0 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE ~ /NA/.. REGION Ill 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029
November 18, 2011
Markus Craig Program Manager Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management; BRAC Division NC3 - Taylor Bldg 5064A 2530 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202
Subject: Final 5-Year Review Report for Patuxent Research Refuge - North Tract.
Mr. Craig:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject document. The five-year review process involved reviewing the protectiveness of the Patuxent Research Refuge - North Tract. The Army prepared this report to address the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 121(c) five-year review requirements. EPA has reviewed this five-year review report and found it to be consistent with EPA 's June, 200 I guidance document, Comprehensive Five Year Review Guidance (OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P, EPA 540-R-01-007).
EPA does concur that the Patuxent Research Refuge - North Tract is protective in the short term. However, EPA has made a determination that the long-term protectiveness of the Patuxent Research Refuge - North Tract must be deferred until the Land Use Controls are formally captured within a CERCLA decision document. EPA and the Army are currently working on a Proposed Plan and Record of Decision that wi ll address a) the need or potential need for sweeps of ordnance; b) appropriate disposal of ordnance if discovered; and c) land use control requirements. A Land Use Control Remedial Design should be submitted following the Record of Decision which discusses the specifics of the Land Use Controls (i.e. what actions are limited and the extent of their limitation). Furthermore, as part of this five-year review, EPA has evaluated the basewide Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measures for this site and has determined their status is as follows: Environmental Indicators
I. Human Exposure: There is insufficient data to determine the Human Exposure status of the Fort George G. Meade Superfund Site. This is due to the groundwater plumes at OU-4 and Nevada A venue in the SE portion of the active installation.
2. Grow1dwater Migration: Groundwater Migration Not Under Control. This is because the extent of two ground water plwnes (OU-4 SE Sites and Nevada Avenue) are not defined. The EPA is working with the Army to better characterize these plumes and work plans have been developed to define the extent of the OU-4 and Nevada Avenue plumes.
Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use
This Site is expected to achieve "Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use" on June 30, 2022 when all cleanup is expected to have occurred and all land use controls are in place.
The requirement for this five-year review at Ft. George G. Meade was triggered by EPA Concurrence on the previous Five-Year Review dated May 29, 2007. The next five year review will be due for signature by the Army and concurrence by EPA no later than September 23, 2016.
If you have any questions, please contact Ben Mykijewycz, Chief of the NPL/BRAC Federal Facilities Branch at (215) 814-3351 or John Burchette at (2 15) 814-3378.
Sincerely,
/ aid J. Borsellino, Director Hazardous Site Cleanup Division, EPA Region 3
cc: Dr. Elisabeth Green DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ASSISTANT CHIEF OF STAFF FOR INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT 600 ARMY PENTAGON WASHINGTON, DC 20310-0600
Reply to Attention Of:
Army Base Realignment and Closure Division NOV O 7 2011
Mr. John Burchette U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region Ill (3HS11) 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
Subject: November 2011 Patuxent Research Refuge ·_ North Tract Non-Time Critical Removal Action Final Five-Year Review; Fort George G. Meade, Maryland
Dear Mr. Burchette:
Please find enclosed one original and two copies of the November 2011 Patuxent Research Refuge - North Tract (PRR-NT) Non-Time Critical Removal Action (NCTRA) Final Five-Year Review; Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, for your administrative record. Army responses to all regulatory comments to the draft final document were approved and incorporated into the final document.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (703) 545-2474 or Steve Cardon at (301) 677-9178.
Sincerely, A~~ Markus A. Craig . Program Manager, Office of the Assistant Chi~f df Staff for lnstallq1tion Management; Base ' Realignment and Closure Division
Encl: 1 cc:
Dr. Elisabeth Green - MOE Federal Facilities Division - 1 copy - Brad Knudsen - US Fish and Wildlife Service - 1 copy Sherry Krest - US Fish and Wildlife Service - 1 copy Andrea Graham - USACE - electronic copy only Steve Cardon - Fort George G. Meade BRAC Program - 2 copies
Printed on ® Recycled Paper Final First Five-Year Review Report Non-Time Critical Ordnance and Explosives Removal Action (NTCRA) Patuxent Research Refuge – North Tract Anne Arundel County, MD
Fort George G. Meade BRAC Program Legacy Base Realignment and Closure Program
Prepared by: Department of the Army Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management High Explosive Impact and 600 Army Pentagon Disposal Area Washington, DC 20310-0600
November 2011
US Army Corps of Engineers R Baltimore District URS Group, Inc. 12420 Milestone Center Drive, Suite 150 Contract Number: W912WJ-05-D-0005 10 South Howard Street Germantown, MD 20876 Baltimore, MD 21201 Delivery Order: DA18 FIRST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
FOR FORT GEORGE G. MEADE LEGACY BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE PROGRAM
NON-TIME CRITICAL ORDNANCE AND EXPLOSIVES REMOVAL ACTION
P ATUXENT RESEARCH REFUGE-NORTH TRACT ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND
NOVEMBER 2011
Prepared by:
Department of the Army
Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management 600 Army Pentagon Washington, DC 20310-0400
Approved By:
3)}py Jp/J Date Chief, Operational Army and Medical Branch Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management; BRAC Division (DAIM-ODB) TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...... iv FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM ...... vi 1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1-1 2.0 SITE CHRONOLOGY ...... 2-1 3.0 BACKGROUND ...... 3-1 3.1 Physical Characteristics ...... 3-1 3.2 Land and Resource Use ...... 3-5 3.3 History of Contamination ...... 3-5 3.4 Initial Response ...... 3-11 3.5 Basis for Taking Action ...... 3-12 4.0 REMEDIAL ACTION...... 4-1 4.1 Remedy Selection ...... 4-1 4.2 Remedy Implementation ...... 4-2 4.3 System Operations/O&M...... 4-4 5.0 PROGRESS SINCE LAST REVIEW ...... 5-1 6.0 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS ...... 6-1 6.1 Administrative Components ...... 6-1 6.2 Community Notification and Involvement ...... 6-1 6.3 Document Review ...... 6-2 6.4 Data Review and Evaluation ...... 6-3 6.5 Site Inspection ...... 6-3 6.6 Interviews ...... 6-4 6.6.1 PRR Interviews ...... 6-4 6.6.2 Mr. Tim Dignin Interview...... 6-7 6.6.3 Mr. Brad Knudsen Interview ...... 6-7 7.0 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ...... 7-1 7.1 Question A ...... 7-1 7.2 Question B ...... 7-1 7.3 Question C ...... 7-2 7.4 Technical Assessment Summary ...... 7-2 8.0 ISSUES ...... 8-1 9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS ...... 9-1 10.0 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT ...... 10-1 11.0 NEXT REVIEW ...... 11-1
ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)
PAGE List of Figures Figure 3-1: Property Boundaries Map ...... 3-2 Figure 3-2: Patuxent Research Refuge North Tract Non-Time Critical Removal Action (NTCRA) Areas of Concern ...... 3-3
List of Tables Table 3-1: NTCRA Areas of Concern and Clearance Depths ...... 3-1 Table 3-2: Site Investigations and Removal Actions at the PRR-NT ...... 3-6 Table 3-3: Groundwater Investigations and Contaminants Identified at the ODA and CFD BRAC Sites ...... 3-8 Table 3-4: August 2001 Action Memorandum LUCs for PRR-NT ...... 3-11 Table 4-1: Summary of Affected Media and Selected Remedy for the PRR-NT NTCRA ...... 4-1 Table 6-1: Stakeholder Points of Contact ...... 6-1 Table 6-2: Evaluation of NTCRA Response Action ...... 6-3 Table 6-3: PRR-NT Areas of Concern Name Changes ...... 6-4 Table 8-1: Issues Identified at the PRR-NT NTCRA ...... 8-1 Table 9-1: Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions for the NTCRA High-Use Areas ...... 9-2
List of Appendices Appendix A: References Appendix B: Site Inspection Checklist Appendix C: Public Notices Appendix D: Regulatory Response to Comments Table, Acceptance Letters, and Ball Fields Inspection Memorandum
iii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Army U.S. Army ASP Ammunition Supply Point bgs below ground surface BRAC Base Realignment and Closure CFD Clean Fill Dump CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act C.F.R. Code of Federal Register DOD Department of Defense DOI Department of the Interior EE Environmental Education EE/CA Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis EOD Explosive Ordnance Disposal EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FFA Federal Facility Agreement FGGM Fort George G. Meade FWS Fish and Wildlife Service HCS Hunter Contact Station HEI High Explosive Impact and Disposal Area LUCIP Land Use Control Implementation Plan LUCs Land Use Controls MDE Maryland Department of the Environment MEC Munitions and Explosives of Concern MMRP Military Munitions Response Program NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan NPL National Priorities List NSA National Security Administration NTCRA Non-Time Critical Ordnance and Explosives Removal Action O&M Operations and Maintenance ODA Ordnance Demolition Area OE Ordnance and Explosives OERIA Ordnance and Explosives Risk Impact Assessment PP Proposed Plan PRG Preliminary Remediation Goal PRR Patuxent Research Refuge PRR-NT Patuxent Research Refuge-North Tract
iv List of Acronyms and Abbreviations (cont’d)
RAO Remedial Action Objective RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ROD Record of Decision SAIC Science Applications International Corporation TAP Tipton Airfield Parcel UAO Unilateral Administrative Order USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USAEC U.S. Army Environmental Center (now U.S. Army Environmental Command) UXO Unexploded ordnance WLL Wildlife Loop
v Five-Year Review Summary Form
1.1.1.1.1 SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site name (from WasteLAN): Fort George G. Meade, NTCRA EPA ID (from WasteLAN): MD0910020567 Region: 3 State: MD City/County: Laurel/Anne Arundel
1.1.1.1.2 SITE STATUS
NPL status: : Final Deleted Other (specify) Remediation status (choose all that apply): Under Construction Operating Complete Multiple OUs?* YES NO Construction completion date: 06/02/2006 Has site been put into reuse? YES NO
1.1.1.1.3 REVIEW STATUS
Lead agency: EPA State Tribe Other Federal Agency Department of Defense (Army) Author name: Bill Eaton Author title: Project Manager Author affiliation: URS Group, Inc. Review period: 11/03/2008 to 04/01/2009 Date(s) of site inspection: 11/03/2008 Type of review: Post-SARA Pre-SARA NPL-Removal only Non-NPL Remedial Action Site NPL State/Tribe-lead Regional Discretion Review number: 1 (first) 2 (second) 3 (third) Other (specify) ______Triggering action: Actual RA Onsite Construction at OU #____ Actual RA Start at OU#: (no OU number) Construction Completion Previous Five-Year Review Report Other (specify) Triggering action date (from WasteLAN): 01/06/2003 Due date (five years after triggering action date): 01/06/2008
* [“OU” refers to operable unit.] ** [Review period should correspond to the actual start and end dates of the Five-Year Review in WasteLAN.]
vi Five-Year Review Summary Form (cont’d)
Issues: 1 Clearance activities at the Ball Fields were not completed. EPA expressed concern that the soil cover at the Ball Fields may not be protective. 2 Clearance activities at Area G were not completed due to contractual disputes. 3 The EPA expressed concern for hunters that go off beaten trails and may be exposed to areas not cleared of MEC from the non-time critical removal action (NTCRA). 4 The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) expressed concern that the only regulatory notification procedure for discovery of MEC at the BRAC sites within the PRR-NT is through the 5-Year Review process. Recommendations: 1 In May 2011, the USACE conducted a spring MEC sweep of the Ball Fields prior to use of the fields. No evidence of munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) migrating to the surface was observed. The sweep results indicate that any potential MEC item remains a minimum of 3 feet below ground surface (bgs) and presents no hazard. The Army plans to complete the removal of the burial pits in fiscal year 2013, pending funding. The Patuxent Research Refuge will continue to enforce their unexploded ordnance (UXO) education program so that the visiting public is informed that MEC and munitions debris are potentially present. 2 A surface clearance was performed for the entire Area G and clearance to 26 inches was completed in 38 of the 128 grids. The PRR-NT Refuge Manager has recently stated that this action is sufficient for this area since it is closed to PRR-NT hunters and visitors 3 The Army has coordinated with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to develop an UXO Management Plan for the PRR-NT that outlines a prudent UXO safety education program that helps ensure Patuxent Research Refuge users are aware of UXO and act accordingly. When potential MEC is identified, the FWS are notified; the FWS personnel flag the item and remain at the location until an explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) unit arrives. 4 The Army will provide real time reporting to EPA and MDE of any MEC discoveries that occur at the BRAC sites and are reported to the Army. Protectiveness Statement(s): The remedy at the PRR-NT currently protects human health and the environment because the LUCs protect the public from exposure to groundwater and MEC. No reports of MEC at any of the 24 NTCRA high-use areas have occurred since completion of the NTCRA. This indicates that the ordnance sweeps have effectively removed MEC from the high-use areas. Although there have been minor changes in land use (frequency with which the public is likely to visit the various high-use areas), the function of the response action is not significantly changed.
vii Page Intentionally Left Blank
viii 1.0 INTRODUCTION
This 5-year review evaluates the Non-Time Critical Removal Action (NTCRA) for munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) conducted at the 8,100-acre Patuxent Research Refuge-North Tract (PRR-NT). The 8,100-acre PRR-NT is located in Anne Arundel County within the township of Laurel, Maryland. The PRR-NT property was formerly part of Fort George G. Meade (FGGM), but was released under the Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC) of 1988 (Public Law 100-526, 102 Stat. 2623) to the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). In response to the wildlife refuge land use patterns at the PRR-NT, an NTCRA was conducted during 2003 to 2004 at 24 high-use areas to eliminate or reduce risk from MEC exposure to visitors’ and workers’ health and safety [United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), 2006)]. The purpose of 5-year reviews is to determine whether the remedy at a site is protective of human health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in 5-year review reports. In addition, 5-year review reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and make recommendations to address them. The U.S. Army (Army) is the lead Agency for this 5-year review of the NTCRA implemented at the PRR-NT. The review was conducted from November 2008 through April 2009. This report documents the results of this review. This is the first 5-year review for the NTCRA. The triggering action for this review is the start date of the NTCRA in January 6, 2003. With possible MEC left in place at the PRR-NT in excess of levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, 5-year reviews are required. The Army is preparing this 5-year review pursuant to Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) §121 and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA §121 states:
If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial action no less often than each five years after the initiation of such remedial action to assure that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented. In addition, if upon such review it is the judgment of the President that action is appropriate at such site in accordance with section [104] or [106], the President shall take or require such action. The President shall report to the Congress a list of facilities for which such review is required, the results of all such reviews, and any actions taken as a result of such reviews.
1-1 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) interpreted this requirement further in the NCP; 40 Code of Federal Register (C.F.R.) §300.430(f)(4)(ii) states:
If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often than every five years after the initiation of the selected remedial action.
1-2 2.0 SITE CHRONOLOGY
Chronology of Events Date Congress authorized the formation of Camp Meade. 1917 Camp Meade became a permanent military reservation and was renamed 1928 FGGM. The National Security Administration (NSA) was established at FGGM. 1950s Tipton Army Airfield was constructed. 1960 1st and 2nd U.S. Army Districts were consolidated and headquartered at FGGM. 1965 1st U.S. Army transitioned from active duty to Army Reserve. 1970s The BRAC mandated the closure of FGGM. 1988 Tipton Airfield Parcel (TAP) was released to Anne Arundel County for use as a 1988 small municipal airfield for light fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft. Military Construction Appropriations Act directed the transfer of 7,600 acres of 1991 the 9,000-acre BRAC Parcel to the DOI FWS. Field unexploded ordnance (UXO) surveys were conducted at the 7,600-acre 1992-1993 and 1,400-acre BRAC parcels. An additional 500-acre parcel was transferred from FGGM to the DOI FWS. January 1993 Final field UXO survey report was submitted for the 1,400-acre BRAC parcel June 1994 (which included the 500-acre parcel transferred to DOI FWS). Final field UXO survey report was submitted for the 7,600-acre BRAC parcel. December 1995 Final Fort George G. Meade BRAC Parcel UXO Survey and Data Analysis June 1997 report was submitted. FGGM was identified as a Superfund Site and was proposed for the National April 1, 1997 Priorities List (NPL). FGGM was finalized on the NPL. July 28, 1998 Tipton airfield was removed from the FGGM NPL. September 1999 An Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) and an Army Action June 2001 Memorandum for the Patuxent Research Refuge North Tract were submitted in June and August, respectively. The Army and FWS issue an Ordnance and Explosive Scrap Removal August 2001 Memorandum of Agreement. The Army and FWS issue an UXO Management Plan. December 2003 NTCRA was conducted to remove UXO to specified depths (26 inches to 4 feet) 2003-2004 at the high-use areas. Final NTCRA Report was submitted. June 2006 EPA Region III Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Section February 6, 2008 7003 Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) was established. Army signed an Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) with EPA Region 3, DOI, October 2009 and the U.S. Architect of the Capitol. First 5-Year Review of the NTCRA was conducted. 2009
2-1 Page Intentionally Left Blank
2-2 3.0 BACKGROUND
3.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
FGGM formerly occupied 13,596 acres of land in the northwest corner of Anne Arundel County, approximately halfway between Washington, D.C., and Baltimore, Maryland. Figure 3-1 illustrates the regional location of FGGM with respect to the State of Maryland and the Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area. It also shows the PRR-NT and other adjacent properties. The PRR-NT is approximately 8,100 acres with 24 identified high-use areas (see Table 3-1 and Figure 3-2). The site is currently used for wildlife management and research, and for recreational activities including hiking, fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing. The 24 high-use areas are where people are most likely to visit and where remaining MEC exposure is a concern. Among the areas are marked trails (foot, bicycle, and equestrian), the shores of public-accessible ponds, camping areas, a downstream portion of the Little Patuxent River, and several open sites such as the Ball Fields, training areas, and wildlife feeding areas. Much of the 8,100 acres are woodlands. However, wetlands and marshes are present along the Patuxent River, the Little Patuxent River, and the tributary streams. Ponds have been established in several drainage areas. Refuge management maintains some of the former military roads for access, but the other roads were allowed to return to natural conditions.
Table 3-1: NTCRA Areas of Concern and Clearance Depths
Clearance Clearance Area Name Area Name Depth Depth Blue Trail 4 Feet Cattail Pond 26 Inches Forest Habitat Trail 26 Inches Rieve's Pond 26 Inches Green Trail 4 Feet Lake Allen 26 Inches Orange Trail 4 Feet Stables 26 Inches Pine Trail 26 Inches Ball Fields(1) 4 Feet Red Trail 4 Feet Upland Dog Training Area 26 Inches River Trail 26 Inches Scout Site #1 4 Feet Yellow Trail 4 Feet Scout Site #2 4 Feet Wildlife Loop (WLL) 4 Feet Area I (Wildlife Feeding Area) 4 Feet New Marsh 26 Inches Area G(2) 26 Inches Bailey Bridge Marsh 26 Inches Area W (New Wildlife Feeding Area) 4 Feet Little Patuxent River Surface Range 1 4 Feet Notes: (1) Grids 2 and 3 clearance not completed. (2) Clearance not completed.
3-1 '" ut $ ut 7hyv r ut# & '" ut" UV& !& ut!( A Xhuvt 98 Hrhqr UV# UV#
($ UV$ ut & North Laurel UV!"$
A Hrhqr
6 puvrp s ur 8hvy Maryland City Laurel Uv Severn
QSSIU hq C@D 6 rh
South Laurel Odenton
Pa Installation Area attux Litt xen Littlle P t R Pa Ri tt ive u er x PRR-NT and HEI Area r e n tt R 0 1 2 Miles i iv AOC e rr hh cc nn aa Tipton AAF r r
BB
0 6,000 12,000 Feet ss r r ee ss Railroad (owned by MD State ww oo Highway Administration) TT
CLIENT U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District TITLE Fort George G. Meade DATA SOURCE USA Prime Imagery, 11/15/2008. Property Boundaries Map
REVISION NO 0 GIS: AER 10/18/10 SCALE 1:72,000 CHECKED: GK 10/18/10 Ü 200 Orchard Ridge Drive Avt r " G:\Projects\Fort_Meade\PA_SI_New\Projects\Plates_OverallLocationFigures\ Gaithersburg, MD 20878 Figure1_PropertyBoundaries.mxd PROJ MGR GK 10/18/10
ODA, CFD)--15300255\URS Work Product\Reports\NTRCA\Draft\Figures/Fig 1-2.ai Product\Reports\NTRCA\Draft\Figures/Fig Work CFD)--15300255\URS ODA, iue3-2 Figure
10-30-08 FM P:\GTB\U000000572 USACE\15900202 NE HTRW Contract\Five Yr Rev (Tip, NTCRA, NTCRA, (Tip, Rev Yr Contract\Five HTRW NE USACE\15900202 P:\GTB\U000000572 CHK BY CHK N 2-1
10-30-08 BR SCALE DR BY DR FIGURE
XX REVISION NO REVISION DES BY DES PROJ NO PROJ
NTCRA, USACE 2006 USACE NTCRA, DATA SOURCE DATA
PATUXENT RESEARCH REFUGE NORTH TRACT NON-TIME CRITICAL REMOVAL ACTION (NTCRA) AREAS OF CONCERN OF AREAS (NTCRA) ACTION REMOVAL CRITICAL NON-TIME TRACT NORTH REFUGE RESEARCH PATUXENT
USACE
CLIENT TITLE
scale miles scale
1.0 0.5 0.0
Powder Mill Road Mill Powder
Marsh
Route 197 Route
Range 1 Range
New
Area W (New Wildlife Feeding Area) Feeding Wildlife (New W Area
Area G Area
River
Scout Site 1 Site Scout
Tract Pond Scout Site 2 Site Scout
Patuxent
Area I (Wildlife Feeding Area) Feeding (Wildlife I Area
South
Cattail
Little
Scout Site #2 Site Scout
Scout Site #1 Site Scout
Bailey Bridge Marsh Bridge Bailey Route 197 Route
Upland Dog Training Area Training Dog Upland
Area G Area
Ball Fields Ball
Route 197 Route
Duvall Bridge Road Bridge Duvall
Wildlife Loop Wildlife
Stables
South Road (s) Road South
Lake Allen Lake
Patuxent Road Road Patuxent
Rieve’s Pond Rieve’s
Cattail Pond Cattail
Area I Area
Marsh
Wildlife Feeding Area Feeding Wildlife
Tract
New
Little Patuxent River Patuxent Little
Wildlife Loop Wildlife
Central
River
Bailey Bridge Marsh Bridge Bailey
Pond
Patuxent
Cattail
Little
New Marsh New
Marsh
Bridge
Bailey
Areas
Rieve’s Pond Rieve’s
Wildlife Loop Wildlife
Range road to range #2 range to road Range
Yellow Trail Yellow
Tract
North
River Trail River
Green Trail Green
Blue Trail Blue
Upland Dog Training Area Training Dog Upland
Red Trail Red
Orange Trail Orange
Forest Habitat Trail Habitat Forest
WLL2
Pine Trail Pine
Yellow Trail Yellow
Visitor Contact Station Contact Visitor
River Trail River
Orange Trail Orange
Area W Area Range 1 Range
Powerline access Powerline
WLL1
Green Trail Green
PIne Trail PIne
Red Trail Red
WLL11
Wildlife Loop Wildlife
Forest Habitat Trail Habitat Forest
Loop Wildlife
Lake Allen Lake
834 Road 834
Stables Tipton Airfield Tipton
Blue Trail Blue
Route 32 West 32 Route
Trails
Ballfield
Areas of Concern of Areas
Route 32 East 32 Route
PRR – NT NTCRA NT – PRR
Route 198 Route 3.2 LAND AND RESOURCE USE
The PRR-NT is currently managed by the DOI FWS and serves a variety of functions including wildlife conservation, research, and management. The PRR-NT offers the public various recreational opportunities including hunting, fishing, hiking, wildlife observation, and educational programs. The future land use is to continue as a wildlife refuge under DOI FWS management, providing wildlife management and research functions and recreational opportunities to visitors. Even though the DOI FWS currently owns the PRR-NT, the Army still remains responsible for any and all decontamination, cleanup, and remediation action that may be required. However, this only applies to contamination that occurred before the transfer of the property from the Army to the owners. As noted in the Transfer Assembly documents, the Army has authority and control over the management of the property with respect to conducting cleanup and remediation activities relating to the environmental restoration of the property. 3.3 HISTORY OF CONTAMINATION
The chronology of events table in Section 3.0 outlines the key historical events that contribute to the MEC contamination of the PRR-NT. Table 3-2 identifies the site investigations and removal actions that were conducted for this site. Camp Meade was originally authorized by Congress in 1917 as one of sixteen training cantonments to be built for troops drafted for World War I. Two parcels of 4,000 and 9,000 acres were acquired. Camp Meade became a permanent military reservation in 1928 and was renamed FGGM. During World War II, roughly 3.5 million men and women passed through the installation for training. In the early 1950’s, branches of the NSA were established at the installation and remain there today. Tipton Army Airfield was constructed in 1960 to support infantry and armor activities. In 1965, the 1st and 2nd U.S. Army Districts were consolidated and headquartered at FGGM. In the early 1970’s, the 1st U.S. Army began a transition from being mission-oriented to the active duty components of the Army to being dedicated to the Reserve components. The Defense Authorization Amendments and BRAC of 1988 mandated that the FGGM installation close and excess an area of approximately 9,000 acres. The Fiscal Year 1991 Military Construction Appropriations Act (MCAA) directed transfer of 7,600-acres of the 9,000 acres to the DOI FWS for addition to the Patuxent Research Refuge (PRR). Since the land transfer, the parcel has been managed for restricted public use as part of the PRR-NT. In 1992, an additional
3-5 Table 3-2: Site Investigations and Removal Actions at the PRR-NT
Site Investigations and Removal Purpose Reference Actions Ordnance Survey, 1,400-acre The objective of the survey was to locate, identify and remove UXO located on the USAEC, 1994 Parcel, June 1994 surface and within a depth of six inches below the ground surface (bgs) in the accessible portions. This survey addressed the 500-acre BRAC parcel that was transferred to DOI. Ordnance Survey, 7,600 Acre The objective of the survey was to locate, identify and remove UXO located on the USAEC, 1995a Parcel, December 1995 surface and within a depth of six inches bgs in the accessible portions of the parcel. Roughly 7,400 of the 7,600 acres were covered, with the remainder inaccessible (e.g., wetland areas, environmentally sensitive areas, lakes, rivers, streams and areas of dense brush). FGGM BRAC Parcel UXO Survey A quality assurance survey was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the previous USAEC, 1997a. and Data Analysis, June 1997a surveys that only went to 6 inches bgs and not 12 inches bgs as stated in the Transfer Assembly documents which released the property from the DOD control and gave it to the DOI. EE/CA, June 2001 An EE/CA is prepared for all non-time-critical removal actions per Section USACE, 2001a 300.415(b)(4)(i) of the NCP. The report identified the extent of the MEC hazard, identified the objectives of the response action, and analyzed various alternatives that may be used to remediate the PRR-NT. Ordnance and Explosives Risk As part of the EE/CA, the OERIA determined the qualitative risk to the public from USACE, 2001a Impact Assessment (OERIA), June potential MEC exposure at the 24 high-use areas that the FWS identified within the 2001 PRR-NT. Final NTCRA Report, June 2006 The report documents the MEC clearance activities that occurred within the 24 high-use USACE, 2006 areas identified in the EE/CA. Instrument Assisted Visual In May 2011, the USACE conducted a spring MEC sweep of the Ball Fields prior to use USACE, 2011a Inspection of the Tipton Airfield of the fields. The inspection showed no evidence of MEC migrating to the surface. Inactive Landfill 3 and Ball Field, The sweep results indicate that any potential MEC item remains a minimum of 3 feet May 2011 bgs and presents no hazard.
3-6 500-acre parcel was transferred to the DOI. The PRR-NT is comprised of the 7,600- and 500- acre BRAC parcels that were transferred to the DOI FWS. Included in the land transfers to the DOI FWS are the inactive sites, the Ordnance Demolition Area (ODA), Trap and Skeet Range 17, Uncontrolled Waste Site, Medical Waste Site, and the Ammunition Supply Point (ASP) No. 2. The Clean Fill Dump (CFD) is also located within the PRR-NT, but the property is still pending transfer from the Army to the DOI. An UXO surface clearance at the CFD was not conducted due to the presence of ubiquitous metal and that intrusive activities to remove the ordnance could also pose unacceptable risk to the unique environment associated with a magnolia bog located within the confines of the CFD. The ODA and CFD sites are addressed as separate groundwater operable units under the FFA (October 2009). In recognition of the former use of the land as training ranges, documentation of the presence of MEC and the recommendation that future use of the land be compatible with the continued presence of MEC is provided in the Transfer Assembly documents, Army Action Memorandums, UXO Education Program materials, CFD ROD, and ODA ROD. Issues such as construction support pertaining to MEC and surveys to be completed as part of the transfer were also outlined in the 1991 and 1992 land Transfer Assembly documents. Surveys were to identify items that are representative of troop training and fighting using ordnance and explosive (OE) practice items to simulate a service item in weight design and ballistic properties. These items may be inert or have a small quantity of explosive filler. The items may also contain incendiary material used for signaling and creating smoke screens, which were typical training activities. The environmental remediation at the PRR-NT is managed in accordance with the CERCLA because its usage had been associated with FGGM. Fort Meade was listed by the EPA as a Superfund site. FGGM was proposed for the NPL on April 1, 1997, and finalized on the NPL on July 28, 1998. For federal facility sites under the jurisdiction, custody, or control of the Department of Defense (DOD), Executive Order 12580 delegates the lead agency responsibilities to the DOD. Therefore, the Army is the lead agency responsible for the remedy selection and cleanup of the PRR-NT. The Army, EPA Region 3, DOI, and the Architect of the Capitol signed an October 2009 FFA to direct the comprehensive remediation of FGGM. Table 3-3 summarizes the groundwater investigations and contaminants identified at the ODA and CFD BRAC sites which are located within the PRR-NT. The groundwater contamination at these sites is addressed in separate 5-Year Review reports. The primary focus of this 5-Year review is the MEC contamination of the PRR-NT.
3-7 Table 3-3: Groundwater Investigations and Contaminants Identified at the ODA and CFD BRAC Sites
Investigation Purpose of Report Groundwater Contaminants CFD: Not addressed in this report. The SI provided FGGM-wide data such as geology, general hydrogeology, and background soil 1992 Site Inspection concentrations. A soils investigation was conducted at the (SI) (USAEC, 1992a) ODA: Low levels of RDX (1.71 µg/g) were detected in the surface ODA to identify potential sources of contamination for soil. groundwater; explosives and nitrate/nitrite were analyzed.
CFD: Chlorinated VOCs (PCE, TCE,and DCE), chloroform, and three metals (arsenic, beryllium, and iron) were detected above tap water 1992 Remedial screening criteria. The VOCs were found in a groundwater plume in Investigation (RI) for The RI addressed the surface water, sediment, and the near-surface aquifer that extends south from the CFD the Active Sanitary groundwater media only at the CFD OU. approximately 1200 feet. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was also detected Landfill and CFD above the screening criteria, but was suspected to be a laboratory (USAEC, 1992b) contaminant.
ODA: Not addressed in this report. CFD: Not addressed in this report. 1995 SI Addendum The SIA addressed data gaps identified in the previous SI (SIA) (USAEC, (1992) ODA: Explosives (RDX, HMX, and DNT) and VOCs (PCE and TCE) 1995b) were detected in the groundwater. Cadmium was detected higher than its MCL; aluminum, iron, and manganese were detected above SMCLs. CFD: HHRA results indicate that VOCs (PCE and TCE) and metals 1997 RI Addendum (arsenic, beryllium, chromium, lead, nickel, zinc) are the primary (RIA) (USAEC, The RIA addressed data gaps from the previous RI (1992) contaminants in groundwater that contribute to unacceptable 1997b) risks/hazards. ODA: Not addressed in this report.
1998 RI Report for The RI addressed soils, surface water, sediment, and Inactive Landfills 1, The groundwater contamination at the CFD consists of chloroform, groundwater media at the CFD OU; risk assessments 2, 3, and CFD PCE, TCE, DCE, cis-1,2-DCE, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, (human health and ecological) were also conducted. (USACE, 1998) chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, thallium, zinc, and bis(2- ethylhexyl)phthalate (a common laboratory contaminant).
3-8 Investigation Purpose of Report Groundwater Contaminants
The ROD stated that the groundwater use at the CFD is restricted for any potable or non-potable purposes, except for use in conducting 2000 CFD Record of Report identified the selected remedy for the CFD: no environmental studies, until it has been tested and determined safe for Decision (ROD) further action (NFA) with groundwater monitoring. its intended use. Groundwater monitoring should be conducted every (Army, 2000a) two years from the date of the signed ROD and analyzed for conventional water quality parameters, metals, and VOCs.
2002 CFD Long- Term Monitoring Report provided the details of implementing the (LTM) Plan groundwater monitoring program at the CFD. Six wells were identified for the LTM program. The groundwater (USACE, 2002a) analysis included TCL VOCs, TAL metals, and mercury. CFD: Not addressed in this report. 2002 ODA The RI/FS evaluated the nature and extent of RI/Feasibility Study groundwater, surface water, sediments, surface soil and (FS) Report subsurface soil contamination at the ODA; human health ODA: VOCs and explosives impact the Upper Patapsco Aquifer. The (USACE, 2002b) and ecological risk assessments were conducted. HHRA results indicate unacceptable risks/hazards for the residential scenario from exposure to groundwater (unrestricted use). Eight wells were identified for the LTM program. The groundwater 2003 ODA LTM Plan Report provided the details of implementing the analysis included VOCs (PCE, TCE, and chloroform), explosives (USACE, 2003) groundwater monitoring program at the ODA. (RDX, TNT, 2A46-DNT, and 4A26-DNT), and cadmium. For the first year, quarterly sampling was conducted, followed by biennial sampling. The 2002 CFD LTM Plan and 2003 ODA LTM Plan provide the Biennial reports were submitted, documenting the description of the number of wells and contaminants that were LTM Programs (2002 groundwater monitoring results for both the CFD and analyzed for in the LTM program. Groundwater contaminants are still through 2011) ODA. being detected above MCLs, so the Army has continued to monitor the groundwater at both sites.
The ROD stated that annual groundwater monitoring will be conducted The ROD identified the selected remedy for the ODA: 2011 ODA ROD and analyzed for RDX, TNT, 2A46-DNT, $A26-DNT, PCE, TCE, monitored natural attenuation (MNA) with land use (URS, 2011a) chloroform, cis-1,2-DCE, vinyl chloride, cadmium, calcium, controls. magnesium, manganese, and a suite of MNA parameters.
3-9 Investigation Purpose of Report Groundwater Contaminants
2011 Combined The Army, EPA, and MDE have reviewed the 8 to 10 Groundwater OU years of LTM groundwater data and have agreed to make Report is currently under regulatory review. Changes have not been LTM Work Plan revisions to the BRAC groundwater OUs (which includes finalized. (URS, 2011b) the CFD and the ODA).
NOTES: 2A46-DNT 2-amino-4,6-dinitrotoluene ODA Ordnance Demolition Area 4A26-DNT 4-amino-2,6-dinitrotoluene OU Operable Unit BRAC Base Realignment and Closure PCE tetrachloroethene CFD Clean Fill Dump RDX royal demolition explosive DCE 1,1-dichloroethene SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level DNT dinitrotoluenes TAL target analyte list HHRA human health risk assessment TCE trichloroethene HMX Octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine TCL target compound list LTM long-term monitoring TNT 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene MCL maximum contaminant level VOC volatile organic compound
3-10 3.4 INITIAL RESPONSE
The Army conducted two ordnance surveys and removal of munitions debris and MEC to a depth of 6 inches bgs over all accessible portions of the 8,100-acre PRR-NT in 1992 and 1993 (USAEC, 1994 and 1995a). Excluded were wetlands, surface water bodies, environmentally sensitive areas, and areas of dense brush that could not be traversed. This action included visual and magnetometer sweeps and clearing magnetometer contacts up to 6 inches bgs. Contacts deeper than 6 inches were mapped and recorded. This survey/clearance (upper 6 inches) of the 8,100-acre property resulted in the retrieval of over 14,000 UXO items, over 18,000 munitions debris items, and identification of 1,388 magnetometer anomalies where the item was not retrieved because it was below 6 inches bgs. Continuing concerns for the safety of PRR-NT users prompted additional study of the possible MEC risk. An EE/CA (USACE, 2001a) investigated the risk to the public from potential MEC exposure. The EE/CA concluded that the appropriate remedial action protective of human health and the environment was an NTCRA with Land Use Controls (LUCs), focused on the 24 high- use areas within the PRR-NT. The associated August 2001 Action Memorandum for the Patuxent Research Refuge North Tract (USACE, 2001b) reiterated the LUCs discussed in the Transfer Assembly documents (see Table 3-4).
Table 3-4: August 2001 Action Memorandum LUCs for PRR-NT
LUCs for the PRR-NT NTCRA Prohibit intrusive activities to minimize the possibility of accidental contact with buried MEC; Implement and maintain an educational program informing PRR-NT users and employees of the MEC risk and the appropriate response actions if MEC is observed (e.g., retreat and report); and Prohibit the usage of groundwater resources.
A qualitative OERIA evaluated risk levels on an area-by-area basis by considering the anticipated visitor activities, the expected type of munitions, and the stability of the site. The OERIA provided the basis for the area-specific clearance depths (26 inches or 4 feet bgs). Site- specific risk factors included characteristics of the potential OE (type, sensitivity, density, depth) site characteristics (accessibility, stability), and human activities (recreational or occupational), and the frequency and density of site use. Geophysical contacts were cleared minimally to the frost line (26 inches) and to 4 feet in areas with high impact activities. Table 3-1 identifies these high-use areas and the clearance depths.
3-11 3.5 BASIS FOR TAKING ACTION
The August 2001 Action Memorandum (USACE, 2001b) reiterated the recommended remedial action of LUCs and the NTCRA for surface and subsurface clearance in selected areas to depths consistent with the risk assessment findings. It states that the accidental detonation of the OE poses the primary hazard rather than the toxic effects of the explosive or incendiary substances. Exposure to potentially explosive items may occur by unearthing the item either by forces like frost heave or excavation.
3-12 4.0 REMEDIAL ACTION
4.1 REMEDY SELECTION
Table 4-1 summarizes the selected remedy for the 24 high-use areas. It should be noted that this 5-Year Review is evaluating the effectiveness of the remedial actions made following the 2001 EE/CA and Army Action Memorandum. It is anticipated that the LUCs from the PRR-NT Action Memorandum (2001b) and the NTCRA (2006) will serve as the final remedy for the PRR-NT; however, MEC wastes remain in place, so post-response action risk management activities and long-term monitoring is required.
Table 4-1: Summary of Affected Media and Selected Remedy for the PRR-NT NTCRA
Affected Selected Remedy Media Surface and NTCRA(1) Subsurface Conduct MEC surface and subsurface clearance at the 24 high-use areas to selected depths (see MEC Table 3-1). LUCs(2) 1) Prohibit intrusive activities to minimize the possibility of accidental contact with buried MEC; and 2) Implement and maintain an educational program informing PRR-NT users and FWS employees of the MEC risk and the appropriate response actions if MEC is observed (e.g., retreat and report). Groundwater LUCs(2) Prohibit the usage of groundwater resources. Notes: FGGM = Fort George G. Meade; MEC = munitions and explosives of concern; LUCs = land use controls; PRR-NT = Patuxent Research Refuge-North Tract (1) USACE, 2001a and 2006. (2) USACE, 2001b. In accordance with the FGGM FFA (October 2009), the Army is currently preparing a Proposed Plan (PP) and Record of Decision (ROD) for selection of a Preferred Alternative for mitigating risk from MEC at the 8,100-acre PRR-NT, otherwise known as the High Explosive Impact and Disposal Area (“HEI Area”). The Army plans to address future MEC LUCs and remediation under the Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) under the HEI Area. A Land Use Control Implementation Plan (LUCIP) will be submitted to the regulators following the approval of the Record of Decision for the HEI Area. The LUCIP will consolidate the LUC requirements of the Transfer Assembly documents, the April 2001 ODA Action Memorandum (Army, 2001), the July 2000 CFD Action Memorandum (Army, 2000b), and the August 2001 PRR-NT Action Memorandum (USACE, 2001b) into one comprehensive set of LUCs for the HEI Area.
4-1 The proposed LUCs consist of the following:
Residential use of the property without evaluation of residential exposure risk will be prohibited. Residential restrictions are permanent for areas such as the ODA and other areas where MEC is likely to be concentrated or non-clearable. Intrusive activities will be prohibited to minimize the possibility of accidental contact with buried MEC. An educational program will be maintained that informs PRR-NT users and employees of the MEC risk and describes the appropriate response actions to take if MEC is observed (e.g., recognize, retreat, and report). The use of groundwater will be prohibited from the upper Patapsco aquifer for potable or non-potable use except for environmental testing until the groundwater is safe for unrestricted use. Reviews will be conducted every 5 years to ensure that the LUCs remain protective of human health and the environment. The 5-year review process will address the need for sweeps of ordnance, appropriate disposal of ordnance, and LUCs to ensure the continued protectiveness of the previous MEC removal activities and that site conditions continue to meet the NCP section 300.415(b)(2) criteria for implementing the chosen risk reduction alternative. The Army will conduct periodic inspections of the NTCRA high-use areas for MEC. The Army continues to work hand-in-hand with the PRR to develop techniques, processes, and procedures which the PRR incorporates into their daily activities to help them ensure the safety of Refuge visitors, employees, volunteers, interns, research partners, and contractors.
4.2 REMEDY IMPLEMENTATION
A NTCRA was conducted during 2003 and 2004 at the 24 high-use areas identified in the OERIA to eliminate or reduce risk from MEC to FWS visitors’ health and safety (USACE, 2006). Open areas were gridded for systematic sweep/removal, including selective brush removal in some areas. The NTCRA resulted in removal of 80 UXO items and over 6 tons of scrap metal (primarily munitions debris). Clearance activities at two areas (Ball Fields and Area G) were only partially completed. At the Ball Fields, the NTCRA encountered large quantities of munitions debris interpreted to be burial pits. Specifically, clearance within survey grids 2 and 3 containing the burial pits was suspended. The boundaries of the pits had not been determined at the time work was suspended. Due to suspension, not all magnetometer contacts were excavated. Further, USACE (2006)
4-2 indicates that the depth of unexcavated contacts below the present ground surface is not known for all contacts. Clearance within the other two ball field grids (1 and 4) was completed to the planned 4-foot clearance depth. No MEC was encountered during the Ball Field clearance effort (i.e., all cleared material was munitions debris). Soil and grass were placed to restore the playing field grade where excavation occurred, and signage warning of MEC potential, prohibiting metal detector use, and providing a phone number to report suspect MEC that might be discovered at the site was erected on ball field backstops. The Ball Fields are currently used for athletic activities. In May 2011, the USACE conducted a spring MEC sweep of the Ball Fields prior to use of the fields. The inspection showed no evidence of MEC migrating to the surface. The sweep results indicate that any potential MEC item remains a minimum of 3 feet bgs and presents no hazard (USACE, 2011a). A copy of the memorandum that documents these results is provided in Appendix D. At Area G, clearance activities were terminated by a stop-work order due to contractual disputes before the entire area was cleared. The surface of all of the 128 survey grids within Area G was cleared. However, 71 of the 128 survey grids within Area G were not fully cleared to the planned 26-inch depth. Prior to stoppage, a large quantity of spent bazooka training rounds was removed from the surface. Twenty-five (six in 2003 and 19 in 2004) UXO items were recovered from Area G before the stop-work order was issued. Area G was originally identified as “high use”, primarily because of the relatively higher density occurrence of MEC at the surface, not because of the actual level of public access or usage of the area. General public does not have access to Area G unlike other NTCRA high use areas that are frequently visited. Hunters continue to have occasional access to Area G during hunting seasons and receive PRR-NT education materials regarding MEC. The original NTCRA statement of work included review of Area H. However, prior to NTCRA completion, Area W, New Wildlife Feeding Area, was substituted for Area H because DOI judged Area W to be a higher priority. Area H is a parcel near Scout Site 1, between Wildlife Loop (a road) and the power line easement that was formerly used for crops in the wildlife management program. This land is now fallow and is restricted to hunters during the legal hunting season. Since: 1) Area H was included in the initial 8,100 acre MEC surveys and removals conducted in 1991 and 1993 and intended to reduce risks to acceptable levels (USAEC, 1994 and 1995a), and 2) assuming hunters comply with the PRR-NT education program rules, then this substitution is acceptable.
4-3 4.3 SYSTEM OPERATIONS/O&M
The implementation of the NTCRA with LUCs did not include system operations or operations and maintenance (O&M) activities. This section is not applicable for the 5-Year Review.
4-4 5.0 PROGRESS SINCE LAST REVIEW
This is the first 5-Year Review for the PRR-NT NTCRA.
5-1 Page Intentionally Left Blank
5-2 6.0 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
6.1 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPONENTS
The objective of stakeholder notification and involvement is to ensure that people and organizations impacted by the 5-year review are given the opportunity to participate in the planning and decision making process. The stakeholders involved include representatives of the DOD, PRR (DOI), EPA, Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), and the surrounding community. Table 6-1 presents key stakeholder point of contact information.
Table 6-1: Stakeholder Points of Contact
Name/E-Mail Title Organization Phone
Ms. Andrea Graham Baltimore District USACE USACE (443) 986-3444 [email protected] Project Manager Steve Cardon Ft. Meade BRAC Department of (301) 677-9178 [email protected] Environmental Coordinator the Army John Burchette Federal Remedial Project EPA (215) 814-3378 [email protected] Manager Dr. Elisabeth Green Remedial Project Manager MDE (410) 537-3346 [email protected] Brad Knudson Refuge Manager and Project PRR (DOI) (301) 497-5582 [email protected] Leader
6.2 COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION AND INVOLVEMENT
In late July 2011, public notices were placed in the Maryland Gazette (July 27, 2011), Crofton- West County (July 28, 2011), and Bowie Blade (July 28, 2011) newspapers to solicit comments from the public and are documented in Appendix C. The public comment period was in effect for 30 days and ended August 29, 2011. Appendix C contains a copy of the announcements. A copy of the 2011 Final Report will be made available in the Administrative Record and the Fort Meade Environmental Management System (EMS) website http://www.fortmeade- ems.org/public/environmental/default.asp for public review. The Administrative Record is available for public review at the following two locations: 1) Provinces Public Library 2) Environmental Management Office 2624 Annapolis Road Attn: ANME-PWE Severn, MD 21144 239 Chisholm Ave, Suite 5115 Phone: (410) 222-6280 Fort Meade, MD 20755 Hours: Mon, Tue, and Thu: 1:00 to 9:00 pm; Phone: (301) 677-9648 Wed and Sat: 9:00 am to 5:00 pm; and Hours: 7:30 am to 4 pm (Mon - Fri) Fri: 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm Web site: www.fortmeade-ems.org
6-1 Any questions or requests for more information about the PRR and this review may be addressed to: Department of the Army John Burchette Markus Craig NPL/BRAC/Federal Facilities Branch Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for EPA Region III Installation Management; BRAC Division 1650 Arch Street NC3-Taylor Building; 5064-A Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 2530 Crystal Drive Phone: (215) 814-3378 Arlington, VA 22202 Phone: (703) 545-2474
Dr. Elisabeth Green Andrea Graham Project Manager, Federal Facilities Division, Program Manager, Environmental and Land Restoration Program Munitions Design Center Maryland Department of the Environment USACE 1800 Washington Boulevard; Suite 625 ATTN: CENAB-EN-HM Baltimore, MD 21230-1719 10 South Howard Street, 10th Floor Phone: (410) 537-3346 Baltimore, MD 21201 Phone: (443) 986-3444
6.3 DOCUMENT REVIEW
A review of relevant historic documents describing MEC occurrence and management at the PRR-NT was conducted as part of this 5-Year Review. They are as follows:
Fort George G. Meade, Ordnance Survey (1400-Acre Parcel), Final Report. Prepared by International Technology Corporation (ITC), June (USAEC, 1994).
Fort George G. Meade, Anne Arundel County, Maryland, Ordnance Survey, 7600 Acre Parcel, Final Report. Prepared by OHM Remediation Services Corp. (OHM), December (USAEC, 1995a).
Fort George G. Meade BRAC Parcel, UXO Survey and Data Analysis, Final Report. June [USAEC, 1997a].
Action Memorandum: Safety Precautions to Be Taken at Clean-Fill Dump, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland. Final. July (Army, 2000b).
Action Memorandum: Safety Precautions to Be Taken at Ordnance Demolition Area, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland. Final. April (Army, 2001).
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Report for the Patuxent Research Refuge North Tract, Laurel, Maryland, June (USACE, 2001a).
6-2 Action Memorandum for the Patuxent Research Refuge North Tract, Laurel, Maryland. August (USACE, 2001b).
Final, Site Specific Final Report, Non-Time Critical Ordnance and Explosives Removal Action at the Department of Interior, North Tract Area, Fort George G. Meade, Anne Arundel County, Maryland. June (USACE, 2006).
6.4 DATA REVIEW AND EVALUATION
Table 6-2 summarizes the data review findings for the response actions implemented at the PRR- NT NTCRA.
Table 6-2: Evaluation of NTCRA Response Action
Response Action Issues Recommendations NTCRA at the 24 high- Clearance activities at the Ball In May 2011, the USACE conducted a spring use areas Fields were not completed. MEC sweep of the Ball Fields prior to use of the EPA expressed concern that the fields. No evidence of MEC migrating to the soil cover at the Ball Fields surface was observed. The sweep results indicate may not be adequate. that any potential MEC item remains a minimum of 3 feet bgs and presents no hazard. The PRR will continue to enforce their UXO education program so that the visiting public is informed that MEC and munitions debris are potentially present. Clearance activities at Area G A surface clearance was performed for the entire were not completed due to Area G and clearance to 26 inches was completed contractual disputes. in 38 of the 128 grids. The PRR-NT Refuge Manager has recently stated that this action is sufficient for this area since it is closed to PRR-NT hunters and visitors. The EPA expressed concern for FGGM has coordinated with the FWS to develop hunters that go off beaten trails an UXO Management Plan for the PRR-NT that may be exposed to areas not outlines a prudent UXO safety education program cleared of MEC from the that helps ensure Refuge users are aware of UXO NTCRA. and act accordingly. When potential MEC is identified, the FWS are notified; the FWS personnel flag the item and remain at the location until EOD support arrives. LUCs The EPA requested clarification The Army plans to submit a PP, ROD, and LUCIP of the groundwater LUCs for for the HEI Area. The LUCs will be clearly the PRR-NT. defined in these documents.
6.5 SITE INSPECTION
A site inspection was conducted in conjunction with the November 3, 2008 interviews during which representative NTCRA areas were inspected. Prominent signage at the Ball Fields warned of the possibility of UXO and provided contact telephone numbers in the event suspect UXO is
6-3 encountered. The mandatory DOI registration form at the Visitor Contact Station includes a notice of possible risk from UXO and provides instructions to notify PRR management if an item is discovered. Portions of several trails and the Wildlife Loop were visited during June and July 2008, prior to the November 2008 5-Year Review interviews. At that time there were no indications of uncontrolled intrusive activity or soil erosion. Weekday visitor traffic (foot, bicycle) was observed on the paved Wildlife Loop and on gravel surfaced trails running west from Wildlife Loop. UXO information was available at the Visitor Contact Center, and an illustrated notice was erected beside the trail head at New Marsh. As an improvement to visitor facilities, PRR-NT has renamed several of the trails and changed the designation of one area included in the NTCRA. This 5-Year Review retains the original naming; Table 6-3 relates the names used in this report to the new names.
Table 6-3: PRR-NT Areas of Concern Name Changes
New Name Old Name (PRR-NT 2008) (NTCRA 2003) Whip-poor will Way Yellow Trail Sweetgum Trail Red Trail Wild Turkey Way Orange Trail, Blue Trail (part), Green Trail (part) South Road Blue Trail (part) Kingfisher Road Green Trail (part) Range 11 Area G
6.6 INTERVIEWS
URS Group, Inc. (URS) interviewed PRR personnel on November 3, 2008 and Mr. Tim Dignin with Tetra Tech, Inc. on November 11, 2008.
6.6.1 PRR Interviews URS interviewed PRR personnel on November 3, 2008 at the PRR-NT Educational Classroom Building on Wildlife Loop. In attendance were Fred Moose and Bill Eaton from URS, and several PRR Staff: Dionne Briggs (Refuge Operations Specialist), Lisa Goncalves (Education Team), Amanda Hardaswick (Law Enforcement Officer), Brad Knudsen (Project Leader / Refuge Manager), Nancy Morrissey (Deputy Refuge Manager), and Holliday Obrecht III (Refuge Biologist). Interview questions are listed below, along with the consensus responses: 1. Have site conditions changed since the NTCRA was conducted? Site conditions have not materially changed since the NTCRA was conducted. However, it was noted that Explosive
6-4 Ordnance Disposal (EOD) support for PRR-NT is no longer locally staffed out of Fort Meade because Fort Meade no longer has an EOD Unit. The EOD Unit that supports PRR-NT now comes from the more distant Fort Belvoir. Consequently, EOD response times are longer and cause longer disruption of PRR-NT operations when MEC is reported to PRR-NT personnel (typically by a hunter with authorization to access PRR-NT property outside the 24 NTCRA areas). Minor site usage changes identified include:
The Stables are no longer in use; accordingly MEC exposure potential is decreased.
The Hunter Contact Station (HCS) was not identified as one of the 24 NTCRA high-use areas. In retrospect, it possibly should have been considered because hunters frequent this station. However, the hunters are aware of the MEC exposure hazards at PRR-NT since they have authorized access to large areas beyond the boundaries of the 24 NTCRA high-use areas. Therefore, exclusion of the HCS from the NTCRA is not a major concern.
At Boy Scout Area Number 1, fishing is now allowed, which may encourage a slightly higher usage.
An Environmental Education (EE) Trail is planned proximate to the old Range 17 (Trap & Skeet Range 17), which will encourage an increase in use. One mitigating factor is that this trail will only be used for guided tours and will not be open to the general public.
A probable pending land use decrease involves the ASP, which is currently used by the NSA. The NSA is planning to terminate its use of the ASP. If this occurs, hunters may then be permitted to have access to the ASP. The land use decrease by NSA will, therefore, be offset somewhat by future hunter usage.
The Upland Dog Training Area is likely to be decommissioned, which will decrease land use there. 2. Is the response functioning as intended? Yes, evidenced by the fact that no MEC has been reported by any PRR-NT user for any of the 24 NTCRA areas. 3. Are the response action assumptions still valid? Yes. The primary protective measures are still in place and include: 1) prohibition of excavation without MEC avoidance support; 2) the requirement for an MEC education program to inform all land users of the inherent MEC hazards; and 3) avoidance/reporting requirements. 4. Does new information indicate that the previously selected response no longer minimizes explosive safety risks or is no longer protective of human health, safety, and the environment considering the best available technology? No. No new information has come to light that
6-5 the selected remedy is no longer minimizing the MEC risks or is not being protective of human health, safety, and the environment at the 24 high-use areas. 5. What is your overall impression of the project? Overall, the NTCRA continues to function as intended. 6. What effects have site operations had on the surrounding community? Implementation of the NTCRA required the establishment of safe distances associated with managing MEC. The members of the surrounding community who use PRR-NT were restricted from accessing the safe zones and, therefore, their use of PRR-NT was temporarily restricted. The long-term impact on the community is that they are unable to have unrestricted access to all of the PRR-NT because of known residual MEC. 7. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and administration? If so, please give details. Community members who use the PRR-NT sometimes complain about the prohibitions to accessing all of the PRR-NT. 8. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing, or emergency responses from local authorities? Trespassing is known to occur. Trespassers bypass the educational program that advises PRR-NT users of the inherent MEC hazards, access restrictions, and MEC avoidance and reporting requirements. 9. Do you feel well informed about the site’s activities and progress? Overall, yes. However, PRR-NT has some concern that they may not have received all final copies of Army- sponsored environmental investigation reports involving PRR-NT. 10. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site’s management or operation? PRR notes that, under ideal circumstances, the Army would remove all MEC. However, PRR appreciates that this is technically impractical. The remedial program that has been implemented (LUCs, MEC educational program, and focused near-surface MEC sweeps/removal) appears to be a reasonable alternative to 100 percent MEC removal. PRR Staff also noted that residual MEC affects PRR-NT plans to accommodate new programs such as increasing New Marsh habitat by deepening the pond via dredging and providing fish a better opportunity to survive year-round. Also, MEC avoidance will be required to develop new interpretive trails near the former Trap and Skeet Range (old Range 17) and the Visitor Contact Station. Other issues discussed during the interviews were:
The 24 high-use areas for the NTCRA were selected based on consideration of likelihood of visitation by PRR-NT users and the types of activities visitors would engage in. The
6-6 selection process also considered the stability of the site (i.e., erosion potential) and the expected types of munitions based on historic land use information.
There have been no reports of MEC discovery in any of the NTCRA areas subsequent to implementation of the NTCRA.
MEC continues to be discovered in non-NTCRA areas by DOI staff and hunters. Hunters are the only visitors given access to the non-NTCRA property. For example, trail users are restricted to the established trails.
Concern was expressed that MEC in the Little Patuxent River might be washed downstream to beyond the southern limit of where the annual river sweep is conducted (Old Forge Bridge), thus requiring expansion of the river sweep scope. URS explained that based on the most recent USA Environmental, Inc. annual river sweep report (USA, Environmental, Inc. 2008) all MEC finds have been restricted to the area far upstream of the Old Forge Bridge and, therefore, expansion of the river sweep scope to the area south of Old Forge Bridge isn’t supported by these findings.
6.6.2 Mr. Tim Dignin Interview A telephone interview was conducted on November 11, 2008 with Tetra Tech’s Mr. Tim Dignin, the geophysicist who conducted the EM61 investigation for the NTCRA. He had information concerning investigation of the Ball Fields and Area G. Regarding the Ball Fields, Mr. Dignin stated that the daily reports from the ball field during excavation indicated that all metallic objects were inert. Because of the high concentration of metallic items, it was thought that burial pits had been encountered. The EM61 results were unable to delineate the extent of pits, and intrusive work was halted before natural soil was encountered (i.e., the suspect burial pits were not completely excavated). Regarding Area G, Mr. Dignin stated that the high concentration of aluminum practice rounds on the surface of Area G made investigation with the EM61 impossible. Therefore, a high sensitivity cesium magnetometer was used to search for ferromagnetic targets. Numerous magnetic targets were encountered, and 25 UXO items were recovered during the partial clearance of Area G.
6.6.3 Mr. Brad Knudsen Interview An email interview was conducted on August 30, 2011 with FWS’s Mr. Brad Knudsen, who answered questions about access to the PRR-NT.
6-7 Areas where FWS feel the most trespass occurs include the 1) North Tract BG&E power line right-of-way near Baltimore-Washington Parkway, 2) north tract Amtrak area by Charlie Gate, 3) along Little Patuxent River near 5th Avenue access (swimming and fishing), 4) softball fields along Highway (Hwy) 198, and 5) near the Bald Eagle Drive entrance during the hunting season and after the North Tract Visitor Center closes (when thegate is left open for hunter access). Trespassing is generally by people bypassing (i.e., "bushwhacking") past closed/locked gates on foot, bicycle, or all-terrain vehicles. The softball fields are adjacent to heavily traveled Hwy 198, and are outside of refuge gates, so people often stop to run their dog, play catch, or access Little Patuxent River to fish. Knudsen estimates that from March to August, there are 4 trespassers per day; from September through November, there are 2 trespassers per day; from December through February, there is 1 trespasser per day at the PRR-NT. Knudsen and FWS personnel estimate that roughly 990 trespassers cross the boundaries of the PRR-NT each year.
6-8 7.0 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
7.1 QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? Yes. The PRR-NT NTCRA with LUCs response actions are generally functioning as intended. The effective implementation of LUCs has prevented exposure to MEC at the 24 high-use areas and the groundwater restrictions have prevented exposure to groundwater contaminants above remediation goals that allow for unrestricted use.
7.2 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? Yes. Originally, the MEC clearance activities at the Ball Fields and Area G did not meet the specified depths of the NTCRA remedy. Work stopped at the Ball Fields after the burial pits were encountered (i.e., burial pits were not anticipated in the original work order) and contractual disputes (funding and scope issues) occurred with Area G. the In May 2011, the USACE conducted a spring MEC sweep of the Ball Fields prior to use of the fields. No evidence of MEC migrating to the surface was observed. The sweep results indicate that any potential MEC item remains a minimum of 3 feet bgs and presents no hazard (USACE, 2011a). The EPA expressed concern for hunters that may go off beaten trails and be exposed to areas not cleared of MEC from the NTCRA remedy. The PRR recognizes that it is technically impractical to remove 100 percent of the MEC in areas not addressed under the NTCRA remedy. Therefore, the Army has coordinated with the FWS to develop an UXO Management Plan for the PRR-NT that outlines a prudent UXO safety education program that helps ensure that PRR users are aware of UXO and act accordingly. The PRR-NT Refuge Manager has recently stated that the NTCRA (2006) MEC clearance to 26 inches in 38 of the 128 grids at Area G is sufficient for this area since it is closed to PRR-NT hunters and visitors. The Army has identified the following RAOs and plans to document them in the PP and ROD for the HEI Area (i.e., PRR-NT):
Prevent human exposure to contaminants of concern in groundwater which exceed remedial goals established at levels which poses an unacceptable risk to human health.
Allow for future use of the property as a wildlife research refuge to be compatible with the probable continued presence of UXO by providing for the ability of Refuge visitors, employees, volunteers, interns, research partners, and contractors to safely conduct activities with minimal risk from encounter with UXO.
7-1 Ensure these measures and any explosive ordnance disposal response action(s) taken remain protective of human health and the environment.
7.3 QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? No. No new information was identified that would lead to the conclusion that the current response actions are considered no longer protective.
7.4 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY The data review, the site inspection, and the interviews indicate that the remedy is functioning as intended. No changes in the physical conditions of the PRR have occurred that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy. No new information calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy. The Army has sufficiently addressed the concerns of the incomplete implementation of the NTCRA remedy at the Ball Fields and Area G.
7-2 8.0 ISSUES
Table 8-1: Issues Identified at the PRR-NT NTCRA
Affects Protectiveness? (Y/N) Issue Current Future Clearance activities at the Ball Fields were not completed. EPA Y Y expressed concern that the soil cover at the Ball Fields may not be adequate. Clearance activities at Area G were not completed due to Y Y contractual disputes. The EPA expressed concern for hunters that go off beaten trails Y Y and may be exposed to areas not cleared of MEC from the NTCRA. The MDE expressed concern that the only regulatory Y N notification procedure for discovery of MEC at the BRAC sites within the PRR-NT is through the 5-Year Review process.
8-1 Page Intentionally Left Blank
8-2 9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS
Table 9-1 presents recommendations and follow-up actions to ensure the protectiveness of the selected remedy for the PRR-NT NTCRA. The regulatory feedback on this 5-year review process is presented in Appendix D.
9-1 Table 9-1: Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions for the NTCRA High-Use Areas
Affects Protectiveness? Party Oversight Issue Recommendations/ Follow-up Actions Milestone Date (Y/N) Responsible Agency Current Future Clearance activities at the Ball In May 2011, the USACE conducted a spring Army EPA/MDE Fiscal Year Y Y Fields were not completed. EPA MEC sweep of the Ball Fields prior to use of the 2011-2012 expressed concern that the soil cover fields. No evidence of MEC migrating to the at the Ball Fields may not be surface was observed. The sweep results indicate protective. that any potential MEC item remains a minimum of 3 feet bgs and presents no hazard. The PRR will continue to enforce their UXO education program so that the visiting public is informed that MEC and munitions debris are potentially present. The Army plans to complete the removal of the burial pits in fiscal year 2013, pending funding. Clearance activities at Area G were A surface clearance was performed for the entire Army EPA/MDE Fiscal Year Y Y not completed due to contractual Area G and clearance to 26 inches was completed 2011 disputes. in 57 of the 128 grids. The PRR-NT Refuge Manager has recently stated that this action is sufficient for this area since it is closed to PRR-NT hunters and visitors. The EPA expressed concern for FGGM has coordinated with the FWS to develop Army EPA/MDE Fiscal Year Y Y hunters that go off beaten trails and an UXO Management Plan for the PRR-NT that 2011 may be exposed to areas not cleared outlines a prudent UXO safety education program of MEC from the NTCRA. that helps ensure Refuge users are aware of UXO and act accordingly. When potential MEC is identified, the FWS are notified; the FWS personnel flag the item and remain at the location until EOD support arrives. The MDE expressed concern that The Army will provide real time reporting to EPA Army EPA/MDE Fiscal Year Y N the only regulatory notification and MDE of any MEC discoveries that occur at 2011 procedure for discovery of MEC at the BRAC sites and are reported to the Army. the BRAC sites within the PRR-NT is through the 5-Year Review process.
9-2 10.0 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT
The NTCRA remedy currently protects human health and the environment in the short-term because the LUCs protect the public from exposure to MEC and groundwater contaminants detected above preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) at the PRR-NT.
However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long term, the Army plans to submit a PP, ROD, and LUCIP to better enforce and document the protectiveness of MEC and groundwater LUCs at the PRR-NT .
The USACE has conducted a MEC sweep in May 2011 at the Ball Fields to address concerns of exposure to any remaining subsurface MEC. The results indicate that any potential MEC item remains a minimum of 3 feet bgs and presents no hazard (USACE, 2011a). See Appendix D for a copy of the letter that documents these findings.
No reports of MEC at any of the 24 NTCRA high-use areas have occurred since completion of the NTCRA. This indicates that the ordnance sweeps have effectively removed MEC from the high-use areas. Although there have been minor changes in land use (frequency with which the public is likely to visit the various high-use areas), the function of the response action has not significantly changed.
The 5-year review process will continue at the PRR-NT (HEI Area) as long as MEC and groundwater contaminants remain onsite at levels that do not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
10-1 Page Intentionally Left Blank
10-2 11.0 NEXT REVIEW
The next 5-year review will take place in 2014 with no changes to the scope of the review.
11-1 Page Intentionally Left Blank
11-2 Appendix A
References Page Intentionally Left Blank APPENDIX A: REFERENCES
United States Army (Army), 2000a. Final Record of Decision Clean Fill Dump (CFD) Operable Unit 07. September 2000. EPA/ROD/R03-00/058. Army, 2000b. Action Memorandum: Safety Precautions to Be Taken at Clean-Fill Dump, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland. Final. July. Army, 2001. Action Memorandum: Safety Precautions to Be Taken at Ordnance Demolition Area, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland. Final. April. U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), 1991, Transfer Assembly, 7,600 Acres, October 16, 1991. DOI, 1992, Transfer Assembly, 498, 2 Acres, November 17, 1992. URS Group, Inc. (URS), 2011a. Final Record of Decision, Ordnance Demolition Area, Patuxent Research Refuge-North Tract, Anne Arundel County, MD. September. URS, 2011b. Draft Combined Groundwater Operable Units (OUs) Long Term Monitoring Work Plan. Tipton Airfield Parcel, Clean Fill Dump, Ordnance Demolition Area, Anne Arundel County, MD. October. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1998. Remedial Investigation Report for Inactive Landfills 1, 2, 3 and Clean Fill Dump. ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc., August 1998. USACE, 2001a. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Report for the Patuxent Research Refuge North Tract, Laurel, Maryland, June 2001. USACE, 2001a. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Report for the Patuxent Research Refuge North Tract, Laurel, Maryland, June 2001. USACE, 2001b. Action Memorandum for the Patuxent Research Refuge North Tract, Laurel, Maryland. August 2001. USACE, 2001b. Action Memorandum for the Patuxent Research Refuge North Tract, Laurel, Maryland. August 2001. USACE, 2002a. Fort George G. Meade Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Plan for Clean Fill Dump (CFD) Operable Unit (OU). Final Document, February 2002. USACE, 2002b. Fort George G. Meade, Remedial Investigation Report, Ordnance Demolition Area, Volume 1 – Text. Final Document prepared for USACE, Baltimore District, Baltimore, Maryland by IT Corporation, June 2002. USACE, 2003. Fort George G. Meade, Long-Term Monitoring Plan, Ordnance Demolition Area, Patuxent Research Refuge, Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Final document prepared for USACE, Baltimore District, Baltimore, Maryland by URS Group, Bethesda, Maryland, July 2003. USACE, 2005. Final Five-Year Review for the Clean-Fill Dump Operable Unit Fort George G. Meade Anne Arundel County, Maryland. December 2005.
A-1 USACE, 2006. Final, Site Specific Final Report, Non-Time Critical Ordnance and Explosives Removal Action at the Department of Interior, North Tract Area, Fort George G. Meade, Anne Arundel County, Maryland. June 2006. USACE, 2011a. Memorandum from Paul E. Green, the Explosive Safety Manager of USACE- Baltimore District addressed to the Department of the Army. Subject: Instrument Assisted Visual Inspection of the Tipton Airfield Inactive Landfill 3 and Ball Field, May. USACE, 2011b. Fort George G. Meade Legacy Base Realignment and Closure Program Long- Term Monitoring Report, 2010 Little Patuxent River Sweep. Final, Prepared by URS Group, Inc., February. U.S. Army Environmental Center (USAEC), 1992a. Fort George G. Meade Base Closure Parcel Site Inspection Study, Vols. I and II. Final. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. Sparks, MD, 21152. USAEC, 1992b. Fort George G. Meade Active Sanitary Landfill and Clean Fill Dump Remedial Investigation Report. Final. Kilmer, K., et al, EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., Sparks, MD, December 1992. USAEC, 1994, Fort George G. Meade Ordnance Survey, 1400-Acre Parcel, Final Report, Prepared by International Technology Corporation, June 1994. USAEC, 1995a. Final Report Ordnance Survey-7,600-Acre Parcel Fort George G. Meade, Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Prepared by OHM Remediation Services Corp, December 1995. USAEC, 1995b. Fort George G. Meade Base Closure Parcel Site Inspection Study Addendum. Prepared by Arthur D. Little, Inc. December 1995. USAEC, 1997a. Fort George G. Meade BRAC Parcel, UXO Survey and Data Analysis, Final Report. Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), June. USAEC, 1997b. Remedial Investigation Addendum: Fort George G. Meade Feasibility Study and Remedial Investigation/Site Inspection. Fort George G. Meade, Maryland. Final. Arthur D. Little, Inc. Cambridge, MA, May 1997. USA Environmental, Inc., 2008. Addendum 7, Site Specific Final Report for the Non-Time Critical Ordnance and Explosives (OE) Removal Action Long Term Monitoring, Little Patuxent River; Fort George G. Meade, Maryland. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District. Contract No: W912WJ-05-D-0005, Delivery Order No: DA07. Draft. October 17, 2008.
A-2 Appendix B
Site Inspection Checklist Page Intentionally Left Blank Site Inspection Checklist
I. SITE INFORMATION Site name: PRR-NT, NTCRA Date of inspection: Nov 3, 2008 Location and Region: PRR-NT, EPA Region 3 EPA ID: MD0910020567 Agency, office, or company leading the five-year Weather/temperature: Slightly overcast, Temperature review: Bill Eaton with URS Corporation in the lower 50s Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply) Monitored natural attenuation ڙ Landfill cover/containment ڙ Groundwater containment ڙ Access controls ڛ Vertical barrier walls ڙ Institutional controls ڛ Groundwater pump and treatment ڙ Surface water collection and treatment ڙ Other: Non-Time Critical Removal Action (NTCRA) in 2006 ڛ ______
Site map attached ڙ Inspection team roster attached ڙ :Attachments II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply) See Main Report Section 6.6 1. O&M site manager ______Name Title Date ______.by phone Phone no ڙ at office ڙ at site ڙ Interviewed ______Report attached ڙ ;Problems, suggestions ______
2. O&M staff ______Name Title Date ______.by phone Phone no ڙ at office ڙ at site ڙ Interviewed ______Report attached ڙ ;Problems, suggestions ______
Site Inspection Checklist - 1 3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply.
Agency ______Contact ______Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; Report attached ______
Agency ______Contact ______Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; Report attached ______
Agency ______Contact ______Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; Report attached ______
Agency ______Contact ______Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; Report attached ______
4. Other interviews (optional) Report attached.
Site Inspection Checklist - 2 III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply) 1. O&M Documents N/A ڛ O&M manual Readily available Up to date N/A ڛ As-built drawings Readily available Up to date N/Aڛ Maintenance logs Readily available Up to date Remarks______
N/A ڛ Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan Readily available Up to date .2 N/A ڛ Contingency plan/emergency response plan Readily available Up to date Remarks______
N/A ڛ O&M and OSHA Training Records Readily available Up to date .3 Remarks______4. Permits and Service Agreements N/A ڛ Air discharge permit Readily available Up to date N/A ڛ Effluent discharge Readily available Up to date N/A ڛ Waste disposal, POTW Readily available Up to date N/A ڛ Other permits______ Readily available Up to date Remarks______
N/A ڛ Gas Generation Records Readily available Up to date .5 Remarks______
N/A ڛ Settlement Monument Records Readily available Up to date .6 Remarks______
N/A ڛ Groundwater Monitoring Records Readily available Up to date .7 Remarks______
N/A ڛ Leachate Extraction Records Readily available Up to date .8 Remarks______9. Discharge Compliance Records N/A ڛ Air Readily available Up to date N/A ڛ Water (effluent) Readily available Up to date Remarks______
N/A ڛ Daily Access/Security Logs Readily available Up to date .10 Remarks______
Site Inspection Checklist - 3 IV. O&M COSTS 1. O&M Organization State in-house Contractor for State PRP in-house Contractor for PRP Contractor for Federal Facility ڙ Federal Facility in-house Other______2. O&M Cost Records Up to date ڙ Readily available ڙ Funding mechanism/agreement in place Original O&M cost estimate______ Breakdown attached NO O&M CURRENTLY OCCURS Total annual cost by year for review period if available
From______To______ Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From______To______ Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From______To______ Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From______To______ Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From______To______ G Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost
3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period Describe costs and reasons: ______
Applicable N/A ڛ V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS A. Fencing
Gates secured N/A ڛ Fencing damaged Location shown on site map .1 Remarks: The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) controls access to the PRR-NT. Information regarding MEC hazards are distributed at the gates of the PRR-NT. Some fence segments located between the ball fields and the Little Patuxent River have fallen down. B. Other Access Restrictions 1. Signs and other security measures Location shown on site map N/A Remarks The UXO education program informs all land users of the inherent MEC hazards. Also signs are posted at the Ball Fields back stops .
Site Inspection Checklist - 4 C. Institutional Controls (ICs) 1. Implementation and enforcement No N/A ڛ Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented Yes No N/A ڛ Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced Yes
Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by) Site visit/inspection Frequency 5 years Responsible party/agency U.S. Army Contact Steve Cardon Ft Meade BRAC Coordinator 9/20/10 301-677-9178 Name Title Date Phone no.
Yes No N/A ڛ Reporting is up-to-date Yes No N/A ڛ Reports are verified by the lead agency
Yes No N/A ڛ Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met No N/A ڛ Violations have been reported Yes Other problems or suggestions: Report attached ______
ICs are adequate ICs are inadequate N/A ڛ Adequacy .2 Remarks______D. General
No vandalism evident ڛ Vandalism/trespassing Location shown on site map .1 Remarks______
N/A ڛ Land use changes on site .2 Remarks______
N/A ڛ Land use changes off site .3 Remarks______VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
Applicable N/A ڛ A. Roads
N/A ڙ Roads adequate ڛ Roads damaged Location shown on site map .1 Remarks: Refuge management maintains some of the former military roads for access, but the other roads were allowed to return to natural conditions. Some damage to roadway was noted on Wildlife Loop (See Draft Final CFD 5-Year Review Report).
Site Inspection Checklist - 5 B. Other Site Conditions Remarks Several of the trails were renamed as follows:
New Name Old Name (PRR-NT 2008) (NTCRA 2003) Whip-poor will Way Yellow Trail Sweetgum Trail Red Trail Wild Turkey Way Orange Trail, Blue Trail (part), Green Trail (part) South Road Blue Trail (part) Kingfisher Road Green Trail (part) Range 11 Area G
MEC clearance activities at two areas (Ball Fields and Area G) were only partially completed. At the Ball Fields, the NTCRA encountered large quantities of munitions debris interpreted to be burial pits. Specifically, clearance within survey grids 2 and 3 containing the burial pits was suspended. The boundaries of the pits had not been determined at the time work was suspended. Due to suspension, not all magnetometer contacts were excavated. At Area G, clearance activities were terminated by a stop-work order before the entire area was cleared. The surface of all of the 128 survey grids within Area G was cleared. However, 71 of the 128 survey grids within Area G were not fully cleared to the planned 26-inch depth. Access to Area G is restricted to hunters during the legal hunting season.
N/A ڛ VII. LANDFILL COVERS Applicable A. Landfill Surface 1. Settlement (Low spots) Location shown on site map Settlement not evident Areal extent______Depth______Remarks______2. Cracks Location shown on site map Cracking not evident Lengths______Widths______Depths______Remarks______3. Erosion Location shown on site map Erosion not evident Areal extent______Depth______Remarks______4. Holes Location shown on site map Holes not evident Areal extent______Depth______Remarks______5. Vegetative Cover Grass Cover properly established No signs of stress Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram) Remarks______6. Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) N/A Remarks______
Site Inspection Checklist - 6 7. Bulges Location shown on site map Bulges not evident Areal extent______Height______Remarks______
8. Wet Areas/Water Damage Wet areas/water damage not evident Wet areas Location shown on site map Areal extent______ Ponding Location shown on site map Areal extent______ Seeps Location shown on site map Areal extent______ Soft subgrade Location shown on site map Areal extent______Remarks______9. Slope Instability Slides Location shown on site map No evidence of slope instability Areal extent______Remarks______B. Benches Applicable N/A (Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined channel.) 1. Flows Bypass Bench Location shown on site map N/A or okay Remarks______2. Bench Breached Location shown on site map N/A or okay Remarks______3. Bench Overtopped Location shown on site map N/A or okay Remarks______C. Letdown Channels Applicable N/A (Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill cover without creating erosion gullies.) 1. Settlement Location shown on site map No evidence of settlement Areal extent______Depth______Remarks______2. Material Degradation Location shown on site map No evidence of degradation Material type______Areal extent______Remarks______3. Erosion Location shown on site map No evidence of erosion Areal extent______Depth______Remarks______
Site Inspection Checklist - 7 4. Undercutting Location shown on site map No evidence of undercutting Areal extent______Depth______Remarks______5. Obstructions Type______ No obstructions Location shown on site map Areal extent______Size______Remarks______6. Excessive Vegetative Growth Type______ No evidence of excessive growth Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow Location shown on site map Areal extent______Remarks______D. Cover Penetrations Applicable N/A 1. Gas Vents Active Passive Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs Maintenance N/A Remarks______2. Gas Monitoring Probes Properly secured/locked G Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs Maintenance N/A Remarks______3. Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill) Properly secured/locked G Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs Maintenance N/A Remarks______4. Leachate Extraction Wells Properly secured/locked G Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs Maintenance N/A Remarks______5. Settlement Monuments Located Routinely surveyed N/A Remarks______
Site Inspection Checklist - 8 E. Gas Collection and Treatment Applicable N/A 1. Gas Treatment Facilities Flaring Thermal destruction Collection for reuse Good condition Needs Maintenance Remarks______2. Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping Good condition Needs Maintenance Remarks______3. Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings) Good condition Needs Maintenance N/A Remarks______F. Cover Drainage Layer Applicable N/A 1. Outlet Pipes Inspected Functioning N/A Remarks______2. Outlet Rock Inspected Functioning N/A Remarks______G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds Applicable N/A 1. Siltation Areal extent______Depth______ N/A Siltation not evident Remarks______2. Erosion Areal extent______Depth______ Erosion not evident Remarks______3. Outlet Works Functioning N/A Remarks______4. Dam Functioning N/A Remarks______
Site Inspection Checklist - 9 H. Retaining Walls Applicable N/A 1. Deformations Location shown on site map Deformation not evident Horizontal displacement______Vertical displacement______Rotational displacement______Remarks______2. Degradation Location shown on site map Degradation not evident Remarks______I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge Applicable N/A 1. Siltation Location shown on site map Siltation not evident Areal extent______Depth______Remarks______2. Vegetative Growth Location shown on site map N/A Vegetation does not impede flow Areal extent______Type______Remarks______3. Erosion Location shown on site map Erosion not evident Areal extent______Depth______Remarks______4. Discharge Structure Functioning N/A Remarks______
N/A ڛ VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS Applicable 1. Settlement Location shown on site map Settlement not evident Areal extent______Depth______Remarks______2. Performance Monitoring Type of monitoring______ Performance not monitored Frequency______ Evidence of breaching Head differential______Remarks______
Site Inspection Checklist - 10 N/A ڛ C. Treatment System Applicable 1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply) Metals removal Oil/water separation Bioremediation Air stripping Carbon adsorbers Filters______ Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent)______ Others______ Good condition Needs Maintenance Sampling ports properly marked and functional Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date Equipment properly identified Quantity of groundwater treated annually______ Quantity of surface water treated annually______Remarks______2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional) N/A Good condition Needs Maintenance ڛ Remarks______3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels N/A Good condition Proper secondary containment Needs Maintenance ڛ Remarks______4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances N/A Good condition Needs Maintenance ڛ Remarks______5. Treatment Building(s) N/A Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) Needs repair ڛ Chemicals and equipment properly stored Remarks______6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy) Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition N/A ڛ All required wells located Needs Maintenance Remarks D. Monitoring Data 1. Monitoring Data Is of acceptable quality ڙ Is routinely submitted on time ڙ 2. Monitoring data suggests: Contaminant concentrations are declining ڙ Groundwater plume is effectively contained ڙ
Site Inspection Checklist - 11 D. Monitored Natural Attenuation 1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy) Good condition ڙ Routinely sampled ڙ Functioning ڙ Properly secured/locked ڙ N/A ڛ Needs Maintenance ڙ All required wells located ڙ Remarks
X. OTHER REMEDIES If there are remedies applied at the site which are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction. XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS A. Implementation of the Remedy Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.). The NTCRA remedy currently protects human health and the environment in the short-term because the LUCs protect the public from exposure to MEC and groundwater contaminants detected above preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) at the PRR-NT. The USACE conducted a MEC sweep in May 2011 at the Ball Fields to address concerns of exposure to any remaining subsurface MEC at the AOC. The results indicate that any potential MEC item remains a minimum of 3 feet bgs and presents no hazard. No reports of MEC at any of the 24 NTCRA AOCs have occurred since completion of the NTCRA. This indicates that the ordnance sweeps have effectively removed MEC from the AOCs. Although there have been minor changes in land use (frequency with which the public is likely to visit the various AOCs), the function of the response action has not significantly changed. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long term, the Army plans to submit a PP, ROD, and LUCIP to better enforce and document the protectiveness of the LUCs that address MEC and groundwater usage at the PRR-NT (HEI Area). The 5-year review process will continue at the PRR-NT (HEI Area) as long as MEC and groundwater contaminants remain onsite at levels that do not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.. B. Adequacy of O&M Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy. There are currently no O&M activities occurring.
Site Inspection Checklist - 12 C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high frequency of unscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised in the future. 1. Clearance activities at the Ball Fields were not completed. EPA expressed concern that the soil cover at the Ball Fields may not be adequate. 2. Clearance activities at Area G were not completed due to contractual disputes. 3. The EPA expressed concern for hunters that go off beaten trails and may be exposed to areas not cleared of MEC from the NTCRA. D. Opportunities for Optimization Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
1. In May 2011, the USACE conducted a spring MEC sweep of the Ball Fields prior to use of the fields. No evidence of MEC migrating to the surface was observed. The sweep results indicate that any potential MEC item remains a minimum of 3 feet bgs and presents no hazard. 2. The PRR will continue to enforce their UXO education program so that the visiting public is informed that MEC and munitions debris are potentially present. 3. A surface clearance was performed for the entire Area G and clearance to 26 inches was completed in 38 of the 128 grids. The PRR-NT Director has recently stated that this action is sufficient for this area since it is closed to PRR-NT hunters and visitors. 4. The Army has coordinated with the FWS to develop an UXO Management Plan for the PRR-NT that outlines a prudent UXO safety education program that helps ensure Refuge users are aware of UXO and act accordingly. When potential MEC is identified, the FWS are notified; the FWS personnel flag the item and remain at the location until EOD support arrives.
Site Inspection Checklist - 13 Appendix C
Public Notices [Available on CD] Page Intentionally Left Blank MARYLAND GAZETTE, Wednesday , July 27 , 2011 — A3 Arundel Digest stabbing death of Anthony the restrooms at 7:58 a.m. 3 killed on area Liberto, 43, of Glen Burnie. The worker radioed for roads Saturday HEAT HALTS THE MUSIC Long was eating inside the help from a ranger, who McDonald’s restaurant in arrived by 8 a.m. The MILLERSVILLE — Three the 7300 block of Baltimore- ensuing search included people suffered fatal injuries Annapolis Boulevard, at the looking for the child on Saturday in separate road Cromwell Field Shopping foot, driving north along the accidents in Pasadena, Center, at about 6:40 p.m. beach in the direction of the Annapolis and Shady Side. when Liberto came to a current and a “chain search” • Terry Elvin Potts, 26, window and yelled for him of the water, which involved of Glen Burnie suffered to come outside, according people holding hands and fatal injuries when his car to court documents. walking a straight line in the veered off the road and Armed with a pipe and a Chesapeake Bay. SaQuan was found by a struck a utility pole just knife, Liberto went outside and confronted Long, who volunteer in the bay about before 3 a.m. on Shady 144 yards north of the spot also had a knife in hand. Side Road. He died Sunday where he was last seen. The men argued and chased afternoon at the Maryland “We want to reinforce each other around the Shock Trauma Center in with everyone that when parking lot. Long fell down Baltimore, said Margery they visit a state park, they and Liberto struck him with Cox , his grandmother. have to be aware of their the pipe. Police said Potts was surroundings and their own Long got up and Liberto personal safety,” Bushman behind the wheel of a fell down. Police said Long silver 2002 Saturn, when said. “When they have stabbed Liberto in the back children with them, they it left the roadway shortly while he was down. have to monitor them.” before 3 a.m. A preliminary investigation indicates that Review: Procedure Cordish kicks off speed may have played a factor in the crash, police followed in drowning career program said. SANDY POINT — The HANOVER — With a Potts, an electrician by child who drowned on goal of developing future trade, was mostly likely on Independence Day at Sandy local business leaders, The Point State Park had his way to work when the Cordish Cos. kicked off a wandered hundreds of yards accident occurred, Cox said. youth program this week away from his family — so that will give children He worked a second job far that the adults would not better insight into career at Skipper’s Pier in Deale. have been able to see him. opportunities. Family members suspect That’s according to a The Leaders of Tomorrow that he may have fallen Maryland Park Service youth program has three asleep at the wheel. review released Monday. sessions. As part of each Potts moved to Glen Offi cials found park workers session, youth will get Burnie from Churchton a followed their action plan together once a week for four few years ago with his wife, for a missing child, said consecutive weeks. Lt. Col. Chris Bushman, Alyssa. The couple have a There, they will hear deputy superintendent of the daughter who will turn 2 in community leaders and Maryland Park Service. businessmen give insight August. According to the report, into their jobs and • About 3:30 a.m. Jasmine 6-year-old SaQuan Lamontre motivation for the future, Yvonne Owens, a 20-year- Kennedy’s family had arrived organizer Glinda Harris said old woman from Upper at the park, located just Monday. Marlboro, died after being north of the Bay Bridge, Harris plans to bring thrown from her 2001 Chevy by 5:50 a.m. Before 8 a.m., representatives from the Malibu near the eastbound SaQuan was with two other construction and banking span of the South River children, ages 7 and 9, who industries to speak to the were playing with a ball Bridge, state police said. kids, but also administrators, about 260 yards away from motivational speakers, Owens lost control of her the family’s picnic area. By Katrina Williams — For the Maryland Gazette pastors and others, she said. car and struck a concrete The waterfront where they The heat wave fi nally broke Sunday, followed by a thunderstorm and drop in humidity Children in the Leaders barrier. The vehicle spun were playing was obscured Monday. The threat of violent storms Sunday caused the General Federation of of Tomorrow program back into the road and was by buildings and trees, the Women’s Clubs Woman’s Club of Linthicum Heights to cancel its Concerts in the Park were selected through a then struck by a 1999 Dodge report said. event. The series resumes this Sunday with Sixth Generation. Concerts take place at community outreach effort in The children told the Durango , police said. The 6 p.m. at Benton Ave Park in Linthicum. For more details, see the Community Digest Meade Village. adults in their group that crash caused Owens’ car to on Page B2. fl ip several times. they saw SaQuan in the Updates • At about 6:45 p.m. water, waving for help, then he disappeared. The Follow breaking news all James Alton Cockrell, 52, of shifts from District 7 to 4. County Council later this fast food restaurant, a adults searched for about 15 week long at MDGazette.com, Pasadena, was killed when A few south county year. spokeswoman for the county residents have asked State’s Attorney’s Offi ce minutes before summoning www.Facebook.com/ his motorcycle left Nabbs that Crofton, a suburban Manslaughter plea said. the help of a park MDGazette and Twitter, Creek Road and crashed @mdgazette. community of about Roland Michael Long, maintenance employee near into the woods near Francis 25,000, be excised from the in fatal stabbing 39, who last resided at the Road. rural District 7 because ANNAPOLIS — A homeless Arundel House of Hope Police said Cockrell and politicians elected from man is expected to plead on Crain Highway, was two other motorcyclists there cater only to Crofton’s guilty to manslaughter charged in late December were traveling west on concerns. Thursday in the fatal with second-degree murder Nabbs Creek and had Any changes to boundary stabbing of another homeless and manslaughter in the reached a sharp curve in lines will be decided by the man outside a Glen Burnie the road when a car coming in the other direction crossed the center line. Cockrell braked but went off the road into the trees, where he was thrown from his homemade bike, police said. He was declared dead on the scene. Cockrell was not wearing a helmet. A second biker, also 52 and also from Pasadena, was treated at shock trauma and released. So far this year, county police have reported 18 fatal wrecks. Redistricting debate centers on Crofton ANNAPOLIS — Crofton still has center stage in the debate on redrawing Anne Arundel’s seven County Council legislative districts. On Monday night, the fi ve-member commission charged with presenting recommendations concluded its second and fi nal public hearing. A handful of people weighed in on whether Crofton should be aligned with western county communities or with the rural stretches of Anne Arundel’s southern end. “We’re turning to you for any issues or suggestions that you’d like to bring to us,” Charter Revision Commission Chairwoman Jana H. Carey told the crowd of about a dozen at the Arundel Center. Although balancing the population of each district could be accomplished by adjusting a few boundary lines between western and northwestern districts, some residents have pushed for more sweeping changes that would radically change Districts 1 and 2 in north county, as well as Crofton A6 — CROFTON-WEST COUNTY GAZETTE, Thursday , July 28 , 2011 Replacing heat pump system will save money in long run
own a house with a $7,000. I leads me to my questions. — in my case 15 years. compare it to what happens That’s pretty darn effi cient 15-year-old heat pump. need to Do heat pumps really need It seems like you should today. Heat pumps have and to do that the heat pump I Recently the unit make a to be replaced at such an be able to repair the unit a reputation for lasting engineers had to go to a stopped defrosting. I called decision early age? many times before you will from 8 to 12 years — in my different coolant and had to a service technician to now. Everyone I talk to ever match the cost of experience — on average. redesign the units — both inspect the unit. He said Generally seems to say heat pumps replacing it. I know many Some last longer — some inside and out. The new stuff the part that controls speaking, generally only last about furnaces last for 30+ years. less. — R410A — is incompatible the defrost cycle is not I liked my 10 to 12 years. Anything Our society seems to be a That’s because they do with the old Freon (R22) working and must be heat pump. more and you are on very “disposable” society double duty — both heating equipment and operates at replaced. The estimated ON THE It has been borrowed time. Everyone these days. Wouldn’t it be and cooling. Those furnaces twice the pressures. That’s cost is about $350. LEVEL reliable and tells me that the service wise to invest money into that you eye enviously why both units have to be However, due to the age By Jim economical. technician is right repairing the heat pump, lasting 30 years plus are replaced. of my heat pump system, Rooney I have — replace the unit, don’t rather than replacing it? only working less than half Pouring money into your the service technician relatively fi x the part. Do you feel that both the time the heat pump does old unit is not economical recommended replacing low monthly I don’t get why a units should be replaced — no air conditioning — so in the short or the long my entire unit — inside utility bills and the unit heat pump should need as a “matching set”? Or proportionately the heat run in view of the new and outside. The cost does a good job both in complete replacement can you just replace one pump’s right up with them. requirements. You could of replacement is about winter and summer. Which after only 10 to 12 years unit at a time? My outside When I see a heat pump nurse your old soldier along unit is the one with the working well at the age of with $350. here and $200 problem. The inside unit is yours I always say the good there for maybe a couple of fi ne. Although it is even news is, it’s still working years or so and then your older than the outside unit and bad news is, it’s still technician will come out, — probably 20+ years old. working. The older a heat examine at the unit and But once again, everyone pump is in today’s world the deliver the bad news — it’s seems to tell me the same more electricity it will use to thing — replace both units. do its job. shot and that’s all there is I don’t seem to understand There is a formula that to it. the logic behind replacing is used in the industry to Now all the money you put both units. calculate the energy in into the older unit is money against the heating and gone under the bridge and I’m going to echo the cooling that comes out of you’re right at square one advice of your service it. It called the SEER rating for the new unit, which by provider and the other wise and means seasonal energy then may cost even more people with whom you’ve effi ciency rating. You see than the quote you heard consulted. I must tell you, them written on the sides of today. however, that your 15-years- the newer units and they are So go ahead and get on old compressor / condenser numbers that used to hover board with the replacement that alerted to its problem around 10. system and keep a sharp eye by frosting up has done its The SEER number on your heating and cooling job and doesn’t owe anybody indicates the amount of bills — I’ll bet you’ll be anything. It has served you electricity that goes into the pleased. well but it’s time for it to go unit against the amount of for a couple of reasons. heating or cooling capacity ——— Sure, it seemed to you to that comes out — the Keep the mail coming. If work well and operate at a higher the number the more you’ve got a question, tip, or level that did not weaken effi cient it is. Your 15 year comment let me know. Write your bank account, but all old unit is probably under “On The Level,” c/o The things are relative. 10. As of January 2006 every Capital, PO Box 3407, An- Let us look at it in its unit sold in the U.S. had to napolis, MD 21403 or e-mail 15-year time frame and be at least SEER 13 or better. [email protected]. ANNOUNCEMENTS Senior citizens Army Field Band in a business seminar from 10 a.m. to noon Aug. 6 at the Glenn Dale Senior Citizen The summer concert series West County Library, 1325 Association will meet at noon featuring the U.S. Army Annapolis Road in Odenton. Monday at St. George’s Epis- Field Band kicks off with the copal Church, Glenn Dale Jazz Ambassadors at 7 p.m. The topics of “Your Bot- and Lanham-Severn roads. Aug. 6 at Fort George G. tom Line Can Work for Bring a sandwich; coffee and Meade, Constitution Park. You” include effi cient cash The series continues with dessert are provided. fl ow, treasury management, the Band and Chorus on For more information, call Aug. 13, The Volunteers on borrowing, key person insur- 301-390-6640. Aug. 20 and a concert mark- ance, small business and MS support group ing the 65th anniversary of self-employed tax concerns, the band on Aug. 27. and employee tax concerns. Bowie / Crofton Multiple For more information, call A light breakfast will be Sclerosis Support Group will 301-677-6587. served. meet at 7:30 p.m. Aug. 4 at the Knights of Columbus Business seminar For registration and Hall, 6111 Columbian Way. New Life Fellowship Inter- more information, call For more information, call national Ministries invites 410-850-5767 or email 301-464-5153. area businesses to take part nlfi [email protected]. POLICE BEAT Hotel held up A man who implied he was armed held up the Red Crown Inn in Laurel early Monday morning, county police said. The man, who had his shirt wrapped around his arm as if he had a weapon, entered the hotel in the 3400 block of Laurel-Fort Meade Road at 3:58 a.m. and then the booth where a clerk was working. Once inside the booth, the suspect took money from the cash register drawer and ran off. Police searched the area to no avail. The suspect is African American, 5 feet 8 inches tall and 200 pounds. He may have some scars on his back. He was wearing blue jeans, and white socks but no shoes, police said. Cyclist injured County police said a 40- year-old woman was fl own to shock trauma after her motorcycle was struck by a minivan in Crofton Sunday evening. The woman’s black Suzuki motorcycle was hit shortly after 5 p.m. at the intersec- tion of Quarterfi eld and Queenstown roads. Quarterfi eld road was closed until about 7 p.m. while emergency crews and police worked the scene. The driver of the motor- cycle, who was not identifi ed, suffered serious and life- threatening injuries. A2 — BOWIE BLADE-NEWS, Thursday , July 28 , 2011 POLICE BLOTTER POLICE BEAT Below is a list of calls for July 19, 5:48 a.m. — 3400 July 21, 7:30 a.m. — 3900 DUI arrest charged with driving under from the cab driver. When service in the Bowie/Glenn block Estonia Drive block Ettrick Court the infl uence of alcohol and/ the driver refused, Coving- July 19 at 7:05 a.m., a Bowie or drugs and several other Dale/Mitchellville areas. The July 23, 7:21 a.m. — 3600 July 22, 6:26 p.m. — 3900 ton punched him in the face police offi cer stopped a vehi- related charges and released and all three suspects fl ed. times listed are the times the block Elder Oaks Boulevard block Town Center Boule- calls were received and not cle for a minor traffi c offense to a family member. Melvin Covington was arrested July vard necessarily the times the inci- Thefts in the area of Annapolis and has a drug possession charge 20 and is in the County Cor- July 22, 6:59 p.m. — 12500 Laurel-Bowie roads. While and two traffi c cases pending rectional Center on a $75,000 dents occurred. July 18, 1:26 p.m. — 4300 block Caswell Lane speaking with the driver, the in Worcester County. bond pending an Aug. 17 block Collington Road Breaking/enterings July 23, 7:51 a.m. — 3700 offi cer detected a strong odor court date. July 18, 3:03 p.m. — 3300 of an alcoholic beverage on block Irongate Lane Attempted robbery arrest July 18, 1:58 p.m. — 3900 block Crain Highway the breath of the driver. The A suspect wanted for an National Night Out block Winchester Lane July 18, 3:22 p.m. — 3300 July 23, 9:53 p.m. — 3300 driver was given and failed a attempted armed robbery July 19, 7:12 a.m. — 3000 block Crain Highway block Crain Highway battery of Standardized Field The Bowie Police Depart- block Belair Drive July 18, 5:33 p.m. — 12400 July 24, 11:53 a.m. — 100 Sobriety Tests and was placed in Bowie May 24, has been ment will celebrate National arrested. Albert Davon Cov- July 19, 12:20 p.m. — 1500 block Keynote Lane block Whitemarsh Park under arrest. The driver, Night Out Tuesday, Aug. July 18, 8:30 p.m. — 10200 ington, 19, was wanted for 2, from 6 to 8 p.m. at Al- block Perrell Lane Drive Travis James Melvin, 20, of July 19, 4:44 p.m. — 16200 block Chautauqua Avenue the attempted robbery of a len Pond. The event will July 24, 12:59 p.m. — 4600 Berlin, Md., was transported block Pond Meadow Lane July 19, 6:08 a.m. — 16000 to District III station where cab driver in the 14600 block include police displays, child July 20, 2:27 p.m. — 3600 block English Oaks Avenue block Mitchellville Road a Breathalyzer test revealed of London Lane. According fi ngerprinting, free child ID block Elder Oaks Boulevard July 19, 6:41 a.m. — 3500 a .00 blood alcohol content to the victim, he was sent to cards and crime prevention July 22, 1:10 p.m. — 12700 block Emperor Court Thefts from vehicles level. As a result of negative an address on London Lane information as well as booths and was approached by three block Midwood Lane July 19, 6:45 a.m. — 6100 July 18, 7:51 a.m. — 3700 reading on the Breathalyzer for local merchants. Children block High Bridge Road test, Melvin was evaluated individuals, one of which can meet Spiderman and July 23, 8:34 p.m. — 4100 block Eightpenny Lane block Chelmont Lane July 19, 4:21 p.m. — 2200 by a Drug Recognition Ex- was identifi ed as Covington. there will be a moon bounce block Davit Court July 20, 8:26 p.m. — Piller pert. Based on the results of Covington displayed a hand- and free food courtesy of lo- Robberies July 19, 6:04 p.m. — 8600 Lane/Peach Walker Drive the evaluation, Melvin was gun and demanded money cal merchants. block Normal School Road July 23, 5:51 a.m. — 16500 July 20, 4:55 p.m. — 4800 July 20, 10:48 a.m. — 100 EDUCATION BRIEF block Glenn Dale Road block Governor Bridge Road block Whitemarsh Park July 23, 4:56 p.m. — 12700 July 22, 11:54 p.m. — 15400 stalking prevention. Partners in Peace program Drive block Midwood Lane Partners in Peace block Annapolis Road July 20, 12:25 p.m. — 100 In August, the Wellness also established a manda- block Whitemarsh Park July 23, 5:39 p.m. — 12700 Increasing awareness of Center will sponsor sexual tory education program Stolen vehicles Drive block Midwood Lane sexual violence is critical assault prevention training for all incoming students July 18, 4:30 p.m. — 16400 July 20, 2:38 p.m. — 15900 July 24, 8:13 a.m. — 4500 to preventing such offenses through a partnership with pertaining to the preven- block Pennsbury Drive block Excalibur Road block Running Deer Way across the country, particu- the Maryland Coalition tion of sexual assault, larly on college campuses. Against Sexual Violence relationship violence and At Bowie State University, and the University of Mary- stalking on campus. During FIRE LOG the Henry Wise Wellness land College Park, targeting the fall semester, sexual Center has established Bowie State and UMCP stu- violence workshops will be Calls for service Co. 39 (Free State) — 32 Co. 816 (Northview) — 52 a sexual assault preven- dents, faculty and staff. The held during freshman semi- EMS calls and 21 fi re/rescue tion program, Partners in Green Dot Training Insti- nar and human sexuality July 16-22 calls Peace, to raise awareness tute will train individuals courses and in conjunction EMS calls and 41 fi re/rescue Co. 43 (Mitchellville) — 30 and train the campus com- to use an approach towards with campus programming. Co. 19 (Old Bowie) — 14 munity to be advocates in sexual violence preven- Training for resident as- EMS calls and 11 fi re/rescue EMS calls and 19 fi re/rescue domestic violence, dating tion that utilizes peer and sistants is scheduled for calls calls calls violence, sexual assault and cultural infl uences. The Aug. 18. STREET SWEEPING SCHEDULE CITY BRIEF BOWIE CABLE TV
Street sweeping contin- townhouses, Enfi eld/Pin Old Stage, Overbrook, Sad- Following is the daily and 7 p.m.— Bowie News & Grants Sunday listing for Bowie Views ues through October, with Oak Village, Glen Allen, dlebrook, Tulip Grove, Vic- The deadline to apply for Cable Channel 77 on Comcast 7:30 p.m.— An Educational each street being cleaned Mitchelleville East, North- and Verizon Channel 11: Moment toria Heights, Yorktown the Community Outreach approximately every seven view, Oakpond, Oaktree, 8 a.m.— Ed Brown Show 8 p.m.— Talk of the Town weeks. Please remove cars Palisades Sept. 5 — Ensleigh, Ess- Grants has been extended 8:30 a.m.— The Awakening 8:30 p.m.— Veterans Forum to Friday, Sept. 2. Ap- 9 a.m.— Bowie News & 9 p.m.— Cause for Paws from the roadway when Aug. 15 — Belair Greens, ington, Heather Hills, Hun- cleaning is scheduled for Collington Station, Dev- plications are available at Views 9:30 p.m.— Rising Spivey www.cityofbowie.org/Forms/ 9:30 a.m.— Rising Spivey 10 p.m.— Community Bul- your neighborhood. The onshire, Fairview, Gradys tington Crest/Rolling Hills, COCGrant.pdf. 10 a.m.— An Educational letin Board schedule is as follows: Walk, Grovehurst, High- Long Ridge, Old Chapel, Moment 11 p.m.— Road Games Aug. 1 —Amber Mead- bride Park, Huntington, Old Chapel Estates, Princ- 10:30 a.m.— How to Survive 11:30 p.m.— Green Light ows, Ashleigh, Greystone, Northridge, Stewarts Land- in a Bad Economy Sunday programming Pointer Ridge, Ridgeview ing, Westview, Woodmore eton Square, Rockledge, CHANNEL 71 11 a.m.— Allen Ponds Con- 7:30 a.m.— Meditation cert 8 a.m.— Ask Rev Lee Estates, Tall Oaks, Tern- Highlands Whitehall 11:30 a.m.— Allen Ponds 9 a.m.— Christian Forum Programming on the City berry, Woodmore Estates Aug. 22 — Belair Town I, Sept. 12 — Buckingham, Concert 10 a.m.— Apostolic Forum Aug. 8 — Allen Pond, Meadowbrook, Somerset of Bowie Government Chan- Noon — Community Bul- 11 a.m.— Sing to the King Collington Manor, Coving- Aug. 29 — Belair Town Derbyshire, Kenilworth, nel Comcast 71/Verizon 10 letin Board 11:30 a.m.— In His Service ton Manor, Enfi eld Chase II, Chapel Forge, Idlewild, Science Center, Vistas includes: 1 p.m.— Ed Brown Show Noon — Ask Rev Lee Sunday, 7 p.m. — Allen 1:30 p.m.— The Awakening 1 p.m.— Christian Forum 2 p.m.— Bowie News & 2 p.m.— Victory Through Pond concert live Views the Word Aug. 1, 8 p.m. — City 2:30 p.m.— How to Survive 2:30 p.m.— Apostolic Forum Council meeting live in a Bad Economy 3:30 p.m.— Sing to the King Aug. 3, 7 p.m. — Rerun 3 p.m.— Veterans Forum 4 p.m.— Meditation 3:30 p.m.— An Educational 4:30 p.m.— In His Service Aug. 1 City Council meet- Moment 5 p.m.— Ask Rev Lee ing 4 p.m.— Talk of the Town 6 p.m.— Christian Forum Programming may 4:30 p.m.— Cause for Paws 7 p.m.— Apostolic Forum also be viewed at 5 p.m.— Road Games 8 p.m.— Sing to the King 5:30 p.m.— Loves Golden 9 p.m.— Ask Rev Lee www.cityofbowie.org. Click Age 9:30 p.m.— Meditation on Live & Archive Video, 6 p.m.— Ed Brown Show 10 p.m.— Christian Forum then live streaming. 6:30 p.m.— The Awakening 11 p.m.— Sing to the King Appendix D
Regulatory Response to Comments Table, Acceptance Letters, and Ball Fields Inspection Memorandum Page Intentionally Left Blank DRAFT FINAL FIRST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT, PATUXENT RESEARCH REFUGE-NORTH TRACT, NON-TIME CRITICAL ORDNANCE AND EXPLOSIVES REMOVAL ACTION, JULY 2011, ARMY RESPONSES TO REGULATORY COMMENTS Initial Comments Comment Commenter / ORG Regulator Comment Army Response Number MDE Hazardous Waste Program Federal Facilities Division, Land Restoration Program, August 16, 2011 Army Responses dated August 29, 2011 Several times this document alludes to groundwater use restrictions, but there is not discussion of why these Table 3-3 will be added in Section 3.3, History of Contamination, that will summarize the groundwater investigations and Dr Elisabeth Green, RPM, GENERAL groundwater use restrictions are warranted. Please add text explaining why these use restrictions are in place contaminants identified at the ODA and CFD BRAC sites which are located within the PRR-NT. It will be noted that the MDE FFD 1 (type of contaminants, distribution of contaminants, etc), how groundwater use restrictions are enforced, and how groundwater contamination at these sites is addressed in separate 5-Year Review Review reports. The primary focus of groundwater concentrations are monitored to ensure that use restrictions are still necessary. this 5-Year review is the MEC contamination of the PRR-NT. Further explanation of the Stop Work Order associated with the Ball Fields and Area G needs to be provided. The Dr Elisabeth Green, RPM, document does not explain why a Stop Work Order was issued, and leaves the reader wondering whether it ws The burial pits that were discovered at the Ball Fields were not anticipated in the original work order. Work was stopped at 2 MDE FFD based on a regulatory/compliance issue or an internal Army issue. Given that this document will be in the publicly both sites due to funding and scope issues. available administrative record, this should be more fully explained. Area G was originally identified as “high use”, primarily because of the relatively higher density occurrence of MEC at the Please explain why Area G, which was originally identified as a "High-Use Area," is no longer considered an area surface, not because of actual high usage. In fact, only hunters occasionally (during hunting season) have access to Area Dr Elisabeth Green, RPM, 3 which needs complete removal to 26 inches of depth. Has the access to this site changed since the original "High- G. Further, the general public did not and does not have access to Area G. From a usage perspective, Area G is unlike MDE FFD Use Areas" were identified. other NTCRA high use areas that are frequently visited by the general public. Hunters continue to have occasional access to Area G for hunting purposes. The sentence will be modified to state the following: "…In recognition of the former use of the land as training ranges, Page 3-7, Paragraph 3, Sentence 1 ("In recognition of…"): This sentence states that "language…is found Dr Elisabeth Green, RPM, SPECIFIC documentation of the presence of MEC and the recommendation that future use of the land be compatible with the probably throughout the Patuxent Research Refuge--North Tract (PRR-NT)." Does the author intend to say "…throughout MDE FFD 1 continued presence of MEC is provided in the Transfer Assembly documents, Army Action Memorandums, UXO Education the PRR-NT literature" or perhaps "signage ...is found throughout...?" Please clarify. Program materials, CFD ROD, and ODA ROD." Dr Elisabeth Green, RPM, Page 4-1, Paragraph 2, Sentence 4 ("A Land Use Control…"): The Land Use Control Implementation Plan The sentence will be revised: "A Land Use Control Implementation Plan (LUCIP) will be submitted to the regulators 2 MDE FFD should not be submitted until a final remedy for the PRR-NT has been selected in the Record of Decision. following the approval of the Record of Decision for the HEI Area. The LUCIP will consolidate the LUC requirements…"
Page 4-3, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 (starts on p. 4-2, "Further USACE (2006) does…"): The text states that "USACE does not indicate that all unexcavated contacts were covered with clean fill." This statement is Dr Elisabeth Green, RPM, The sentence will be modified to state the following:"Further, USACE (2006) indicates that the depth of unexcavated 3 ambiguous. Does this mean that there are unexcavated contacts at the surface with no fill on top of them? If there MDE FFD contacts below the present ground surface is not known for all contacts." are unexcavated contacts at the surface, is it known whether these are metal debris or munitions and explosives of concern (MEC)? Please rewrite the text so that the intended meaning is more clear. Page 4-3, Paragraph 4, Sentence 3 ("However, 71 of the …"): The text states that 71 of the 128 survey grids The USACE (2006) NTCRA report states that the number of grids that were not completely cleared at Area G is 71 of the Dr Elisabeth Green, RPM, within Area G were not fully cleared to the 26-inch depth. Table 9-1 (page 9-2) states that only 38 of the 128 grids 4 128 grids; this information will be made consistent in the 5-Year Review Report. The information in Table 9-1 will be MDE FFD were cleared to 26-inches, indicated that 90, not 71, of the survey grids were not fully cleared. Please ensure that corrected. the text is consistent with regards to this detail. Page 4-3, Paragraph 4, Sentence 6 ("Access to Area G is restricted…"): The text states that "Access to Area G is restricted to hunters during the legal hunting season. The PRR-NT Refuge Manager has stated that the Dr Elisabeth Green, RPM, See response to MDE's general comment # 3. The text of the report will be modified to state clearly the information 5 NTCRA is sufficient for this area since it is closed to PRR-NT hunters and visitors." These two sentences appear MDE FFD presented in comment 3's response. to be contradictory. The first sentence states that access to Area G is restricted to hunters, but the second sentence states that it is closed to hunters. Please clarify. Page 6-1, Section 6.2, Paragraph 1: This paragraph states that after the Draft Final 5-Year Review is approved The Draft Final 5-Year Review report for the PRR-NT has been made available to the public. Notification was sent out in by EPA and MDE it will be released for public comments. In order to ensure that the version released for public Dr Elisabeth Green, RPM, the Maryland Gazette, Bowie Blade News, and Crofton West-County Gazette. The public comment period ends August 29, 6 comment encompasses all comments received from regulatory agencies, please send a Red Line-Strickout MDE FFD 2011. This information will be added to the 5-Year Review Report as well as a copy of the ads. The Army will send a RLSO (RLSO) version to both EPA and MDE for confirmation prior to public release. An electronic copy of the RLSO version of the report to MDE before sending out the Final report. verions is acceptable to MDE. Dr Elisabeth Green, RPM, Page 6-2, Contact information: Please correct the Suite number for Elisabeth Green. It should read "Suite 625" 7 Text will be revised, as suggested. MDE FFD not Suite "25." Brad Knudsen with PRR was contacted. He provided the following information (9/2/11): Areas where FWS feel the most Page 6-6, Interview question #8: The text states that the Fish and Wildlife Service knows that trespassing does trespass occurs include the 1) North Tract BG&E powerline right-of-way near Baltimore-Washington Parkway, 2) north Dr Elisabeth Green, RPM, occur. Trespassers bypass the educational program regarding the potential for MEC on the PRR-NT. Please 8 track Amtrak area by Charlie Gate, 3) along Little Patuxent River near 5th Avenue access (swimming and fishing), 4) MDE FFD provide more information regarding where trespassing occurs, why trespassing is taking place, and whether PRR- softball fields along Hwy 198, and 5) near the Bald Eagle Drive entrance during the hunting season and after the North NT staff have an estimate of how frequently it happens. Tract Visitor Center closes (when gate is left open for hunter access). Trespassing is generally by people bypassing/"bushwhacking" past closed/locked gates on foot, bicycle, or all-terrain vehicles (ATV). The softball fields are adajacent to heavily traveled Hwy 198, and are OUTSIDE of refuge gates, so people often stop to run their dog, play catch, or access Little Patuxent River to fish. Knudsen estimates that from March to August, there are 4 trespassers per day; from September through November, there are 2 trespassers per day; from December through February, there is 1 trespasser per day at the PRR-NT. Knudsen and FWS personnel estimate that roughly 990 trespassers cross the boundaries of the PRR-NT each year. The above information will be documented as a new interview in Section 6.6.1 in the report. Page 8-1, Table 8-1: The second two entries in this table are stated to not affect short- or long-term Dr Elisabeth Green, RPM, The "N" will be changed to "Y" in both the current and future columns for both issues. This change will also be made in 9 protectiveness. However, incomplete clearance of Area G and the potential exposure of hunters to areas not MDE FFD Table 9-1. cleared of MEC affect both short- and long-term protectiveness. Please correct table accordingly.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III, August 18, 2011 Army Responses dated August 29, 2011 Please revise the language on Page 6-1, Section 6.2., to be consistent with Exhibit 3-2 of the 5-Year Review See response to MDE comment #6. The text will be updated with the public notice information that was sent out in late July. 1 Guidance. Note that we are not necessarily asking for comments. The ads will be provided in Appendix C of the report. EPA DD http://www.epa.gov/superfund/accomp/5year/guidance.pdf.
Page 1 of 2 DRAFT FINAL FIRST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT, PATUXENT RESEARCH REFUGE-NORTH TRACT, NON-TIME CRITICAL ORDNANCE AND EXPLOSIVES REMOVAL ACTION, JULY 2011, ARMY RESPONSES TO REGULATORY COMMENTS Initial Comments Comment Commenter / ORG Regulator Comment Army Response Number EPA DD 2 Page 10-1. Please move the 4th paragraph to follow the 1st paragraph. Text will be revised, as suggested. Appendix B, Site Inspection Checklist page 12. Overall Observations. “The USACE has conducted a MEC EPA ORC 1 Text will be revised, as suggested. sweep”. Please revise to, “The USACE conducted a MEC sweep in May 2011…” Appendix B, Site Inspection Checklist page 12. Overall Observations. Final Sentence. “There is currently no EPA ORC 2 Text will be revised, as suggested. O & M activities occurring”. Please change to, “There are currently no O & M activities occurring”.
Page 2 of 2 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY BALTIMORE DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 1715 BALTIMORE, MD 21203-1715
REPLY TO ATTENTION OF
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: Instrument Assisted Visual Inspection of the Tipton Airfield Inactive Landfill 3 and Ball Field
1. On 5 and 6 May 2011 the Baltimore District Explosive Safety Staff conducted an Instrument Assisted Visual Inspection of the Inactive Landfill 3 (IAL 3) located on Tipton Airfield and the Ball Field located in close proximity to the Tipton airfield. The purpose of this inspection was to determine if erosion and/or frost heave could have resulted in migration and subsequent exposing of Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) items which could represent a hazard to personnel.
2. Both IAL 3 and the Ball Field were subjected to 100% inspection by the team. During the course of this inspection there was absolutely no evidence observed that would indicate that MEC is migrating to the surface. Results of this inspection indicate that any potential MEC item remains a minimum of 3 feet below ground surface (BGS) and presents no hazard.
2. Point of Contact for this MOR is Paul Greene, (410) 962- 6741.
PAUL GREENE Explosive Safety Manager USACE Baltimore District Lewine, Kaylin
From: Welshofer, Gretchen Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 8:56 AM To: Lewine, Kaylin Subject: FW: NTCRA 5-Yr Review DF Report (UNCLASSIFIED) Attachments: image001.jpg
Gretchen Welshofer Senior Scientist and Risk Assessor 12420 Milestone Center Drive, Suite 150 Germantown, MD 20876 Email: [email protected] Main Line: 301.820.3000 Direct Dial: 301.820.3148 Main Fax: 301.820.3409 Cell: 512.364.5922
This e-mail and any attachments contain URS Corporation confidential information that may be proprietary or privileged. If you receive this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this information and you should destroy the e-mail and any attachments or copies. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 8:02 AM To: Cardon, Steven C DOD CTR (US) Cc: Elisabeth Green; Welshofer, Gretchen; [email protected] Subject: Re: NTCRA 5-Yr Review DF Report (UNCLASSIFIED)
Steve, Looks good. Thanks! John Burchette(3HS11) Remedial Project Manager NPL/BRAC/Federal Facilities Branch U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 Phone: 215.814.3378 Fax: 215.814.5518 [email protected]
From: "Cardon, Steven C DOD CTR (US)"
1 Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE
URS in completing the NTCRA 5 Yr Review Final Report for submittal this week. However, I realized that I had not received regulatory concurrence with the DF RTCs. Please review these RTCs at your earliest convenience and respond accordingly. Best regards, Steve Cardon, CHMM BRAC Environmental Coordinator Fort Meade DPW - Environmental Division (IMND-MEA-PWE) 2212 Chisholm Ave; Suite 5115 Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-7058 (o) 301.677.9178 (f) 301.677.9001 [email protected]
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE [attachment "NTCRA DF 5y_RTCs_29Aug11.xlsx" deleted by John Burchette/R3/USEPA/US]
2 Welshofer, Gretchen
From: Cardon, Steven C DOD CTR (US)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Lis, Thanks for the quick response on the NTCRA 5 Yr RTCs concurrence. I agree that your suggestion has its merits. The Fort Meade FFA is very specific regarding the public comment schedule for some documents (ie PP and ROD), but not so for other documents (ie RI/FS and RA/RD). This could be a topic for discussion at the next informal meeting. Best regards, Steve Cardon IMND MEA PWE 301.677.9178 [email protected] Original Message From: Elisabeth Green [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 4:21 PM To: [email protected]; Cardon, Steven C DOD CTR (US) Cc: [email protected]; Gretchen Welshofer Subject: Re: NTCRA 5 Yr Review DF Report (UNCLASSIFIED) Hi Steve I concur with the responses, but I do have one follow up. This is not necessarily specific to this document, but more program wide, with regards to at what point in the process public notification takes place. With other sites I have worked with, a document is not released for public comment until all regulatory responses have been addressed, and regulators have approved an RLSO version of the document. Therefore, the public is able to view the most "final" version of the document, rather than one that is still going to have changes. In order to provide the public with the most current information, FGGM BRAC might consider adopting this policy, rather than the policy that appears to be currently in place of releasing draft final versions at the same time that the draft finals are sent to regulators. Just my two cents... Lis
1 Elisabeth Green, Ph.D. Federal Facilities Division Land Restoration Program Maryland Department of the Environment 1800 Washington Blvd., Ste. 625 Baltimore, MD 21230 1719 410.537.3346 >>> "Cardon, Steven C DOD CTR (US)"
2 High Explosive Impact and Disposal Area
tel. 301.820.3000 fax 301.820.3009 www.urscorp.com