the presenceof any additional bombs whose presence may have been revealed due to erosional activities.


The remedies in place at the Bush River Bomb Disposal Site are protective of human health and theenvironment. Removal, demilitarization, and disposal of MMRI has reduced possible threats associated withdirect human contact with MMRI present at the site. All removed MMRI was managed in accordance withFederal, State, and Army regulations. Demilitarization using shape charges may have created some airemissions, but the emissions were short-term in nature and did not decrease overall air quality on APG. Totalemissions from the Removal Action were below the de minimus threshold values under 40 CFR 5 1.853(d)(5).

5.10 NEXT REVIEW

The next five-year review for the OAA sites is required 5 years from the date on which this review is signed.

5-5

6. ABBEY POINT SHORELINE PILES 3 THROUGH 7 This is the first five-year review for the Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7. The triggering action for thisstatutory review was resultant of a request APG. The five-year review was requested due to the fact thathazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants were suspected or remain at the Abbey Point Shoreline Piles3 through 7.

6.1 SITE CHRONOLOGY

A chronology of events for the Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7 is provided in Table 6-l.

TABLE 6-l CHRONOLOGY OF SITE EVENTS EVENT DATE

Disposal of bombs at site Since 1918

Army completed the removal and demilitarization of 693 MMRI from AbbeyPoint Shoreline Pile l.

12 March 1998

Sediment samples collected near Piles 1 and 2 indicated no environmentalimpact.

November 1994

Army completed removal of MMRI at Abbey Point Shoreline Pile 2(demilitarization of Pile 2 was still underway as of October 2001).

October 2000

Soil samples collected within the Abbey Point demilitarization site at fivelocations for metals analysis. Results indicated only arsenic concentrationsabove RBC industrial soil criteria.

February 2001

Removal action operations at the Abby Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7. Began April 2002 andexpected to be completed2004

Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland– Action Memorandum

October 2001

6.2 SITE BACKGROUND


The Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7 are former disposal sites within the OAA of APG. The AbbeyPoint Shoreline Piles are located along the Chesapeake Bay shoreline of the Abbey Point Test Field, south ofAbbey Point Road and approximately ½ mile northeast of the shoreline access road (Figure 6-l). The disposalsites are in the secured/restricted range area.


The Army has used Abbey Point Test Field since 1918 for weapons development and testing activitiesinvolving the firing of various size munitions for impact on to and around the test field. Prior to changes inArmy regulations, periodic sweeps of the test field to collect the surface MMRI led to the disposal of the MMRIin pits along the shoreline. Future use scenario for the site is to maintain the site for military/industrial purposes.

6-1


As previously mentioned, the Army has used Abbey Point Test Field since 1918 for weapons development andtesting activities. Prior to changes in Amy regulations, periodic sweeps of the test field to collect the surfaceMMRI led to the disposal of the MMRI in pits along the shoreline.

Piles 3 through 7 lie at distinct locations along the shoreline at Abbey Point, northeast of former Piles 1 and 2.Decades of soil erosion have exposed the pits and munitions along the Abbey Point shoreline. Piles 3,4,5, and 7are on the shoreline extending back into Abbey Point Test Field, and Pile 6 lies on the shoreline and extends outinto the shallow waters of the Chesapeake Bay. UXO removal operations at Pile 3 began in April 2002. Eachpile is of varying width and height and could contain many different types of munitions. To date, the munitionsat Pile 3 include large and small caliber gun and artillery projectiles, mortar projectiles, rockets, aerial bombs,and associated miscellaneous munitions-related debris, such as aluminum sabots. The sizes of visible MMRIrange from 175-mm to 8-in. projectiles, and each pile could contain between 200 and 600 MMRI. Most of thevisible MMRI within each pile appear to be unfuzed, with either a shipping plug or a lifting eye in the fuzewell. Some projectiles have engraved rotating bands, which indicate that the item would be in an armedcondition if fuzed. Much of the MMRI are in an extremely deteriorated condition due to long-term exposure inthe brackish bay water and weathering.

Media sampling to determine the environmental effects on the Chesapeake Bay from decaying munitions atShoreline Piles 3 through 7 has not been conducted. In November 1994, sediment samples collected near Piles 1and 2, by the U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (USACHPPM), for explosiveand inorganic analyses indicated no environmental impact.


On 12 March 1998, the Army completed the removal and demilitarization of 693 projectiles (MMRI) fromAbbey Point Shoreline Pile 1. The Pile 1 MMRI consisted of 632 wax, sand, empty or steel-filled munitions, 52high-explosive munitions, and 9 munitions containing white phosphorous. Demilitarization of the MMRIresulted in the generation of approximately 84,000 lb of range residue scrap which was processed for disposalor recycling with the DRMO. In October 2000, the Army completed removal of MMRI at Abbey PointShoreline Pile 2. Demilitarization of the Pile 2 MMRI is still underway (as of October 2001). A total of 14,673munitions were removed from Pile 2, ranging in size from 175mm to 8-in projectiles. To date, the Pile 2 fillermaterial has been primarily wax, with a few MMRl containing sand, steel, concrete, high-explosive, and whitephosphorus fill material. Soil samples were collected in mid-February 2001 within the Abbey Pointdemilitarization site at five locations for metals analysis. Results indicate only arsenic concentrations in surfaceand subsurface soil (at depths of 1 and 2 ft below grade) at four sample locations exceeded the RBCs forindustrial soil. Arsenic levels in soil at three of the locations (at the 1-ft and 2-ft intervals) also slightlyexceeded the maximum reference level.

Shoreline stabilization is planned following the completion of MMRI removal operations for Piles 3 through 7.


The Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7 contain MMRI, and pose a health and safety threat to personsinadvertently entering the sites. Authorized or non-authorized persons might be injured walking around orhandling the munitions. Despite security measures taken at the site, trespassing is a concern.

While very little is known about environmental effects on the Chesapeake Bay from decaying munitions, theexposed MMRI may pose a potential threat to the environment. In November 1994, sediment samples collectednear Piles 1 and 2, by USACHPPM, for explosive and inorganic analyses indicated no environmental impact.

6-2

Actual or threatened release of hazardous constituents, pollutants, or contaminants tirn the shoreline piles, if notaddressed by implementing the proposed removal action, may present an imminent and substantialendangerment to public health, or welfare, or the environment.

The Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7 contain MMRI that includes explosive materials. These hazardousmaterials represent a health and safety threat to persons who inadvertently enter the sites.

Initial site inspections of the Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7, preliminary MMRI removal operations atPile 3, and the recent removal of MMRI at nearby Piles 1 and 2 have not identified any MMRI as potentiallycontaining chemical warfare materiel that would represent a substantial threat to downwind human receptors viaair transport. The Abbey Point Test Field has been used for a variety of impact testing operations involvingconventional (non-chemical) munitions such as high-explosive bombs.


6.3.1 Remedy Selection

The removal action objectives are to:

• Eliminate the threat to health and safety associated with direct human contact with MMRI; and

• Eliminate the potential for hazardous constituent release to soil, sediment, and surface water.

The removal action will address only the MMRI within the Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7 locatedalong the Chesapeake Bay shoreline. Any miscellaneous MMRI located within the water 50 ft from theshoreline near Piles 3 through 7 will also be removed. Similar sites within the Aberdeen Area where MMRIhave been exposed by erosion and where further

<missing 2 pages of text>


This was the first five-year review for the site.



The five-year review was led by Naren Desai, Aberdeen Area Project Officer, DSHE, APG. The following teammembers assisted in the analysis and/or review:

• Frank Vavra, Remedial Project Manage, EPA Region III • Kathy Davies, Hydrogeologist, EPA Region III • John Fairbanks, Remedial Project Manager, MDE

The following tasks were conducted as part of the five-year review process: document review, interviews, siteinspection, review of ARARs, and data review. There were no significant changes in the ARARs or sitecontaminants; therefore, site risks were not re-evaluated.

6-3


The community was informed of the five-year review through the monthly IWB meetings in May 2001 and July2003. A notice was advertised in five local newspapers including The Aegis (Harford County), Cecil Whig, KentCounty News, East County Times (Baltimore County), and The Avenue (Baltimore County) in the 3-4September 2003 editions. The notice contained information that the five-year review was being conducted andincluded a project description and information for public participation including an address to send writtencomments or concerns, a phone number for verbal comments, the APG web site address, and the location ofpublic information repositories.


The five-year review consisted of a review of relevant documents including the Action Memorandum, AbbeyPoint Shoreline Piles 3 through 7, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, dated October 2001.

6.5.4 Data Review

No specific analytical data were reviewed during the preparation of the five-year review.


No specific site inspections were conducted during the preparation of the five-year review document.

6.5.6 Interviews



Ms. Grochowski stated that she thought work had progressed at this site in a satisfactory manner.


Mr. Crabb stated that he was not sure why soil stabilization procedures were being conducted at this site.


The following conclusions support the determination that the remedy implemented at the Abbey Point ShorelinePiles 3 through 7 is expected to be protective of human health and the environment upon completion.


On 12 March 1998, the Army completed the removal and demilitarization of 693 projectiles from Abbey PointShoreline Pile 1. Removal of 14,673 munitions from Shoreline Pile 2 was completed in October 2000. TheMMRI removed from both locations consisted of empty, wax, sand, steel, high-explosive, and white phosphorusfilled munitions ranging in size from 175-mm to 8-in. projectiles. Demilitarization of the MMRI from Pile 1resulted in the generation of approximately 84,000 lb of range residue scrap that was processed for disposal orrecycling with the DRMO. As of October 2001, demilitarization of the MMRI from Pile 2 is still underway.

6-4

The selected alternative for the Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7 is the Removal and DemilitarizationUsing Shape Charges. Implementation of this alternative offered the highest degree of protectiveness to humanhealth and environment. Removal and demilitarization is a permanent remedy that does not depend onlong-term land use controls or maintenance. This type of detonation where shape charges are used is approvedby the Army. Initial site assessment reveals that an estimated 300 to 600 MMRI from each pile will be removed.Removal action operations at the Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7 began in April 2002 and is expectedto conclude in 2004. However, the duration of the remediation will be dependent on weather conditions,USATC test schedule conflicts, the EOD team support schedule, and any required USATEU support.

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives(RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?

<missing last several pages of section 6>

6-5

Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG). 1994b. Environmental Assessment for Proposed Removal Actions at: TheDRMO Scrap Metal Yard; Spent Lead Acid Battery Storage Site (Building 2351); Sandblasting AreaNear Building 523; Wastewater Ditch at the Shell Washout Facility (Building 700B); and Old Dump atSwan Creek Prepared by General Physics Corporation for the Directorate of Safety, Health andEnvironment, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. April 26,1994.

Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG). 1994d. Work Plan for Removal Action at the Spent Lead-Acid BatteryStorage Site within the Aberdeen Area of Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Prepared by R&RInternational Inc. for the U.S. Army Engineer District - Baltimore. March 25,1994.

Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG). 1994e. Work Plan for Removal of PCB Contaminated Soils within theDRMO Scrap Metal Yard at the Aberdeen Area of Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Prepared byR&R International Inc. for the U.S. Army Engineer District - Baltimore. May 3, 1994.

Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG). 1993a. Final Technical Report, Interim Remediation of PesticideContaminated Soil, Building 5262 Backyard Storage Area, Aberdeen Area, APG, MD. Prepared byR&R International Inc. for the U.S. Army Engineer District - Baltimore. January 22,1993.

Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG). 1992. Michaelsville Landfill, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Record ofDecision. Final Document. June.

Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG). 1992a. Final Technical Report, Interim Remediation of PesticideContaminated Soil, Building A-5010 Site, Aberdeen Area, APG, MD. Prepared by R&R InternationalInc. for the U.S. Army Engineer District - Baltimore. September 8, 1992.

Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG). 1990. Draft RCRA Facility Assessment, Other Aberdeen Areas, AberdeenProving Ground, Maryland. Prepared by Derryberry et al., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),Waterways Experiment Station (WES), Vicksburg, Mississippi for ECRD, APG, Maryland.

Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG). 1981. Installation Assessment of Aberdeen Proving Ground-Aberdeen Area.Prepared by Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. for USATHAMA, APG, Maryland, ReportNo. 301.

Advanced Infrastructure Management Technologies. 2001. Second Annual Post-R.O.D. Monitoring Report,Michaelsville Landfill, Aberdeen Area, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, prepared forthe U.S. Department of the Army Directorate of Safety, Health, and Environment, Aberdeen ProvingGround, Maryland.

Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. (ESE) 1981. Installation Assessment of Aberdeen ProvingGround-Aberdeen Area, Report No. 301, prepared for the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous MaterialsAgency. Environmental and Safety Division, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.

General Physics Corporation 1995. Phillips Army Airfield Groundwater Study, Phase I Remedial Investigation.

Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program (HAZWRAP). 1995. Remedial Investigation and FeasibilityStudy Work Plan for Michaelsville Landfill, Aberdeen Proving Ground. Prepared for APG Directorateof Safety, Health, & Environment by Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. for the U.S. Department ofEnergy. February.

Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program (HAZWRAP). 1998a. Statement of Work for EnvironmentalSample Collection at Michaelsville Landfill and Select Aberdeen Area UST Sites, U.S. Army AberdeenProving Ground, Maryland. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc. for the U.S.Department of Energy. November.

Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program (HAZWRAP) 1998b. Monitoring Plan for Operable Unit 2,Michaelsville Landfill, October 1998.

Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program (HAZWRAP). 1999. (Draft) First Annual Monitoring Report,Michaelsville Landfill, Aberdeen Area, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, August 1999.

ICF Kaiser Engineers (ICF). 1991. (Draft Report) Preliminary Risk Assessment for Eight Selected Study Areasat Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, Vol. II, Ch. 11, prepared for U.S. Army Corps of EngineersToxic and Hazardous Materials Agency, Task Order No. 11, Contract no. DAAA15-88-D-0009.January.

Metcalf & Eddy. 1997. Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Unit Two, Michaelsville Landfill, AberdeenProving Ground, Maryland. June.

Miller, S. Paul, Nancy A. Derryberry, Phyllis L. Breland, and Roy Wade, 1990 (Miller et al., 1990). (Draft) Michaelsville Landfill Hydrogeological Assessment. Prepared for the Environmental ManagementDivision, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, by the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways ExperimentStation (WES), Geotechnical and Environmental Laboratories, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

R&R International, Inc. 1994. Removal of Contaminated Soil Within the Fire Training Area at the AberdeenArea of Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Prepared for the US. Army Corps of Engineers BaltimoreDistrict, Baltimore, Maryland. November 16, 1994.

Sisson, P. A. 1985. Climatic Summary for Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Reference Pamphlet No. 3,Atmospheric Sciences Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.

URS-Dames & Moore. 2001. Remedial Investigation of Operable Unit 2 of the Western Boundary Study Area.Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Draft. July.

URS-Dames & Moore. 2000. Installation Restoration Program, Other Aberdeen Areas, Aberdeen Area,Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; Phase I Remedial Investigation Screening Activities Report(Draft). Prepared for the Environmental Conservation and Restoration Division, Aberdeen ProvingGround. October.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1997. Compensatory Mitigation for Wetlands Impacted atMichaelsville Landfill and Carroll Island “Site 21", Plans, Specifications and Report, Final Design,Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Harford County, Maryland, December.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996. ECOTOX Thresholds, United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Publication 9345.0-12FS1,EPA540/F-95/038, PB95-963324. January.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. The US. EPA TEF Values, as Posted on US EPA WebSite URL: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/dchem.htm. Last Revised, February 10,1998.

Appendix A

Michaelsville Landfill Inspection Reports

MEMORANDUM FOR: Naren Desai, Project Manager, Michaelsville Landfill

SUBJECT: Quarterly Report on Michaelsville Landfill

INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED:

WELL #MWO1, 8 SEP 97. The 4-inch coupling was cracked and loose.

WELL #WES M9. 8 SEP 97. The 4-inch casing was separated at the coupling. 51 3/4 inches below thetop of the well casing housing. Inspection of the well casing below the point where it separated indicatedsurface water had run down the inside of the casing as a result of the loose coupling. Both ends of the couplingwhere the casing separated indicated that it had not been cemented at the time of installation. The well casinghousing in the ground was previously used to accommodate a ground flush manhole cover, but it was laterchanged to an above ground cover.

Submersible Pump #3, 11 SEP 97. The submersible pump was determined to be inoperative.

Vent Pipe, South West End, 11 SEP 97. Inspection revealed that the ground had settled 8 inches aroundthe base of the pipe. Also, it was noted that an animal had dug a hole under the base of the pipe.

REPAIRS CONDUCTED:

WELL #MWO1, 8 SEP 97. The broken 4-inch coupling was replaced with a new coupling using allweather PVC cement. 10 SEP 97. Well protection was constructed around the well. 18 SEP 97. Geotextile matcovered with gravel was placed around the well.

WELL #WES M9, 8 Sep 97. The concrete pad (4ft x 4ft x 6in) was removed from around the wellcasing housing. The concrete, 44 inches in depth with a diameter of 24 inches, was chipped from around thewell casing housing. Dirt and gravel were removed 8 inches below the separation of the casing. The couplingwas cleaned and cemented to the casing with medium PVC cement. The upper well casing housing was spotwelded with side plates to the lower well casing housing. 9 SEP 97. 52 inches of grout was poured around thewell cover housing using a mix of portland cement type I/II and bentonite. The mix of grout was in accordancewith SOP 019, Revision 3. 11 SEP 97. The grout around the well casing housing was topped off with grout inaccordance with SOP 019, Revision 3. 18 SEP 97. A cement pad (4ft x 4ft x 6in) was poured around the wellcasing housing.

WELL #G2, 11 SEP 97. Well protection was constructed around the well. 18 SEP 97. Geotextile matcovered with gravel was placed around the well.

WELL #G1, 11 SEP 97. Well protection was constructed around the well. 18 SEP 97. Geotextile matcovered with gravel was placed around the well.

WELL #MWO7, 11 SEP 97. Well protection was constructed around the well. 18 SEP 97. Geotextilemat covered with gravel was placed around the well.

Submersible pump #3, 11 SEP 97. The pump was repaired by making an adjustment on the high currentrelay.

Vent Pipe, South West End, 11 SEP 97. The area around the pipe was back-filled with compacted CR6stone to raise the elevation around the pipe.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY GARRISON, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

2201 ABERDEEN BOULEVARD ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD 21005-5001

REPLY TO ATTENTION OF October 7, 1998

Directorate of Safety, Health and Environment

Mr. Steve Hirsh U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 1650 Arch Street (3HS50) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

Dear Mr. Hirsh:

In accordance with the Records of Decision (ROD) signed in September 1997 for the Beach Point TestSite, the Michaelsville Landfill (Operable Unit 21, and the Watson Creek Surface Water and Sediments, theDirectorate of Safety, Health and Environment (DSHE) is hereby certifying that no known violations of landuse restrictions and prohibitions, as stipulated in these RODS, have occurred over the past year. Thiscorrespondence serves as the first annual certification from DSHE on this subject. All applicable siterestrictions and prohibitions have been entered into the Aberdeen Proving Ground Geographical InformationSystem.

A sign stipulating all site restrictions and prohibitions was placed at the Beach Point Test Site in thesummer of 1998. No unauthorized excavations, groundwater well installations, or extractions from existinggroundwater monitoring wells have occurred to our knowledge. A visual survey of the area has indicated thatno groundwater monitoring wells have been installed. The Directorate of Public Works has stated that nodigging permit applications have been received for the Beach Point Area. The DSHE measured the water levelsin the ground-water monitoring wells at this site in 1998. As part of the long-term monitoring plan for this site,which was also stipulated in this site's ROD, groundwater samples likely will be taken from wells CCJ-158B,CCJ-157B, and CCJ-33B. Although groundwater monitoring was not discussed in the ROD for this site, theMaryland Department of the Environment (MDE) has requested groundwater monitoring on an annual basis inorder to ascertain whether the aqueous plume is migrating. At this point in time, we are awaiting any commentsthat you may have on the draft long-term monitoring plan.



REPLY TO ATTENTION OF November 8, 1999


Mr. Steve Hirsh U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

Dear Mr. Hirsh:

In accordance with the Records of Decision (ROD) signed in September 1997 for the Beach Point TestSite, the Michaelsville Landfill (Operable Unit 2), and the Watson Creek Surface Water and Sediments, theDirectorate of Safety, Health and Environment (DSRE) is hereby certifying that no known violations of landuse restrictions and prohibitions, as stipulated in these RODS, have occurred over the past year. Thiscorrespondence serves as the second annual certification from DSHE on this subject.

NO unauthorized excavations, groundwater well installations, or extraction's from existing groundwatermonitoring wells have occurred at Beach Point Test Site during the past year to our knowledge. As part of thelong-term monitoring program for the Beach Point Test Site, General Physics has been conducting surfacewater and sediment sampling on a quarterly basis (February, May, and September 1999). In order to establishvisual reference points for this offshore sampling, General Physics posted numerous vertical PVC pipes alongthe Bush River and Kings Creek shorelines. The annual groundwater sampling (from wells CCJ-158BG,CCJ-157B, and CCJ-33B) for the long-term monitoring program was conducted in February 1999. A visualsurvey of the Beach Point Test Site indicated that no additional groundwater monitoring wells have beeninstalled at this site. In addition, the Directorate of Public Works has stated that no digging permit applicationshave beer! received for the Beach Point Test Site area. The DSHE measured water levels in the existingmonitoring wells in February 1999. Upcoming activities for the site include continued long-term monitoring ofthe groundwater, surface water and sediments; continued biannual water level measurements for wells on-site;and, possible abandonment of well CCJ-158BB and installation of a replacement well nearby.

For Watson Creek, Operable Unit 3 of the O-Field Study Area, the first round of annual field sampling/monitoring of the site has been completed. This included sediment sampling for the conduct of bioassays,chemical analysis, and sediment type classification. Sample collection for the, one-time bioaccumulation studycontinues to be conducted. Samples of Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) and Mummichog (Fundulusheteroclitus) have been collected and sent for laboratory tissue analysis. The bathemetry survey of the creek hasalso been completed. Results and analysis of all field sampling data are pending. Institutional controls continueat the site. These controls include listing of site restrictions in the APG GIS database and Master Plan, andphysical security measures. The signs placed on-site stating no unauthorized entrance into Watson Creekremain posted. Aberdeen Proving Ground has no reports of unauthorized entries into Watson Creek in the pastyear.

- 2 -

At the Michaelsville Landfill, a yearly survey was conducted to ensure that no drinking water wells hadbeen installed within a 1/4-mile area around the landfill. This annual visual survey, which was conducted inOctober 1999, revealed that no known violations to the ROD restriction have occurred.

If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to inquire with the Environmental Conservationand Restoration Division points of contact for these actions: for the Beach Point Test Site, Mr. John Wrobel,410-436-4840; for the Watson Creek Surface Water and Sediments, Ms. Cindy Powels, 410-436-4568; and, forthe Michaelsville Landfill (operable Unit 2), Mr. Naren Desai, 410-436-4569.

Sincerely,

Timothy. J. McNamara Director, Safety, Health and Environment

copy Furnished:

Mr. John Fairbank, Maryland Department of the Environment

Michaelsville Landfill Inspection Form Cap Inspection

Date of Inspection:

1. Any signs of erosion, holes, cracks or major depressions:

2. Does the cap show any signs of distressed vegetation:

3. Are all electrical and mechanical system working (i.e. pumps, circuit breakers):

4. Any problems with excess in or around the cap (i.e. roads are in good shape):

5. Are there any monitoring well casings are damaged or missing a cap: $?p - L-4 /,&f c,*>-* AI’, ,-,,,- ,JZ&/ /c&+&u

6. Anything that should be noted: /be-

Field Inspector

Sent out 10-13-00 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

U.S. ARMY GARRISON, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND 2201 ABERDEEN BOULEVARD

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD 21005-5001

REPLY TO ATTENTION OF


Mr. Steve Hirsh U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 1650 Arch Street (#HS50) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

Dear Mr. Hirsh:

In accordance with the Records of Decision (ROD) signed in September 1997 for the Beach Point TestSite, the Michaelsville Landfill (Operable Unit 2), and the Watson Creek Surface Water and Sediments, theDirectorate of Safety, Health and Environment (DSHE) is hereby certifying that no known violations of landuse restrictions and prohibitions, as stipulated in these RODS have occurred over the past year. Thiscorrespondence serves as the first annual certification from DSHE on this subject. All applicable siterestrictions and prohibitions have been entered into the Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) GeographicalInformation System (GIS).

At Beach Point Test Site, no unauthorized excavations, groundwater well installations or extractionsfrom existing groundwater monitoring wells have occurred in the past year to the best of our knowledge. Aspart of the long-term monitoring program for the Beach Point Test Site, General Physics conducted the lastround of the quarterly surface water and sediment sampling in December 1999. In July 2000, one of the threegroundwater wells earmarked for long-term monitoring (CCJ-158BB) was abandoned due to a bent casing. Areplacement well, WCC-158R, was installed approximately 15 feet upgradient of the abandoned well. Thisreplacement well was sampled in August 2000 and the results will be forwarded to you shortly. A visual surveyof the Beach Point Test Site conducted by DSHE on September 27, 2000 indicated that no additionalgroundwater monitoring wells have been installed at this site. In addition, the Directorate of Public Works hasstated that the only digging permit applications processed for the Beach Point Test Site in the past year has beenfor General Physics' off-shore collection of sediment samples for this long-term monitoring effort. The DSHEmeasured water levels in the existing monitoring wells in the spring 2000. Upcoming activities for the siteincludes continued long-term monitoring of the groundwater, surface water and sediments, and, continued waterlevel measurements for wells on-site.

DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION STATEMENT APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION IS UNLIMITED#3595-A-6

- 2 -

At Michaelsville Landfill site, a yearly survey was conducted to ensure that no drinking water wells hadbeen installed at or around the site. The October 4, 2000 inspection revealed that no wells were installed.Furthermore, no violations to the ROD restrictions had occurred. The second annual post ROD water and soilsampling was completed in March 2000 with the draft report currently under review. In addition to routinegrounds maintenance, repairs at the site include the repair of a pressure release vent. Groundhogs posing anuisance by digging holes at vent locations were trapped and removed from the landfill site.

At Watson Creek, the second round of annual field sampling and long-term monitoring was conducted.Results and analysis are pending from the second year of sampling. Results for the first year were reported toyou in the Watson Creek Long Term Monitoring Report (O-Field Operable Unit 3) dated March 2000.Institutional controls continue at the site. These controls include listing of site restrictions in the APG GISdatabase, which is utilized in the development of APG's Real Property Master Plan, and physical securitymeasures. The signs placed on-site stating no unauthorized entrance into Watson Creek remain posted.Aberdeen Proving Ground has no reports of unauthorized entries into Watson Creek in the past year.

If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to inquire with the Environmental Conservationand Restoration Division points of contact for these actions: for the Beach Point Test Site, Mr. John Wrobel,410-436-4840; for the Watson Creek Surface Water and Sediments, Ms. Cindy Powels, 410-436-4568; and forthe Michaelsville Landfill (Operable Unit 21, Mr. Naren Desai, 410-436-4569.

Sincerely,

Timothy J. McNamara Director, Safety, Health and Environment

Copy Furnished:

Mr. John Fairbank, Maryland Department of the Environment

Michaelsville Landfill Inspection Form

Yes No 1) Any signs of erosion, holes, cracks or major depressions J --

4) Are monitoring wells casings good shape or missing any caps

5) Are all electrical

Field Inspectors:

Name:&@ Date: /3 ‘/f-L71

Name: Date:



REPLY TO ATTENTION OF


Mr. Steve Hirsh U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 1650 Arch Street (#HS50) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

Dear Mr. Hirsh:

In accordance with the Records of Decision (ROD) signed in September 1997 for the Beach Point TestSite, the Michaelsville Landfill (Operable Unit 2), and the Watson Creek Surface Water and Sediments, theDirectorate of Safety, Health and Environment (DSHE) is hereby certifying that no known violations of landuse restrictions and prohibitions, as stipulated in these RODS have occurred over the past year. Thiscorrespondence serves as the fourth annual certification from DSHE regarding institutional controls. Allapplicable site restrictions and prohibitions have been entered into the Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG)Geographical Information System (GIS).

At Beach Point Test Site, no unauthorized excavations, groundwater well installations or extractionsfrom existing groundwater monitoring wells have occurred in the past year to the best of our knowledge. Aspart of the long-term monitoring program for the Beach Point Test Site, General Physics conducted the 2000and 2001 annual surface water, sediment and groundwater sampling in October 2000 and May 2001.Water-levels in wells WCC-158R and CC-33A were monitored in May 2001 in order to ascertain the optimaltime for sampling surface water and sediments. A visual survey of the Beach Point Test Site conducted byDSHE on October 25, 2001 indicated that no additional groundwater monitoring wells have been installed atthis site and that all existing wells are capped and locked. The sign installed at the site which lists all siteprohibitions/restrictions is still in-place and visible. In addition, the only digging permit applications processedfor the Beach Point Test Site in the past year have been for General Physics' off-shore collection of sedimentsamples for this long-term monitoring effort. The visual site survey corroborated this finding in that noevidence of recent soil excavations was detected at this site. Upcoming activities for the site include continuedlong-term monitoring of the groundwater, surface water and sediments, and continued water levelmeasurements for some of the wells on-site.

At Michaelsville Landfill site, a yearly survey was conducted to ensure that no drinking water wells had beeninstalled at or around the site. The October 18, 2001 inspection revealed that no wells were installed.Furthermore, no violations to the ROD restrictions had occurred. In addition to routine grounds maintenance,repairs at the site included the repair of a clean-out vent, as well as ground compaction around the vent pipes.Electrical repairs were made to Pump #3, which was tripped off at the time of the inspection, but in workingcondition after the reset button was pushed. All repairs were completed by October 30, 2001. The secondannual post ROD water and soil sampling was completed in March 2000. The report containing that data andfindings, the Second Annual Post-R.O.D. Monitoring Report, was completed and distributed in March 2001.The next post ROD water and soil sampling is scheduled for March 2002.

- 2 -

At Watson Creek, results are pending from the third round of annual field sampling and long-termmonitoring which was conducted in July 2001. Results for the second year were reported to you in the WatsonCreek Long Term Monitoring Report (O-Field Operable Unit 3) dated July 2001. Institutional controls continueat the site. These controls include listing of site restrictions in the APG GIS database, which is utilized in thedevelopment of APG's Real Property Master Plan, and physical security measures. The signs placed on-sitestating no unauthorized entrance into Watson Creek remain posted. DSHE has no reports of unauthorizedentries into Watson Creek in the past year.

If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to inquire with the Environmental Conservationand Restoration Division points of contact for these actions: for the Beach Point Test Site, Mr. John Wrobel,410-436-4840; for the Michaelsville Landfill (Operable Unit 2), Mr. Naren Desai, 410-436-4569; and for theWatson Creek Surface Water and Sediments, Ms. Cindy Powels, 410-436-4568.

Sincerely,

Timothy J. McNamara Director, Safety, Health and Environment

Michaelsville Landfill Inspection Form Cap Inspection

Date of Inspection:

1. Any signs of erosion, holes, cracks or major depressions: No signs of erosion, holes or depressions were observed.

2. Does the cap show any signs of distressed vegetation: Cap area vegetation appears very healthy. Grass remains very plush.

3. Are all electrical and mechanical system working (i.e. pumps, circuit breakers):

Yes

4. Any problems with excess in or around the cap (i.e. roads are in good shape): Roads are in excellent condition. Entry to landfill is gated.

5. Are there any monitoring well casings damaged or missing a cap: No

6. Anything that should be noted: No

Date: - 0 Ed, /d 13

Signature:

five-year review report for the aberdeen area, aberdeen ...abbey point shoreline piles 3 through 7...

Documents