Five Year Review Report for the Aberdeen Area, Dated September 2003”

Five-Year Review Report for the Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland

September 2003

Prepared by

Directorate of Safety, Health, and Environment Environmental Conservation and Restoration Division Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

October 21,2003

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

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

Dear Mr. Stachiw:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III has reviewed the report entitled “Five Year Review Report for the Aberdeen Area, dated September 2003”. The report was prepared to address the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 121 (c) Five Year Review requirements. EPA has reviewed this report and compared it to the OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P, Comprehensive Five Year Review Guidance (EPA, June 2001). The report generally meets the intent of EPA’s Five Year Review Guidance Document.

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

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

Celebrating 25 Years of Environmental Progress 2

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

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

Sincerely,

Abraham Ferdas, Director Hazardous Sites Cleanup Division cc. Karl Kalbacher, MDE Christine Grochowski, APGSCC Paul Leonard, EPA Kenneth P. Stachiw, APG

Celebrating 25 Years of Environmental Progress Aberdeen Proving Ground Aberdeen Area Five-Year Review September 2003

Prepared by: Reviewed by:

KENNETH P. STACHIW Environmental Engineer Chief, Environmental Conservation and Restoration Division j, 23, =mx q ‘(Date)

Concurred by: Approving Official: - ;fGl-;~~f~L.- Director, Safety, Health and Environment xputy installatidn Commander / L&-k c-3 0 tj OCT 2003 (Date) (Date) FIVE-YEARREvmwsuMMAR Y FORM

Sitename (fromWasteLAN): Aberdeen Provinq Ground/Aberdeen Area (Michaelsville Landfill, Western Boundary Study Area, Other Aberdeen Areas, Bush River Bomb Disposal Site, and Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7) EPAID (ffom WesteLAN): MD3210021355 Region: -03 State: -MD 1 City/County: Aberdeen/Harford

Remediatlon status (choose all that apply): q Under Construction J Operating J Complete Multiple OUs?* J YES o NO Construction completion date: Various Has site been put into reuse? 4 YES J No

Authorname: Naren Desai Authortitle: Project Officer AuthorAffiliatIon: Department of Army Review period? Various Date(s) of site inspection: Various Type of review: (Statutory 0 Policy (o Post-SARA o Pre-SARA q NPL-Removal only D Non-NPL Remedial Action Site q NPL State/Tribe-lead o Regional Discretion) Review number: J 1 (first) o 2 (second) o 3 (third) o Other (specify) Triggering action: J Actual RA Onsite Construction western Boundary o Actual RA Start Study Area, Bush River Bomb Disposal Site. Abbey q Previous Five -Year Review Report Point Shoreline Piles 3 throuah 7) J Construction Completion (Michaelsville Landfill) .f Other (specify) APG request [Other Aberdeen Areas)

Triggering action date (From WasteLAN): Various Due date (five-years after triggering action date): October 2 0 0 3

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

Deficiencies:

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

Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions:

Michaelsville Landfill

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

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

Western Boundary Study Area (WBSA)

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

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

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

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

OU 3 - Contains all other media in the WBSA OU 1 and OU 2 areas, including soil, sediment. and surface water: A soil removal action was also performed at the Aberdeen Fire Training Area (AFTA) between 1992 and 1994. In order to address detected soil contamination, three excavation events were undertaken during this period and more than 12,500 tons of contaminated soil were removed from the AFTA.

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

1 Other Aberdeen Areas

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

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

Two studies, Phase I and Phase II, were completed at selected sites. The Phase I study was performed at 36 OAA sites (excludes OAA Sites 23,28f, 29,32, and 33). Based upon an evaluation of the Phase I investigation, no further investigation was required at 11 sites (Sites 6,7, 8,10,14,15, 19,24,26c, 28a, and 28b). The remaining 25 OAAs evaluated during the Phase I investigation required various types of further investigation.

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

Bush River Bomb Disposal Site

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

Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7

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

2 Protectiveness Statement(s):

Michaelsville Landfill

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

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

Western Boundary Study Area

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

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

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

Other Aberdeen Areas

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

Bush River Bomb Disposal Site

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

3 Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 Through 7

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

4 CONTENTS

Page

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

1. INTRODUCTION 1-l

2. MICHAELSVILLE LANDFILL 2-l 2.1 Site Chronology 2-l 2.2 Site Background 2-2 2.2.1 Physical Characteristics 2-2 2.2.2 Land and Resource Use 2-2 2.2.3 History of Contamination 2-2 2.2.4 Initial Response 2-3 2.2.5 Basis for Taking Action 2-3 2.3 Remedial Actions 2-6 2.3.1 OU 1: Michaelsville Landfill 2-6 2.3.1.1 Remedy Selection 2-6 2.3.1.2 Remedy Implementation 2-7 2.3.1.3 Operation and Maintenance 2-7 2.3.1.4 Progress Since Last Five-Year Review 2-7 2.3.2 OU2: Michaelsville Landfill Groundwater and Other Media 2-8 2.3.2.1 Remedy Selection 2-8 2.3.2.2 Remedy Implementation 2-8 2.3.2.3 Operation and Maintenance 2-8 2.4 Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review 2-9 2.5 Five-Year Review Process 2-9 2.5.1 Administrative Components 2-9 2.5.2 Community Notification and Involvement 2-9 2.5.3 Document Review 2-9 2.5.4 Data Review 2-10 2.5.5 Site Inspection 2-10 2.5.6 Interviews 2-12 2.6 Technical Assessment 2-12 2.6.1 OU1 : Michaelsville Landfill 2-12 2.6.2 OU2: Michaelsville Landfill Groundwater and Other Media 2-14 2.7 Issues 2-16 2.8 Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions 2-16 2.9 Protectiveness Statements 2-16 2.10 Next Review 2-17

3. WESTERN BOUNDARY STUDY AREA 3-1 3.1 Site Chronology 3-1 3.2 Site Background 3-1 3.2.1 Physical Characteristics 3-2 3.2.2 Land and Resource Use 3-2

i CONTENTS (continued)

Page

3.2.3 History of Contamination 3-4 3.2.4 Initial Response 3-5 3.2.5 Basis for Taking Action 3-7 3.3 Remedial Actions 3-8 3.3.1 OU1 3-9 3.3.1.1 Remedy Selection 3-9 3.3.1.2 Remedy Implementation 3-9 3.3.1.3 Operation and Maintenance 3-9 3.3.1.4 Progress Since Last Five-Year Review 3-9 3.3.2 OU2 3-9 3.3.2.1 Remedy Selection 3-9 3.3.2.2 Remedy Implementation 3-10 3.3.2.3 Operation and Maintenance 3-10 3.3.2.4 Progress Since Last Five-Year Review 3-10 3.3.3 OU3 3-10 3.3.3.1 Remedy Selection 3-10 3.3.3.2 Remedy Implementation 3-10 3.3.3.3 Operation and Maintenance 3-11 3.3.3.4 Progress Since Last Five-Year Review 3-11 3.4 Five-Year Review Process 3-11 3.4.1 Administrative Components 3-11 3.4.2 Community Notification and Involvement 3-11 3.4.3 Document Review 3-11 3.4.4 Data Review 3-12 3.4.5 Site Inspection 3-13 3.4.6 Interviews 3-14 3.5 Technical Assessment 3-15 3.5.1 OU1 3-15 3.5.2 OU2 and OU3 3-17 3.6 Issues 3-18 3.7 Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions 3-l8 3.8 Protectiveness Statements 3-18 3.8.1 Next Review 3-19

4. OTHER ABERDEEN AREAS 4-1 4.1 Site Chronology 4-15 4.2 Site Background 4-15 4.2.1 Physical Characteristics 4-15 4.2.2 Land and Resource Use 4-15 4.2.3 History of Contamination 4-16 4.2.4 Initial Response 4-16 4.2.5 Basis for Taking Action 4-19 4.3 Remedial Actions 4-20 4.4 Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review 4-20 4.5 Five-Year Review Process 4-20

ii CONTENTS (continued)

4.5.1 Administrative Components 4-20 4.5.2 Community Involvement 4-20 4.5.3 Document Review 4-21 4.5.4 Data Review 4-21 4.5.5 Site Inspection 4-21 4.5.6 Interviews 4-21 4.5.7 Technical Assessment 4-22 4.5.8 Issues 4-22 4.5.9 Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions 4-22 4.5.10 Protectiveness Statement 4-22 4.5.11 Next Review 4-22

5. BUSH RIVER BOMB DISPOSAL SITE 5-1 5.1 Site Chronology 5-l 5.2 Site Background 5-1 5.2.1 Physical Characteristics 5-l 5.2.2 Land and Resource Use 5-1 5.2.3 History of Contamination 5-1 5.2.4 Initial Response 5-2 5.2.5 Basis for Taking Action 5-2 5.3 Remedial Actions 5-2 5.3.1 Remedy Selection 5-2 5.3.2 Remedy Implementation 5-3 5.4 Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review 5-4 5.5 Five-Year Review Process 5-4 5.5.1 Administrative Components 5-4 5.5.2 Community Notification and Involvement 5-4 5.5.3 Document Review 5-4 5.5.4 Data Review 5-4 5.5.5 Site Inspection 5-5 5.5.6 Interviews 5-5 5.6 Technical Assessment 5-5 5.7 Issues 5-6 5.8 Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions 5-6 5.9 Protectiveness Statements 5-6 5.10 Next Review 5-6

6. ABBEY POINT SHORELINE PILES 3 THROUGH 7 6-1 6.1 Site Chronology 6-l 6.2 Site Background 6-1 6.2.1 Physical Characteristics 6-1 6.2.2 Land and Resource Use 6-l 6.2.3 History of Contamination 6-2 6.2.4 Initial Response 6-2 6.2.5 Basis for Taking Action 6-3 6.3 Remedial Actions 6-3 6.3.1 Remedy Selection 6-3 6.3.2 Remedy Implementation 6-4

iii CONTENTS (continued)

6.4 Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review 6-6 6.5 Five-Year Review Process 6-4 6.5.1 Administrative Components 6-6 6.5.2 Community Notification and Involvement 6-6 6.5.3 Document Review 6-6 6.5.4 Data Review 6-6 6.5.5 Site Inspection 6-6 6.5.6 Interviews 6-7 6.6 Technical Assessment 6-7 6.7 Issues 6-7 6.8 Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions 6-7 6.9 Protectiveness Statements 6-7 6.10 Next Review 6-7

REFERENCES

APPENDIX A: MICHAELSVILLE LANDFILL INSPECTION RECORDS

LIST OF FIGURES

Number Title 1-1 Location Map of Aberdeen Proving Ground. 1-2 Site Location Map, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 2-1 Site Location Map, Michaelsville Landfill, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. 2-2 Michaelsville Landfill Sampling Locations, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. 3-1 Location of WBSA and Areas Within the WBSA, Western Boundary Study Area, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. 3-2 Site Map Depicting the Location of the Harford County Production Wells and the TCE Plume, Western Boundary Study Area, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. 3-3 WBSA Post-ROD Groundwater Monitoring Locations, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. 4-l Other Aberdeen Area Sites, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. 5-1 Site Location Map, White Phosphorus Underwater Munitions Burial Area, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. 6-1 Site Location Map, Bush River Bomb Disposal Site, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. 7-1 Site Location Map, Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 Through 7, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.

iv LIST OF TABLES

Number Title

2-1 Chronology of Site Events. 2-2 Historic Detections in Groundwater Equal to or Exceeding Comparison Criteria at Monitoring Locations. 2-3 Historic Detections in Surface Water and Sediment Equal to or Exceeding Comparison Criteria at Monitoring Locations. 2-4 Recommendations. 3-1 Chronology of Site Events. 3-2 Western Boundary Study Area - OU1 , Summary of Post-ROD Groundwater Sample Results. 3-3 Key to Abbreviations, Data Qualifiers, and Other Notations Used in the Data Tables. 3-4 Changes in Chemical-Specific Standards. 3-5 Changes in Action-Specific Requirements. 4-1 Chronology of Site Events, Other Aberdeen Areas, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. 4-2 Summary of OAA Groundwater Sample Exceedances. 4-3 Summary of OAA Surface Water Sample Exceedances. 4-4 Summary of OAA Soil Sample Exceedances. 4-5 Summary of OAA Sediment Sample Exceedances. 4-6 Summary of Site 2 Soil Sample Exceedances. 4-7 Summary of Site 2 Sediment Sample Exceedances. 5-1 Chronology of Site Events. 6-1 Chronology of Site Events. 7-1 Chronology of Site Events.

v LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

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

vi LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)

GAC Granular Activated Carbon gal Gallon(s) GATE German Ammunition Train Explosion GP General Physics HASP Health and Safety Plan HAZWRAP Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program HCP Harford County Production HE High Explosive HGA Hydrogeological Assessment IA Installation Assessment IAG Interagency Agreement ICF ICF Kaiser Engineers in. Inch(es) IRIS Integrated Risk Information System lb Pound(s) MCL Maximum Contaminant Level MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal MDE Maryland Department of the Environment m Meter(s) mg/kg Milligram(s) Per Kilogram mgd Million Gallon(s) Per Day MLF Michaelsville Landfill mm Millimeter(s) MMRI Munitions and Munitions-Related Items MP Monitoring Plan MSL Mean Sea Level MTBE Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether NBF New Bombing Field NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NJDEPE New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPL National Priorities List O&M Operation and Maintenance OAA Other Aberdeen Area OB/OD Open Burning/Open Detonation OBF Old Bombing Field OU Operable Unit PAA Phillips Army Airfield PAALF Phillips Army Airfield Landfill PAH Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls PCE Tetrachloroethylene PLF Phillips Army Airfield Landfill POL Petroleum/Oil/Lubricant PP Plate Pile PPb Part(s) Per Billion RAB Restoration Advisory Board RBO Remedial Action Objective vii LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)

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

viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

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

Michaelsville Landfill

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

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

Western Boundary Study Area

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

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

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

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

Other Aberdeen Areas

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

ES-1 These risk assessments will also evaluate if the removal actions (which have been performed at selected sites), access controls and other factors at these various sites ensure that there are no unacceptable exposure pathways. The exposure assumptions (toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives) which are utilized during the completion of the risk assessments shall be current and applicable to each individual site. The protectiveness statements will be dependent upon the ROD which is obtained for these sites.

Bush River Bomb Disposal Site

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

Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7

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

ES-2 1. INTRODUCTION

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

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

If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, 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 judgement of the President that action is appropriate at such site in accordance with section [104] or [106], the President shall take or require such action. The President shall report to the Congress a list of facilities for which such review is required, the results of all such reviews, and any actions taken as a result of such reviews.

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

If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or 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.

The United States (U.S.) Army, on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has conducted a five-year review of remedial actions and investigations implemented at selected sites located within the Aberdeen Area (AA), Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), Maryland (Figure l-l). This review was conducted by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA) under U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-BWXT Y-12 L.L.C. Contract No. 4300003638 for the Directorate of Safety, Health and the Environment (DSHE) from January 2002 through June 2003. This report documents the results of the review.

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

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

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

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

1-1

2. MICHAELSVILLE LANDFILL

2.1 SITE CHRONOLOGY

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

TABLE 2-1 CHRONOLOGY OF SITE EVENTS EVENT OU DATE Operation of landfill C 1969-1980 Initial discovery C May 1, 1981 Pre-NPL Activities C Recommendation to Cap 1981 (Harford County Dept. of Health) Recommendation to Impervious Cap 1985 (AEHA) Hydrogeological Assessment 1990 (WES) Removal Assessment August 18, 1989 Removal Activities Install leachate collection system 1991 Preliminary Assessment C November 1, 1980 Site Inspection C March 28, 1988 Final NPL Listing C October 4, 1989 Federal Facilities Agreement C March 1990 Record of Decision (ROD) signature OU 1 June 29, 1992 OU 2 September 23, 1997 Remedial Design Start OU 1 July 1, 1992 OU 2 October 1, 1998 Remedial Design Complete OU 1 August 15, 1992 OU 2 March 1, 1999 (monitoring plan) Construction Dates OU 1 First Cap 1983 Second Cap March 25, 1993-September 30, 1994 Remedial Action Start/Finish OU 1 March 25, 1993/September 30, 1994 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study OU 1 June 29, 1992 (RI/FS) Complete OU 2 September 23, 1997 Five Year Report OU 1 October 2002 OU 2 October 2003 Notes: AEH = Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, MDE = Maryland Department of the Environment, NPL = National Priorities List, USGS = United States Geological Survey, WES = Waterways Experiment Station, * = OU1 and OU2 are a result of addressing public water supplies and groundwater flow in the WBSA. Source: CERCLIS Site Information, http://www.epa..gov/superfund/sites/cursites/c3md/a0300423. htm, November 1999. 2-1 2.2 SITE BACKGROUND

2.2.1 Physical Characteristics

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

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

2.2.2 Land and Resource Use

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

The current land use of the surrounding area is military and includes an active firing range, a metal scrap yard, and an ammunition receiving and transfer facility. Future use scenario for the site is to maintain the site for military/industrial purposes, thus reducing the risk to people by limiting access to the site. There are no unacceptable risks presented by the contamination in the surface soil, surface water, and sediment. However, there is a potential risk from drinking groundwater; therefore, a restriction on the installation of drinking water wells within 1/4 mile of the landfill cap has been put in place.

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

2.2.3 History of Contamination

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

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

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

2-2 Island

---

1.1.1 APG Boundary

FIGURE 2-l SITE LOCATION MAP MICHAELSVILLE LANDFILL ABERDEEN AREA, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND acceptable risk for carcinogenic and non-cancer health effects. Some risk to invertebrate environmental receptors was also reported.

2.2.4 Initial Response

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

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

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

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

2.2.5 Basis for Taking Action

OUl : Michaelsville Landfill

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

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

OU2: Michaelsville Landfill Groundwater and Other Media

A summary of historical analytical detections exceeding comparison criteria in groundwater, surface water, and sediment is presented in Tables 2-2 and 2-3. Overall, compounds detected in the media around MLF appear to be stable or decreasing with few. exceptions. Analyte levels at a few sites have shown increases -the most consistent increase has been iron, manganese, and ammonia in groundwater. 2-4 Table 2-4 provides a summary of long term trends observed within groundwater, surface water, and sediment samples obtained from the MLF area.

Groundwater

Historically, groundwater has been sampled since 1980 in the MLF area. The most significant groundwater investigations include the Hydrogeological Assessment (HGA) (Miller et al. 1990) and the OU2 Remedial Investigation (RI) (Metcalf & Eddy, June 1997). A round of groundwater sampling was also completed in May 1994 that included analysis for explosives in groundwater, but explosives were not detected in these samples. For the OU2 RI, two rounds of groundwater sampling were completed in 1994 and 1995 with additional confirmatory sampling events as necessary. Groundwater samples were also obtained from selected wells in 1996 and 1997 for chemical warfare agent degradation products, In addition, groundwater sampling was conducted at selected wells in February 1999, March 2000, and March 2002 as outlined in the Post-ROD Monitoring Plan.

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

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

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

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

2-5 Table 2-2. Historic Detections in Groundwater Equal to or Exceeding Comparison Criteria at Monitoring Locations, Michaelsville Landfill, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground

c ‘NDWATER MCL or RBC May-94 Oti-94 Mar-95 Feb-99 Mer-04 Me+02 ugn ItgiL UgR ltgll u9R ugn tag/L l h-J-M-05 (UpgradIent - Shallow)

1.1,2.2-TCA -0.053 Cl <'- e1.0 Cl.0 4 Chbmform l *0.15 ~1 :‘, .:. B2.J : ,. :. 0.20

Aluminum 2.020 t.” :45$66:J~ : -3;7lO 4138. :..r;e,;l Antimony -30 q1.2 a.1 G.2 Arsenic c2 3.6 B 3.0 J 2.25 4.1 4.6 Beqilium 2.4 J co.60 eo.10 0.22 B Cadmium Co.40 9.4 Chromium 7.9 B 2.2 B 22.2 Lead 3S.Y Cl.3 14.5 Iron .. 52.eoaj ~~a60 314 .: :.:::g,679~ Manganese 14.38 24.9 B 30.3 K No Gmeadancas No Excaedances No Exwedances No Exweea~S

Ammonia MS-M-97 (Upgradient - Deep)

Chloroform “0.15 Cl -4 E 4.0 Cl.0 4 .o Wnyl Chlohds 2 Cl 0.3 J 0.6 J 0.5 J Cl.0 0.5 J No Exceedartces No Exaadanms No Exaadancas z No Excasdancas ArsanK: 10 5.3 5.7 J 6.0 3.3 J c3.1 s3.6 -_ No Exceedawes No Exwedanws No Exceedances No Exceedanws

Ammonia WES-M-10 (Downgradient - Shallow)

1.2-DCA 5 4.32 J 4

: : :+j:j 2,2’oxybis(lchforopropane) “0.26 alo: : ;;:j;i : ... ‘&J 40

Alpha BHC “0.011 co.052 <0.652 <0.05 CO.054

Arm-tic iron Manganese No Excaedanws No Exceedances No Exceedances No Exceedance

Ammonia “21 70,600. ttooo 10.000 L 20,661 LFF-Mtjj 22500 Panem . Concentration exceeds compamon tfilena ?*‘” “T+!,;& Bold wilt? Shading - Highest delected cM)CO~trahofI detectW in grOW!dwater. TES: I . Groups of anslyles included in lhts table we those identlbd es hanng one Or more screemng cntena (RBC andlor MCL) .-_. 2 WCs are reported as screenang cntena Wwn no MCL is Itsted for a pan~culsr constituent 3. &nalytes 0, groups of anatytes with results exceeding RBCs but nOt erceedlng MCLs for a pwtwlar constituenl are not losled unless it excbeded me MCL at one me II me MCL was exceeded for any sample. men resulls are presenled for all samples

Table 4 - Page I 01’ 4 Table 2-2. Historic Detections in Groundwater Equal to or Exceeding Comparison Criteria at Monitoring Locations, Michaelsville Landfill, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground

GROUNDWATER MCLor RBC” May-M O&M Mar-95 Fob49 Mar-00 Mm42 usn ug/L u9A usn Uf$L uon U@L WEB-M-12 (Downgradknt - Deep) NoExa3xbnws No Exceedames No Exceledancas NoExceedmces No Exrxedmcas 10 2.16 2.6 K <2 3.6 J 4.1 4.6 -73 11.6:“:: .:-j&j- 14.5 0 6.9 B 5.3J MJExwedarms NOEX- NOEX- NC Exceedatlces T Ammonia “21 : 4#o: : : : 3,tw : : :4$ooL~ : it+7 f: 7.w- WEB-M-13 (Downgradient - Shallow)

1.2-DCA 54111 1::::.“.’ ,.y’:$“” .“. : ;: : 2, 3 2.0 1.5 1.2-l?cP 5 4 0.8 J 0.7 B 4 4 4 Benzene 5 4.79 J 3.0 Chloroathane “3.6 .; : .;?:Sfi 4 ,: .I:c. : 7 : ;.:i:::.: .: .I -:: Vinyl Chloride 2 Cl 0.8 J 4 0.6 J 4.0 &!J

Bis(2-zhlomethyl)etheer “00096, 40

Alpha BHC “0.011 <0.055 co.055 ~0.05 CO.054

1.2~DCA 5 4 Cl 0.9 J

Table 4 - Page Z of 4 Table 2-2. Historic Detections in Groundwater Equal to or Exceeding Comparison Crlteria at Monitoring Locations, Michaelsville Landfill, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground

Q- VNDWATER MCL or RBC May-94 0694 Mar-95 Feb-99 Mar90 Mar-02 “Qfl UQk UQ,,. “QA UgR UQA UQA M-23 (Downgradient - Shallow) ‘Volatile I.l-DCE 7 4 1 4 Cl 4 Cl 1 .BDCA 5 Cl 0.7 J IJ Cl 4 4 1 ,P-DCP 5 1.61 J 1J IJ 0.9 J 0.7 J Sl Benzena 2.0 1.4 1.1 “3,; :x..;gj. : :.,.,_ 4:d Chbroathana ..::.:... 2 4.0 2.1 TCE 5 3.13 3 l.OJ 4 0.28 J Wnyi Chbride 2 1.77J I:- 0.7 J Cl.0 0.36 J No Exc8edances

Alpha BHC “0.011 co.052 <0.046 <0.05

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

Ammonia “21 : : : 32*- : : : : ,qo : : yc; ; .,:ssd:@m : : :‘. : ql WES-M-25 (Downgradient - Shallow)

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

Bis(2ethylhexyl)phlhalale 6 Cl0

Table 4 - Page 3 of 4 Table Z-2. Historic Detections in Groundwater Equal to or Exceeding Comparison Criteria at Monitoring Locations, Michaelsville Landfill, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground

GROUNDWATER MCL or RBC May-04 OCl-94 Mar-05 FOb-Bg Mar-00 Mar-02 V@L vgn vgA w UsA w w WES-M-31 (Downgradlsnl- DWP) No Excaedarfcas NoExoeedancns No Excea&nces No Excedancas

Antimony 6 lrotl l *1,100 Mangenase “73 No Excaedanoss No Exceedances No Exceadancw No Exceeba~S

Ammonia “21 WEW-34 (Downgradlent - Deep) No Exwedences No Exceedences No Excmdanax No Exwedances

Cadmium 5 lml “1.100 Manganese “73 No Exceedances No Exceedencas No Exceedences No Exwedancas

Ammonia “21 NS : 2300 : .P,Ooc. 24osL~~: :.. : &,M ,. ..:. Pattern - Cmcsntratfon exceeds comfMson criteria. B Bold with Shading - Hlghesl detected concentration detected in grounbwstsr. NOTES: 1 . Groups of analyias included in this table are those idanti%d as havtng one or more screening criteria (RBC and/or MCL). 2 . RBCs are reported as screening aitsria when no MCL is fisted for a pstiicutw constituent. 3. Analyles 01 groups of analytes with results exceeding RBCs but noI exceeding MCLs for a pwticular constihMn1 are not tieed unkss r eaae&d me MC1 a* one time. If me MCL was exceeded hx sny sampk. men resutts am presented fw *I samples.

Table 4 - Page 4 of 4 TABLL _ .4: Summary of Long Term (RI and Post-ROD) Trends Michaelsville Landfill, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground ANALYTE CLASS

Pesticide/RIB Herbicides Inoreanics

few increases - principle increases are down gradient,

2 of 6 sites with PAHs

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

Page I of 2 TABLE 2-4: Summary of Long Term (RI and Post-ROD) Trends Michaelsville Landfill, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground

ANALYTE CLASS

Chemical Agent

ILow level detections Ammonia exceedances in 10 of

Detected sporadically at Ilow levels, no criteria -

Feb. 1999 and March nitrobenzene at 2 2002 had wide spread locations in 3 post No criteria, detected Sediment detections - No Criteria ROD rounds at low levels

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

Page 2 of 2

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

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

Surface Water

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

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

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

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

2-6 Surface Soil

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

2.3 REMEDIAL ACTIONS

2.3.1 OU1: Michaelsville Landfill

2.3.1.1 Remedy Selection

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Installation and use of a gas venting system.

2.3.1.2 Remedy Implementation

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

2.3.1.3 Operation and Maintenance

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

2-7 landfill is maintained to prevent erosion. The total cost associated with OU1, including the landfill cap, is approximately $7 million. The annual cost of mowing and inspection is approximately $50,000.

2.3.1.4 Progress Since Last Five-Year Review

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

No changes or amendments have been made to the OU1 ROD. The multi-layer cap, drainage system, and gas venting system have performed adequately. The cap is currently in compliance with the MDE requirements for landfill caps and no additional activities beyond routine maintenance and inspection are necessary. The wetlands lost by the placement of the new cap were replaced by the creation of 1 acre of wooded wetlands and 1.75 acres of permanently and semi-permanently flooded emergent wetlands area. The mitigation was accomplished at two separate sites that drain into Sod Run, a tributary of the Bush River [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1997].

2.3.2 OU2: Michaelsville Landfill Groundwater and Other Media

2.3.2.1 Remedy Selection

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

2.3.2.2 Remedy Implementation

A monitoring plan (MP) was finalized in October 1998. Groundwater, surface water, and sediment beneath and surrounding the MLF were initially evaluated on an annual basis (1999 and 2000), but this was subsequently changed to bi-annual monitoring (2002). The MP also documents the procedure to certify that there have been no violations of the restriction on drinking water wells within ¼ mile of the MLF as required by the ROD for OU2. A survey has been performed annually to confirm that drinking water wells have not been installed within the restricted area. Upon completion of the surveys, APG will submit a letter to EPA Region III and MDE confirming that no drinking water wells exist within ¼ mile of the MLF. Three sampling events (February 1999, March 2000, and March 2002) have been conducted at the site since the issuance of the MP. The data obtained from these three sampling events are summarized within this five-year review.

2.3.2.3 Operation and Maintenance

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

2-8 elimination of non-critical monitoring parameters or changes in frequency, location, and number of samples. The estimated costs for future monitoring are approximately $125,000 annually.

2.4 PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW

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

2.5 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

2.5.1 Administrative Components

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

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

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

2.5.2 Community Notification and Involvement

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

2.5.3 Document Review

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

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

2-9 Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. (ESE). 198 1. Installation Assessment of Aberdeen Proving Ground-Aberdeen Area, Report No. 301, prepared for the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency (USATHAMA), Environmental and Safety Division, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.5.4 Data Review

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

2.5.5 Site Inspection

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

No significant issues were identified at any time regarding the cap, drainage structures, gas vents, or the stormwater impoundment. The vegetation on the cap was in good condition and there were no areas of significant erosion observed. 2-10

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

As part of the Post-Rod monitoring of the site, routine site inspections are performed annually by the Army. Copies of these inspection records are presented in Appendix A. As shown on these records, there have been no known violations of land use restrictions and prohibitions associated with the Michaelsville Landfill as stipulated in its associated ROD. However, as shown in Appendix A, some maintenance activity has occurred at the MLF.

2.5.6 Interviews

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

• Ms. Christine M. Grochowski, Restoration Advisory Board Community Co-Chair representing Foster Branch Homeowner’s Association, Aberdeen Proving Ground Superfund Citizens Coalition.

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

• Mr. Arlen J. Crabb

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

2.6 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

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

2.6.1 OU 1: Michaelsville Landfill

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

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

• Remedial Action Performance: The multi-layer cap, runoff collection system, and methane venting system are effective in meeting the remedial objectives for OU1 to prevent infiltration of precipitation into the landfill contents and provide for the proper venting of landfill gases. These measures have prevented further degradation of the groundwater under the landfill. There is no evidence of a contaminant plume coming from the landfill.

2-11 • Systems Operation/O&M: The O&M requirements for OUI are adequate and properly implemented. Maintenance activities are regularly conducted to ensure the integrity of the landfill cap. Long-term O&M of the landfill cap is required because the source remains in place at OU1.

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

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

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

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

The Michaelsville Landfill (OU1) complies with Code of Maryland (COMAR) Title 26.04.07.21 and 26.04.07.22. COMAR 26.04.07.22 requires inspection of the landfill at least twice a year and reporting to MDE. This regulation has not changed since the completion of the landfill. COMAR 26.17.01.11 (formerly 26.09.01.11), Sediment Control Design Standards and Specifications, has changed since the construction of the landfill. Proper maintenance of the landfill should prevent any erosion and these changes should not affect the cleanup levels or protectiveness of the remedy. Other ARARs include the regulations protecting threatened and endangered species (50 CFR Parts 400-499) and the Toxic Substances Control Act (40 CFR Part 761) with regard to PCB removal activities. These laws do not affect the protectiveness of the selected remedy. There have been no changes in ARARs or risk-related factors associated with OU1.

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

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

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

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

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

2-12 2.6.2 OU2: Michaelsville Landfill Groundwater and Other Media

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2-13 The EPA Superfund ECOTOX methodology was applied to the screening evaluation of surface water quality. The ECOTOX methodology incorporates the AWQCs, FCVs, and Tier II. Because of the uncertainty of the other values, only the AWQCs were used in the ecological risk assessment. The ECOTOX methodology has not changed since it was first published in 1996. No changes to these methods have been identified which would affect current plans for long-term monitoring in the surface water near the MLF. The COMAR 26.08.02 values for water quality for aquatic life were originally promulgated in September 1974 and were amended in October 1997. In 1998, EPA published the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. The December 1998 values are not promulgated and are intended as guidelines for the states in the development of state regulations, and the states are given a period of 5 years to develop such regulations.

The Region III RBCs and Biological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG) Screening Levels for flora and fauna, EPA Sediment Quality Criteria (SQC), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Effects Range Low Values (ERL) were used in the evaluation of the MLF area soil and sediment. Although there have been changes in the human health values, none warrant the recalculation of human health risk assessments for soil and sediment. The SQCs and ERLs used in the ECOTOX methodology have not changed.

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

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

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

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

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

2.7 ISSUES

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

2.8 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS

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

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

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

2-14 The recommendations are summarized in Table 2-4.

TABLE 2-4 RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations/Required Action Lead Milestone Oversight Does the current Agency Date Agency action affect protectiveness? Continue O&M at OU1 Army Ongoing EPA Yes Long-term monitoring at OU2 Army Ongoing EPA Yes Preparation and Optimization of Army Ongoing EPA Yes Monitoring Results

2.9 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENTS

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

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

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

2.10 NEXT REVIEW

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

2-15 3. WESTERN BOUNDARY STUDY AREA

3.1 SITE CHRONOLOGY

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

TABLE 3-1 CHRONOLOGY OF SITE EVENTS Operable Item Unit Date Sampling and analysis of groundwater associated with the Phillips Army OU2 1983 Airfield Landfill Removal of two USTs from Block 4700 in vicinity of Building 4721 OU2 1990 and 1995 Removal of two USTs from Block 4700 in vicinity of Building 4726 OU2 1990 Development of Cleanup Levels in Soil for the Fire Training Area OU3 1992 Environmental Assessment, Remedial Actions at the Fire Training Area OU3 1992 Remediation of Contaminated Soil, Fire Training Area OU3 1992 Removal of Contaminated Soil within the Fire Training Area OU3 16 November 1994 Human Health Risk Assessment of Operable Unit 1 Western Boundary OU1 December 1998 Study Area Remedial Investigation of the Western Boundary Study (Draft Report) OU1 January 1999 Western Boundary Study Area, Focused Feasibility Study, Operable OU1 May 1999 Unit 1 Proposed Plan for Remedial Action, Western Boundary Study Area, OU1 May 1999 Operable Unit 1 – Groundwater Western Boundary Study Area Operable Unit 1, Record of Decision – OU1 July 2000 Final Remedial Investigation of the Operable Unit 2 of the Western Boundary OU2 July 2001 Study Area (Draft Report) Remedial Investigation of the Operable Unit 1 of the Western Boundary OU1 August 2001 Study Area (Draft Report)

3.2 SITE BACKGROUND

The WBSA is in the AA of APG in Harford County, Maryland (Figure 3-l). The WBSA is not on the EPA’s National Priorities List (NPL), but APG and the Department of the Army have agreed, in a Federal Facility Agreement, with the EPA to follow the CERCLA process in remediating this site. Parts of the WBSA have been used as an airfield, a testing area for weapons and vehicles, a maintenance facility and storage area for vehicles, a landfill, and housing area for troops. Because limited weapons testing has been performed in the WBSA in the past and is presently continuing, unexploded ordnance (UXO) may be found in some portions of the study area. The WBSA has been divided into the following three OU, based on the identification of potential receptor populations: 3-1 • OU 1 - groundwater in the southwestern two-thirds of the WBSA near the Harford County Production (HCP) well field;

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

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

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

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

3.2.1 Physical Characteristics

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

OU1 consists of groundwater located in the southwestern portion of the WBSA near the HCP wells. OU2 consists of groundwater located in the northwestern portion of the WBSA near the CAP wells.

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

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

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

3.2.2 Land and Resource Use

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

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

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

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

3-2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The City of Aberdeen has a well field in OU2. This well field consists of 7 off post wells, CAP wells 1 through 6 and 11, and four on post wells identified as CAP 7 through 10.

3-3 3.2.3 History of Contamination

OU1

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

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

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

OU2

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

• One VOC, tetrachloroethene (PCE) was detected above MCL criteria in one sample. No other VOCs were detected above their MCLs in these samples. • No semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), PCBs, or pesticides were detected above their MCLs). • No radionuclides were detected above MCLs or the requirements in 40 CFR 141. • Low levels of explosives have been detected in OU2, but there are no MCLs for explosives. • Three different total and dissolved metals (aluminum, iron, and manganese) were detected above MCLs. • Nitrogen was the only water quality parameter detected above an MCL.

Perchlorate was first detected in a well (PLP-18) in three groundwater samples collected in April and March 2001 at concentrations ranging from 18.4-23.4 µg/L. Follow up geoprobe sampling was performed in 2001-2002 and 8 new monitoring wells were installed in February 2003. Perchlorate has been identified in monitoring wells at concentrations ranging from non detect (<1 µg/L) to 23.4 µg/L.

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

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

OU3

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

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

3-4

(JP4 and JP5). Agents used to extinguish the fires were a mixture of 99 percent water with either a protein foam (animal blood) or an aqueous film forming foam. In early 1989, APG Environmental Management Division (Environmental Conservation and Restoration Division) directed that there were to be no more releases to the environment due to fire training practices, and training exercises were stopped in March 1989. The former presence of the AFTA contributed to contamination present within OU3 soil and groundwater contamination at OU1 .

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

3.2.4 Initial Response

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

OU1

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

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

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

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

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

OU3

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.5 Basis for Taking Action

OU1

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

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

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

3-6 The concentration of hazardous substances in OU1 groundwater historically ranged up to 223 µg/L of TCE. The TCE plume extends from the AFTA to HCP wells HCPS and HCP-6. The vertical extent of contamination is from near the water table at the fire training area (~30 ft above MSL) to approximately 60 ft below MSL near the HCP wells. Groundwater modeling by APG and the Maryland Geological Survey indicates there is a potential for TCE to be detected in well HCP-4 at some point in the future. The source of the TCE is APG.

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

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

OU2

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

OU3

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

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

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

3.3 REMEDIAL ACTIONS

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

3.3.1 OU1

3.3.1.1 Remedy Selection

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

3-7 and the capacity to treat all eight HCP wells. Although TCE is the primary contaminant of concern the GAC unit is capable of treating both halogenated WCs and explosives and is a presumptive remedy. Additionally, a groundwater monitoring plan, as required by the ROD, is underway. Quarterly sampling is required and the first year of post ROD sampling will be completed in March 2003. The monitoring plan will be evaluated after the treatment plant is completed.

3.3.1.2 Remedy Implementation

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

3.3.1.3 Operation and Maintenance

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

3.3.1.4 Progress Since Last Five-Year Review

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

3.3.2 OU2

3.3.2.1 Remedy Selection

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

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

3.3.2.2 Remedy Implementation

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

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

A 250-gallon UST, based upon an interview, was emptied and removed from an area adjacent to Building 4726. However, there is no written documentation confirming the removal of this tank. 3-8 3.3.2.3 Operation and Maintenance

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

3.3.2.4 Progress Since Last Five-Year Review

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

3.3.3 OU3

3.3.3.1 Remedy Selection

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

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

3.3.3.2 Remedy Implementation

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

3.3.3.3 Operation and Maintenance

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

3.3.3.4 Progress Since Last Five-Year Review

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

3.4 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

3.4.1 Administrative Components

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

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

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

3-9 3.4.2 Community Notification and Involvement

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

3.4.3 Document Review

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

3.4.4 Data Review

OU1

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

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

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

OU2

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

Phillips Army Airfield Landfill

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

Block 4700 USTs

As previously detailed, four, potentially five, USTs that reportedly contained fuel oil, waste oil, or solvents were removed from this area. 3-10 Fifteen groundwater samples from geoprobes completed in four different locations around the former USTs at Block 4700 were analyzed for VOCs in November 1997. There were no detections of VOCs in any of the samples analyzed (General Physics, 1997).

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

Land Training Area

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

OU2 and CAP Wells

The three aforementioned areas (PAALF, Block 4700 USTs, and Land Training Area) are located within the geographical area of OU2 and may therefore have previously adversely affected OU2. As previously mentioned, OU2 encompasses the groundwater in the northeastern one-third of the WBSA that is near the CAP well field. A Draft RI of OU2 (July 2001) has been completed and an additional RI of OU2 is currently ongoing. Twelve different VOCs have been detected in groundwater samples obtained from OU2. only Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), PCE, and TCE were detected above MCLs in these groundwater samples. No SVOCs, pesticides, or PCBs have been detected above their MCLs in OU2 groundwater samples. Six different explosives were detected in OU2 groundwater samples. Three total and dissolved metals (aluminum, iron, and manganese) were detected above MCLs (APG 2001).

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

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

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

3-11

‘( 1’9 pus 2’~ CM) saruwdxa pus (z’vzs) 30~ loi potieus aJm soldwas WJhJOne pue ‘uayganb eiep ‘suo!~au6!sep aldwes ‘s~ua~u~ 111310 suoqdmsap JOT c-g a(qel 01 la&au

I ON c’v s

s ap!JO(L@eJlal UOC+W3 I ON Ii/En I .001lVSNl acw-tsm uowen

I ON I sf I auazuaqoJoiu3!a-v’

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

8 . . P Z: TABLE 3-2 WESTERN BOUNDARY STUDY AREA - OUI, SUMMARY OF POST ROD GROUNDWATER SAMPLE RESULTS

Refer to Table 3-3 for descriptions of cell contents, sample designations, dataquaths. and acronyms. Samples were analyzed for VOC (524.2) and explosives (CAD 4.2 and 8.1). Page 7 of 10 TABLE 3-2 WESTERN BOUNDARY STUDY AREA - OUl, SUMMARY OF POST ROD GROUNDWATER SAMPLE RESULTS

Parent Name:

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

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

Parent Name:

Refer lo Table 3-3 for descriptions of cell contents, sample designations. data qualiftara, and acronyms Samples were analyzed for VOC (524.2) and explosives (CAD 4.2 and 8.1). Page9oflO TABLE 3-2 WESTERN BOUNDARY STUDY AREA - OUI, SUMMARY OF POST ROD GROUNDWATER SAMPLE RESULTS

%V?lp)e Name: WB-hYW-23C 1 WB-MW23C 1 WB-MW-23C 1 WE-PlOA 1 WE-PlOB I Parent Name: I I I I Date Sampled: 6/2112001 12l4/2001 8/14/2002 6/15/2001 6/15/2001 Analyte Name lNlCd RBClUnit Group: VOC ! ! ! 1,l ,l-Trichloroethane 200 320’ ugR ND ND ND ND ND 1,4-Dichlorobentene 75 0.47 ug/L ND ND ND ND ND Acetone NSA 61’ ug/L ND ND ND ND Carbon Disukte t NSA loo’ us/L ND ND - ND ND karbon Tetrachloride I 5 I 0.16 I “O/l I I I ---- -w- ND I ND ND ND ND Hexachloroethane NSA 4.8 ug/L ND ND ND ND Methytene Chloride 5 4.1 ugk ND 0.71 -R 1.3 B ND ND Naphthatene NSA 0.65’ uglL ND LSD ND ND ND Nitrobenzene NSA 0.35’ ug/L ND IFSD ND ND Tetrachtoroethene 5 0.63 uak ND hID ND Nn Nn ~Trtchloroethene I 5 10.0261ua/L ND_- ND ND ND ND Group: EXP 2-Amine-4,6-Dinitrotoluene NSA 0.22’ ug/L ND ND ND ND ND Nitrobenzene NSA 0.35’ ugk ND ND ND ND ND (RDX 1 NSAl 0.61 1 ug/Ll ND I ND 1 ND 1 ND 1 NO

Refer toi Q3 for dascrtptiin5 of cell contents, ssrnpte designations, data quatiirs, and d ns. Samplas b :bnatYzed br VOC (524.2) end explosives (CAD 4.2 and 8.1). TABLE 3-2 WESTERN BOUNDARY STUDY AREA - OUl, SUMMARY OF POST ROD GROUNDWATER SAMPLE RESULTS

Sample Name: HCP-~ HCP-4 HCP-4 1 HCP-I 1 HCP-5 I Ol-JN-15DP HCP-5 1 HCP-5 HCP-5 1 HCP-6 1 HCP-6 1 Parent Name: HCP-5 Date Sampled: 6l18/2001 9l1112001 12H912001 81a12002 6/1012001 6/16/2001 9/l 112001 12/19/2001 61612002 6l1612061 911112001 Analyte Name 1 BTAG 1RBCl Unit

vat-,, “I.7YIIIY.a . I”” ‘3-b ..w .-- ..I .-- -- .- ND 0.61 Chloroform 1 1240 1 0.15 1 ug/L 1 ND 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Dibromochloromethane 11000 0.13 ugll ND 1...‘. &is.:.____. ., ND- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Methylene Chloride 11000 4.1 ugR ND 0.55 0 1.24 B 1.4 0 ND ND 0.55 0 1.61 B I_ 1.6f3 I ND 1 0.69 B MTBE NSA 2.6 ugR ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1 ND ) ND

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

2-Amino-46Dinttrotoluene NSA 1 0.22‘ 1 UG/Ll 4-Amino-2.6-Dinitrotoluene 1 NSA 10.22’ 1 UG/Ll ND 1

Refer to Table 3-3 for descrtptions of cell contents, sample designatiina. data qualifiers, and acronyms. PageloflO Samnks were analyzed for VDC (524.2) and explosives (CAD 4.2 and 6.1). TABLE 3-2 WESTERN BOUNDARY STUDY AREA - OUI, SUMMARY OF POST ROD GROUNDWATER SAMPLE RESULTS

Parent Name:

Refer lo ?-3 for descriptions of cell contents, sample designations, data qualifiers, and a{ 1s. f !of 10 Sompbr w ,yWzed for VDC (524.2) and explosives (CAD 4.2 and 8.1). i ! TABLE 3-2 WESTERN BOUNDARY STUDY AREA - OUl, SUMdRY OF POST ROD GROUNDWATER SAMPLE RESULTS

Parent Name:

Refer to Table 3-3 for descriptions of cell contents, sample designations, data qualifiers, and acronyms. Page 3 of 10 Samples wers analyzed for VOC (524.2) and explosives (CAD 4.2 and 8.1). d TABLE 3-3: KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS, DATA QUALWIERS, AND OTHER NOTATIONS USED IN THE DATA TABLES

Explanation of Cell Contents:

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

= value was below the instrument detection limit.

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

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

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

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

Groundwater Footnotes:

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

Validated Data Qualifier Definitions:

NONE Confirmed identification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘V’ Not detected. The associatednumber indicates approximate sample concentration necessaryIO be detected.

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

“UL” Not detected, quantitation limit is probably higher. OU3

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

3.4.5 Site Inspection

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

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

3.4.6 Interviews

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

• Ms. Christine M. Grochowski, Restoration Advisory Board Community Co-Chair representing Foster Branch Homeowner’s Association, Aberdeen Proving Ground Superfund Citizens Coalition.

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

• Mr. Arlen J. Crabb

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

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

3.5 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

3.5.1 OU1

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

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

3-12 • Implementation of Institutional Controls and Other Measures: The installation provides adequate security services, maintains fences, and controls access to prevent trespass and erosion. With no current or planned changes in land use expected at the site, institutional controls are considered effective.

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

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

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

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

Changes in Standards and To Be Considered

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3-13

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

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

3.5.2 OU2 and OU3

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

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

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

• Remedial Action Performance: The remedial action (removal actions at the AFTA and Block 4700 USTs) was performed in accordance with their respective plans. Groundwater monitoring is continuing in OU2 due to the detection of perchlorate in groundwater samples.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3-14 • Changes in Toxicity and Other Contaminant Characteristics: Toxicity and other factors for contaminants of concern have not changed.

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

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

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

3.6 ISSUES

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

3.7 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS

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

3.8 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENTS

OU1

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

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

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

OU2 and OU3

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

3.8.1 Next Review The next five-year review for the OAA sites is required by September 2008, 5 years from the date of this review. 3-15 4. OTHER ABERDEEN AREAS

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

CATEGORY A DUMP/LANDFILL AREAS

Site 1: Old Dump on Woodrest Creek

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

Site 2: Old Dump on Swan Creek

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

Site 3: Churchville Test Course Dump

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

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

4-1 CATEGORY B PESTICIDE CONTAMINATED AREAS

Site 4: Outdoor Pesticide Mixing Area at Building 5010

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

Site 5: DPW Backyard Storage Area Near Building 5262

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

Interviews conducted for the RFA with employees of the APG electric shop indicated that two areas in the storage yard were used for transformer storage. Area 1, located on the western side of the storage yard and covering 11,000 ft2, was used to store transformers until they were removed in March 1989. Area 2, located on the eastern side of the storage yard, covers 3,200 ft2. It was thought to be used for transformer storage between 1964 and 1974. Transformers were stored in Area 2 at the time of a February1996 Phase I site visit. As a result of a routine PCB investigation conducted by USEPA, three soil samples were collected in August 1986. USEPA recommended site cleanup action be taken based on the laboratory results (APG 2003).

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

Site 6: DDT Spill Near Building 450

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

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

4-2

CATEGORY C BATTERY STORAGE/DISPOSAL AREAS

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

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

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

Site 8: Discarded Batteries at Abbey Point Navigation Light

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

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

During the 1995 Phase I scoping visit, a minimum of 50 discarded batteries were observed in a low-profile pile located approximately 15 to 20 feet southwest of the tower. Several of the batteries were exposed at the surface whereas others were partially buried by soil and decaying vegetation. The lateral extent of the battery pile was estimated to be approximately 15 feet by 20 feet at the time of the visit. Single batteries were observed in other areas of the site. The vertical extent of the battery pile could not be determined during the Phase I visit. However, it appeared that the pile of batteries extended below the surface of the soft soil present at the site. No evidence of stressed vegetation or stressed wildlife was observed at the site. In 1996, APG removed the batteries from the site for offpost disposal (APG 2002).

Site 9: Discarded Batteries at Spesutie Island Navigation Light

The site is located in the restricted area of APG along the shoreline of Back Creek in the southwest portion of Spesutie Island. This site was inspected on 7 May 1995 as part of the Phase I scoping activities. Located in a remote marsh on Spesutie Island, the site is accessible only by watercraft, aircraft, or foot. The site is the location of a former navigation tower previously used by APG security marine patrols. An unknown number of 6-and 12-volt lead-acid batteries were discarded into shallow water of Back Creek and onto the shoreline below and around the tower when the units could no longer be used to operate the lighting system (APG 2003).

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

Site 10: Building 5039 Battery Shop

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

CATEGORY D SPESUTIE ISLAND AREAS

Site 11: Old Burn Trench on Spesutie Island

This site is located in the northwestern portion of Spesutie Island west of Morgan Road. The IA Report (APG 1981) and WA (APG 1990) referenced a concrete-lined trench that was used for tank testing and burning chemical compounds from 1917 through the late 1950s. According to previous personal interviews, the walls of the concrete trench were broken down and the trench was filled with soil and concrete debris in the late 1950s (APG 2003).

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

Site 12: Old Chemical Dump on Spesutie Island

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

Site 13: Chemical Dump Ponds on Spesutie Island

This site is located in the northeastern portion of Spesutie Island west of Spesutie Island Road. This site consists of two sets of shallow ponds named the North Ponds and the South Ponds for the Phase I RI. Each set of ponds includes three long, narrow, ponds (total of six ponds) that were excavated using explosives in 1965 (APG 2000).

4-4 The North Ponds were reportedly created for the purpose of disposing excess chemicals. However, the types and quantities of materials disposed in the ponds are not known, nor is the timing and duration of disposal, if any. The South Ponds were reportedly created as a duck habitat, The ponds are not presently being used by APG (APG 2000).

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

Site 14: Former Burning Area Near Building 1171

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

Interviews with retired employees of the tenant organization who worked in the area revealed that the operations lasted about 12 years, beginning in 1948 with the construction of Building 1171 and ending about 1960 with the construction of Building 1170. Predominantly TNT-based explosives were burned. Burning of these compounds took place once a week with an average of 100 pounds per week being burned (APG, 1990). During the RFA, five composite soil samples were collected at the suspected burning area located southwest of Building 1171. Explosives were not detected in those samples (APG 2002).

Site 15: Metal Barricade Near Building 1122

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

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

CATEGORY E MISCELLANEOUS AREAS

Site 16: DRMO Metal Scrap Yard

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

4-5 The DRMO Metal Scrap Yard has been used to store various types of large rolling stock (trucks, jeeps, and trailers), automated data processing equipment, used ammunition canisters, cable, wiring, stoves, refrigerators, air conditioners, and various compressors and motors (APG 2003).

Site 17: Silver Contaminated Ditch in Transonic Range Area

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

Site 18: Barrels Near Building 510

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

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

Site 19: Sandblast Area Near Building 523

This site is located in the northeast potion of the restricted area of APG. The RFA reported that infrequent equipment sandblasting took place on a flat area behind Buildings 523 and 528. The sandblast area reportedly had dimensions of approximately 95 feet by 185 feet and was covered with approximately 5 inches of sand at the time of the WA inspection. Below the sand was a l-to 5-inch layer of broken asphalt. Beneath the asphalt are 2 inches of gravelly road bed material and railroad slag. The sandblast area is bordered on the east by a grass covered slope. At the bottom of the slope is a tree line which defines a marshy area that drains into Woodrest Creek (APG 2002). 4-6 Based on the RFA results, APG implemented a removal action at the site in November 1994. Prior to excavation of any soils, further characterization was performed (APG, 1994b). A second removal action was completed in December 1994 at three locations exceeding lead cleanup levels. Approximately 568 tons of contaminated soil was removed (APG 2002).

Site 20: Potential Explosives in Groundwater Area

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

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

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

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

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

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

Site 21: POL Facility Sand Pit Near Building 5215

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

4-7 The sand also reportedly had a petroleum distillate odor. Materials used at the facility likely consisted of petroleum products for light armor vehicle maintenance such as motor and gear oils, hydraulic fluids, and lubricants. It is unknown whether solvents were used and stored at the facility. Presently, Building 5215 is a 90-Day Hazardous Waste Storage Building. During a November 1994 site inspection conducted as part of the Phase I work plan scoping activities, the metal shed and sand pit were found to have been removed (APG 2003).

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

Site 22: Buildings 309 & 390 Storm Sewer Outfalls

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

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

Site 23: Building 525 Site

This site is located in the northeast portion of the restricted area of APG off of Mulberry Point Road, approximately 1600 feet from the intersection of Surveillance Range Road. Building 525 was formerly used for assembling and processing artillery and weapons. Building 525 is currently under the supervision of the Aberdeen Test Center (ATC) and is primarily used for painting artillery components and weapons systems. Building 525 housed vapor degreasers which may have been discontinued and dismantled in the 1970’s (APG 2002).

Site 24: White Phosphorus Munitions Land Burial Area

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

4-8 Based on interviews of former employees who worked on the post following World War I, an unknown amount of World War I white phosphorus munitions (ordnance) was supposedly buried in the Chesapeake Bay in the vicinity of Black Point during the period 1922-l925. The ordnance reportedly consisted of United States, British, and French land mines, grenades, and artillery shells. According to the interviews, bulk phosphorus may also have been disposed in the Bay. It is possible that this disposal event involved a single barge load of munitions; however, it may have involved considerably more. In 1933, the WPUMBA was reportedly uncovered by a strong hurricane, which may have led to a large waterfowl kill. After several investigations failed to identify the munitions and significant contamination, a ROD was issued in 1991 declaring a no action decision and that no effective remedial action is possible at the site (APG, 1991).

Site 25: Shell Washout Wastewater Ditch at Building 700B

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

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

Site 26a: Old Bombing Field OB/OD Area

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

Site 26b: New Bombing Field OB/OD Area

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

4-9 areas separated by an earthen berm approximately 2 m high. In November 1988, this area was a circular area with approximately a 10-ft radius. The OB/OD at the NE3F was reportedly in use in 1982 (APG 1981).

Site 26c: Abbey Point Suspected OB/OD Area

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

Site 27: German Ammunition Train Explosion Area

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

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

Site 28a: Building 436 UST Site

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

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

Site 28b: Building 456 AST Site

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

This site consists of a former 450,000-gallon, cylindrical AST, two abandoned AST berm areas (designated as AST 456B and AST 456C), several utilities, and a bulk fuel loader. AST 456 was formerly used to store No. 2 diesel fuel until it was closed on July, 1995 after 23 years of service. The AST 456B and AST 456C berm area previously housed two, single-wall, 2,000-gallon ASTs that were used to store gasoline (AST 456B) and solvents (AST 456C). ASTs 456B and AST 456C were reportedly removed in early 1996. The types of solvents stored in AST 456C could not be determined as part of previous research and investigations conducted for the site (APG 2002). 4-10 Site 28c: Building 2458 UST Site

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

Site 28d: Building 3329 UST Site

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

Site 28e: Building 3505 UST Site

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

Site 28f: Building 3327 UST Site

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

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

Site 29: Tower Road Site

Building 340 is located in the north-central portion of the restricted area of APG, on Tower Road approximately 500 feet north of the intersection of Colleran Road and Tower Road intersection on Tower Road. Building 340 was used as a refueling facility for government vehicles from 1949 to 1995. Eight USTs were installed during this period. According to available records, these USTs were used to store gasoline, diesel fuel, and kerosene. Four of the USTs were either removed or abandoned-in-place during the several phases beginning in 1990. The other four USTs were taken out of service but remain in place. These USTs will be removed following the completion of remediation (APG 2002).

Site 30a: Pistol Range

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

4-11 Site 30b: Known Distance Range

The site is located in the central portion of the restricted area of APG approximately 1,200 ft west of Old Baltimore Road. Information was obtained from John H. Conley, a former APG Range Control Officer (Conley 1997). The Known Distance Range was in full operation after 1939 until early 1965, and was operated by the Ordnance Center and School as a standard Army range facility with l00-, 200-, and 300-yd firing lines. According to the APG Safety Regulation dated 1947, firing was limited to 30-caliber, shoulder-fired weapons using ball ammunition, M2s and tracer M2s, 22-caliber rifles, 30-caliber carbines, 45caliber pistols and revolvers, and 45 caliber submachine guns. In the 1970s, the Chemical School used this site for training procedures for demilitarization of Army material exposed to chemical agents. Molasses was used to simulate the chemical agent (APG 2003).

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

Site 31: Poverty Island Potential Mine Burial Site

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

Site 32: Building 507 Site

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

Building 507 was constructed in approximately the early 1940s and was utilized as a primary shipping and storage facility for APG. The building still contains some materials but has not been extensively used since 2000, when a section of the roof collapsed. The building continues to be used as a major receiving, shipping, and storage facility for large items at APG (APG 2003).

Site 33: Building M600 Site

Building M600 is located within the north-east portion of the restricted area of APG. Building M600 was formerly used as a magazine storage area and an adjacent Building 615 was used as a maintenance facility. Some washracks were formerly located adjacent to the eastern side of Building 615. The washracks were presumably used to wash equipment and parts and encompassed an area of approximately 30 x 15 ft. There are no known incidences or activities, other than the existence of the former washracks, which may have contributed to the contamination detected within the area of Building 615 (APG 2003).

4.1 SITE CHRONOLOGY

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

4-12 Other than the RFA report, there have been two primary investigations performed regarding the OAA sites. These investigations included the Phase I and Phase II Remedial Investigations. The Phase II investigation included the collection and analysis of groundwater samples throughout the Cantonment Area as well as OAA site-specific investigations.

4.2 SITE BACKGROUND

4.2.1 Physical Characteristics

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

The AA of APG was established in 1917 as the Ordnance Proving Ground. Testing of ammunition began in January 1918. APG has been active since 1917, and these 41 sites have been used for various purposes during the course of APG history. These sites are located within the boundaries of APG, although they are not currently being utilized for the purpose for which they are being investigated. However, these sites, other than Site 2, are located within an industrial setting and may be used for industrial-type activity in the future. Site 2 is located in a residential housing area of APG and is also located near a playground area.

4.2.2 Land and Resource Use

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

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

4.2.3 History of Contamination

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

4.2.4 Initial Response

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

4-13 Following the completion of the Phase I RI report, various meetings were held in the first half of the year 2000 between APG, EPA, MDE, and TAG to discuss plans for the Phase II RI and Cantonment Area investigations.

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

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

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

Site 4 - Based on the U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency (USAEHA) and RFA sample results, APG removed 586 tons of pesticide-contaminated soil and restored the site in July and September 1991 (APG 1992a). The Phase II investigation at Site 4 included a limited soil removal and abandonment of a collection sump. Existing sump water and sediment, from one sump which was abandoned, were removed and the sump was filled with concrete to the ground surface. The limited soil removal was conducted in a 20x20x4-ft area adjacent to the northwest portion of Building 5010. This area formerly contained elevated pesticide concentrations reported during the Phase I RI and further defined during the Phase II RI. Five confirmatory soil samples were collected after the excavation and the results confirmed the removal of impacted soil.

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

Site 6 - The Installation Assessment (IA) (APG 1981) reported the discovery in 1974 of approximately 4,755 gallons of excess DDT stored in an open field near Building 450, with 35 percent of the containers corroded and leaking. These containers were repackaged and moved to Building 509 for storage. At the time of the Phase I R. I visual site inspection, a 675-gallon AST that was used to store diesel fuel was located within the berm area of the site. The Phase I RI report documents that this AST had been removed and the site is currently a grassy field and unpaved storage area. The actual spill site covered a 30- by 39-ft area (APG 1981) within the larger, 106- to 197- ft, bermed area. Soil was removed from a 40- by 39-ft area to a depth of 1 ft.

4-14 TABLE 4-l CHRONOLOGY OF SITE EVENTS, OTHER ABERDEEN AREAS, ABERDEEN AREA, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND

Site Preliminary evaluation of sediment data collected from Swan Creek 1994 Environmental Assessment for Proposed Removal Actions at: The DRMO 1994 Scrap Metal Yard; Spent Lead Acid Battery Storage Site (Building 2351); Sandblasting Area Near Building 523; Wastewater Ditch at the Shell I 1 Washout Facility (Building 700B); and Old Dump at Swan Creek Analytical Data for Woodrest Creek Samples 1994 Removal of Contaminated Soil at the Sandblast Area, Building 523 1995 Contamination Assessment of Building A501 0 1995 Preliminary Risk Assessment for the Swan Creek Dump Site 1996 Technical Memorandum - Field Sampling Summary for Phase I Screening 1998 TABLE 4-2 SUMMARY OF REMOVAL ACTIVITIES, OTHER ABERDEEN AREAS, ABERDEEN AREA, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND

Zte No. Site Name Contaminant Extent Remedial Activities Old Dump on heportedly used from 1917 - Approx. 30,000 f?. Surface debris was removed from the marah in 1996. A Swan Creek 1935. Wastesnot well detined, but chain link fence has been installed between the dump Included municipal-type debris. and an adjacent residential area. Dump has been Metals and pesticides are primary covered with surface soil. ZOPC’. Churchville Test Type of debris formerly present in Approx. 1,750 l?. Dump was cleaned up in the 1970’s based upon verbal Course Dump the dump is unknown. Metals are communication. primary-COPC. 4 Former Outdoor Pesticides.nrimarilv 4,4’-DDT and Approx. 5,000 d by 2 A Approximately 586 tons of pesticide-contaminated soil Pesticide Mixing I,4’-DDE: ‘Metals,-pesticides, deep excavation in 1991. was removed in 1991. A limited soil removal and Area at Building explosives, and radioactive Approx. 400 tlr by 4 It abandonment of a collection sump were performed in 5010 parametersare also COPC. deep excavation in 200 1. 2001 during the Phase II RI. DPW Backyard Metals and pesticides are primary Transformers were stored Pesticide-contaminated soil was removed in 1992. Storage Area Near COPC. within a 2-acre area Building 5262 between1964and1974. DDT Spill Near DDT and diesel fuel. DDT is the Spill site was approx. DDT containing drums were removed in 1974. A diesel Building 450 primary COPC. 1,170 ti within an fuel AST was also removed from this area. DDT approx. 20,882 t? benned contaminated soil was removed from an approx. 1,170 area. f? area to a depth of 1 ft. Spent Lead Acid Lead-acid batteries. Lead is the 200 ttr battery storage Area was used to store lead-acid batteries prior to Battery Storage primary COPC. area. disposal or recycling. Metals and petroleum- Site Near contaminated soil was excavated and disposed of offsite Building 235 1 in 1995. Verification samples indicated that the contamination had been removed. Discarded Several hundred 6-volt and 12-volt Approx. 300 I? lateral Removal action to collect all visible batteries from the Batteries at Abbey lead-acid batteries were discarded area of extent. site was performed in 1996. Point Navigation in this area. Lead is the primary Light

- TABLE 4-2 (Cont.)

9 Discarded Numerous 6-volt and 12-volt lead- Approx. 500 A 2lateral 50 to 60 discarded batteries were observed during the Batteries at acid batteries were discarded in area of extent. Phase I RI scoping visit. Removal action to collect all Spesutie Island this area. Metals, but lead is the visible batteries from the site was performed in 1996. Navigation Light primary COPC. 16 DEMO Scrap Scrap yard may have PCBs, DRMO scrap yard covers PCB contaminated soil was removed from three areas in Yard metals, petroleum products, and approx. 12.7 acres. 1994. Two areas were approximately 625 @ and the solvents. VOCs, SVOCs, third area (located outside of the fenced yard) was explosives, pesticides, and metals approximately 45Oft 2. Bach area was excavated to a detected above screening criteria. depth of l-foot and a total of 10dtons of soil were TCE is primary VOC. removed. 18 Barrels Near Lead is the primary COPC. Approx. 4,800 ft 2. Two Approx. 30 to 40 barrels (former contents down) Building 5 10 areas,of approx. 400 ft2 along with other metal debris were formerly present at by I- foot deep, were the site. Lead impacted soil was excavated, along with excavated. observed surface metal debris, and disposed of offsite during the Phase II investigation. Two lead impacted areas(i.e., soil concentration exceeded 1,000 mgikg) were removed during the Phase II RI in 200 1. 19 Sandblast Area Lead is the primary COPC. Approx. 17,575 f?. Approx. 568 tons of contaminated soil was removed in Near Building 523 1994. 21 POL Facility Sand Petroleum-contaminated sand and Approx. 50 ti. Petroleum contaminated soil and sand were excavated Pit Near Building soil. Vinyl chloride, die&in, o- from this site in approximately 1987. 5215 nitrotoluene, and several metals were also reported above screening criteria. 23 Building 525 Site Solvents, primarily TCE and TCA Approx. 80,000 f?. A 15,000-gals2 fuel oil UST was abandoned in place in are the COPC. 1991. A 1,OOO-gal solvent UST was removed in 1993. 28b Building 456 AST No. 2 diesel fuel, gasoline, and One 450,000-gallon AST AST 456 (formerly contained No. 2 diesel fiel) was Site solvents were formerly stored at (AST 456). Two 2,OOO- closed in July 1995. ASTs 456B (formerly contained this site. gallon ASTs (ASTs 4568 gasoline) and 456C (formerly contained solvents) were and 456C). reportedly removed in early 1996. 28c Building 2458 VOCs (chloroform, MTBE, and Size of former UST is A fuel oil UST was formerly located adjacent to the UST Site TCE) are primary COPC. LUlkllOWll northwest side of Building 2458. 28d Building 3329 VOCs (TCE, PCE, and vinyl Six former USTs Four lO,OOO-galgasoline tanks, one 550-gal fuel oil UST Site chloride) are primary COPC. associatedwith former tank.,and one 5Wgal waste oil tank were removed in gasoline station. 1991. TABLE 4-i ,nt.)

28e Building 3505 VOCs (primarily TCE and PCE) Size of former UST is A fuel oil UST was formerly located adjacent to the UST Site are primary COPC. UIlkIlOWn southwest side of Building 3505. 28f Building 3327 VOCs (primarily PCE) are primary MO-gallon UST A 550-gallon UST, 300 gallons of PCE and water, and UST Site COPC. approximately 8 cubic yards of PCE-contaminated soil I I I 1 were removed in 2002. 29 1 Tower Road Site 1 Solvents, primarily TCE and TCA 1 Approx., 1.7 million f?. [ Eight USTs were formerlv used at this site. pour of are the COPC. - these USTs were either r&roved or abandoned in place during several phasesbeginning in 1990. The other four USTs were removed from service but remained in place. This site is being addressedas a separate study area.

1. COPC - Chemical(s) of Potential Concern Site 7 - Soil at the site was sampled, and metals and petroleum-contaminated soil was excavated and disposed of offsite in 1995 (APG 1994d). Verification samples were collected after the soil was removed and the results indicated that the contamination had been removed. Therefore, this portion of the site was no longer considered to be a concern.

Site 8 - APG conducted a removal action in 1996 to collect and remove all visible batteries from the site (APG 2002).

Site 9 - APG conducted a removal action in 1996 to collect and remove all visible batteries from the site (APG 2002).

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

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

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

Site 21- During a November 1994 site inspection conducted as part of the Phase I RI work plan scoping activities, the metal shed and sand pit, formerly associated with Site 21, were found to have been removed and the area regraded and graveled. According to personnel from the Conservation Branch of DELO, in approximately 1987, an area of approximately 50 ft2 near Building 5215 was excavated to remove petroleum-contaminated sand and soil. A l-in. layer of soil was excavated from the entire work area, with a 6- to 8-in.-depth excavation where oil had soaked into the soil beneath the surface. It is unknown whether post-excavation soil samples were collected to assess contaminated levels in the remaining soil. Six soil samples (from two depths at three locations) and two groundwater samples (from two depths at one geoprobe location) were collected during the Phase I RI.

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

Site 28d - In 1991, four 10,000-gallon tanks that were used to store gasoline were removed from the Building 3329 area. Additionally, one 550-gallon fuel oil tank and one 550-gallon waste oil tank were removed later that year.

4-15 Site 28e - A fuel oil UST located adjacent to the southwest side of Building 3505 was removed.

Site 28f - A 550 gallon UST located immediately adjacent to Building 3327 was removed in July 2002. Due to the close proximity of the UST to Building 3327 and several utilities, major over-excavation of the UST was not possible. Approximately 300 gallons of PCE and water were removed from the UST and approximately 8 cubic yards of PCE contaminated soil were removed during the excavation and properly disposed.

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

4.2.5 Basis for Taking Action

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

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

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

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

4-16 screening criteria) concentrations of VOCs were reported in groundwater samples obtained from Sites 16,28e, 28f, 32, and 33. Elevated concentrations of explosives were reported in groundwater samples obtained from Site 25. The presence of these elevated concentrations of VOCs and explosives in groundwater samples may require additional investigation regarding the nature and extent of these parameters and the completion of a human health and ecological risk-based assessment.

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

4.3 REMEDIAL ACTIONS

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

4.4 PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW

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

4.5 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

4.5.1 Administrative Components

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

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

The following tasks were conducted as part of the five-year review process: document review, interviews, site visit, and data review. The community was informed of the five-year review through the RAB meeting in May 2001.

4.5.2 Community Involvement

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

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

4-17 4.5.3 Document Review

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

4.5.4 Data Review

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

4.5.5 Site Inspection

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

4.5.6 Interviews

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

• Ms. Christine M. Grochowski, Restoration Advisory Board Community Co-Chair representing Foster Branch Homeowner’s Association, Aberdeen Proving Ground Superfund Citizens Coalition.

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

• Mr. Arlen J. Crabb

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

4.5.7 Technical Assessment

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

4.5.8 Issues

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

4.5.9 Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions

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

4-18 4.5.10 Protectiveness Statement

A protectiveness determination of the remedies implemented at Other Aberdeen Areas cannot be made at this time until further information is obtained. A ROD has not yet been developed for the OAA therefore protectiveness statements have not been developed for the OAA sites investigated pending finalization of the RI and the results of the human health and ecological risk assessments. The human health and ecological risk assessments will evaluate whether the OAA sites represent a potential risk to human health or the environment. These risk assessments will also evaluate if the removal actions (which have been performed at selected sites), access controls (fencing, security guards, etc.) and other factors at these various sites ensure that there are no unacceptable exposure pathways. The exposure assumptions (toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives) which are utilized during the completion of the risk assessments shall be current and applicable to each individual site. The protectiveness statements will be dependent upon the ROD which is obtained for these sites.

4.5.11 Next Review

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

4-19 TABLE 4-3: SUMMARY OF OAA PHASE II RI c JUNDWATER SAMPLE EXCEEDANCES Range of Exceed Minimum Maxiumum Detection Reporting RBC Exceed RBC - MCL MCL - ,itr..- .Nn./NRme .-. Analyte U/F Concentration Concentration Units Frequency Limits Criteria Frequency Criteria Frequency 7 . II~ 3: Churcnvme.. . lm“eta18 luminum u 179 26700 d- 2L? 200-200 3700 N IL2 . . . I ..A” In ..-.. F 252 471 UIVL I swse u 230 926 U” , ium U 40.7 40.7 W- It2 5t I I I I I 0.79 I 0.79 I uan I 116 I

U-Unfdtercd F-Filtered N - Non-cancemus C - C~ICU’OUS Number of Samples include duplicate analyse. PageIoflO I GDA ~tiitecis Afl CFR~ NPDIVR: Radionuclida; Fii Ruk. TABLE 4-3: SUMMARY OF OAA P

Y.&C I.“.II.l,,,C Analyl - Site I I: Old Bum Volatiles I I Trench on I I-nc Spesulie Island

--- _“” - IO-IO 0.045 c 7/8 IO 6l8 200-200 260N snl 2000 O/8 W- 8/R 5-s Lalmwm 7.3 N I18 4 4/8 5-5 Chmmium s/8 l.8N 2l8 5 Ol8 42.4 I 751 8/8 IO-IO Cobalt II N 818 100 618 Coppa ug/L 8/8 50-50 73 N 4&t _- Pin S.-r.., . . . ..I

Lead ILlI ~ 8.6! IFI 26.t

Site 16: DRMt Metal Scrap Ya

ahon Tetmchloridc *. .

__ 5.17 89.1 I u- -_- ., ate _- I .09 I I I I I I \ d -I r-----.. 8.75 ud. 1 24136 I --1~174 .-.- I drtr-7.” ” I _.--3/16 A I I,,L P&ticld&‘CB Jr-I” Heptachlor -_ 0.02 0.02 UN- t/36 0.056-0.056 0.015 c l/36 0.4 Expbriva Of36 RDX __ n ,c . . “.,J I.1 WL 33 0. I-o.5 llfil c Metals I 2n I I I I I I F 15.6 1 I I I U 38 144ooo up/Lpn 351362506 200-200------1 3700_.__77MN .N. I II36 I - I ___- I 134000 “I 23l36 -_ _- ‘Y F 20.94.6 13.5 “, P 5f36 60-60 I.5 N 5l36 6 406 20.9 g IN6 IO-IO 0.045 c 1136 IO Ii36 U 4.06 I54 I7136 “I fl IO-IO 0.045 c I7136 IO I5136

U-Untiltemd F-Filtered N - Non-csw-mus C - Caneous ks includes duplicate analyscc. .. i CFR. NPDWR; Radionuclide; Final Rule. t ‘IO I ( TABLE 4-3: SUMMARY OF OAA PHASE II RI < AOUNDWATER SAMPLE EXCEEDANCES Range of Exceed I I I Minimum Maxiumum Reporting RBC MCL - I .imita 1 Criterin 1 Freauencv 1 Criteria

U-Unftitmd F-Filtered N - Non-csmerous C - Cmumus Number of Samples includa duplicate attaly~e9. Page 3 of IO I EPA ~ritmia. 40 CFR. NPDWR; Radionucl~cs; Final Ruk. TABLE 4-3: SUMMARY OF OAA PHASE II RI GROUNDWA’ TER SAMPLE EXCEEDANCES I I I I I I

Explosives in Gmundwtcr 4.8 c 1114 6 o/14

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

I-200 3700 N I114 -_ L400 3700 N 6fl4 -- 114 1 IO-10 0.045c 5114 IO I 14114 5114 1Beryllium IUI I I 2OOaO 1 260 ‘N 3114 71yyL . II .

-1001 rm; jI WI, I - 1 3-6 I WI4 I - I -_ _- - I ,r I _.. I , I> 1 5114 15-15 I 71N._ I PI,” I 0,1-v - 73N 1 1.2-0.2 I n 17 I WI41 II 1 15-15 1 I - I1 I IO-40 1 73V.“, N 1119 L O/l4 3114 -. _- 14 1 50-50 26 N 5114 SiteZl: POL N IllA I Facility Sand Pit Near Building 5215

“I, 5-5 1 7.3N 1 Ol3 A I

zf3 ov 73 N In Go 73 N 313 r1t-k-l I

U-Unfiltcnd F-Filtered N - Noncattcetnus C - cslcero~s Numberof’ + includea duplicate aalysa. I. EPA ctitb ICFR. NPDWR; Ralionuclid~; Filul Ruk. i i.. IO ! ! TABLE 4-3: SUMMARY OF OAA PHASE II RI L~LOUNDWATER SAMPLE EXCEEDANCES

U-Unfiltcfal F-Filtered N - Non-cancerous C - Canmous Number of Samples includes duplicate analyses. Pagc5oflO I, EPA criteria, 40 CFR, NPDWR; Radionuclida; Final Ruk. Ammunition Train

3329 UST Site

U-Unliltcml F-Filtered N - Nonancerous C - t2mcemus Number o! !cs includes duplicate annals. I. EPAcrh i ,; CFR NPDWR; Radibwclidar; Final Ruk. i. “IO ! , TABLE 4-3: SUMMARY OF OAA PHASE II RI \ 3UNDWATER SAMPLE EXCEEDANCES I I I I I I 1 Range of 1 I I 1 Exceed 1 Minimum 1 Maxiumum I Detection I Reporting I RFK I Exceed RBC - Frequency

3505 LIST Se

U-Unfiltered F-Filtered N - Non-cancerous C - Ca~xro~a Number of Sampks includes duplicate analyses. Page7 of 10 I EPA criteria, 40 CFR. NPDWR; RadionucJides; Final Rule. TABLE 4-3: SUMMARY OF OAA PHASE 11 RI

U-Unfiltcrai F-Filtered N - Noncsncenwa C - Cmcemus Number of b includcr dupbcate analyses. i I. EPAcrit -CFR. NPDWR; Radir~nuclidc~: Final Ruk. b IO i i TABLE 4-3: SUMMARY OF OAA PHASE II RI < .OUNDWATER SAMPLE EXCEEDANCES

U-Unfdlmd F-Filtered N - Noncanccruus C - c2xrcmus Number of Samples includes duplicate analy~a. Page 9 of IO I ET.4 criteria. 40 CFR. NPDWR: Radionuclidcs; Final Ruk. TABLE 4-3: SUMMARY OF OAA PHASE II RI GROUNDWATER SAMPLE EXCEEDANCES

I I Mini -.,- XI--%----~- Range of Exceed ‘,.....~I.“,.. l*laxwmum Detection Reporting RBC Exceed RBC - MCL I Site U/F Concentration Conce-A--Ar-- I TV MCL - -p wrwron 1 units , Frequency Limits Criteria Frequency Criteria Frequency -_ 0.62 __ t-25 ----0.63 C 27156 5 I?‘- 0.52 00 c I ., ,-,< nn-lrr I -*1-I c

__ “C 0.66 0.66 ” 0.82 3.14 31

u .

ILead

IS-15 I l/13 1

. “II-.“,,, 4. I I 3040 II/13 %500 26 N Zinc Il.3 1 1 [ 1 203 I - I 11300 “%L 1 13113 1 20-200 1 1100 N 1 2/13 __ I

U-Unfiltered F-Filtered N - Non-cnncemus C - CB~C~~OUS Numberof’ ‘es includes duplicate r~lyser. I. EtPAcrirt ,:, CFR NPDWR; Radionuclidc+; Final Ruk. i TABLE 4-4: SUMMARY OF OAA PHASE II RI E .FACE WATER SAMPLE EXCEEDANCES

Site 4: Outdoor Metals Pesticide Aluminum F 326 497 Up,5 2/2 200-200 3700 N 012 25N 2f2 Mixing Area at Aluminum U 1110 1280 l&L 2i2 200-200 3700 N Of2 25 N 2l2 Building 50 10 Arsenic F 4.52 4.52 Ug5 l/2 lo-10 0.045 c 112 19oc 012

U-Untiltend F-Filteral N - Non-cancerous C - Gmcerous Number of Samples includes duplicate analysts. Page I of 3 I EPA criteria, 40 CFR, NPDWR: Radionuclides; Final Rule. TABLE 4-4: SUMMARY OF SAMPLE EXCEEDANCES

J-J me Man -- 3.2 212 Man 15-15 73 N 2i2 145OON Of2 ,” Y 0.103 I 0.103.-- YL 15-15 73N 2/2 145OON Of2 Mercury jU[ 112 0.2-0.2 Site 17: Silver Metals I I I Ug/L I 0.37 012 0.012 l/2 I , I I I I I ! ! I I Contamir rated Aluminum ,.1 FI , 1A17 I 12, ..-n A ,A a,... ^^^ _-. I ;Lio , UglL , 414 ZW-ZW 3700 N 014 1 25N i -.314 Ditch in Aluminum IUl 89 j 1;; 1 ug/L 1 515 200-200 3/s 1 35N 1 c/c I Transomc. . 37OON __ _L.. -‘,a U 4.45 8.25 l&/L 215 10-10 0.045c Range Area 2l5 19oc 015 F 1.13 1.18 UglL 214 5-5 l.8N 014 0.53 N 214 U 1.46 1.49 L&L 215 A-5 1.8N o/5 0.53~.__ N_. 3/T U 1 56 0 *WV/r z/c I U”./ , Yfz,tY, r’,J 10-10 11 N 315 I1 N w; :r lu( 215 I 38.7 &g/L 515 25-25 150N Of5 6.5 N 4/s IF! 75.6 31x-l-we” ,.“A A/A 100-100 IlOON l/4 320N II4 I VI 2180 I 757f-m --. “- w 100-100 1lOON 515 320N 515 “g/;: ;;; -- __ ~“CSY UF 50.925.9 115027.1 U 3-3 1 3.2 1 3/5 Manganese UgL t 1ACMWt fill 414 15-15 73N 314 L-JW 17 v14 n 4anganese U 90.6 941 Ufi 515 15-1s-- _- 71,” N1, as_1CIC 145OON o/5 Mercury Ul 0.1 0.17 Silver Ul I Ug/L 2f5 0.2-0.2 0.37 1 015 0.012 2l5 103 112 UJg5 2I5 IO-10 .I--->1 . . . . 18N I 2l5 0.0001 N 2l5 1OOOON o/5 114 I 20-20 1 1lOON 1 014 1lON 214 x-l-3i-t llfN-lN t 110N 2f5 Site 22: Buildings 309 I Lvw-L”” 1 JlWN 1 VII &390 storm - r .A .^ _ -.- - I l/l Y” ’ IU-10 WI45 c l/l Sewer Outfalls I 19oc I O/l I g/L1 111 IO-10 0.045c l/l 25-25 150N O/I 25-25 15ON O/l uya., , II 1 100-100 1lOON l/l UglL l/l 100-100 IlOON l/l

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

U-untltmfl F-Filtered N - Noncanccmus C - Cancemus Number of Samples includa duplicate aml,lyscs. Page 3 of 3 I EPA witch, 40 CFR. NPDWR; Radionuclides; Final Ruk. N - Noncancemus C - Canc~us Page 1 of 3 Number of Samhs includes duplicate analysc~ -1

2 i ! TABLE.-.--4-5: SUMMARY OF OAA PHAS- .I RI SOIL 1SAMPLE EXCEEDANCES I Minimum 1 Maxiumum 1 I nrtrrtlnn I Rrnm= nf I RK IExceed BBC -I BTAG IExceed BTm Site NoJName Site 30B: Known Distance Range

Metals I I Antimony 0.83 210 mgfkg 12122 12.7-17 A 1 R?N 1 2122 0.48 12122 Arsenic 1.94 5.47 mgkg 22122 2.05-2.9 3.8 C 1 l/22 328 o/22 Beryllium 0.079 0.78 mg/kg 22122 1.02- 1.45 410N o/22 0.02 22122 c-hrnm;,.m“,““.,..U.a. _.--5 ns 22~6--._ mdke 22122 2.05-2.9 610N o/22 0.0075 22122 Copper 4.98 1010 mglkg 22J22 I 5.12-7.25 1 8200 N 1 o/22 I 15 1 10122 I Iron 3130 14700 mg/kg 22122 -I 20.5-29 1 61000N o/22 0.012 22122 16-6.24 1 1200 5122 0.01 22122 I [Lead I 14.8 I 30600 1 mg/kn I 22122 I 0.6_- _.- Magnesium I 235 ! 1410 1 mg/kg I 22122 I 1020-1450 -- -- &In. .- 19122-_.--

- 17-4.35 4100N n133-,-- I ---3-w ,I 5122 I I3-0.04 20 0122 0.058 6/22 I ManganeseMercuryNickel 20.70.021.87 0.1855014.9 mgkgmg/kg 2212222f2217122 0.03.u8.1 9-11.6 4100N o/22 2 20122 1.06 2.07 mg/kg 4122 1.06-1.45 .1 1OOON 0122 1.8 l/22 UCIIt,InLUI.I Silver 0.659 0.75 mgfkg 2122 2.05-2.08 1 1OOON o/22 0.0000098 2l22 . ..- ____ - ,^^ .^ A- ,..a Zinc 11.1 533 wk3 22122 4.09-5.8 6lOUU N urn 10 LULL Site 33: IMetals I I I I I 2.94 21 mg/kg 1 212 1 2X14-19.6 3.8 C 112 73R cl13 Building M600 - ._ Arsenic =’ ’ “‘-’ ,I nn9_I” I, “,ILIL 17- I Site Beryllium 0.158 I 0.158 /mgkgl l/2 1 1.02-1.02 41^IUN 1 VI‘ , “.“L , Cadmium 3.22 42.5 mgkg 1 212 1 1.02-9.82 1OON UIZ^ .- A- LIL- ,a I 32.9 59.2 mgke, 212 2.04-19.6 610N o/2 0.&5- 212 Chromium __ 26.6 49.4 mg/kg 212 5.11-49.1 1 X200---- N A,? 1c 113 _ _ ^ ^ ^ _ ho #n 16200 19900 me/kg 212 20.4-196 Le ad 46.5 182 mglkg 212 0.613-5.89 _.__ 317 343 Img/k; E 212 58.5-97.6 4100N 01; 330 l/2 Manganese I n 6350 7800 mg/Kg 212 1020-9820 4100 N Of2 330 2f2 Magnesium ? _^ _ _a s. ..,-.A., ,-&\I- LIL111 34. I mgfkg 212 8.18-78.’ 3 1 4lWN 1 VI.5 I L I Nickel ZY.1 - .- _ ^ . I- I Selenium 0.835 8.26 mg/kg 2l2 I .02-9.82 1 1UUUN I U/Z 1 1.x 1 IIL Zinc 854 8340 m@kg 212 4.09-39.3 I61oOON I o/2 1 10 I 212

N - Non-cancerous C - Cancerous Page 3 of 3 Number of Samples includes duplicate anal~~~~. loodrest Creek

N - Non-cancerous C - thw~OuS Number of Samples includes duplicate analy=. Page I of 4 I EDA rr;w& AO CFR NPDWR: Radionuclida; Final Rule. TABLE 4-6: SUMMARY OF OAA PHASE II RI SEDIMENT SAMPI m PYpmmn~* Npm@ Mmlmum Maxmmum DetectInn 1 ur..m. mc ame Analyte Concentration Concentration Units Frequel Nickel 15.4 88.4 mgkg 2712; :d Silver 0.872 1.71 mglkg 9127 46.1 731 m&2 2712; , I. !s/PCB I I 49 z FP ..,n,.. ,

I Arser

1 N IN 1 o/14 150N 9114 I r Arsenic 2.6 12.1 mgIkg 9/11 2.58-i Cadmium -. . 0.17 1.38 v& 7111 1.29-I I ransonrc Ctuomtum 4.8 796 mglkg 1 lV11 Range Area Copper 3.1 142 ml I Lead 4.2 129 Mercury 0.02 1.02 m” Nirlwl .n 1 I o/11 1 20.9N0.15 1 4/11fill 1 I

Site 22: I I I I I Ilildir 1g 309 & enzota)anthracene I 177--, I 1% .Y" Ugk gl 212 I 4 19-429 i 7800C o/2 261 P 390 Storm iethyl Phthalate 365 ci48 ugncg 212 4 19-429 116OOOOOOfIN o/2 2 :wer Outfalls Fluoranthene 309 779 _^ _-- - utig 2f2 I 4 I Y42Y 182OOOOON o/2 600N 1 II Phenanthrene 289 462 U& I Ek ~ 2l2 419-429 -- -- 240 2;; Pyrene 284 860 ugkg ! 2i; I 419-429 6MOOON o/2 665 N l/2 .._-.-.”Mdll. I I I Arsenic t 49.._ ---t 1 7 mgfkg 2l2 ! 2.37-2.4 3.8 C 2/2 0.057 c 2l2 ICadmium 0.98 2% mg/kg 1 212 I-1 .19-1.2 IOON O/2 t.2N 112 JChromiunn 24.1 62.2 mg/lcg 2/2 I 2.37-2.4 26N 2f2

N - Noncancerous C - C~~CCI-UUS Number of: ‘es includa duplicate analysa. I. EPA crik J CFR. NPDWR; Radionuclidca; Final Rule. t If4 SEDI [MENT SAMP ‘LE EXCEEDANCES TABLE 4-6: SUMMARY OF OAA PHASE IL I I RRC ~Exceed RBC -I BTAG IExceed m uetectlon Range of --- Minimum _ 1 I Maxiumum. -.t__

Glding 309 & I. I 9.48-9.61 41UUN I 390 storm ._. Sewer Outfalls 212 2.31-2.4 IOOON 1 - .- 4.744.81 610(

Site 26A: Old Bombing Field OB/OD Area Site 30B: Known Distance Range

‘Metals Arsenic Chromium

iel I -.- I 1 -/UN 1 LIO pmi-Volatiles I I 216 W-526 1 a41000OON I O/6 Site 32: . . . -I<7 775 I ulzkg 1 85.3N 1 l/6 495-Y’ ” I*,tilOOOWUNI 016 - . ,I I c &kg 216 1 261C 1 110 464-1 )oc I 016 . ,r i Site 2-MethylnaphthaleneAntbraceneBenzo(a)anthracene 84.2LJI119 1320---101 ugluldk __I 416 Building 507 464-1 I .nL- 1ll;i-l udk I 416 lU3 L I”” Benzo(a)pyrene 416 464-: 464-l Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 105 1260686 uglkg 516 * . ugncg 516 Ctuysene~. .. L*.3371146 2340 W&g IFluorantnene I 614 - 526 2,3-c,d)Pyrene I 88.1 I I 464-526 I I ,“l”1n-m I I phenanmrene 516 464-1330

N - Non-cancerous C - Cancerous Page 3 of 4 Number of Samples includa duplicate aalyses. 1, EPA criteria, 40 CFR. NPDWR; Radionuclih; Final Rule. TABLE 4-6: SUM NT SAMPLE EXCEEDANCES

U.“J, b JI” I”” I. O/6 1.2N S/6 2.43-7.7s 610N O/6 0.26 N 6/6 Lead I 6.06-19.4 8200 N O/6 34N 416 7.36 1320 mg/kg 616 0.728-2.33 1200 J/6 516 Mercury.* 0.04 516 0.02-0.08 46.7 . . . . 0.3 m O/6 I 20 0.15 216 I .96 154 mgjkp 9.7-3 1 tn II ^_.. 6166th _ 4100N 016 20.9 N S/6 lU.I WI n,/ LXJ mglk, “.., 4..-1 X5-15 __,- c #TlnnnN 1cnxr 5/h iles ne 47.1 47.1 I up/kg l/2 453-453 Acenaphthylene I J/2 139 139 U&T 112 I 453-453 -_ _- Anthracene l/2 l61000000~II I 1 44 1 112 316 316 U dkl 453-453 ------_. Ill7 ’ PCIN 1 1 I? Benzo(a)anthracene I 1910 1910 we I 112 - 1 453-453 t 7800 C I ii;; I IBenzo(a)pyrene _.------I”“” 1IL 4au &kg J/2 I 453-453 -w I -- 1 67u J tu U g/kg ~ l/2 453-453 780000C I t-V7 1 18OC I l/7 I .d.d Ida I”” L UIL hene 3000 3000 uglkg kg 1 l/2 453-453 8200000 N o/2 T~OON 1 l/2 Fluorene 72.5 72.5 ug l/2 453-453 82~0000 N Of2 1 19N 1 l/2 Jndeno( 1,2.7-r 949 940 We~J 453-453 78oOC I 600 c I I CfIhena

I 1.67 I 23.9 1 ug/kg I 2 I I IArsenic

“..“-I”..# , -rlW,. , nglkg 4.09-39.3 1 61ooON LU.7 1. , 3i3 I 1 013 1 ISON 1 2f3

N - Non-cancwuus C - CIW~ Number of ‘es includes duplicate rntdyscs. I. EPA critt .I CFR. NPDWR; Wionuclides; Final Rule. 1, ,f4 i TABLE 4-7: SUMMARY OF SITE 2 1sd1L SAMPLE EXCEEDANCES

N - Nor~-can~~rous C - Cancerous Number of Samples includes duplicate analyses. Page I of I I EPA criteria, 40 CFR, NPDWR; Rsdionuclida; Final RUIC TABLE 4-8: SUMMARY OF SITE 2 SEDIMENT SAMPLE EXCEEDANCES

NoJNam IFrequencl Reporting r RBC 1 RBC - I BTAG 1 BTAG - 1 e Analyte I n on Units 4 Limits Criteria Frequency Criteria Frequency Site 2: PesticidesfPCB PId Dumd4,4-DDD ! 13.1 I 31.7 lugkgl 4/4 1 13.3-23.4 1 :2700 c Of4 16C l/4 on Swan 4,4-DDE I 6.43 I 27.3 lug/kgl 4/4 1 13.3-23.4 1 19OOC 014 2.2 c 414 Creek 4,4-DDT 1.9 4.89 lug&j 414 1 13.3-23.4 1 1900 C o/4 1.58 C 414 Metals I ! I ! ! 1 Aluminum 18200 1 25200 Irng/kd 4/4 I 158-273 1 7800 N ] 414 014 Arsenic 9.49 I 19.5 Ime/kf2l 4/4 I 7 89-11.7 I 0.43 C I 414 0 057 c d/A Cadmium 1.96 l/4 1 1.2N 1 ! ! 5.91 Irnglkd 4/4 I 3.95-6.84 -1 3.9N I 414 I Chromium 40.8 47 mglkg) 414 7.89-13.7 Copper 102 I52 mgfkfj 414 19.7-34.2 Iron 32700 45900 mgfkd 414 78.9-137 Lead ! IS9 ! 264 Imp&d 414 I 2.37-4.1 T- 400 1 O/4 1 46.7 1 414 Manganese I 228 I 906 Irn&d 4/4 I 11.8-20.5 l60N 1 414 I 014 Mercury I 0.36 0.79 Imp/kg/ 4/4 1 0.108-0.216 0.78 1 l/4 1 0.15 1 414 Nickel 69.6 82.5 rngkgj 4/4 3 1.6-54.7 l60N o/4 20.9 N 414 Silver 2.12 2.83 rngkd 414 7.89-13.7 39 N o/4 IN 414 Zinc 472 1570 mglkd 414 15.8-27.3 2300 N 014 150N 414

N - Non-cancerous C - Cancerous Number of Samples includes duplicate analyja. Page I of I I EPA criteria, 40 CFR, NPDWR; Radionuclida: Final Rule. 5. BUSH RIVER BOMB DISPOSAL SITE

This is the first five-year review for the Bush River Bomb Disposal Site. The triggering action for this statutory review was due to a request from APG. The five-year review was requested due to the fact that hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants were suspected or remained at the Bush River Bomb Disposal site.

5.1 SITE CHRONOLOGY

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

TABLE 5-l CHRONOLOGY OF SITE EVENTS EVENT DATE Disposal of bombs at site 1918-1957 Commencement of removal operations February 2001 Bush River Bomb Disposal Site, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland – Action October 2001 Memorandum Completion of removal operations March 2002

5.2 SITE BACKGROUND

5.2.1 Physical Characteristics

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

5.2.2 Land and Resource Use

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

5.2.3 History of Contamination

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

An inspection of the Bush River Bomb Disposal Site, as documented in the October 2001 Action Memorandum, revealed an estimated 400 to 500 bombs, with the majority comprised of 250, 500, and 750 general purpose bombs. A few special armor-piercing bombs were also observed. A 500-lb general purpose bomb may contain up to 274 pounds of TNT or 50-50 amatol explosive. Most of the observed bombs appeared to be missing tail-fin assemblies and a number of bombs had plugs where the nose fuze would be inserted. Some bombs appeared damaged to the extent the bodies were either split open or had various size holes. A number of bombs were observed to be partially covered from embankment erosion and a few were observed in shallow water. 5-1 5.2.4 Initial Response

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

5.2.5 Basis for Taking Action

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

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

Actual or threatened release of hazardous constituents, pollutants, or contaminants from the site, if not addressed by implementing the removal and demilitarization action, may have presented an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, or welfare, or the environment.

5.3 REMEDIAL ACTIONS

5.3.1 Remedy Selection

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

The selected alternative for the Bush River Bomb Disposal Site was Removal and Demilitarization Using Shape Charges. Implementation of this alternative offered the highest degree of protectiveness to human health and the environment. Removal and demilitarization is a permanent remedy that does not depend on long-term land use controls or maintenance. Of the 603 bombs recovered, only two contained high explosives. All visible bombs have been removed corn the site as of March 2002. The impact to soils and groundwater was minimal. The Army approved the type of detonation where shape charges were used. The site is currently undergoing soil stabilization to minimize future shoreline erosion.

5.3.2 Remedy Implementation

The Removal Action required site preparation to provide access to the site, onsite assessment of the MMRI, removal and demilitarization of the MMRI, and site restoration and stabilization.

The U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center (USATC) Explosive Test Operator, Firepower Core, High Explosive Team (ETO), the U.S. Army Technical Escort Unit (USATEU), and an APG-approved Explosive Ordnance

5-2

Disposal (EOD) contractor provided the remediation services during the Removal Action. A gravel access road extending 1,000 fi from the existing road was constructed to the shoreline embankment to facilitate the removal and transport of the MMRI to an offsite temporary holding/assessment area. Extraneous debris (tree limbs) was removed from the disposal site and support equipment (e.g., bombproofs for personnel and storage of demolition explosives) was mobilized at the work sites.

The Removal Action followed protocols set forth as onsite assessment, removal, demilitarization, and site restoration activities.

The removal and demilitarization of the MMRI using shape charges eliminated the human health risks associated with the Bush River Bomb Disposal Site and was cost effective. The removal and demilitarization of the MMRI eliminated the potential for release and migration of associated contaminants.

The Bush River Bomb Disposal Site Removal Action was conducted to meet the intent of CERCLA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and was performed in accordance with Army requirements. The Removal Action was conducted to minimize impacts to the shoreline embankment (i.e., shoreline destroyed to remove MMRI will be stabilized). The use of shape charges to open the rounds may have created some air emissions, but the air emissions were short-term in nature and did not decrease overall air quality on APG in the long-term. Conformity under the Clean Air Act, Section 176 has been evaluated for the Bush River Bomb Disposal Site Removal Action per 40 CFR 51, and a Record of Non-Applicability shows that total emissions from the Removal Action will be below the de minimus threshold values under 40 CFR 51.853 (d)(5).

5.4 PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW

This was the first five-year review for the site. The bomb removal and disposal operations were initiated in February 2001 and were completed in March 2002. Currently, the shoreline is being stabilized and portions of the site are being regraded in order to minimize future shoreline erosion.

5.5 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

5.5.1 Administrative Components

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

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

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

5.5.2 Community Notification and Involvement

The community was informed of the five-year review through the monthly RAB meetings in May 2001 and July 2003. A notice was advertised in five local newspapers including The Aegis (Harford County), Cecil Whig, Kent County News, East County Times (Baltimore County), and The Avenue (Baltimore County) in the 3-4 September 2003 editions. The notice contained information that the five-year review was being conducted and included a project description and information for public participation including an address to send written

5-3 comments or concerns, a phone number for verbal comments, the APG web site address, and the location of public information repositories.

5.5.3 Document Review

The five-year review consisted of a review of relevant documents including the Action Memorandum, Bush River Bomb Disposal Site, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, dated October 2001.

5.5.4 Data Review

No specific analytical data were reviewed, or known to exist, during the preparation of the five-year review.

5.5.5 Site Inspection

No specific site inspections were conducted during the preparation of the five-year review document.

5.5.6 Interviews

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

• Ms. Christine M. Grochowski, Restoration Advisory Board Community Co-Chair representing Foster Branch Homeowner’s Association, Aberdeen Proving Ground Superfund Citizens Coalition.

Ms. Grochowski stated that she thought work was continuing at this site with the removal and disposal of munitions.

• Mr. Arlen J. Crabb

Mr. Crabb stated that he was concerned with the potential presence of bombs in the Bush River due to the possibility that boaters may drop their anchor upon these munitions. He stated that he wants to make sure that these munitions have been removed from Bush River.

5.6 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

The following conclusions support the determination that the remedy implemented at the Bush River Bomb Disposal Site is expected to be protective of human health and the environment upon completion.

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

Based upon the October 200 1 Action Memorandum, at the completion of the removal operations in March 2002,603 bombs were removed from the Bush River shoreline. The response is considered a non-time critical removal action as defined under CERCLA. Bomb removal action work was initiated in February 2001 and was completed in March 2002. The remedy is functioning as intended by the decision documents.

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?

There have been no changes in the physical conditions of the site that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy.

5-4 Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy?

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

5.7 ISSUES

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

5.8 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS

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

• Prepare and review a document or memorandum detailing the completion of the removal action at the Bush River Bomb Disposal Site.

• Periodically monitor, especially after a large storm, the Bush River Bomb Disposal Site for the presence of any additional bombs whose presence may have been revealed due to erosional activities.

5.9 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENTS

The remedies in place at the Bush River Bomb Disposal Site are protective of human health and the environment. Removal, demilitarization, and disposal of MMRI has reduced possible threats associated with direct human contact with MMRI present at the site. All removed MMRI was managed in accordance with Federal, State, and Army regulations. Demilitarization using shape charges may have created some air emissions, but the emissions were short-term in nature and did not decrease overall air quality on APG. Total emissions from the Removal Action were below the de minimus threshold values under 40 CFR 5 1.853(d)(5).

5.10 NEXT REVIEW

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

5-5 6. ABBEY POINT SHORELINE PILES 3 THROUGH 7

This is the first five-year review for the Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7. The triggering action for this statutory review was resultant of a request APG. The five-year review was requested due to the fact that hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants were suspected or remain at the Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7.

6.1 SITE CHRONOLOGY

A chronology of events for the Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7 is provided in Table 6-l.

TABLE 6-l CHRONOLOGY OF SITE EVENTS EVENT DATE Disposal of bombs at site Since 1918 Army completed the removal and demilitarization of 693 MMRI from Abbey 12 March 1998 Point Shoreline Pile l. Sediment samples collected near Piles 1 and 2 indicated no environmental November 1994 impact. Army completed removal of MMRI at Abbey Point Shoreline Pile 2 October 2000 (demilitarization of Pile 2 was still underway as of October 2001). Soil samples collected within the Abbey Point demilitarization site at five February 2001 locations for metals analysis. Results indicated only arsenic concentrations above RBC industrial soil criteria. Removal action operations at the Abby Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7. Began April 2002 and expected to be completed 2004 Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland October 2001 – Action Memorandum

6.2 SITE BACKGROUND

6.2.1 Physical Characteristics

The Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7 are former disposal sites within the OAA of APG. The Abbey Point Shoreline Piles are located along the Chesapeake Bay shoreline of the Abbey Point Test Field, south of Abbey Point Road and approximately ½ mile northeast of the shoreline access road (Figure 6-l). The disposal sites are in the secured/restricted range area.

6.2.2 Land and Resource Use

The Army has used Abbey Point Test Field since 1918 for weapons development and testing activities involving the firing of various size munitions for impact on to and around the test field. Prior to changes in Army regulations, periodic sweeps of the test field to collect the surface MMRI led to the disposal of the MMRI in pits along the shoreline. Future use scenario for the site is to maintain the site for military/industrial purposes.

6-1 6.2.3 History of Contamination

As previously mentioned, the Army has used Abbey Point Test Field since 1918 for weapons development and testing activities. Prior to changes in Amy regulations, periodic sweeps of the test field to collect the surface MMRI led to the disposal of the MMRI in pits along the shoreline.

Piles 3 through 7 lie at distinct locations along the shoreline at Abbey Point, northeast of former Piles 1 and 2. Decades of soil erosion have exposed the pits and munitions along the Abbey Point shoreline. Piles 3,4,5, and 7 are on the shoreline extending back into Abbey Point Test Field, and Pile 6 lies on the shoreline and extends out into the shallow waters of the Chesapeake Bay. UXO removal operations at Pile 3 began in April 2002. Each pile is of varying width and height and could contain many different types of munitions. To date, the munitions at Pile 3 include large and small caliber gun and artillery projectiles, mortar projectiles, rockets, aerial bombs, and associated miscellaneous munitions-related debris, such as aluminum sabots. The sizes of visible MMRI range from 175-mm to 8-in. projectiles, and each pile could contain between 200 and 600 MMRI. Most of the visible MMRI within each pile appear to be unfuzed, with either a shipping plug or a lifting eye in the fuze well. Some projectiles have engraved rotating bands, which indicate that the item would be in an armed condition if fuzed. Much of the MMRI are in an extremely deteriorated condition due to long-term exposure in the brackish bay water and weathering.

Media sampling to determine the environmental effects on the Chesapeake Bay from decaying munitions at Shoreline Piles 3 through 7 has not been conducted. In November 1994, sediment samples collected near Piles 1 and 2, by the U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (USACHPPM), for explosive and inorganic analyses indicated no environmental impact.

6.2.4 Initial Response

On 12 March 1998, the Army completed the removal and demilitarization of 693 projectiles (MMRI) from Abbey Point Shoreline Pile 1. The Pile 1 MMRI consisted of 632 wax, sand, empty or steel-filled munitions, 52 high-explosive munitions, and 9 munitions containing white phosphorous. Demilitarization of the MMRI resulted in the generation of approximately 84,000 lb of range residue scrap which was processed for disposal or recycling with the DRMO. In October 2000, the Army completed removal of MMRI at Abbey Point Shoreline Pile 2. Demilitarization of the Pile 2 MMRI is still underway (as of October 2001). A total of 14,673 munitions were removed from Pile 2, ranging in size from 175mm to 8-in projectiles. To date, the Pile 2 filler material has been primarily wax, with a few MMRl containing sand, steel, concrete, high-explosive, and white phosphorus fill material. Soil samples were collected in mid-February 2001 within the Abbey Point demilitarization site at five locations for metals analysis. Results indicate only arsenic concentrations in surface and subsurface soil (at depths of 1 and 2 ft below grade) at four sample locations exceeded the RBCs for industrial soil. Arsenic levels in soil at three of the locations (at the 1-ft and 2-ft intervals) also slightly exceeded the maximum reference level.

Shoreline stabilization is planned following the completion of MMRI removal operations for Piles 3 through 7.

6.2.5 Basis for Taking Action

The Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7 contain MMRI, and pose a health and safety threat to persons inadvertently entering the sites. Authorized or non-authorized persons might be injured walking around or handling the munitions. Despite security measures taken at the site, trespassing is a concern.

While very little is known about environmental effects on the Chesapeake Bay from decaying munitions, the exposed MMRI may pose a potential threat to the environment. In November 1994, sediment samples collected near Piles 1 and 2, by USACHPPM, for explosive and inorganic analyses indicated no environmental impact. 6-2

Actual or threatened release of hazardous constituents, pollutants, or contaminants tirn the shoreline piles, if not addressed by implementing the proposed removal action, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, or welfare, or the environment.

The Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7 contain MMRI that includes explosive materials. These hazardous materials represent a health and safety threat to persons who inadvertently enter the sites.

Initial site inspections of the Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7, preliminary MMRI removal operations at Pile 3, and the recent removal of MMRI at nearby Piles 1 and 2 have not identified any MMRI as potentially containing chemical warfare materiel that would represent a substantial threat to downwind human receptors via air transport. The Abbey Point Test Field has been used for a variety of impact testing operations involving conventional (non-chemical) munitions such as high-explosive bombs.

6.3 REMEDIAL ACTIONS

6.3.1 Remedy Selection

The removal action objectives are to:

• Eliminate the threat to health and safety associated with direct human contact with MMRI; and

• Eliminate the potential for hazardous constituent release to soil, sediment, and surface water.

The removal action will address only the MMRI within the Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7 located along the Chesapeake Bay shoreline. Any miscellaneous MMRI located within the water 50 ft from the shoreline near Piles 3 through 7 will also be removed. Similar sites within the Aberdeen Area where MMRI have been exposed by erosion and where further

6.4 PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW

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

6.5 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

6.5.1 Administrative Components

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

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

6-3 6.5.2 Community Notification and Involvement

The community was informed of the five-year review through the monthly IWB meetings in May 2001 and July 2003. A notice was advertised in five local newspapers including The Aegis (Harford County), Cecil Whig, Kent County News, East County Times (Baltimore County), and The Avenue (Baltimore County) in the 3-4 September 2003 editions. The notice contained information that the five-year review was being conducted and included a project description and information for public participation including an address to send written comments or concerns, a phone number for verbal comments, the APG web site address, and the location of public information repositories.

6.5.3 Document Review

The five-year review consisted of a review of relevant documents including the Action Memorandum, Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, dated October 2001.

6.5.4 Data Review

No specific analytical data were reviewed during the preparation of the five-year review.

6.5.5 Site Inspection

No specific site inspections were conducted during the preparation of the five-year review document.

6.5.6 Interviews

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

• Ms. Christine M. Grochowski, Restoration Advisory Board Community Co-Chair representing Foster Branch Homeowner’s Association, Aberdeen Proving Ground Superfund Citizens Coalition.

Ms. Grochowski stated that she thought work had progressed at this site in a satisfactory manner.

• Mr. Arlen J. Crabb

Mr. Crabb stated that he was not sure why soil stabilization procedures were being conducted at this site.

6.6 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

The following conclusions support the determination that the remedy implemented at the Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7 is expected to be protective of human health and the environment upon completion.

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

On 12 March 1998, the Army completed the removal and demilitarization of 693 projectiles from Abbey Point Shoreline Pile 1. Removal of 14,673 munitions from Shoreline Pile 2 was completed in October 2000. The MMRI removed from both locations consisted of empty, wax, sand, steel, high-explosive, and white phosphorus filled munitions ranging in size from 175-mm to 8-in. projectiles. Demilitarization of the MMRI from Pile 1 resulted in the generation of approximately 84,000 lb of range residue scrap that was processed for disposal or recycling with the DRMO. As of October 2001, demilitarization of the MMRI from Pile 2 is still underway.

6-4 The selected alternative for the Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7 is the Removal and Demilitarization Using Shape Charges. Implementation of this alternative offered the highest degree of protectiveness to human health and environment. Removal and demilitarization is a permanent remedy that does not depend on long-term land use controls or maintenance. This type of detonation where shape charges are used is approved by the Army. Initial site assessment reveals that an estimated 300 to 600 MMRI from each pile will be removed. Removal action operations at the Abbey Point Shoreline Piles 3 through 7 began in April 2002 and is expected to conclude in 2004. However, the duration of the remediation will be dependent on weather conditions, USATC test schedule conflicts, the EOD team support schedule, and any required USATEU support.

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?

6-5 Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG). 1994b. Environmental Assessment for Proposed Removal Actions at: The DRMO Scrap Metal Yard; Spent Lead Acid Battery Storage Site (Building 2351); Sandblasting Area Near Building 523; Wastewater Ditch at the Shell Washout Facility (Building 700B); and Old Dump at Swan Creek Prepared by General Physics Corporation for the Directorate of Safety, Health and Environment, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. April 26,1994.

Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG). 1994d. Work Plan for Removal Action at the Spent Lead-Acid Battery Storage Site within the Aberdeen Area of Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Prepared by R&R International Inc. for the U.S. Army Engineer District - Baltimore. March 25,1994.

Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG). 1994e. Work Plan for Removal of PCB Contaminated Soils within the DRMO Scrap Metal Yard at the Aberdeen Area of Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Prepared by R&R International Inc. for the U.S. Army Engineer District - Baltimore. May 3, 1994.

Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG). 1993a. Final Technical Report, Interim Remediation of Pesticide Contaminated Soil, Building 5262 Backyard Storage Area, Aberdeen Area, APG, MD. Prepared by R&R International Inc. for the U.S. Army Engineer District - Baltimore. January 22,1993.

Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG). 1992. Michaelsville Landfill, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Record of Decision. Final Document. June.

Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG). 1992a. Final Technical Report, Interim Remediation of Pesticide Contaminated Soil, Building A-5010 Site, Aberdeen Area, APG, MD. Prepared by R&R International Inc. for the U.S. Army Engineer District - Baltimore. September 8, 1992.

Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG). 1990. Draft RCRA Facility Assessment, Other Aberdeen Areas, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Prepared by Derryberry et al., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Waterways Experiment Station (WES), Vicksburg, Mississippi for ECRD, APG, Maryland.

Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG). 1981. Installation Assessment of Aberdeen Proving Ground-Aberdeen Area. Prepared by Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. for USATHAMA, APG, Maryland, Report No. 301.

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

Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. (ESE) 1981. Installation Assessment of Aberdeen Proving Ground-Aberdeen Area, Report No. 301, prepared for the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency. Environmental and Safety Division, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.

General Physics Corporation 1995. Phillips Army Airfield Groundwater Study, Phase I Remedial Investigation.

Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program (HAZWRAP). 1995. Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Work Plan for Michaelsville Landfill, Aberdeen Proving Ground. Prepared for APG Directorate of Safety, Health, & Environment by Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. for the U.S. Department of Energy. February. Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program (HAZWRAP). 1998a. Statement of Work for Environmental Sample Collection at Michaelsville Landfill and Select Aberdeen Area UST Sites, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc. for the U.S. Department of Energy. November.

Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program (HAZWRAP) 1998b. Monitoring Plan for Operable Unit 2, Michaelsville Landfill, October 1998.

Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program (HAZWRAP). 1999. (Draft) First Annual Monitoring Report, Michaelsville Landfill, Aberdeen Area, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, August 1999.

ICF Kaiser Engineers (ICF). 1991. (Draft Report) Preliminary Risk Assessment for Eight Selected Study Areas at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, Vol. II, Ch. 11, prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency, Task Order No. 11, Contract no. DAAA15-88-D-0009. January.

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

Miller, S. Paul, Nancy A. Derryberry, Phyllis L. Breland, and Roy Wade, 1990 (Miller et al., 1990). (Draft) Michaelsville Landfill Hydrogeological Assessment. Prepared for the Environmental Management Division, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, by the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES), Geotechnical and Environmental Laboratories, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

R&R International, Inc. 1994. Removal of Contaminated Soil Within the Fire Training Area at the Aberdeen Area of Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Prepared for the US. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District, Baltimore, Maryland. November 16, 1994.

Sisson, P. A. 1985. Climatic Summary for Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Reference Pamphlet No. 3, Atmospheric Sciences Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.

URS-Dames & Moore. 2001. Remedial Investigation of Operable Unit 2 of the Western Boundary Study Area. Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Draft. July.

URS-Dames & Moore. 2000. Installation Restoration Program, Other Aberdeen Areas, Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; Phase I Remedial Investigation Screening Activities Report (Draft). Prepared for the Environmental Conservation and Restoration Division, Aberdeen Proving Ground. October.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1997. Compensatory Mitigation for Wetlands Impacted at Michaelsville Landfill and Carroll Island “Site 21", Plans, Specifications and Report, Final Design, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Harford County, Maryland, December.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996. ECOTOX Thresholds, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Publication 9345.0-12FS1, EPA540/F-95/038, PB95-963324. January.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. The US. EPA TEF Values, as Posted on US EPA Web Site URL: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/dchem.htm. Last Revised, February 10,1998. Appendix A

Michaelsville Landfill Inspection Reports MEMORANDUM FOR: Naren Desai, Project Manager, Michaelsville Landfill

SUBJECT: Quarterly Report on Michaelsville Landfill

INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED:

WELL #MWO1, 8 SEP 97. The 4-inch coupling was cracked and loose.

WELL #WES M9. 8 SEP 97. The 4-inch casing was separated at the coupling. 51 3/4 inches below the top of the well casing housing. Inspection of the well casing below the point where it separated indicated surface water had run down the inside of the casing as a result of the loose coupling. Both ends of the coupling where the casing separated indicated that it had not been cemented at the time of installation. The well casing housing in the ground was previously used to accommodate a ground flush manhole cover, but it was later changed to an above ground cover.

Submersible Pump #3, 11 SEP 97. The submersible pump was determined to be inoperative.

Vent Pipe, South West End, 11 SEP 97. Inspection revealed that the ground had settled 8 inches around the base of the pipe. Also, it was noted that an animal had dug a hole under the base of the pipe.

REPAIRS CONDUCTED:

WELL #MWO1, 8 SEP 97. The broken 4-inch coupling was replaced with a new coupling using all weather PVC cement. 10 SEP 97. Well protection was constructed around the well. 18 SEP 97. Geotextile mat covered with gravel was placed around the well.

WELL #WES M9, 8 Sep 97. The concrete pad (4ft x 4ft x 6in) was removed from around the well casing housing. The concrete, 44 inches in depth with a diameter of 24 inches, was chipped from around the well casing housing. Dirt and gravel were removed 8 inches below the separation of the casing. The coupling was cleaned and cemented to the casing with medium PVC cement. The upper well casing housing was spot welded with side plates to the lower well casing housing. 9 SEP 97. 52 inches of grout was poured around the well cover housing using a mix of portland cement type I/II and bentonite. The mix of grout was in accordance with SOP 019, Revision 3. 11 SEP 97. The grout around the well casing housing was topped off with grout in accordance with SOP 019, Revision 3. 18 SEP 97. A cement pad (4ft x 4ft x 6in) was poured around the well casing housing.

WELL #G2, 11 SEP 97. Well protection was constructed around the well. 18 SEP 97. Geotextile mat covered with gravel was placed around the well.

WELL #G1, 11 SEP 97. Well protection was constructed around the well. 18 SEP 97. Geotextile mat covered with gravel was placed around the well.

WELL #MWO7, 11 SEP 97. Well protection was constructed around the well. 18 SEP 97. Geotextile mat covered with gravel was placed around the well.

Submersible pump #3, 11 SEP 97. The pump was repaired by making an adjustment on the high current relay.

Vent Pipe, South West End, 11 SEP 97. The area around the pipe was back-filled with compacted CR6 stone to raise the elevation around the pipe. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY GARRISON, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND 2201 ABERDEEN BOULEVARD ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD 21005-5001

REPLY TO ATTENTION OF October 7, 1998

Directorate of Safety, Health and Environment

Mr. Steve Hirsh U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 1650 Arch Street (3HS50) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

Dear Mr. Hirsh:

In accordance with the Records of Decision (ROD) signed in September 1997 for the Beach Point Test Site, the Michaelsville Landfill (Operable Unit 21, and the Watson Creek Surface Water and Sediments, the Directorate of Safety, Health and Environment (DSHE) is hereby certifying that no known violations of land use restrictions and prohibitions, as stipulated in these RODS, have occurred over the past year. This correspondence serves as the first annual certification from DSHE on this subject. All applicable site restrictions and prohibitions have been entered into the Aberdeen Proving Ground Geographical Information System.

A sign stipulating all site restrictions and prohibitions was placed at the Beach Point Test Site in the summer of 1998. No unauthorized excavations, groundwater well installations, or extractions from existing groundwater monitoring wells have occurred to our knowledge. A visual survey of the area has indicated that no groundwater monitoring wells have been installed. The Directorate of Public Works has stated that no digging permit applications have been received for the Beach Point Area. The DSHE measured the water levels in the ground-water monitoring wells at this site in 1998. As part of the long-term monitoring plan for this site, which was also stipulated in this site's ROD, groundwater samples likely will be taken from wells CCJ-158B, CCJ-157B, and CCJ-33B. Although groundwater monitoring was not discussed in the ROD for this site, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) has requested groundwater monitoring on an annual basis in order to ascertain whether the aqueous plume is migrating. At this point in time, we are awaiting any comments that you may have on the draft long-term monitoring plan. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY GARRISON, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND 2201 ABERDEEN BOULEVARD ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD 21005-5001

REPLY TO ATTENTION OF November 8, 1999

Directorate of Safety, Health and Environment

Mr. Steve Hirsh U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

Dear Mr. Hirsh:

In accordance with the Records of Decision (ROD) signed in September 1997 for the Beach Point Test Site, the Michaelsville Landfill (Operable Unit 2), and the Watson Creek Surface Water and Sediments, the Directorate of Safety, Health and Environment (DSRE) is hereby certifying that no known violations of land use restrictions and prohibitions, as stipulated in these RODS, have occurred over the past year. This correspondence serves as the second annual certification from DSHE on this subject.

NO unauthorized excavations, groundwater well installations, or extraction's from existing groundwater monitoring wells have occurred at Beach Point Test Site during the past year to our knowledge. As part of the long-term monitoring program for the Beach Point Test Site, General Physics has been conducting surface water and sediment sampling on a quarterly basis (February, May, and September 1999). In order to establish visual reference points for this offshore sampling, General Physics posted numerous vertical PVC pipes along the Bush River and Kings Creek shorelines. The annual groundwater sampling (from wells CCJ-158BG, CCJ-157B, and CCJ-33B) for the long-term monitoring program was conducted in February 1999. A visual survey of the Beach Point Test Site indicated that no additional groundwater monitoring wells have been installed at this site. In addition, the Directorate of Public Works has stated that no digging permit applications have beer! received for the Beach Point Test Site area. The DSHE measured water levels in the existing monitoring wells in February 1999. Upcoming activities for the site include continued long-term monitoring of the groundwater, surface water and sediments; continued biannual water level measurements for wells on-site; and, possible abandonment of well CCJ-158BB and installation of a replacement well nearby.

For Watson Creek, Operable Unit 3 of the O-Field Study Area, the first round of annual field sampling/ monitoring of the site has been completed. This included sediment sampling for the conduct of bioassays, chemical analysis, and sediment type classification. Sample collection for the, one-time bioaccumulation study continues to be conducted. Samples of Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) and Mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) have been collected and sent for laboratory tissue analysis. The bathemetry survey of the creek has also been completed. Results and analysis of all field sampling data are pending. Institutional controls continue at the site. These controls include listing of site restrictions in the APG GIS database and Master Plan, and physical security measures. The signs placed on-site stating no unauthorized entrance into Watson Creek remain posted. Aberdeen Proving Ground has no reports of unauthorized entries into Watson Creek in the past year. - 2 -

At the Michaelsville Landfill, a yearly survey was conducted to ensure that no drinking water wells had been installed within a 1/4-mile area around the landfill. This annual visual survey, which was conducted in October 1999, revealed that no known violations to the ROD restriction have occurred.

If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to inquire with the Environmental Conservation and Restoration Division points of contact for these actions: for the Beach Point Test Site, Mr. John Wrobel, 410-436-4840; for the Watson Creek Surface Water and Sediments, Ms. Cindy Powels, 410-436-4568; and, for the Michaelsville Landfill (operable Unit 2), Mr. Naren Desai, 410-436-4569.

Sincerely,

Timothy. J. McNamara Director, Safety, Health and Environment copy Furnished:

Mr. John Fairbank, Maryland Department of the Environment Michaelsville Landfill Inspection Form Cap Inspection

Date of Inspection:

1. Any signs of erosion, holes, cracks or major depressions:

2. Does the cap show any signs of distressed vegetation:

3. Are all electrical and mechanical system working (i.e. pumps, circuit breakers):

4. Any problems with excess in or around the cap (i.e. roads are in good shape):

5. Are there any monitoring well casings are damaged or missing a cap: $?p - L-4 /,&f c,*>-* AI’,,-,,,- ,JZ&/ /c&+&u

6. Anything that should be noted: /be-

Field Inspector Sent out 10-13-00 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY GARRISON, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND 2201 ABERDEEN BOULEVARD ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD 21005-5001

REPLY TO ATTENTION OF

Directorate of Safety, Health and Environment

Mr. Steve Hirsh U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 1650 Arch Street (#HS50) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

Dear Mr. Hirsh:

In accordance with the Records of Decision (ROD) signed in September 1997 for the Beach Point Test Site, the Michaelsville Landfill (Operable Unit 2), and the Watson Creek Surface Water and Sediments, the Directorate of Safety, Health and Environment (DSHE) is hereby certifying that no known violations of land use restrictions and prohibitions, as stipulated in these RODS have occurred over the past year. This correspondence serves as the first annual certification from DSHE on this subject. All applicable site restrictions and prohibitions have been entered into the Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) Geographical Information System (GIS).

At Beach Point Test Site, no unauthorized excavations, groundwater well installations or extractions from existing groundwater monitoring wells have occurred in the past year to the best of our knowledge. As part of the long-term monitoring program for the Beach Point Test Site, General Physics conducted the last round of the quarterly surface water and sediment sampling in December 1999. In July 2000, one of the three groundwater wells earmarked for long-term monitoring (CCJ-158BB) was abandoned due to a bent casing. A replacement well, WCC-158R, was installed approximately 15 feet upgradient of the abandoned well. This replacement well was sampled in August 2000 and the results will be forwarded to you shortly. A visual survey of the Beach Point Test Site conducted by DSHE on September 27, 2000 indicated that no additional groundwater monitoring wells have been installed at this site. In addition, the Directorate of Public Works has stated that the only digging permit applications processed for the Beach Point Test Site in the past year has been for General Physics' off-shore collection of sediment samples for this long-term monitoring effort. The DSHE measured water levels in the existing monitoring wells in the spring 2000. Upcoming activities for the site includes continued long-term monitoring of the groundwater, surface water and sediments, and, continued water level measurements for wells on-site.

DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION STATEMENT APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION IS UNLIMITED #3595-A-6 - 2 -

At Michaelsville Landfill site, a yearly survey was conducted to ensure that no drinking water wells had been installed at or around the site. The October 4, 2000 inspection revealed that no wells were installed. Furthermore, no violations to the ROD restrictions had occurred. The second annual post ROD water and soil sampling was completed in March 2000 with the draft report currently under review. In addition to routine grounds maintenance, repairs at the site include the repair of a pressure release vent. Groundhogs posing a nuisance by digging holes at vent locations were trapped and removed from the landfill site.

At Watson Creek, the second round of annual field sampling and long-term monitoring was conducted. Results and analysis are pending from the second year of sampling. Results for the first year were reported to you in the Watson Creek Long Term Monitoring Report (O-Field Operable Unit 3) dated March 2000. Institutional controls continue at the site. These controls include listing of site restrictions in the APG GIS database, which is utilized in the development of APG's Real Property Master Plan, and physical security measures. The signs placed on-site stating no unauthorized entrance into Watson Creek remain posted. Aberdeen Proving Ground has no reports of unauthorized entries into Watson Creek in the past year.

If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to inquire with the Environmental Conservation and Restoration Division points of contact for these actions: for the Beach Point Test Site, Mr. John Wrobel, 410-436-4840; for the Watson Creek Surface Water and Sediments, Ms. Cindy Powels, 410-436-4568; and for the Michaelsville Landfill (Operable Unit 21, Mr. Naren Desai, 410-436-4569.

Sincerely,

Timothy J. McNamara Director, Safety, Health and Environment

Copy Furnished:

Mr. John Fairbank, Maryland Department of the Environment Michaelsville Landfill Inspection Form

Yes No 1) Any signs of erosion,holes, cracks or major depressions --J

4) Are monitoring wells casings good shape or missing any caps

5) Are all electrical

Field Inspectors:

Name:&@ Date: /3 ‘/f-L71

Name: Date: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY GARRISON, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND 2201 ABERDEEN BOULEVARD ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD 21005-5001

REPLY TO ATTENTION OF

Directorate of Safety, Health and Environment

Mr. Steve Hirsh U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 1650 Arch Street (#HS50) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

Dear Mr. Hirsh:

In accordance with the Records of Decision (ROD) signed in September 1997 for the Beach Point Test Site, the Michaelsville Landfill (Operable Unit 2), and the Watson Creek Surface Water and Sediments, the Directorate of Safety, Health and Environment (DSHE) is hereby certifying that no known violations of land use restrictions and prohibitions, as stipulated in these RODS have occurred over the past year. This correspondence serves as the fourth annual certification from DSHE regarding institutional controls. All applicable site restrictions and prohibitions have been entered into the Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) Geographical Information System (GIS).

At Beach Point Test Site, no unauthorized excavations, groundwater well installations or extractions from existing groundwater monitoring wells have occurred in the past year to the best of our knowledge. As part of the long-term monitoring program for the Beach Point Test Site, General Physics conducted the 2000 and 2001 annual surface water, sediment and groundwater sampling in October 2000 and May 2001. Water-levels in wells WCC-158R and CC-33A were monitored in May 2001 in order to ascertain the optimal time for sampling surface water and sediments. A visual survey of the Beach Point Test Site conducted by DSHE on October 25, 2001 indicated that no additional groundwater monitoring wells have been installed at this site and that all existing wells are capped and locked. The sign installed at the site which lists all site prohibitions/restrictions is still in-place and visible. In addition, the only digging permit applications processed for the Beach Point Test Site in the past year have been for General Physics' off-shore collection of sediment samples for this long-term monitoring effort. The visual site survey corroborated this finding in that no evidence of recent soil excavations was detected at this site. Upcoming activities for the site include continued long-term monitoring of the groundwater, surface water and sediments, and continued water level measurements for some of the wells on-site.

At Michaelsville Landfill site, a yearly survey was conducted to ensure that no drinking water wells had been installed at or around the site. The October 18, 2001 inspection revealed that no wells were installed. Furthermore, no violations to the ROD restrictions had occurred. In addition to routine grounds maintenance, repairs at the site included the repair of a clean-out vent, as well as ground compaction around the vent pipes. Electrical repairs were made to Pump #3, which was tripped off at the time of the inspection, but in working condition after the reset button was pushed. All repairs were completed by October 30, 2001. The second annual post ROD water and soil sampling was completed in March 2000. The report containing that data and findings, the Second Annual Post-R.O.D. Monitoring Report, was completed and distributed in March 2001. The next post ROD water and soil sampling is scheduled for March 2002. - 2 -

At Watson Creek, results are pending from the third round of annual field sampling and long-term monitoring which was conducted in July 2001. Results for the second year were reported to you in the Watson Creek Long Term Monitoring Report (O-Field Operable Unit 3) dated July 2001. Institutional controls continue at the site. These controls include listing of site restrictions in the APG GIS database, which is utilized in the development of APG's Real Property Master Plan, and physical security measures. The signs placed on-site stating no unauthorized entrance into Watson Creek remain posted. DSHE has no reports of unauthorized entries into Watson Creek in the past year.

If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to inquire with the Environmental Conservation and Restoration Division points of contact for these actions: for the Beach Point Test Site, Mr. John Wrobel, 410-436-4840; for the Michaelsville Landfill (Operable Unit 2), Mr. Naren Desai, 410-436-4569; and for the Watson Creek Surface Water and Sediments, Ms. Cindy Powels, 410-436-4568.

Sincerely,

Timothy J. McNamara Director, Safety, Health and Environment Michaelsville Landfill Inspection Form Cap Inspection

Date of Inspection:

1. Any signs of erosion, holes, cracks or major depressions: No signs of erosion, holes or depressions were observed.

2. Does the cap show any signs of distressed vegetation: Cap area vegetation appears very healthy. Grass remains very plush.

3. Are all electrical and mechanical system working (i.e. pumps, circuit breakers): Yes

4. Any problems with excess in or around the cap (i.e. roads are in good shape): Roads are in excellent condition. Entry to landfill is gated.

5. Are there any monitoring well casings damaged or missing a cap: No

6. Anything that should be noted: No

Date: /d - 13 0 Ed,

Signature: